RH Complaints: Media: Press Complaints Commission (PFU):
Case 239/12
News & Views from Norway: News in English:
31 July 2012: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'
Complaint submitted to Press Complaints Commission and Norway News in English: PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago' (PDF)
Request for Consent submitted to Mr. Breivik: Request for Consent to file Complaint against Nina Berglund, Editor: News & Views from Norway: Violation of 3.1, 3.2, 4.5 of Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press in Article: Breivik Moved to New Prison (PDF)
Relief Requested: (A) Correct the error of her statement that “Breivik’s guilt has been established (long ago)”; and/or provide the source for her statement of alleged fact. (B) Confirm that Anders Breivik’s is entitled to due process, including the right to be considered ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in accordance to the rule of law; and that no court of law has yet found Anders Breivik Guilty of any crime, and; (C) Apologize to Mr. Anders Breivik for violating his right to the presumption of innocence, and; (D) Apologize to her readers, for encouraging them to participate in the process of trial by media to violate Mr. Breivik’s right to the presumption of innocence.
Request for Consent submitted to Mr. Breivik: Request for Consent to file Complaint against Nina Berglund, Editor: News & Views from Norway: Violation of 3.1, 3.2, 4.5 of Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press in Article: Breivik Moved to New Prison (PDF)
Relief Requested: (A) Correct the error of her statement that “Breivik’s guilt has been established (long ago)”; and/or provide the source for her statement of alleged fact. (B) Confirm that Anders Breivik’s is entitled to due process, including the right to be considered ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in accordance to the rule of law; and that no court of law has yet found Anders Breivik Guilty of any crime, and; (C) Apologize to Mr. Anders Breivik for violating his right to the presumption of innocence, and; (D) Apologize to her readers, for encouraging them to participate in the process of trial by media to violate Mr. Breivik’s right to the presumption of innocence.
10 Aug 2012: PFU: Status Update Request:
Request to: PFU: GenSec: Per Edgar Kokkvold:
Please could the PFU provide me with a status report regarding the processing of my aforementioned complaint.
I seriously doubt Mr. Breivik has any objections to the complaint; I imagine to the contrary.
On 02 August, Mr. Tord Jordet informed me that "I have printed your e-mail and the attached PDF documents, and will send this to Breivik today."
As of today, there has not yet been a response from Mr. Breivik; if the prison officials have provided him with the correspondence.
However even if Mr. Breivik does have objections to my complaint (if he would prefer the Norwegian Elite to continue responding in the fascist fashion which they have to the 22 July attacks, to thereby (a) unequivocally confirm Mr. Breivik's allegations about the corrupt fascist Norwegian state; and (b) help Mr. Breivik to increase his following by making him a martyr of the corrupt Norwegian State[1]), as an incorruptible Radical Honoursty Problem Solving EcoFeminist, uncorrupted by Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal Parasite Leeching; I still demand the complaint be processed.
Response from Kjell Nyhuus, Commission secretary:
Status of your complaint. As we as of now have not heard from mr. Breivik (or his legal team) the complaint not in process. I can assure you that this complaint cannot be handled by the commission without his approval. The editor of Views and News, Nina Berglund, is on holiday. We must also clarify with her if her website is within our area. She'll be back on august 18.th.
Please could the PFU provide me with a status report regarding the processing of my aforementioned complaint.
I seriously doubt Mr. Breivik has any objections to the complaint; I imagine to the contrary.
On 02 August, Mr. Tord Jordet informed me that "I have printed your e-mail and the attached PDF documents, and will send this to Breivik today."
As of today, there has not yet been a response from Mr. Breivik; if the prison officials have provided him with the correspondence.
However even if Mr. Breivik does have objections to my complaint (if he would prefer the Norwegian Elite to continue responding in the fascist fashion which they have to the 22 July attacks, to thereby (a) unequivocally confirm Mr. Breivik's allegations about the corrupt fascist Norwegian state; and (b) help Mr. Breivik to increase his following by making him a martyr of the corrupt Norwegian State[1]), as an incorruptible Radical Honoursty Problem Solving EcoFeminist, uncorrupted by Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal Parasite Leeching; I still demand the complaint be processed.
