Överklagan

the full documentation of the case
OVERVIEW of the related pages - orientering på sajten, CLICK

The attachment below (bilaga 2) presented by the Land and Environment court states clearly that I have not, CONTRARY TO THE FALSE STATMENT (A FABRICATED UNTRUTH) OF THE COURT represented by Ms. Hanna Jarlbro, I HAVE NOT applied for an appeal because of the serious ERROR JURIS in the whole process, awaiting judgment of the administrative courts on the formal correctness of the proceedings.

attachment 3 (bilaga 2)

manipulation of facts, fabrication of evidence (from adm_plast_jus)

"Banality of evil" in the daily life of EU citizen
@eco_naut
#REGERINGEN(.)SE på sajten skriver;
"stora förändringar i omvärlden. Demokratier försvagas och utmanas. Utmaningarna finns även i Sverige. Demokratin kan därför inte tas för given."

Alla krafter måste försvara demokratin i #Sverige och förhindra missbruk av lagen (genom att fabricera falsk evidens) i syfte att tysta kritiker av miljöskyddet i #Landskrona kommun.

full dokumentation in English http://ecolanum.org/w

Vi säger "Nej" till manipulation av rättssystemet. Sverige är inte en totalitär stat som tillåter ett sådant missbruk av rättssystemet - DÉJÀ VU - som beskrivs nedan.
Möjligheten att utöva medborgerliga rättigheter beror på också på information myndigheter tillhandahåller. Vi väntar nästan 2 månader på svar, detta påverkar vår rättssäkerhet och våra demokratiska rättigheter. (RULE of LAW)

@Justitiedep @hogsta_domstol @FR_Stockholm @Justitiekansler @SverigeiEU @Mia_E_I @dagensjuridik @JessikaRoswall @TobiasBillstrom @Pau_Brandberg @andreas_carlson @adamcwejman @pwolodarski @A_Sokolnicki @emilhellerud @niklassvensson @AdvokatStahl
@YFryklund @Peter_Osterberg

quick orientation

From: Richard Gronvius, retired UN diplomat, Nuclear Safety, age 76. Sankt Ibb 2024-05-12
mail: richard.gronvius@ecolanum.org the copy on the websajt www.ecolanum.org/w
Summary of the main issues in the scandalous case (several error juris and error facti) initiated by the Environment Protection (miljlförvaltningen) Landskrona, in 2023 dnr 39599-2023 which tries to shift responsibility for the silage plastic contamination to the new owner because the old owner sentenced by several courts Mr. Glenn Björne lacks funds.

