RH Court Records: Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges:
Case 12-073: Chief Justice Tore Schei:
30 May 2012: Complaint:Complaint submitted to Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges: Complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media), 15 (Collegial Intervention). (PDF)
06 June 2012: Updated:Complaint updated: Complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media), 15 (Collegial Intervention). (PDF)
|
04 July 2012: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing by Supv. Comm. for Judges:
04 July 2012: Parl. Ombudsman Complaint
Complaint submitted to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing or Failure to Provide Case Processing by Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges: RE: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges Complaints in Norway v. Breivik matter against (i) Chief Justice Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Judge Nina Opsahl. (PDF)
Complaint to Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges:
On 30 May 2012 complainant filed three complaints with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges respectively against respectively: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl.
On 06 June 2012 complainant noted that she had not yet received any information detailing the process and procedure for her complaints, and additionally provided the completed signed “Skjema for klage på dommere til Tilsynsutvalget for dommere (TU)” forms for her complaints.
On 02 July 2012 complainant noted: “I am still waiting for the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, to provide me with a Case and/or Reference Number for my complaint/s, including details about processing of my complaint/s in Norway v. Breivik matter against respectively: (1) Judge Nina Opsahl, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Chief Justice Tore Schei.”
Complaint to Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges:
On 30 May 2012 complainant filed three complaints with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges respectively against respectively: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl.
On 06 June 2012 complainant noted that she had not yet received any information detailing the process and procedure for her complaints, and additionally provided the completed signed “Skjema for klage på dommere til Tilsynsutvalget for dommere (TU)” forms for her complaints.
On 02 July 2012 complainant noted: “I am still waiting for the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, to provide me with a Case and/or Reference Number for my complaint/s, including details about processing of my complaint/s in Norway v. Breivik matter against respectively: (1) Judge Nina Opsahl, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Chief Justice Tore Schei.”
11 July 2012: Response from Parliamentary Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943Response from Parliamentary Ombudsman: Head of Division: Berit Sollie: Case Ref: 2012-1943: Lack of Response from the Supervisory Committee for Judges.
Ombudsman directions are to submit "a written request to Tilsynsutvalget for dommere, where you call for answers to your applications. If you do not receive a response to this request within a reasonable time, you can contact the Ombudsman, with an enclosed copy of the last request to Tilsynsutvalget for dommere." 20 July 2012: Req. to Supv. Comm. for Judges for Case No & Processing Info:Correspondence to Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges: National Courts Administration: RE: 30 May 2012 Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges complaints against Complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei; Judge Wenche Arntzen and Judge Nina Opsahl.
|
I am still waiting for the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, to provide me with a Case and/or Reference Number for my complaint/s, including details about processing of my complaint/s in Norway v. Breivik matter against respectively: (1) Judge Nina Opsahl, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Chief Justice Tore Schei.
Please Note: In case of Absence of Response from Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, providing a case number and details of processing of my complaint (or alternatively a final date by when such information shall be provided to me by the Committee), by 27 July 2012; the complaint shall be submitted to: Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Please Note: In case of Absence of Response from Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, providing a case number and details of processing of my complaint (or alternatively a final date by when such information shall be provided to me by the Committee), by 27 July 2012; the complaint shall be submitted to: Parliamentary Ombudsman.
20 July 2012: Response to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943
Response to Parliamentary Ombudsman correspondence of 11 July 2012: Case 2012-1943: Slow Case Processing of Norway v Breivik Complaint to Secretariat for Supv. Committee of Judges: Against Justice Tore Schei | Judge Wenche Arntzen | Judge Nina Opsahl
On 04 July 2012, I filed two complaints with the Ombudsmans office, via their official complaints procedure.