Response from Kjell Nyhuus, Commission secretary:
Status of your complaint. As we as of now have not heard from mr. Breivik (or his legal team) the complaint not in process. I can assure you that this complaint cannot be handled by the commission without his approval. The editor of Views and News, Nina Berglund, is on holiday. We must also clarify with her if her website is within our area. She'll be back on august 18.th.
10 Aug 2012: Lippestad Attorneys: Req. Breivik Consent:
Request to Lippestad Attorneys: Attorney Tord Jordet:
The PFU appear to be refusing to process my complaint without Mr. Breivik's consent. Unfuckingbelievable!!!
1. Has Mr. Breivik received the request for consent?
2. If so, when does he intend responding?
The PFU appear to be refusing to process my complaint without Mr. Breivik's consent. Unfuckingbelievable!!!
1. Has Mr. Breivik received the request for consent?
2. If so, when does he intend responding?
13 Aug: 2012: Lippestad Attorney: Breivik Consent & Breivik 'Guilt/Innocence & Necessity'
Request to Lippestad for Clarity re: Breivik 'Innocence/Guilt' Issues:
1. Why did Defence Counsel not demand Prosecutor Engh and Holden provide reasons for their refusal to address Breivik’s claim of necessity?
2. Is it common for Norwegian Prosecutors to refuse to provide the court with the Prosecutor’s Office assessment of an accused’s evidence for their claim of necessity?
3. In Norwegian Law upon which party does the Onus of Proof lie in a claim of necessity?
4. Is there some political correct conformity conspiracy between Defence Counsel and Prosecution to ignore Breivik’s claims of necessity?
5. Why did your Defence of Breivik state that the only issues before the court – as the media have been reporting and you said to the court – are the sane/safety issue?
6. How exactly can the only issue before the court be the ‘sane/safety’; since when is the ‘guilt/innocence’ issue irrelevant in a political criminal trial?
7. If Lippestad attorney’s are denying the court to be required to seriously examine the necessity evidence for Breivik’s guilt or innocence; upon what grounds and authority did Lippestad Attorney’s find Breivik to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
8. Or is it a matter of first ascertaining Breivik’s sanity; and then if, or when Breivik is finally deemed sane, does he then get a new trial with a focus on ‘guilty/innocence’ issue; to determine his innocence or guilt, based upon the evidence for and against his necessity defence?
9. If not, when exactly is Breivik entitled to an impartial trial where the issue before the court is Breivik’s ‘guilt/innocence’ and Prosecutors and Defence Counsel are required to seriously legally examine the evidence for and against his Necessity Defence?
Response from Attorney Tord Jordet:
"I have sent him your e-mail and document, and asked him to decide what to do with PFU. He receives many letters, and the prison have to read trough every letter before he receives it, so there is a delay before they give the letters to him. Therefore I would not expect an answer before next week at first."
Response to Attorney Tord Jordet:
I was under the impression that Ms. Baera visited Breivik once a week; read it in somewhere in a newspaper last week. So I thought it would be easy for her to ask him if he consents or not. Probably an erroneous google translation! ;-)
However my amazement is about the PFU’s policy of approving deception and lies, if the target of such lies consents to the deception of the public. They don’t even pretend to have a commitment to truth and factual reporting, irrespective of whether the target of such lies consents or not. That is the source of my ‘un****ingbelievable’ comment.
Even if Mr. Breivik is batshit delusional and intended to plead guilty, until a Judge had ruled that he actually is guilty (that there were no circumstances of necessity or self defence in his act, whether he pleads to necessity or self defence is irrelevant; it’s a requirement for a judge to make sure that someone who pleads guilty had no such circumstances); it is a LIE to publish that such a person has been found ‘GUILTY’. It is irrelevant if it is Breivik or Tom Thumb; for a newspaper to publish that someone has been found GUILTY of a crime, in the absence of a impartial court making such a ruling; SHOULD BE A CRIME IN ITSELF.
Its massive public deception. So that is the source of my disgust… not sure what I am gonna do about it yet; I am still in shock, they can be so blaze about their endorsement of deception! I cannot fucking stand liars… I have more respect for people who tell the truth, even if I vehemently disagree with their truth, even if I find their truth despicable.. than I have for two faced hypocrites who practice public relations bullshit deception!