Original in English	Ungefärlig google översättning till svenska juridiskt giltigt är det engelska originalet
In 2017 we have purchased a property on the island of Ven. Until 2017 Mr. Glenn Björne, conducted the goat farmer on the plot. The activities were discontinued when Richard Gronvius (defendant) purchased the house and the mark. The new owner, retired UN diplomat in area of Nuclear Safety, age 76 is engaged in ecological restoration/revwilding within the framework EU programme with a brand name Ecolanum.	Under 2017 har vi köpt en fastighet på ön Ven. Fram till 2017 drev Glenn Björne getbonden på tomten. Verksamheten upphörde när Richard Gronvius (svarande) köpte huset och fastigheten. Den nya ägaren, pensionerad FN-diplomat inom kärnsäkerhetsområdet, 76 år, är engagerad i ekologisk restaurering/rewilding inom ramen för EU-programmet med varumärket Ecolanum.
According to the of the Real Estate agent, the neighbour and Municipality of Landskrona the previous owner cleaned the property from plastics but in reality left invisible silage plastic mixed with manure. Mr. Glenn Björne during 15 years did not dispose the wrap silage plastic but left at the place the goats were fed and the plastic got covered with the manure and straw bedding.	Enligt mäklaren, grannen och Landskrona kommun städade den tidigare ägaren fastigheten från plast men lämnade i själva verket kvar osynlig ensilageplast blandad med gödsel. Glenn Björne gjorde sig under 15 år inte av med ensilageplasten utan lämnade den på den plats där getterna utfodrades och plasten täcktes med gödsel och halmströ.
Mr. Glenn Björne was sentenced at the several instances, starting in 2018 for not removing the silage plastic and was fined for not conforming to the verdicts. In 2022 and 2023 it has shown that Mr. Björne is not fulfilling his obligations due to the lack of funds. The Environment protection unit of the Municipality of Landskrona decided. against all legal rules, to collect the money from the new owner.	Glenn Björne dömdes vid flera tillfällen, med början 2018 för att inte ha tagit bort ensilageplasten och bötfälldes för att inte ha följt domarna. Under 2022 och 2023 har det visat sig att Björne inte fullgör sina åtaganden på grund av brist på medel. Landskrona kommuns miljöskyddsenhet beslutade att i strid med alla rättsliga regler driva in pengarna från den nya ägaren.
The Municipality of Landskrona committed several serious errors Error of Law ("error jusris") and Error of Facts. ("error facti")	Landskrona Kommun gjorde sig skyldig till flera allvarliga fel; Lagfel ("error jusris") och Faktafel. ("error facti")
The Error of law.	Lagfel "error juris"
By introducing a new culpable, the new owner, the Environment Protection of Landskrona is undermining the valid verdict of the several courts sentencing Mr. Glenn Björne. The new owner, who was never accused of any contamination is now assumed being guilty of contamination.	Genom att introducera en ny skyldig, den nya ägaren, underminerar miljöskyddet i Landskrona den giltiga domen från flera domstolar som dömde Glenn Björne. Den nya ägaren, som aldrig anklagats för någon förorening, antas nu vara skyldig till förorening.
The error of law constitutes of placing the responsibility for the payment of the inspection fee on the new owner. This is a clear act of discrimination and error of judgement as the old owner Mr. Glen Björne is still guilty by lawful sentences. Mr Glenn Björne is not exonerated from the guilt of contamination. It is not legally correct (an error) to a priori assume that Mr. Glenn Björne lacks funds and threrfor is not bound by of financial consequences. It is like asking an obedient passenger to pay fine for another passenger who travels without a ticket.	Felaktig rättstillämpning består i att ansvaret för betalningen av kontrollavgiften läggs på den nye ägaren. Detta är en uppenbar handling av diskriminering och felbedömning eftersom den gamla ägaren Glen Björne fortfarande är skyldig till ett lagligt straff. Glenn Björne är inte frikänd från skuld till kontamination. Det är inte juridiskt korrekt (ett fel) att a priori anta att Glenn Björne saknar medel och därför inte är bunden av ekonomiska konsekvenser. Det är som att be en lydig passagerare att betala böter för en annan passagerare som reser utan biljett.
The error of facts is based on two mistakes