On 20 July I received a response from the Ombudsman offices by land mail (Ref: 2012/1943), in response to my complaint to the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges:
“On 30 May 2012 complainant filed three complaints with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges respectively against respectively: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl. On 06 June 2012 complainant noted that she had not yet received any information detailing the process and procedure for her complaints, and additionally provided the completed signed “Skjema for klage på dommere til Tilsynsutvalget for dommere (TU)” forms for her complaints. On 02 July 2012-07-02 complainant noted: “I am still waiting for the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, to provide me with a Case and/or Reference Number for my complaint/s, including details about processing of my complaint/s in Norway v. Breivik matter against respectively: (1) Judge Nina Opsahl, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Chief Justice Tore Schei.””
As per the Ombudsman's Instructions, I again contacted the Secretariat Supervisory Committee of Judges for a response, and noted that in the absence of such a response, I shall again contact the Ombudsman, to provide his Office with the information to proceed in the matter.
On 04 July 2012, I filed two complaints with the Ombudsmans office, via their official complaints procedure.
On 20 July I received a response from the Ombudsman offices by land mail (Ref: 2012/1943), in response to my complaint to the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges:
“On 30 May 2012 complainant filed three complaints with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges respectively against respectively: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl. On 06 June 2012 complainant noted that she had not yet received any information detailing the process and procedure for her complaints, and additionally provided the completed signed “Skjema for klage på dommere til Tilsynsutvalget for dommere (TU)” forms for her complaints. On 02 July 2012-07-02 complainant noted: “I am still waiting for the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, to provide me with a Case and/or Reference Number for my complaint/s, including details about processing of my complaint/s in Norway v. Breivik matter against respectively: (1) Judge Nina Opsahl, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Chief Justice Tore Schei.””
As per the Ombudsman's Instructions, I again contacted the Secretariat Supervisory Committee of Judges for a response, and noted that in the absence of such a response, I shall again contact the Ombudsman, to provide his Office with the information to proceed in the matter.
31 July 2012: Response from Supv. Comm. for Judges:
Response from Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges: Court Administration: Senior Advisor: Ms Espen Eiken: Re: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl: "We refer to your three complaints to the Supervisory Committee for Judges (Tilsynsutvalget for dommere). Your complaints will be handled according to our standard procedure. According to our standard procedure we don’t send a confirmation letter to inform that we have received a complaint. Each complaint will be given a case number. The average handling time for the Supervisory Committee has lately been up to six months."
01 August 2012: Response to Supv. Comm. for Judges:
Response to Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges: Court Administration: Senior Advisor: Ms Espen Eiken: Re: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl requesting further clarification regarding (1) Committee does not acknowledge receipt of complaints; and (2) Committee's Standard Procedure.
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?
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?
21 August 2012: Correspondence to Supv. Comm. for Judges:
Correspondence to Ms. Eiken: Supervisory Committee for Judges: 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).
[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).
31 August: Corr. to Supv. Comm. for Judges: Still waiting for a Case No & Processing:
Correspondence to Secr. Supervisory Committee for Judges: Espen Eiken:Subject: [31.08] RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl. I am still awaiting a response to the questions in my correspondence of 01 August 2012, and 21 August, in response to your correspondence of 31 July 2012.
Awaiting clarification on (1) Committee does not Acknowledge Receipt of Complaints; (2) Standard Procedure:
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?
Awaiting clarification on (1) Committee does not Acknowledge Receipt of Complaints; (2) Standard Procedure:
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?
02 Sept: Complaint to Parl. Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing:
02 Sep 2012: Parl. Ombudsman
Complaint (PDF) submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing or Failure to Provide Case Processing by Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges: RE: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges Complaints in Norway v. Breivik matter against (i) Chief Justice Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Judge Nina Opsahl.
Slow Case Processing: Supv. Comm. for Judges/ Tilsynsutvalget for dommere have obstructed my requests for a Case number since 06 June 2012, and for information about the level of transparency of their ‘standard procedure’ since 31 July 2012.
Failure to Provide Case Processing: Supv. Comm. for Judges/ Tilsynsutvalget for dommere appear to be attempting to refuse to provide me with a Case Number, in their attempts to obstruct my complaint from the public record. [Withdrawn on 04 Sept: PO: 02.09 Supv. Comm. for Judges Complaint resolved on 03.09]
Slow Case Processing: Supv. Comm. for Judges/ Tilsynsutvalget for dommere have obstructed my requests for a Case number since 06 June 2012, and for information about the level of transparency of their ‘standard procedure’ since 31 July 2012.