Sorry for the misunderstanding, if so.
Response from Attorney Tord Jordet:
"Yes you are right, he receives visits weekly, and he can call us as often as he wants. I have informed him by phone that you have written a formal complaint to the PFU, and I told him that I would send the letter to him. Therefore I will have to wait for him to read your letter before I can give you a reply.
In general I don`t believe he would engage himself in a case against the press at this time. He was prepared for character assassination, and have been aware that the press will be out to get him. His views of most journalists indicates that he does not expect them to write truthfully and unbiased. Therefore I do not believe him to be affected by this article, and I don`t expect that he wants to spend time and energy fighting this journalist in PFU. He is most likely to approve certain cases against the press, but I don't think he will want to intervene in any.
As you probably know he is planning to write several books, and I believe that it is more likely that he will share his views on the media in a book."
Response to Attorney Tord Jordet:
The complaint is not about Breivik engaging himself against the press at this time. This is about the PUBLIC BEING LIED TO about a matter of an accused being accused of being guilty, without having had a trial to determine such guilt.
I don’t discriminate against any accused; I don’t give a fuck who the person is.. whether they are accused of mass murder or peadophilia or whatever the fuck; NOBODY SHOULD BE ACCUSED OF BEING GUILTY IN A PUBLIC NEWSPAPER, IN THE ABSENCE OF A FREE AND FAIR TRIAL AND JUDICIAL FINDING OF GUILT.
If Norway and Norwegian cultural press give a fuck about the truth…then it should be totally and utterly irrelevant whether an accused consents or not, to whether a newspaper can accuse someone of being ‘guilty’ of any particular crime, without such defendant having been found guilty in a court of law, and without such defendant having pled guilty.
I have no clue where you got the impression that Breivik is being asked to intervene in the case. I did not ask for his intervention; the PFU demanded his consent.
Copy of Correspondence to Breivik, sent to Lippestad Attorneys:
Please take notice of correspondence sent to Mr. Breivik, honourable transparency, copied to your offices, in reference to:
------------
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.
Request Clarification: What were your instructions to your attorney’s regarding ‘Guilt/Innocence: Necessity’
Mr. Lippestad stated in court proceedings that your claim of innocence and necessity was purely a formality: i.e. my interpretation: you did not subjectively believe your claims of necessity; its all just propaganda bullshit.
Your testimony, on the other hand, repeatedly focussed on your claim of necessity as the source for your innocence.
So, I am confused: If you sincerely believe your claims of innocence and necessity:
* At the very least: Why have you not instructed Mr. Lippestad to retract his statements that contradict yours?
* If he refuses: Why have you not publicly stated your lawyers refusal to follow your instructions and placed the dispute transparently before the court, as a matter of court record?
* Or, is Lippestad telling the truth; and you really don’t subjectively believe in your necessity claim towards innocence, you are simply engaging in a bullshit the public relations propaganda?
See Annex F: Letter to Mr. Lippestad: Request for Clarification regarding Defence Counsel’s focus on ‘sane/safety’ issue, while seemingly ignoring the ‘innocence/guilt’ issue, thereby denying Breivik’s right to Impartial trial to enquire into the evidence for and against his Necessity Defence.
----------------
All correspondence to, and from, Mr. Breivik is publicly available for reading, and download, at:
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/breivik-letters.html
1. Why did Defence Counsel not demand Prosecutor Engh and Holden provide reasons for their refusal to address Breivik’s claim of necessity?
2. Is it common for Norwegian Prosecutors to refuse to provide the court with the Prosecutor’s Office assessment of an accused’s evidence for their claim of necessity?
3. In Norwegian Law upon which party does the Onus of Proof lie in a claim of necessity?
4. Is there some political correct conformity conspiracy between Defence Counsel and Prosecution to ignore Breivik’s claims of necessity?
5. Why did your Defence of Breivik state that the only issues before the court – as the media have been reporting and you said to the court – are the sane/safety issue?