First by assuming that the defendent, the 76 years former UN diplomat in the field of Nuclear Safety without any staff is performing agricultural activities – nonsense. (also an error of law, "error juris", contempt for court questioning previous verdicts of courts) In reality the plot is left for rewilding and ecological restoration what has irritated the Environment protection authorities of Landskrona who during almost 20 years neglected the contamination performed by the previous owner Mr Glenn Björne, a goat farmer.	För det första genom att anta att den åtalade, den 76-årige före detta FN-diplomaten inom kärnsäkerhet utan någon personal, bedriver jordbruksverksamhet – nonsens. (även en felaktig rättstillämpning, "error juris", domstolstrots som ifrågasätter tidigare domar från domstolar) I realiteten är tomten lämnad för rewilding och ekologisk restaurering, vilket har irriterat Naturvårdsmyndigheterna i Landskrona som under nästan 20 år försummat den förorening som utförts av den tidigare ägaren Glenn Björne.
The second point is an insinuation that the new owner could have seen the plastic mixed in the manure. Is really the Environment protection thinking that a nuclear expert could have an expertise and suspicious that someone can hide plastic in manure? again nonsense which all previous court did not even considered. (also error of law, questioning verdict of a court) The new fantasifull assessment of Environment protection unit of Landskrona goes against the its own statement of 2017. The Environment Protection unit statemed that the plastic was removed. It was confirmed by the real estate agent and by the neighbour photo that shows plastics moved to the location still owned Mr. Glenn Björne . all documents see below.	Den andra punkten är en insinuation om att den nya ägaren kan ha sett plasten blandad in i gödseln. Tänker verkligen miljöskyddsmyndigheten att en kärnkraftsexpert kan ha en expertis och misstänker att någon kan gömma plast i gödsel? Återigen nonsens som alla tidigare domstolar inte ens övervägde. (även felaktig rättstillämpning, ifrågasättande av domstols dom) Den nya fantasifulla bedömningen av Landskrona miljöskyddsenhet går emot det egna uttalandet från 2017. Miljöskyddsenheten konstaterade att plasten var borttagen. Det bekräftades av mäklaren och av grannfotot som visar plast som flyttats till platsen som fortfarande ägs av Glenn Björne.
Basically the legal unit of the County Skåne confimed the assesment of the Environment Protection of the Municipality of Landskrona introducing a few minor formal mistakes.	I huvudsak fastställde den länsrättsen Skåne berdömningen av Miljöförvaltningen i Landskrona kommun med några smärre formella fel.
The appeal instance i.e. The Land and Environment court did not take any stand and did not answer questions related to the previously encountered legal problem of the "error juris" 1. on what ground one can question a valid verdict of the courts. An appeal poses a dilema of disregarding previous verdict of the court which placed a solely responisbility for contamination on the Mr. Glenn Björne. 2. what is the legal situation, are there two culpable, the old owner and the new owner and why only the new owner is financially responsible? A clear act of discrimination. Until 2024-05-12 NO ANSWER WAS RECIEVED 3. Due to the confused legal situation defendent requested to defer appeal dead-line untill the case is review by th administrative courts and eventually EU court for compliance with the EU directives. Until 2024-05-12 NO ANSWER WAS RECIEVED CONSEQUENCES; Due to the lack of ansewrs the defendent was left in a lawless state deprived of the civil rights breaching the Rule of Law.	Överklagandeinstansen, det vill säga Mark- och Miljödomstolen tog inte ställning och svarade inte på frågor relaterade till det tidigare nämnda juridiska problemet med "error juris" 1. på vilken grund man kan ifrågasätta en giltig dom av domstolarna. Ett överklagande ställer till ett dilemma att bortse från tidigare dom från domstolen som enbart lade ett ansvar för föroreninen på Glenn Björne. 2. hur är rättsläget, är det två skyldiga, den gamla ägaren och den nya ägaren och varför är det bara den nya ägaren som är ekonomiskt ansvarig? Tydlig diskriminering. Fram till 2024-05-12 INGET SVAR INKOMMEN 3. På grund av den förvirrade rättsliga situationen begärde svaranden att skjuta upp tidsfristen för överklagande tills ärendet granskas av förvaltningsdomstolarna och slutligen EU-domstolen för att uppfylla EU-direktiven. Fram till 2024-05-12 INGET SVAR INKOMMEN KONSEKVENSER; På grund av bristen på svar lämnades den tilltalade i en laglös situation berövad de medborgerliga rättigheterna som bryter mot rättsstaten.
The defendant Richard Gronvius is requesting to reject the new assessment of the Environment Protection of the Municipality of Landskrona on the ground of Errors of Law and Errors of Facts and continue honorig the existing valid verdict of the Land and Environment court from 2018.	Svaranden Richard Gronvius yrkar att den nya miljövårdstaxeringen i Landskrona kommun ska underkännas på grund av felaktig rättstillämpning och sakfel och att mark- och miljödomstolens dom från 2018 ska fortsätta att gälla.