Failure to Provide Case Processing: Supv. Comm. for Judges/ Tilsynsutvalget for dommere appear to be attempting to refuse to provide me with a Case Number, in their attempts to obstruct my complaint from the public record. [Withdrawn on 04 Sept: PO: 02.09 Supv. Comm. for Judges Complaint resolved on 03.09]
03 Sept: Supv. Comm. for Judges: Issuance of Case Number: 12-073: Justice Tore Schei:
Correspondence from Supervisory Committee for Judges: Senior Advisor: Espen Eiken: RE: [31.08] RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl
"Your complaints have been given the case numbers 12-071 (Judge Nina Opsahl), 12-072 (Judge Wenche E. Arntzen) and 12-073 (Justice Tore Schei). The complete handling time can be close to six months.
If a party have given a statement in the case, these will be provided the complainant. The Supervisory Committee has not received statements from the other parties involved."
"Your complaints have been given the case numbers 12-071 (Judge Nina Opsahl), 12-072 (Judge Wenche E. Arntzen) and 12-073 (Justice Tore Schei). The complete handling time can be close to six months.
If a party have given a statement in the case, these will be provided the complainant. The Supervisory Committee has not received statements from the other parties involved."
03 Sept 2012: Corr. to Supv. Comm. for Judges: Acknowledge Receipt of Case No.
Response to Supervisory Committee for Judges: Senior Advisor: Ms. Espen Eiken: RE: [03.09] RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl
"Thank you for the information. I am now clear of what is expected of me. I shall wait to receive the parties statements; and acknowledge that I am aware that the complete handling time can be upto six months. I have no objections thereto.
Until I receive any parties statement, I do not expect you to be hearing from me, until I respond thereto.
I filed a subsequent complaint of slow case handling to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, on 02 September. I shall notify them, that it is no longer necessary, and withdraw the complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. I shall provide you a copy of my withdrawal of the complaint for your records. I hope to do so later today." [Withdrawn on 04 Sept: PO: 02.09 Supv. Comm. for Judges Complaint resolved on 03.09]
"Thank you for the information. I am now clear of what is expected of me. I shall wait to receive the parties statements; and acknowledge that I am aware that the complete handling time can be upto six months. I have no objections thereto.
Until I receive any parties statement, I do not expect you to be hearing from me, until I respond thereto.
I filed a subsequent complaint of slow case handling to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, on 02 September. I shall notify them, that it is no longer necessary, and withdraw the complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. I shall provide you a copy of my withdrawal of the complaint for your records. I hope to do so later today." [Withdrawn on 04 Sept: PO: 02.09 Supv. Comm. for Judges Complaint resolved on 03.09]
23 Oct: Supv. Comm. for Judges Ruling: 'Obviously Unfounded'
[Received 02 November] On 23 October, the Supervisory Committee for Judges changed their minds and decided they were not going to process the complaints.
Previously they had said that the complaints would be processed, whereby all the Judges would be required to submit a statement about their reasons, in accordance to the issues raised in the complaints. However the Supervisory Committee for Judges now decided that all the Judges do not have to submit their affidavits, and the complaints will be ruled as 'obviously unfounded'. The decision by the Committee is in Norwegian (I have not translated all of it yet): * Judge Opsahl (PDF) * Judge Arntzen (PDF) * Justice Schei (PDF). |
|
12 Nov: Req for Info & English Translation of Ruling:
Correspondence to Ms. Eiken: Subject: [12.-09] RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl
I have received the rulings. Thank you.
1. Could you clarify why they are in Norwegian?
2. Could you clarify who the person was who made the decision that the rulings should be made in Norwegian
3. Could you provide an English translation?
4. If not, could you provide me with the name of the person who refuses to provide an English translation.
5. Finally: Could you also confirm whether the Supervisory Committee received any verbal or written statements from the parties; and if so, why such statements were not provided to me.