6. How exactly can the only issue before the court be the ‘sane/safety’; since when is the ‘guilt/innocence’ issue irrelevant in a political criminal trial?
7. If Lippestad attorney’s are denying the court to be required to seriously examine the necessity evidence for Breivik’s guilt or innocence; upon what grounds and authority did Lippestad Attorney’s find Breivik to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
8. Or is it a matter of first ascertaining Breivik’s sanity; and then if, or when Breivik is finally deemed sane, does he then get a new trial with a focus on ‘guilty/innocence’ issue; to determine his innocence or guilt, based upon the evidence for and against his necessity defence?
9. If not, when exactly is Breivik entitled to an impartial trial where the issue before the court is Breivik’s ‘guilt/innocence’ and Prosecutors and Defence Counsel are required to seriously legally examine the evidence for and against his Necessity Defence?
Response from Attorney Tord Jordet:
"I have sent him your e-mail and document, and asked him to decide what to do with PFU. He receives many letters, and the prison have to read trough every letter before he receives it, so there is a delay before they give the letters to him. Therefore I would not expect an answer before next week at first."
Response to Attorney Tord Jordet:
I was under the impression that Ms. Baera visited Breivik once a week; read it in somewhere in a newspaper last week. So I thought it would be easy for her to ask him if he consents or not. Probably an erroneous google translation! ;-)
However my amazement is about the PFU’s policy of approving deception and lies, if the target of such lies consents to the deception of the public. They don’t even pretend to have a commitment to truth and factual reporting, irrespective of whether the target of such lies consents or not. That is the source of my ‘un****ingbelievable’ comment.
Even if Mr. Breivik is batshit delusional and intended to plead guilty, until a Judge had ruled that he actually is guilty (that there were no circumstances of necessity or self defence in his act, whether he pleads to necessity or self defence is irrelevant; it’s a requirement for a judge to make sure that someone who pleads guilty had no such circumstances); it is a LIE to publish that such a person has been found ‘GUILTY’. It is irrelevant if it is Breivik or Tom Thumb; for a newspaper to publish that someone has been found GUILTY of a crime, in the absence of a impartial court making such a ruling; SHOULD BE A CRIME IN ITSELF.
Its massive public deception. So that is the source of my disgust… not sure what I am gonna do about it yet; I am still in shock, they can be so blaze about their endorsement of deception! I cannot fucking stand liars… I have more respect for people who tell the truth, even if I vehemently disagree with their truth, even if I find their truth despicable.. than I have for two faced hypocrites who practice public relations bullshit deception!
Sorry for the misunderstanding, if so.
Response from Attorney Tord Jordet:
"Yes you are right, he receives visits weekly, and he can call us as often as he wants. I have informed him by phone that you have written a formal complaint to the PFU, and I told him that I would send the letter to him. Therefore I will have to wait for him to read your letter before I can give you a reply.
In general I don`t believe he would engage himself in a case against the press at this time. He was prepared for character assassination, and have been aware that the press will be out to get him. His views of most journalists indicates that he does not expect them to write truthfully and unbiased. Therefore I do not believe him to be affected by this article, and I don`t expect that he wants to spend time and energy fighting this journalist in PFU. He is most likely to approve certain cases against the press, but I don't think he will want to intervene in any.
As you probably know he is planning to write several books, and I believe that it is more likely that he will share his views on the media in a book."
Response to Attorney Tord Jordet:
The complaint is not about Breivik engaging himself against the press at this time. This is about the PUBLIC BEING LIED TO about a matter of an accused being accused of being guilty, without having had a trial to determine such guilt.
I don’t discriminate against any accused; I don’t give a fuck who the person is.. whether they are accused of mass murder or peadophilia or whatever the fuck; NOBODY SHOULD BE ACCUSED OF BEING GUILTY IN A PUBLIC NEWSPAPER, IN THE ABSENCE OF A FREE AND FAIR TRIAL AND JUDICIAL FINDING OF GUILT.
If Norway and Norwegian cultural press give a fuck about the truth…then it should be totally and utterly irrelevant whether an accused consents or not, to whether a newspaper can accuse someone of being ‘guilty’ of any particular crime, without such defendant having been found guilty in a court of law, and without such defendant having pled guilty.