204-05-03
MMÖD
AKTBILAGA 14

the dead-line for supplement provision (komplettering) 2024-05-08 is shorter than the dead-line provided by MMD in Aktbilaga 23, i.e.
2024-05-14 as the appeal dead-line

The defended is thrown into confusion by conflicting dates and assessments.

MMD AKTBILAGA 32
2024-04-23

The Land and Environment states wrongly that the defendant has withdrawn the appeal.
IT is not true, the defendant did not appeal.
The wrong handling of the case is in disadvantage for the defendant, limiting his citizen rights.

MMD AKTBILAGA 27

comment to Aktbilaga 27.

Waiting for a decision of the Land and Environment Court about a request of the defendant to defer the appeal dead-line until the legal grounds are clarified. The current situation is characterized by conflicting verdicts, two culpable, only the defendant is charged to pay inspection fee what is discrimination.

MMD AKTBILAGA 23
2024-04-19

more confusion
Aktbilaga 23

The court does not responds to defer the appeal dead-line until the legal grounds are clarified.

MMD AKTBILAGA 7
2024-04-17

MMD is confused about appeal. I did not appeal awaiting response of administrative courts about legal correctness.

conflicting messages

I get a dead-line for appeal
2024-05-02 what is conflicting with a dead-line from County Skåne (länsstyrelsen) giving the dead-line of 2024-05-07

MMD Aktbilaga 3
2024-04-02

wrong assumption
I did not appeal but requested to defer dead-line for appeal until the situational is assessed for compliance with the legal rules.

The text below was sent previously on 2024-05-05

TO: SVEAHOVRÄTT/Mark- och miljööverdomstolen
TO: Mark and Miljödomstolen Växjö
TO: justitieombudsmannen
TO: Förvaltningsdomstolen

FROM::Richard Gronvius, former UN diplomat/international Atomic Energy
Agency, Nuclear Safety, 20 years of excellent work performance at
IAEA award, co-worker to Hans Blix, Peace Nobel Prize in 2005 as employee of IAEA,

SUBJECT: Please prevent forthcoming miscarriage of justice (Justitiemord)
Consisting of an attempt to shift responsibility from the previous owner and the goat farmer to the new owner, a researcher in ecological restoration, seems to be a manipulation in order to follow particular intrest of a particular group and plagued by series of illegal actions, manipulations of facts, intimidations, badly intendent loyalities and withholding of information.

I do not know on what grounds
why i did not answer to question of 2 culpable
i did not get any answer on my rquest to delay

mom assumed I appeal
i do not comprehend how without any decision of Mom the case ended up in Moöm

the english orginal, legally valid	Översättning till svenska juridiskt giltigt är engelska original

ERROR OF LAW (error juris) The are serious "errors of law" in the application of legal rules in the processing of the case. These errors are easilly visible as procedural error (falsly accusing the defendant of placing an appeal) or failure of logic (assumming apeal at the higher court when there was no appeal at the lower). Error of facts is an additional dimension of the errors which also applies in this case as there is attempt to switch responsibility for contamination of the mark with silage plast to the new owner (who writes books on ecology) because the previous owner (goat farm entrepreneur) has no money what is not a legal reason to revert causality of facts and the responsibility for inspection costs.	FEL I TILLÄMPNING AV LAGAR (error juris) Det är allvarliga "rättsfel" vid tillämpningen av rättsregler vid handläggningen av ärendet. Dessa fel är lätt synliga som processuella fel (att felaktigt anklaga svaranden för att ha överklagat) eller bristande logik (förutsatt att överklagande vid högre instans när det inte fanns något överklagande vid den lägre). Faktafel är en ytterligare dimension av felen som även gäller i detta fall då det görs försök att byta ansvar för förorening av marken med ensilage plast till den nya ägaren (som skriveer böcker om ekologi) eftersom den tidigare ägaren (getfarmsföretagaren) inte har några pengar, vilket inte är ett lagligt skäl att skifta kausalitet av fakta och ansvaret för besiktningskostnaderna.
Hereby, I firmly state that	Härmed deklarerar jag bestämt att
I have not placed any appeal to SVEAHOVRÄTT/Mark- och miljööverdomstolen -	Jag har inte överklagat till SVEAHOVRÄTT/Mark- och miljööverdomstolen -
I have not placed any appeal to the Land and Environment court (Mark och Miljödomstolen) -	Jag har inte överklagat till Mark- och Miljödomstolen -
against decision of the Legal Unit County Skåne, (Länsstyrelsen Skåne) dnr: 39599-2023 confirming the decision of the Landskrona Municipality, Environment Protection. case dnr 39599-2023	mot beslut av Rättsenheten Län Skåne, (Länsstyrelsen Skåne) dnr: 39599-2023 om fastställelse av Landskrona kommuns, Miljöförvaltningens, beslut. ärende dnr 39599-2023

The text below was sent previously on 2024-05-05

2024-05-05

TO: SVEAHOVRÄTT/Mark- och miljööverdomstolen
TO: Mark and Miljödomstolen Växjö
TO: justitieombudsmannen
TO: Förvaltningsdomstolen

1. Prejudiced exercise of the office.

2. malpractice, violaion of the legal order.