Espen Eiken: 03 Sep: "If a party have given a statement in the case, these will be provided the complainant. The Supervisory Committee has not received statements from the other parties involved."
I have received the rulings. Thank you.
1. Could you clarify why they are in Norwegian?
2. Could you clarify who the person was who made the decision that the rulings should be made in Norwegian
3. Could you provide an English translation?
4. If not, could you provide me with the name of the person who refuses to provide an English translation.
5. Finally: Could you also confirm whether the Supervisory Committee received any verbal or written statements from the parties; and if so, why such statements were not provided to me.
Espen Eiken: 03 Sep: "If a party have given a statement in the case, these will be provided the complainant. The Supervisory Committee has not received statements from the other parties involved."
14 Nov: Correspondence to Ms. Eiken: Req for Info Re: Language Policy:
Correspondence: RE: [12.-09] RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl
Espen Eiken: The decisions of the Supervisory Committee for Judges are always written in Norwegian. There has never been a tradition to write the decisions in English even if the complaint is in English. There was no individual person who decided that the decisions should be made in Norwegian. The Committee has no arrangement for translating its decisions. It is therefore assumed that the complainants provides necessary translations. The Supervisory Committee have not received any statements from the parties.
Lara Johnstone: So, are you saying that the Supervisory Committee for Judges who dealt with my complaints cannot speak or write English? Who translated my complaint for them, or did they just ignore it, cause they do not speak English, and refuse all complaints that are not in Norwegian? Surely if a court accepts a complaint written in a particular language, then they should provide the speaker of such language with the response in their language, or they should inform the complainant to fuck off, because they refuse to accept complaints in any language except Norwegian? How did the Justices know what the complaint was about, if they cannot speak English? Does the Supervisory Committee for Judges accept complaints in English? If so, how can they justify providing a ruling that is not in the language of the complaint? Either they should only accept complaints in Norwegian, or if they accept complaints in other languages, then they should provide a ruling in that particular language?
Espen Eiken: The decisions of the Supervisory Committee for Judges are always written in Norwegian. There has never been a tradition to write the decisions in English even if the complaint is in English. There was no individual person who decided that the decisions should be made in Norwegian. The Committee has no arrangement for translating its decisions. It is therefore assumed that the complainants provides necessary translations. The Supervisory Committee have not received any statements from the parties.
Lara Johnstone: So, are you saying that the Supervisory Committee for Judges who dealt with my complaints cannot speak or write English? Who translated my complaint for them, or did they just ignore it, cause they do not speak English, and refuse all complaints that are not in Norwegian? Surely if a court accepts a complaint written in a particular language, then they should provide the speaker of such language with the response in their language, or they should inform the complainant to fuck off, because they refuse to accept complaints in any language except Norwegian? How did the Justices know what the complaint was about, if they cannot speak English? Does the Supervisory Committee for Judges accept complaints in English? If so, how can they justify providing a ruling that is not in the language of the complaint? Either they should only accept complaints in Norwegian, or if they accept complaints in other languages, then they should provide a ruling in that particular language?
15 Dec: Followup Request for Info to Ms. Eiken:
Correspondence to Supv. Comm. for Judges: Espen Eiken: RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl
I am still awaiting a response to my email of 14 November: I repeat:
Are you saying that the Supervisory Committee for Judges who dealt with my complaints cannot speak or write English? Who translated my complaint for them, or did they just ignore it, cause they do not speak English, and refuse all complaints that are not in Norwegian? Surely if a court accepts a complaint written in a particular language, then they should provide the speaker of such language with the response in their language, or they should inform the complainant to fuck off, because they refuse to accept complaints in any language except Norwegian? How did the Justices know what the complaint was about, if they cannot speak English? Does the Supervisory Committee for Judges accept complaints in English? If so, how can they justify providing a ruling that is not in the language of the complaint? Either they should only accept complaints in Norwegian, or if they accept complaints in other languages, then they should provide a ruling in that particular language?