I have no clue where you got the impression that Breivik is being asked to intervene in the case. I did not ask for his intervention; the PFU demanded his consent.
Copy of Correspondence to Breivik, sent to Lippestad Attorneys:
Please take notice of correspondence sent to Mr. Breivik, honourable transparency, copied to your offices, in reference to:
------------
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.
Request Clarification: What were your instructions to your attorney’s regarding ‘Guilt/Innocence: Necessity’
Mr. Lippestad stated in court proceedings that your claim of innocence and necessity was purely a formality: i.e. my interpretation: you did not subjectively believe your claims of necessity; its all just propaganda bullshit.
Your testimony, on the other hand, repeatedly focussed on your claim of necessity as the source for your innocence.
So, I am confused: If you sincerely believe your claims of innocence and necessity:
* At the very least: Why have you not instructed Mr. Lippestad to retract his statements that contradict yours?
* If he refuses: Why have you not publicly stated your lawyers refusal to follow your instructions and placed the dispute transparently before the court, as a matter of court record?
* Or, is Lippestad telling the truth; and you really don’t subjectively believe in your necessity claim towards innocence, you are simply engaging in a bullshit the public relations propaganda?
See Annex F: Letter to Mr. Lippestad: Request for Clarification regarding Defence Counsel’s focus on ‘sane/safety’ issue, while seemingly ignoring the ‘innocence/guilt’ issue, thereby denying Breivik’s right to Impartial trial to enquire into the evidence for and against his Necessity Defence.
----------------
All correspondence to, and from, Mr. Breivik is publicly available for reading, and download, at:
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/breivik-letters.html
15 Aug 2012: PFU: Process News w. Views Complaint as Public Interest Judicial Reporting Important matter
Request to PFU The Norwegian Press Complaints Commission: Kjell Nyhuus, Commission secretary:
I am unable - so far - to get a clear answer from Lippestad Attorneys. My current working hypothesis conclusion (until provided with additional information) is as follows:
1. Mr. Lippestad stated in court proceedings that Breivik's claim of innocence and necessity was purely a formality: i.e. my interpretation: Breivik does not subjectively believe his claims of (Anti-Islamicization) necessity; 22/07 Attacks and the trial were all just propaganda bullshit campaign.
2. Mr. Breivik has never contradicted Mr. Lippestad's statements that Breivik's 'Necessity' claim is simply a formality; or instructed Mr. Lippestad to withdraw his statements to the court; however Mr. Breivik's testimony, repeatedly focussed on his claim of necessity as the source for his innocence.
3. So, it is unclear: If Mr. Breivik sincerely believes his claims of innocence and necessity: (a) Why has he not instructed Lippestad to retract his statement; (b) If Lippestad refuses: placed the dispute with his attorney before the court and ask for new counsel; or (c) Lippestad is telling the truth; and Breivik really doesn’t subjectively believe in his necessity claim towards innocence, he is simply engaging in a bullshit the public relations propaganda campaign
HOWEVER: Irrespective of whether Mr. Breivik himself believes in his guilt, and is involved in a massive Bullshit the Public Relations Image Management Campaign; EVERY ACCUSED -- EVEN THOSE WHO PLEAD GUILTY, OR CONSIDER THEMSELVES GUILTY -- SHOULD ONLY BE REPORTED ON, AS 'GUILTY'; ONCE A COURT OF LAW HAS MADE A 'FINDING OF GUILT'.
So, whether Mr. Breivik consents to my complaint, or not; I request information as to the procedure to process this complaint, in the absence of Mr. Brievik's consent; either by
(A) presentation to the committee, that special circumstances of judicial ethics (factual legal findings of guilt, cannot be made by an accused, their lawyer, or any journalist, or editor; only an impartial court of law; and any reporter/editor who reports an accused to have been found guilty (irrespective if they pled guilty or not) is MISSTATING LEGAL FACTS) warrant that the complaint be treated without Breivik's consent; Or
(B) An appeal to the Press Association's Secretary General, on his own initiative to request the matter be processed, as it is -- I imagine -- a matter of great fundamental public interest, that journalists not go around accusing people of 'findings of guilt' without a proper court of law having made such a legal finding of guilt.
