| |
An overview of
the involved authorities and involved parts.
The old owner (goat farm owner Glen Björne) the new
owner, Richard Gronvius , retired UN diplomat, nuclear
safety expert, landscape rewilding theoretician.
| by the term
"instances" we refer to |
Landkrona
Environment Protection, (Miljönämnden)
head Jörgan Hanak, section head Sandra
Danielsson
Head of the Landskrona Municipality Tokild Strandberg
and the appeal instance is Legal Unit of the County
Skåne, (länsstyrelsen) |
|
legal supervisory unit to the Landskrona
Municipality |
Legal Unit of the County Skåne, Region Skåne
(länsstyrelsen)
head Jesper Jacobsson, assessor in this case Johanna
Wallentin |
|
the higher appeal court is Mark and Environment
court. |
the case managed by assessor Ms.
Hanna Jarlbro |
| subject |
responsibility for the
contamination by silage plastic, the old owner is
guilt by all court verdicts but he has no money so
the Environment Protection is manipulating the rules
to make the new owner to pay for decontamination. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The outstanding communication
not yet answered.
|
A requst
to annul a mistaken decision based on
insufficient understanding of english and errors in
appeal dates. |
hed of Land and Environment court |
|
|
A request
to defer the appeal dead-line until internal
contradiction in the proceedings are reviewed by the
administrativ court and the Justice Ombudsman. |
to head of the Legal Unit of County Skåne,
(Länsstyrelsen) Mr. Jesper Jacobsson |
|
|
| |
|
| |
The attempt to shift
responsibility from the previous owner and the goat farmer
to the new owner, a researcher in ecological restoration is
plagued by series of illegal actions, manipulations of
facts,
intimidations and withholding of information.
the malpractice consist of; |
| |
|
| |
1. Prejudiced exercise of
the office.
|
| |
All instances i.e.
Landskrona Environment Protecion and legal supervisor
Legal Unit of County Skåne attempt to fulfil the goals of
Landskrona's Environment Protection Units which aim to
shift, in a clandestine way, the responsibility to the new
owner what could indicate a case of corruption. |
| |
Mr. Glen
Björne during 2017-2022 was sentenced repeated times for the
contamination of property during the period 2000-2017. |
| |
The
authorites tolerated that theprevious owner Glenn Björne transfered his
property worth SEK 2.5 millions to his son in order to avoid
payment for the the de-contamination what we have several
times addressed. Hence MALA FIDE, see below. |
| |
From 2000-2017, Mr. Glenn Björne, the previous property
owner, operated a goat farm and contaminated the manure with
silage plastic. The new owner purchased the property in
2017.
|
| |
2. malpractice, violaion
of the legal order |
| |
The lower instance
ignore the valid verdict of the highest court Mark och
Miljödomstolen and try to shift the rsponsibility to the new
owner contradictin the previous assesments and judgements. I
anglo-saxon teminology it is "contempt for court". |
|
|
3.
Discriminative ruling |
| |
All new assessments
from authorities only involve only the new owner. The
previous owner, Mr. Glenn Björne, who has valid verdicts
from 2017-2022 to clean up plastics and pay fines, is not
mentioned. |
| |
This is a biased judgment and goes against
acceptable legal practices and constitute a corruption as
Glenn Björne is exonerated from responsibility and payment
of 2023 inspection fees. |
 |
on
22 April 2024 13:45
www.ecolanum.org/adm_plast_lans/ I ask mr Jesper
Jacobssen head County Skåne if there are two culpable now,
why only me who has to pay for the inspection. |
|
|
The instances in illegally make assumption that if
someone is not able to pay fine at the time t0 it will not
be able to pay it forever. This breaches all legal
principle.
|
| |
4. Exclusion of facts. |
|
The previous owner, Mr. Glenn Björne, with a valid verdict,
is not considered in the new assessment of contamination
responsibility. Legal authorities does not acknowledge that
the new owner is not involved in agriculture or animal
farming |
|
|
LIE: The authorities insist that the owner new that
the plastic was left on the property. |
|
|
the fact that we have not taken over operation of a goat
farm is excluded.
They also fail to mention that the Landskrona
Environment Protection provided at the purchase a document
confirming that the farm is clean. |
| |
5. Manipulation of
evidence, lies. |
| |
All instances
perpetuate the lie that Ecolanum engages in agricultural
activities, which is false. Ecolanum actually is rewilding
the landscape to create a Botanical Garden showcasing
traditional wild Ven landscapes which existed on the island
for 400-1400.