I am still awaiting a response to my email of 14 November: I repeat:
Are you saying that the Supervisory Committee for Judges who dealt with my complaints cannot speak or write English? Who translated my complaint for them, or did they just ignore it, cause they do not speak English, and refuse all complaints that are not in Norwegian? Surely if a court accepts a complaint written in a particular language, then they should provide the speaker of such language with the response in their language, or they should inform the complainant to fuck off, because they refuse to accept complaints in any language except Norwegian? How did the Justices know what the complaint was about, if they cannot speak English? Does the Supervisory Committee for Judges accept complaints in English? If so, how can they justify providing a ruling that is not in the language of the complaint? Either they should only accept complaints in Norwegian, or if they accept complaints in other languages, then they should provide a ruling in that particular language?
31 Dec: Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Language Discrimination:
Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Language Discrimination and Lack of Clear Principles by Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges Norwegian Language Rulings, in response to English Language complaints in Case 12-071: Judge Nina Opsahl, 12-072: Judge Wenche Arntzen, 12-073: Judge Tore Schei. (PDF)
On 30 May 2012 and 06 June 2012, I filed three complaints with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges respectively against: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl.
After much delay and obstruction, on 03 September 2012, I was issued Case Numbers and informed that my complaints had been given the case numbers of 12-071 (Judge Nina Opsahl), 12-072 (Judge Wenche E. Arntzen) and 12-073 (Justice Tore Schei). Furthermore that “If a party have given a statement in the case, these will be provided the complainant. The Supervisory Committee has not received statements from the other parties involved.”
I was never informed the rulings of the Judges would be in Norwegian. I was also never provided with any parties statements.
On 23 October 2012, the Supervisory Committee for Judges issues the rulings in the matter (without hearing any of the parties statements, or providing me with a response to their statements), and issued the rulings in Norwegian.
On 12 November I requested an English translation. On 14 November the Supervisory Committee for Judges refused to provide me with an English translation, stating that the ‘decisions are always in Norwegian’. Furthermore that allegedly “there has never been a tradition to write the decisions in English even if the complaint is in English”. The Supervisory Committee for Judges did not provide any evidence for this statement.
Requests on 14 November and 15 December for English translations have been ignored.
On 30 May 2012 and 06 June 2012, I filed three complaints with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges respectively against: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl.
After much delay and obstruction, on 03 September 2012, I was issued Case Numbers and informed that my complaints had been given the case numbers of 12-071 (Judge Nina Opsahl), 12-072 (Judge Wenche E. Arntzen) and 12-073 (Justice Tore Schei). Furthermore that “If a party have given a statement in the case, these will be provided the complainant. The Supervisory Committee has not received statements from the other parties involved.”
I was never informed the rulings of the Judges would be in Norwegian. I was also never provided with any parties statements.
On 23 October 2012, the Supervisory Committee for Judges issues the rulings in the matter (without hearing any of the parties statements, or providing me with a response to their statements), and issued the rulings in Norwegian.
On 12 November I requested an English translation. On 14 November the Supervisory Committee for Judges refused to provide me with an English translation, stating that the ‘decisions are always in Norwegian’. Furthermore that allegedly “there has never been a tradition to write the decisions in English even if the complaint is in English”. The Supervisory Committee for Judges did not provide any evidence for this statement.
Requests on 14 November and 15 December for English translations have been ignored.
Norway Courts for Masonic War is Peace Cultures only?
MILED Clerk confirmation of EoP Legal Submissions:
»» Norway Juridical bodies prohibit Buck Stops Here Ecology of Peace responsible freedom culture arguments and evidence for submission to Masonic War is Peace plausible deniable slavery freedumb culture Norway Juridical bodies. Norway Juridical bodies are WiP only. ««
»» Norway Juridical bodies prohibit Buck Stops Here Ecology of Peace responsible freedom culture arguments and evidence for submission to Masonic War is Peace plausible deniable slavery freedumb culture Norway Juridical bodies. Norway Juridical bodies are WiP only. ««