RH Complaints: Legal: Parliamentary Ombudsman:
Case 2012-1987:
Environmental Appeals Board:
Slow Case Processing & Discrimination:
04 July 2012: Slow Case Processing & Discrimination:
Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing and Discrimination by Environmental Appeals Board (PDF)
Slow Case Processing: Environment Appeals Board first deleted my appeal without reading it, then I was refused a case number and only provided a 'reference number'; and then told my 'enquiry' would only be addressed in August at the end of summer holidays.
Failure to Provide Case Processing: Environment Appeals Board appear to be attempting to refuse to provide me with a Case Number, in their attempts to obstruct my appeal from the public record.
Discrimination: Environment Appeals Board state my appeal is only an 'enquiry' and my 'enquiry' will only be addressed in August and refuse to confirm whether their 'summer holiday policy' is applicable to all complainants, or only my complaint; also refuse to put a public notice on their website stating their 'summer holiday policy' and whom it does and does not apply to.
Slow Case Processing: Environment Appeals Board first deleted my appeal without reading it, then I was refused a case number and only provided a 'reference number'; and then told my 'enquiry' would only be addressed in August at the end of summer holidays.
Failure to Provide Case Processing: Environment Appeals Board appear to be attempting to refuse to provide me with a Case Number, in their attempts to obstruct my appeal from the public record.
Discrimination: Environment Appeals Board state my appeal is only an 'enquiry' and my 'enquiry' will only be addressed in August and refuse to confirm whether their 'summer holiday policy' is applicable to all complainants, or only my complaint; also refuse to put a public notice on their website stating their 'summer holiday policy' and whom it does and does not apply to.
13 July 2012: Case 2012-1987:
Response from Parliamentary Ombudsman: Case 2012-1987: Acting Head of Division: Edvard Aspelund (Executive Case Officer: Tora Langseth Hamnes) to 04 July complaint: Slow Case Processing and Discrimination by Appeals Board for Environmental Information.
"Furthermore, the Appeals Board for Environmental Information has informed you they will consider your complaints in August, and then get back to you as soon as possible. As the public administration does not seem to have fully processed your complaint to the Appeals board, or responded to your latest enquiry to the public administration, you must first await for a reply before the Ombudsman can review your case and determine whether or not the case is to be investigated here.
Therefore, your complaint to the Ombudsman does not give reason for further investigation here now. After a final decision has been reached by the public administration, or if the Appeals Board for Environmental Infom1ation fail to respond to your enquiry as stipulated above, you may submit a new complaint to the Ombudsman."
"Furthermore, the Appeals Board for Environmental Information has informed you they will consider your complaints in August, and then get back to you as soon as possible. As the public administration does not seem to have fully processed your complaint to the Appeals board, or responded to your latest enquiry to the public administration, you must first await for a reply before the Ombudsman can review your case and determine whether or not the case is to be investigated here.
Therefore, your complaint to the Ombudsman does not give reason for further investigation here now. After a final decision has been reached by the public administration, or if the Appeals Board for Environmental Infom1ation fail to respond to your enquiry as stipulated above, you may submit a new complaint to the Ombudsman."
Slow Case Processing:
02 Sept. 2012: Parl. Ombudsman Complaint: Slow Case Processing:
Complaint (PDF) submitted to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing or Failure to Provide Case Processing by Ministry of Environment Appeals Board (Media Censorship of Environment Information).
Slow Case Processing: Environment Appeals Board first deleted my appeal without reading it, then I was refused a case number and only provided a ‘reference number’; and then told my ‘enquiry’ would only be addressed in August at the end of summer holidays; then simply ignored my complaint in August still refusing to process it.
Failure to Provide Case Processing: Environment Appeals Board appear to be attempting to refuse to provide me with a Case Number, in their attempts to obstruct my appeal from the public record.
Slow Case Processing: Environment Appeals Board first deleted my appeal without reading it, then I was refused a case number and only provided a ‘reference number’; and then told my ‘enquiry’ would only be addressed in August at the end of summer holidays; then simply ignored my complaint in August still refusing to process it.
Failure to Provide Case Processing: Environment Appeals Board appear to be attempting to refuse to provide me with a Case Number, in their attempts to obstruct my appeal from the public record.
12 Sept: Response from Parl Ombudsman:
Response from Parliamentary Ombudsman: Complaint Regarding the Appeals Board for Environmental Information.
Reference is made to your letter 1 September 2012 and complaints from 2 September 2012 where you revisit your case regarding slow case processing at the Appeals board for Environmental Information. You state taht you have still not received any response from the Appeals Board.
In a telephone conversation 7 September 20111 the secretariat for the Appeals Board stated that they have received your letters and are currently working on their response. It was also informed that the prelimintary case processing unfortunately has taken longer than first expected, but you should be receiving a response within a few weeks.
On this background, the Ombudsman has not found ground for further investigation of your latest complaint here. In the event that you do not receive any response within the expected time period or a reasonable time after that, you are welcome to contact the Ombudsman again.