|
| |
We are implementing
“The EU nature restoration law” by REWILDING . The name
ECOLANUM is used in order to give us and
identity/branding. we let our poperty to rewild i.e. let the
nature takeover. No agricultural or any other physical
activities take place. |
| |
LIE, that the new owner
conducts agricultar activites, No agricultural or any other
physical activities take place |
| |
There is no
agricultural activity involved, as rewilding involves
allowing nature to re-establish itself. Ecolanum AB is only
research identity ‘Ecolanum accounts as follow financial
turnover ZERO, income ZERO, and expenditures ZERO. |
| |
from the 2023
compnay reporting, (2023 redovisning) it is statedad as
follows; |
| |
"The current activates
have scientific and information exchange and information
gathering character." |
| |
DISONEST/ILLIGAL, MALA
FIDE: Only bad-faith person can conclude that the owner at
the age of 76 years without any emploees, expenditure,
income and external expenses, as stated in the account
statement, will be able to create any other garden than
rewilding, i.e letting the nature takeover the land
according to the EU directives
|
| |
|
| |
6. Misjudgment and
manipulation of causes and conclusions. |
| |
The new owner had
not caused and is not causing any contamination with silage
plastic. The legal text explicitly bind the responsibility
to the agent causing the contamination. It is a manipulation
to shift responsibility to the new owner who has no legal
activity yet all assessment texts place the blame on the
individuals causing the contamination.
and all legal texts put responsibility on the persons who is
causing the contamination.
We are not responsible for contaminating the environment
with silage plastic, |
| |
7. Acting in “mala fide |
| |
The involved
authorities act deceitfully in order to force predetermined
assessments and verdicts. Their hostile and extreme actions
stem from our longstanding criticism of the authorities'
failure to prevent contamination. Additionally, the previous
owner transferred property valued at SEK 2.5 million to his
son to avoid paying for the removal of silage plastics. |
| |
|
| |
CONCLUSSION
All of the mentioned
circumstances constitute a miscarriage of justice and a
corrupt misuse of administrative procedures, which I have
witnessed in other countries during my work as a UN
diplomat in the field of nuclear safety particularly
inspection of nuclear materials. |
| |
A diagram providing an overview of the case |
| |
 |
| |
|
|
All documents below come from the documentation of
the Landskrona Environment Protection
|
|
|
WE PROVE THAT
1. we had a good reason to belive the authorities that the
silage plastic was removed and placed in the location still
owned by the goat farm owner and culpable of
contamination Mr. Glenn Björne. |
|
|
WE PROVE THAT
2. we do not continue any activites of goat farming, animal
farming nor any agriculatural activites. We are
engaged in resarch on ecological restoration and rewilding. |
|
|
The Landskrona Environment Protection and The Real
Estate Agent certifies that the silage plastic was removed
(although it was a wrong information we believed the
authorities),
also the neighbor Ansenius makes a photo showing that
that the previous owner Glenn Björne moved the plastic
from our property to his property. |
|
|
The Landskrona Environment Protection and The Real Estate Agent certifies that the silage plastic
was removed, also the neighbour makes a photo complaining
that the previous owner Glenn Björne moved the plastic from
the sold property 32:3 to the neighbouring plot 25:12 still
owned by Glenn Björne.
with exception of the of the roof plastic covering the arch
halls (båghallarna)
The photo below shows a pile of garbage. Upon overtaking the
property on 2017-04-03 we do not see any silage plastic.
Later on upon digging into manure we se that the plastic is
embedded in the manure.
|
|
|
There are two plastic types in question
1. plasting covering the tent, thick plastic, big píeces,
originally 30 meters x 12 meters. NO PROBLEM, This plastic
is already disposed
2. ensilage plastic mixed in the manure PROBLEMATIC and it
is this plastic the Landskrona Enviroment Protection
we talk about. |
|
|
the Landskrona Environment Protection writes, Asenius
is the neighbour with the propert left in ownership of Mr,
Glnn Björne. |
|
Real estate agent confirm
removal of the silage plastic
see POINT 18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
ABOVE, the Landskorna Municipal informs that Mr. Ansenius
complains the previous owner of our property has moved
the silage plastic from our propert TUNA 32;2 to the
property TUNA 25:12 still owned by Mr. Glenn Björne, the old
owner of our property and the pile is disturbing mr.
Ansenius. |
|
|
The photo below shows a pile of garbage. Upon overtaking
the property on 2017-04-03 we do not see any silage plastic
at our poperty identity TUNA 32:3.The photo show the gabage
moved by Glenn Björne to his property TUNE 25:12 . The photo was taken by Mr. Asenius,
a close neighbour who feels that the garbage will now stay
near his property.
Mr. Glenn Björne move all kind of gabage, including silage
platic mixed with the manure to his property 25:12 see
photo
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
The garbage pile moved to the the property of Mr. Glenn
Björne |
|
|
 |
|
|
location of the garbage |
|
|
 |
|
|
Later on we discovere that the silage plastic is
hidden in the manure, on the surface nothing of silage
plastic is visible on the surface. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We do not have any activities (verksamhet) which could
lead to contamination, again we did not take over any
activity (verksamhet)
|
|
|
The Landkrona Environment Protection misunderstands our
research insinuating that our activities (verksamhet)
produce waste (avfall)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curretly Ecolanum has only research activities. The company
name is used only for identity and branding.
 |
|
|
Only an ignorat person can assume that the owner of Ecolanu,
age 76 years without any emploees, expenditure, income and
external expenses, as stated in the account statement, will
be able to create any other garden than rewilding, i.e
letting the nature takeover the land according to the EU
directives - complete nonsense to assume that one is
producing waste. (avfall) |
|
|
We do not conduct any
activity which produces waste (avfall) the opposite is
true, our objective is to develop methodologies for
the reduction of waste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
