|
|
|
|
|
| Av förmela grunder KAN VI INTE ÖVERKLAGA DET NYA BESLUTET AV LANDSKRONA MILJÖFÖRVALTNING TILL Mark och Miljödomstolen samt Mark och Miljööverdomstolen då dessa domstolar har utfördat 2018-2022 fler än 12 domslut I SAMMA ÄRENDE MOT DEN TIDIGARE ÄGAREN (GET FARMER) ALLA DESSA DOMSLUT ÄR FORTFARANDE GILTIGA OCH I LAGA KRAFT. | ||
|
||
|
| SEQUENCE OF ERRORS | |||||
Please allow me to summarize the sequence of factual errors and errors in law, along with the failure to follow legal procedures. I would appreciate it if you could grant me the right to correspond in the English language. As the retired UN diplomat, 76 year old, I have legal experience in the English language in the field of international control of nuclear safety and non-proliferation agreements. |
|||||
| I understand that the various instances try to save their face but the legal judgements should be impartial and blind for any irrelevant issues such as Law of Jante and not used for silencing criticism of environmental failures. | |||||
| I.) The Landskrona Municipality commits legal errors (Error Juris) | |||||
| I.a )
A serious formal legal error, referred to as Errors Juris, occurs
when questioning and undermining an existing verdict from higher
legal authorities. |
|||||
| I.b ) The Landskrona Municipality (accepted
by the County of Scania) manipulates the evidence, insinuating that
the contamination of the property was not known prior to the year
2017, which is untrue. The verdict of the Administrative Court
(Förvaltningsrätten Malmö) clearly addresses problems as early as
2015. |
|||||
| www.ecolanum.org\adm_plast_jus_forvalt\ format in pdf | |||||
| II.) Landskrona Municipality commits two fundamental factual error i.e. (Error Facti) | |||||
| II.a.) Factual error, (Error Facti) Landskrona Municipality is insinuated that the new owner, a retired UN diplomat who purchased the property in 2017 and moved to Sweden, at the age of 76, is conducting agricultural activities. | |||||
| II.b) Secondly, there was an erroneous assumption that the new owner was capable of detecting pieces of ensilage plastic buried in the goat manure, despite the Landskrona Municipality stating in April 2017 that the garbage had been removed from the Tuna 32:2 property. | |||||
| III.) Subsequent judicial errors, known as Error Juris, are evident in this case, showing a manipulation of the facts by the Land and Environment Courts. (Mark och Miljödomstolen samt Mark och Miljööverdomstolen) | |||||
The court insinuated that I
had appealed to the decision of the Scania County Legal Unit, which
is clearly false. Despite my application to defer the decision until
the legal process is verified, especially concerning the undermining
of valid verdicts from higher courts, the court in 2024 manipulated
the logic and legal process manipulating facts and stated that I had
retracted my appeal., WHAT IS TOTALLY WRONG, I NEVER FILED AN
APPEAL. Despite my numerous e-mails clearly stating that I had not
filed an appeal in order to avoid violating the legal rules of the
verdict sequence. The verdicts of the Land and Environment Court
between 2018 and 2022 assigned the entire responsibility to the
previous owner, Mr. Glen Björne, and these verdicts are still valid.
I cannot appeal against an illegal process that undermines valid
verdicts and violates the legal principles of the legal hierarchy of
courts.
|
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
|
 |
|