A copy of your letter 1 September 2012 and a copy of this letter will be sent the Appeals board for Environmental Information for their information.
Reference is made to your letter 1 September 2012 and complaints from 2 September 2012 where you revisit your case regarding slow case processing at the Appeals board for Environmental Information. You state taht you have still not received any response from the Appeals Board.
In a telephone conversation 7 September 20111 the secretariat for the Appeals Board stated that they have received your letters and are currently working on their response. It was also informed that the prelimintary case processing unfortunately has taken longer than first expected, but you should be receiving a response within a few weeks.
On this background, the Ombudsman has not found ground for further investigation of your latest complaint here. In the event that you do not receive any response within the expected time period or a reasonable time after that, you are welcome to contact the Ombudsman again.
A copy of your letter 1 September 2012 and a copy of this letter will be sent the Appeals board for Environmental Information for their information.
Appeal of Erroneous Ruling by Env. Appeals Board:
12 Nov: Erroneous Decision by Env. Appeals Board:
Parliamentary Ombudsman Complaint (PDF): The Environmental Appeals Board “appeals that clearly have to be denied” (PDF) refusal to process Complainants Appeals against Media Respondents andBar Association Respondents are a violation of Complainant’s right to due process, and a failure of Impartial Arbitration procedures.
The Environmental Appeals Board’s ruling that Editor Respondents decision-making to censor information about the Media’s Population-Environment-Terrorism Connection during Breivik’s Highly Public Terrorism trial, alleging that it was not ‘Environmental Information’ is beyond absurd, and totally lacking in factual and legal justifications.
Corporate decision-making (§ 2(1)(b)) to censor factual information (§2 (1)(a)) information about the media’s Population-Environment-Terrorism connection directly affects not only the environment (§2 (1)(b)), but the health, safety and living conditions of all beings who live in that particular environment (§ 2(1)(c)).
The Environmental Appeals Board’s failed to factually or legally justify that there is no appreciable difference between a Printed and an Electronic Complaints policy. To the contrary the Bar Association’s current Anti-Environmental Disciplinary Complaints Policy wastes directly and indirectly between 7.2 and 2,750 trees by failing to implement an Email Complaints policy.
The Editor Respondents, Bar Association Respondents and Environmental Appeals Board’s Refusal of Access to the Environmental Information requested is Contrary to the Provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, Right to Environmental Information Act, and the Aarhus Convention. [Appeal to Parl Ombudsman]
The Environmental Appeals Board’s ruling that Editor Respondents decision-making to censor information about the Media’s Population-Environment-Terrorism Connection during Breivik’s Highly Public Terrorism trial, alleging that it was not ‘Environmental Information’ is beyond absurd, and totally lacking in factual and legal justifications.
Corporate decision-making (§ 2(1)(b)) to censor factual information (§2 (1)(a)) information about the media’s Population-Environment-Terrorism connection directly affects not only the environment (§2 (1)(b)), but the health, safety and living conditions of all beings who live in that particular environment (§ 2(1)(c)).
The Environmental Appeals Board’s failed to factually or legally justify that there is no appreciable difference between a Printed and an Electronic Complaints policy. To the contrary the Bar Association’s current Anti-Environmental Disciplinary Complaints Policy wastes directly and indirectly between 7.2 and 2,750 trees by failing to implement an Email Complaints policy.
The Editor Respondents, Bar Association Respondents and Environmental Appeals Board’s Refusal of Access to the Environmental Information requested is Contrary to the Provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, Right to Environmental Information Act, and the Aarhus Convention. [Appeal to Parl Ombudsman]
27 Nov: Decision from Parliamentary Ombudsman:
Correspondence from Parliamentary Ombudsman: Complaint Regarding the Appeals Board for Environmental Information (PDF).
Reference is made to your letter 11 November 2012 and complaints form 12 November 2012 where your complaint about a decision made 10 September 2012 by the Norwegian Appeals Board for Environmental Information. In the decision the Appeals Board find that your "appeals are denied as not justified."
According to the Civil Ombudsman Act section 6 paragraph 4 the Ombudsman "shall decide whether there are sufficient grounds for dealing with a complaint". The Ombudsman has reviewed your complaint and the enclosed documents, and your complaint does not give reasons to initiate further investigations regarding the Appeals Board case processing or decision.
Your case at the Ombudsman's office against the Appeals Board for Environmental Information is hereby concluded.
Reference is made to your letter 11 November 2012 and complaints form 12 November 2012 where your complaint about a decision made 10 September 2012 by the Norwegian Appeals Board for Environmental Information. In the decision the Appeals Board find that your "appeals are denied as not justified."
According to the Civil Ombudsman Act section 6 paragraph 4 the Ombudsman "shall decide whether there are sufficient grounds for dealing with a complaint". The Ombudsman has reviewed your complaint and the enclosed documents, and your complaint does not give reasons to initiate further investigations regarding the Appeals Board case processing or decision.
Your case at the Ombudsman's office against the Appeals Board for Environmental Information is hereby concluded.
Parliamentary Ombudsman 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. ««