3. Discriminative ruling.

4. Exclusion of facts.

5. Manipulation of evidence, lies.

6. Misjudgment and manipulation of causes and conclusions.

7. Acting in “mala fide

SEE SECTION 1 for details

Hereby, I firmly state that

I have not placed any appeal to SVEAHOVRÄTT/Mark- och miljööverdomstolen

I have not placed any appeal to the Land and Environment court (Mark och Miljödomstolen)

against decision of the Legal Unit County Skåne, (Länsstyrelsen Skåne) dnr: 39599-2023 confirming the decision of the Landskrona Municipality, Environment Protection. case dnr 39599-2023
Any other assumption is lie or manipulation of written facts what can be seen from all communication

I am requesting SVEAHOVRÄTT/Mark- och miljööverdomstolen
to INVALIDATE statement expressed in the letter dated 2024-05-03 - Mål öM 5644-24) as i have not made any appeal yet.

I have requested the administrative courts
Förvaltningsdomstolen
Justice Ombudsman.
to review the case from the point of the legal correctness as in this case there is only one a valid verdict of the Land and Environment court
court stating the pervious owner of the ground and the goat farmer is Mr. Glenn Björne. Inability of collect fines from Mr. Glenn Björne does not invalidate the causality of the contamination and revise the factual assessment of the previous assessments and verdicts.

Following the sequence of legal actions and internal logic it is required that my request for defering the dead-line are answered otherwise more nonsens will occure.

A. It is not possible to appeal to higher legal court if I did not appeal to the lower?

B. It not possible to appeal against a legaly invalid attempt to undermine the existing verdict from the higest courts?

C. Is the previous culpable and guilty, by a valid sentence, Mr. Glenn Björne given amnesty and no longer prosecuted.?

D. Are to contradictory verdicts simultanously valid agains the old one with a legally valid sentence and a new owner.?

I have not yet received answers for the questions posed previously,see 1 and 2.
there are several other fundamental questions which are ignored A, B, C, D above

1. Correction and annulment of the assumption of the Land and Environment court (Mark och Miljödomstolen) that I appeal against the assessment of the County of Skåne (Länsstyrelsen Skåne)
see the letter below

REQUEST TO ANNUL THE DECISON INSINUATING PLACEMENT OF AN APPEAL -
request dated 2024-04-23
see SECTION 2

2. An answer to my application for delaying/deferring of the appeal dead line until the following, court
Administrativ Court (förvaltningsdomstolen)
Justice Ombudsman (justitieombudsman)
and the EU commission (conditional)
have reviewed the legal correctness of the legality and particularly of contesting the legal order by the instances undermining existing verdicts and annulling the fines of the culpable Mr. Glenn Björne.
see the letter below

please defer the deadline for the appeal until the requested for the assessments are received from the EU commission, Justitieombudsmanen, (the Ombudsman for Justice) Förvaltningsrätten i Skåne (Administrative court Skåne)
request dated 2024-04-21
see SECTION 6

I did not appeal to the previous decisions and I expect for the sake of rule of law the letter should be answered.

The crucial letters 1. and 2. are not answered creating havoc in the legal process.

The current situation is characterized by the contradictory statements, confusions, lack of logic and legal malpractices.

Yours Sincerely,

Richard Gronvius
former UN diplomat/international Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Safety, 20 years of excellent work performance at IAEA award, co-worker to Hans Blix, Peace Nobel Prize in 2005 as employee of IAEA,
I have an extensive experience in analysing legislation, agreement protocols related to the control of nuclear sites and material

SECTION 1

section 1 part 1
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.

V.G. kontakta oss richard.gronvius@ecolanum.org om en svensk översättning behövs.

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. see SECTION 2	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. see SECTION 6	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 in a letter ( see SECTION 5 ) 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.

section 1 part 2

A diagram providing an overview of the case

section 1 part 3

All documents below come from the documentation of the Landskrona Environment Protection, therir new statment is contradicting the facts and is UNTRUE

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 Ecolanum, 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.

SECTION 2 see www.ecolanum.org/adm_plast_jus/

SECTION 6 see www.ecolanum.org/adm_plast_jus/