I am unable - so far - to get a clear answer from Lippestad Attorneys. My current working hypothesis conclusion (until provided with additional information) is as follows:
1. Mr. Lippestad stated in court proceedings that Breivik's claim of innocence and necessity was purely a formality: i.e. my interpretation: Breivik does not subjectively believe his claims of (Anti-Islamicization) necessity; 22/07 Attacks and the trial were all just propaganda bullshit campaign.
2. Mr. Breivik has never contradicted Mr. Lippestad's statements that Breivik's 'Necessity' claim is simply a formality; or instructed Mr. Lippestad to withdraw his statements to the court; however Mr. Breivik's testimony, repeatedly focussed on his claim of necessity as the source for his innocence.
3. So, it is unclear: If Mr. Breivik sincerely believes his claims of innocence and necessity: (a) Why has he not instructed Lippestad to retract his statement; (b) If Lippestad refuses: placed the dispute with his attorney before the court and ask for new counsel; or (c) Lippestad is telling the truth; and Breivik really doesn’t subjectively believe in his necessity claim towards innocence, he is simply engaging in a bullshit the public relations propaganda campaign
HOWEVER: Irrespective of whether Mr. Breivik himself believes in his guilt, and is involved in a massive Bullshit the Public Relations Image Management Campaign; EVERY ACCUSED -- EVEN THOSE WHO PLEAD GUILTY, OR CONSIDER THEMSELVES GUILTY -- SHOULD ONLY BE REPORTED ON, AS 'GUILTY'; ONCE A COURT OF LAW HAS MADE A 'FINDING OF GUILT'.
So, whether Mr. Breivik consents to my complaint, or not; I request information as to the procedure to process this complaint, in the absence of Mr. Brievik's consent; either by
(A) presentation to the committee, that special circumstances of judicial ethics (factual legal findings of guilt, cannot be made by an accused, their lawyer, or any journalist, or editor; only an impartial court of law; and any reporter/editor who reports an accused to have been found guilty (irrespective if they pled guilty or not) is MISSTATING LEGAL FACTS) warrant that the complaint be treated without Breivik's consent; Or
(B) An appeal to the Press Association's Secretary General, on his own initiative to request the matter be processed, as it is -- I imagine -- a matter of great fundamental public interest, that journalists not go around accusing people of 'findings of guilt' without a proper court of law having made such a legal finding of guilt.
17 Aug 2012: Request for Response from PFU to Processing of Complaint in absence of Breivik consent:
Request for Response to PFU: Kjell Nyhuus, Commission secretary:
I am still awaiting a response from the PFU to my request for information as to the procedure to process this complaint, in the absence of Mr. Brievik's consent; either by:
(A) presentation to the committee, that special circumstances of journalistic/editorial ethics (factual legal findings of guilt, cannot be made by an accused, their lawyer, or any journalist, or editor; only an impartial court of law; and any reporter/editor who reports an accused to have been found guilty (irrespective if they pled guilty or not) is MISSTATING LEGAL FACTS) warrant that the complaint be treated without Breivik's consent.
Or
(B) An appeal to the Press Association's Secretary General, on his own initiative to request the matter be processed, as it is -- I imagine -- a matter of great fundamental public interest, that journalists not go around accusing people of 'findings of guilt' without a proper court of law having made such a legal finding of guilt.
I am still awaiting a response from the PFU to my request for information as to the procedure to process this complaint, in the absence of Mr. Brievik's consent; either by:
(A) presentation to the committee, that special circumstances of journalistic/editorial ethics (factual legal findings of guilt, cannot be made by an accused, their lawyer, or any journalist, or editor; only an impartial court of law; and any reporter/editor who reports an accused to have been found guilty (irrespective if they pled guilty or not) is MISSTATING LEGAL FACTS) warrant that the complaint be treated without Breivik's consent.
Or
(B) An appeal to the Press Association's Secretary General, on his own initiative to request the matter be processed, as it is -- I imagine -- a matter of great fundamental public interest, that journalists not go around accusing people of 'findings of guilt' without a proper court of law having made such a legal finding of guilt.
