RH Complaints: Legal: Parliamentary Ombudsman:
Case 2012-1943:
Court Administration: Secretariat for Supervisory Committee for Judges:
04 July 2012: Slow Case Processing
Parl. Ombudsman: Complaint Form
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)
On 30 May 2012 complainant filed three complaints with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges 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.”
On 30 May 2012 complainant filed three complaints with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges 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: Case 2012-1943
Response 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."
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."
Court Administration: Supreme Court of Norway Registrar:
20 July 2012: Case 2012-1943
Response to Parliamentary Ombudsman: 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: 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.
02 Sept 2012: Parl Ombudsman Complaint: Slow Case Processing:
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.
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.
02 Sept. 2012: Parliamentary Ombudsman Complaint: Slow Case Processing:
Complaint (PDF) submitted to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing / Failure to Provide Case Processing by Supreme Court Registrar; to Application for Review of ‘Breivik Judgement’.
Slow Case Processing: Application for Review of ‘Breivik Judgement’ filed with Supreme Court Registrar on 27 August 2012 to Set Aside the Judgements (1) ‘Necessity (Nodrett) Ruling’ and (2) Defendant’s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry.
Subsequent follow up requests made on 28 August and 31st August requesting Registrar to provide a case number, or clarify their reasons for failure to provide a case number.
Slow Case Processing: Application for Review of ‘Breivik Judgement’ filed with Supreme Court Registrar on 27 August 2012 to Set Aside the Judgements (1) ‘Necessity (Nodrett) Ruling’ and (2) Defendant’s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry.
Subsequent follow up requests made on 28 August and 31st August requesting Registrar to provide a case number, or clarify their reasons for failure to provide a case number.
03 Nov: 2nd Complaint to Parl Ombud: Slow Case Processing by Supreme Crt Registrar:
Complaint (PDF) submitted to Parliamentary Ombudsman of Slow Case Processing by Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby: Re: Request for Statute Granting Sec Gen Authority to make ruling on Legal Standing:
On 27 September Petitioner filed an Application for Review of ‘Breivik Judgement’ filed with Supreme Court Registrar on 27 August 2012 to Set Aside the Judgements (1) ‘Necessity (Nodrett) Ruling’ and (2) Defendant’s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. A complaint of slow case processing was filed with the Ombudsman on 02 September 2012.
On 10 September, Secretary General Gunnar Bergby issued a ruling denying Petitioners’s Application for review citing Petitioner’s alleged lack of legal standing.
On 11 September, Petitioner filed a request for clarification of the ruling, requesting among others the specific statute that grants a Sec. Gen. the authority to make a ruling on legal standing, when, this is generally a matter that is decided upon by a court, if the respondent party raises it as a matter of dispute.
No response has been received to petitioner’s 08 October reminder letter.
On 27 September Petitioner filed an Application for Review of ‘Breivik Judgement’ filed with Supreme Court Registrar on 27 August 2012 to Set Aside the Judgements (1) ‘Necessity (Nodrett) Ruling’ and (2) Defendant’s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. A complaint of slow case processing was filed with the Ombudsman on 02 September 2012.
On 10 September, Secretary General Gunnar Bergby issued a ruling denying Petitioners’s Application for review citing Petitioner’s alleged lack of legal standing.
On 11 September, Petitioner filed a request for clarification of the ruling, requesting among others the specific statute that grants a Sec. Gen. the authority to make a ruling on legal standing, when, this is generally a matter that is decided upon by a court, if the respondent party raises it as a matter of dispute.
No response has been received to petitioner’s 08 October reminder letter.
15 Nov: Parl Ombudsman: Declines to Investigate Supreme Court Registrar:
Response from Parliamentary Ombudsman: Complaint on Supreme Court of Norway (PDF).
Reference is made to your letter 2. September 2012 with attachments, and previous correspondence, last our letter 11. July 2012.
Your complaint regards Supreme Court's omission to provide your application with a case number. You have applied for a review of the Breivik Judgement.
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about the public authorities and aims to right individual wrongs and injustices. However, with reference to the Act concerning the Storting's Ombudsman for Public Administration, section 4, first paragraph, litra c), decisions of the courts of law can not be handled by the Ombudsman. Therefore, neither your complaint regarding the omission to provide you with a number nor your application for a review of the Breivik case, will not be examined by the Ombudsman.
The case does not give reason for more from the Ombudsman. Future letters from you regarding the Breivik case will be recorded and read, but you can not expect any answers from here.
Reference is made to your letter 2. September 2012 with attachments, and previous correspondence, last our letter 11. July 2012.
Your complaint regards Supreme Court's omission to provide your application with a case number. You have applied for a review of the Breivik Judgement.
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about the public authorities and aims to right individual wrongs and injustices. However, with reference to the Act concerning the Storting's Ombudsman for Public Administration, section 4, first paragraph, litra c), decisions of the courts of law can not be handled by the Ombudsman. Therefore, neither your complaint regarding the omission to provide you with a number nor your application for a review of the Breivik case, will not be examined by the Ombudsman.
The case does not give reason for more from the Ombudsman. Future letters from you regarding the Breivik case will be recorded and read, but you can not expect any answers from here.
Supervisory Committee for Judges: Discrimination & Ambiguity
31 Dec 2012: Complaint: Language Discrimination & Lack of Clarity:
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. ««