Transparency Update:
[1] Updated Info: Relevant Excerpt: RH Ecofeminist Letter to Mr. Breivik: Request to Mr. Breivik to "please clarify what exactly your instructions were to your Attorneys in response to the applications I filed in Oslo District Court: Judge Nina Opsahl (Habeus Mentem: Right to Legal Sanity) and Judge Wenche (Amicus Curiae: Friend of the Court) and the Norwegian Supreme Court: Review and Declaratory Order."
[2] The 170 complaints (CCBE Code of Ethics: Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial) against Defence and Victims Families Attorneys referred to Bar Associations, have been submitted to the Environmental Appeals Board ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com > RH Court Records > Env. Appeals Board:
[3] No Response from Supv. Comm. for Judges to my questions (01 August 2012) in response to your correspondence (31 July 2012).
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:44 AM
Subject: RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl
Text of Email:
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:44 AM
To: 'Eiken, Espen'
Cc: Judge Wenche Arntzen (**@domstol.no); Judge Nina Opsahl (**@domstol.no); Ch.Justice Tore Schei (**@hoyesterett.no); Crt: Lippestad: Tord Jordet (**@advokatlippestad.no); Crt: Pros Holden. Politie: Police Directorate (**@politiet.no); Crt: Victims: Siv Hallgren (**@elden.no); Crt: Victims: Frode Elgesem (**@thommessen.no); Crt: Victims: Mette Yvonne Larsen (**@advokatstabell.no)
Subject: RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl
Ms. Eiken,
Supervisory Committee for Judges
RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl
Transparency Update:
[1] Updated Info: Relevant Excerpt: RH Ecofeminist Letter to Mr. Breivik:
[2] The 170 complaints (CCBE Code of Ethics: Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial) against Defence and Victims Families Attorneys referred to Bar Associations, have been submitted to the Environmental Appeals Board ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com > RH Court Records > Env. Appeals Board:
[3] No Response from Supv. Comm. for Judges to my questions (01 August 2012) in response to your correspondence (31 July 2012).
**********************
[1] Updated Info: Relevant Excerpt: RH Ecofeminist Letter to Mr. Breivik:
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/rh-13-aug-2012.html
-------------
Request Clarification: RE: Habeus Mentem, Amicus Curiae and Review Applications Filed:
I am not quite clear. You acknowledge receipt of the legal applications I filed in the Norway v. Breivik matter, but refer to them as ‘my letter and email compaigns’? Do you dispute their contents as being unworthy of being considered legal applications; and if so, could you clarify how and why you do so? Or why do you refer to these legal applications as ‘letters and emails’.
In terms of my definition of ‘honour’; to be ‘honourable’ is to legally acknowledge the application by responding to the issues raised therein, as part of court procedure.
If you do not dispute them as legal applications: Could you please clarify what exactly your instructions were to your Attorneys in response to the applications I filed in Oslo District Court: Judge Nina Opsahl (Habeus Mentem: Right to Legal Sanity) and Judge Wenche (Amicus Curiae: Friend of the Court) and the Norwegian Supreme Court: Review and Declaratory Order.
---------------
********************
[2] 16 Aug 2012: Env. App. Brd: Req. for Env. Info from AdvFor: Disc. Comm. & Disc. Brd. for Adv.
Application to Environment Appeals Board: for an Order that the Disciplinary Board and Committee:
Provide their Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for demanding complainants waste paper, ink and non-renewable transporation resources by printing, signing and mailing complaints to them; and refusing digitally signed complaints submitted by email, which are much more beneficial to the environment, and are exact environmentally digital copies of print versions?
CCBE Code of Ethics Disciplinary Complaints were filed against 170 Advocates in the Norway v. Breivik matter (4 with Disciplinary Board of Advocates (“Disciplinary Board” (PDF); 166 with Bar Association: Disciplinary Committee (“Disciplinary Committee” (PDF)), by email.
Both the Disciplinary Board and Committee responded that according to their complaints policy; they refuse to accept complaints submitted by email; all complaints must be submitted in hardcopy (printed and sent by landmail).
Repeated requests to both respondents to provide their environmental justifications for their policy to refuse email complaints were refused.
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/bar-association1.html
******************
[3] I am still awaiting a response to the questions in my correspondence of 01 August 2012, in response to your correspondence of 31 July 2012.
I repeat:
1. Committee does not Acknowledge Receipt of Complaints
I am confused: Is the Committee deliberately or negligently ignorant that it's behaviour contradicts its alleged goals of encouraging confidence in the courts?[1]. If the Committee is unable to identify very basic common sense unethical conduct in its own procedures (namely to professionally acknowledge receipt of any complaint to inform a complainant of the complaints procedures); is such behaviour not conducive to undermining confidence in the Committee's work; and consequently in the broader role of the court system?
2. Standard Procedure:
Your brochure states: "The proceedings are in writing. All parties involved are informed and are given an opportunity to make a statement. When the case is ready for hearing – after all parties have made their statements – this takes place at a meeting which all the Committee members attend. Complaints are generally dealt with on the basis of written statements. But the parties are entitled to make verbal statements to the Supervisory Committee, unless the Committee should consider this as obviously unnecessary to the elucidation of the case. In special cases, it may be relevant to obtain statements from others, examine witnesses, etc."
It is unclear from aforementioned procedures, whether all parties statements are public statements provided to all parties?
My complaints were filed on 06 June 2012, with a follow-up enquiry on 02 July, with no response whatsoever from the Committee until 31 July 2012, subsequent to complaints filed with the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Can you please clarify; so that I am crystal clear about the Committee's process, and can continue these proceedings with confidence in the Committee's impartial objectivity and professionalism:
1. It will take six months for me to be issued a case number?
2. Or, it will take six months to complete the complaint enquiry?
Or put differently; how long should I wait for a professional response from the Committee, before concluding that -- like Norwegian Judges, Prosecutors, Police and Editors -- the Committee just ignores politically incorrect complaints, as if the people who file such complaints simply do not exist?
Respectfully,
Lara Johnstone
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/
[1] Committee's Purpose:
The Supervisory Committee's most important guideline is to work to identify factors that are likely to undermine confidence in the courts. This work requires three important considerations must be weighed against each other:
For the courts to function appropriately in society must be turned down on the factors that contribute to doubt that judges act on the basis of appropriate judicial conduct. That ethical standards that support and develop confidence in the courts as independent, impartial and competent public institutions for conflict resolution.
http://www.domstol.no/no/Enkelt-domstol/Tilsynsutvalget-for-dommere/Om-Tilsynsutvalget/