17 Aug 2012: PFU Response: Commission to consider 'Non-Consent' Complaint issue on 28 Aug:
Response from PFU: Kjell Nyhuus:
The Norwegian Press Complaints Commission will on august 28th decide if your complaint can be handled by the commission without consent from mr. Beivik. We will also discuss with the ms. Berglund of Views and News if her website is within our competence (our area).
The Norwegian Press Complaints Commission will on august 28th decide if your complaint can be handled by the commission without consent from mr. Beivik. We will also discuss with the ms. Berglund of Views and News if her website is within our competence (our area).
29 Aug: From PFU: Refuse to handle complaint
From: Mr. Kyell Nyhuus: Subject: SV: PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'
The Press Complaints Commission in it's meeting on august 28th 2012 decided that your complaint against Views and News from Norway cannot be handled without written consent from mr. Breivik.
The website Views and News from Norway is within the commissions competence.
The Press Complaints Commission in it's meeting on august 28th 2012 decided that your complaint against Views and News from Norway cannot be handled without written consent from mr. Breivik.
The website Views and News from Norway is within the commissions competence.
29 Aug: To PFU: Request for Information:
To: Mr. Kyell Nyhuus :Request Written Reasons for the Press Complaints Decision:
Could you kindly ask the Press Complaints Commission to provide me with their written reasons and the arguments their decision is based upon, that my News and Views from Norway complaint cannot be handled without written consent from Mr. Breivik.
Are the commission stating that as long as any accused consent to the deception of the public, editors and journalists are allowed to deceive the public in their newspapers; that findings of guilt are not made in courts of law, but by newspapers editors and journalists?
If not, could they please clearly and specifically clarify what their decision concludes, based upon what arguments and evidence.
Could you kindly ask the Press Complaints Commission to provide me with their written reasons and the arguments their decision is based upon, that my News and Views from Norway complaint cannot be handled without written consent from Mr. Breivik.
Are the commission stating that as long as any accused consent to the deception of the public, editors and journalists are allowed to deceive the public in their newspapers; that findings of guilt are not made in courts of law, but by newspapers editors and journalists?
If not, could they please clearly and specifically clarify what their decision concludes, based upon what arguments and evidence.
From: Mr. Kyell Nyhuus: Subject: SV: PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'
Enclosed you'll find the statutes for the commission. I have marked the relevant sentence in yellow.
Enclosed you'll find the statutes for the commission. I have marked the relevant sentence in yellow.
29 Aug: Request for written reasons for PFU's Refusal to process complaint without Breivik consent:
Correspondence to Press Complaints Commission Secretary: Mr. Kjell Nyhuus: Request for Decision of 28 Aug meeting: PFU decision is to refuse to process complaint in absence of written consent from Breivik. A request for written reasons for the decision was refused. Instead of written reasons, Mr. Nyhuus just provided the Commission Statutes, ignoring the request for written reasons.
"I did not ask for the Statutes of the Commission.
I asked for the written reasons in terms of the Comissions ruling/judgement response to my presentation to the Committee that:
>>Special circumstances of journalistic/editorial ethics warrant that the complaint be treated without Breivik's consent.
Factual legal findings of guilt, cannot be made by an accused, their lawyer, or any journalist, or editor; only an impartial court of law; and any reporter/editor who reports an accused to have been found guilty -irrespective if the accused pled guilty or not - is MISSTATING LEGAL FACTS.<<
Could you kindly ask the Committee to provide WRITTEN REASONS -- namely how and why they argue that an editor or a journalist can publish LIES -- make findings of guilt about an accused who has not been found guilty by a court of law; as long as the accused consents to such deception of the public? "
"I did not ask for the Statutes of the Commission.
I asked for the written reasons in terms of the Comissions ruling/judgement response to my presentation to the Committee that:
>>Special circumstances of journalistic/editorial ethics warrant that the complaint be treated without Breivik's consent.
Factual legal findings of guilt, cannot be made by an accused, their lawyer, or any journalist, or editor; only an impartial court of law; and any reporter/editor who reports an accused to have been found guilty -irrespective if the accused pled guilty or not - is MISSTATING LEGAL FACTS.<<
Could you kindly ask the Committee to provide WRITTEN REASONS -- namely how and why they argue that an editor or a journalist can publish LIES -- make findings of guilt about an accused who has not been found guilty by a court of law; as long as the accused consents to such deception of the public? "
03 Sept: PFU: Sec. Gen: Req. Written Reasons for 28 Aug NwV Decision:
Request for Written Reasons (PDF) submitted to PFU: General Secretary: Per Edgar Kokkvold: Request for Written Reasons for PFU 28 August 2012 decision refusing to process Complaint against Nina Berglund, Editor: News & Views from Norway: Violation of 3.1, 3.2, 4.5 of Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press in Article: Breivik Moved to New Prison ; in the absence of Mr. Breivik’s consent.
The written reasons for the decision which is to include the committee’s evaluation of the facts and the relevant Principles in Conflict: Editorial Ethics | Public Interest in Accurate Information | Mr. Breivik’s Representation (Verbal, written and conduct); such as: (A) The Findings of Fact; (B) The Relevant Principles in Conflict; (C) Application of Facts to the Relevant Principles in Conflict
Alternatively, I would imagine if the Committee is seriously concerned about the issue of Mr. Breivik’s lack of consent, then the Committee could ask Mr. Breivik to provide the Committee with an argument upon which he justifies his lack of consent; which would provide the Committee with a better understanding and whether Mr. Breivik’s reasons and evidence for his lack of consent are justified with regard to the relevant principles involved.
The written reasons for the decision which is to include the committee’s evaluation of the facts and the relevant Principles in Conflict: Editorial Ethics | Public Interest in Accurate Information | Mr. Breivik’s Representation (Verbal, written and conduct); such as: (A) The Findings of Fact; (B) The Relevant Principles in Conflict; (C) Application of Facts to the Relevant Principles in Conflict
Alternatively, I would imagine if the Committee is seriously concerned about the issue of Mr. Breivik’s lack of consent, then the Committee could ask Mr. Breivik to provide the Committee with an argument upon which he justifies his lack of consent; which would provide the Committee with a better understanding and whether Mr. Breivik’s reasons and evidence for his lack of consent are justified with regard to the relevant principles involved.
04 Sept: PFU: Kjell Nyhuus: Case 239/12: Refuse Written Reasons for 28.08 Decision:
Response from PFU: Commission Secretary: Kjell Nyhuus: RE: Request for Written Reasons for PFU 28.08.12 decision in Lara Johnstone v. News & Views from Norway
"Case 239/12 - Lara Johnstone vs. Views and News from Norway. The commission cannot and will not handle the complaint without a written consent from mr. Breivik. This is according to § 5 in the commissions statutes. Case closed."
"Case 239/12 - Lara Johnstone vs. Views and News from Norway. The commission cannot and will not handle the complaint without a written consent from mr. Breivik. This is according to § 5 in the commissions statutes. Case closed."
04 Sept: PFU: Sec. Gen. Kokkvold: 239/12 Appeal ITO Public Admin Act & FOIA:
Appeal (PDF) submitted to PFU: Sec Gen. Per Edgar Kokkvold: RE: Appeal to PFU Sec.Gen. ITO Public Admin Act (S.23,24,25) & Freedom of Info Act (S.2): Case 239/12
Appeal to Secretary General for Access to Information; in terms of (i) Statutes of the Press Complaints Commission, Section 4; (ii) Public Administration Act (PAA), section 23, 24, 25, and (iii) Freedom of Information Act: Section 2.
Relief Requested: Order the: (A) Secretariat of the Norwegian Press Association to provide complainant with their Written Reasons for their 28 August 2012 decision to refuse my representation that special circumstances of journalistic/editorial ethics warrant that my complaint (Case 239/12 - Lara Johnstone vs. Views and News from Norway) be processed in the absence of Mr. Breivik’s consent.
Alternatively, (B) If the Secretariat of the Norwegian Press Association are sincerely concerned about the reasons for Mr. Breivik’s lack of consent; that the Committee ask Mr. Breivik to provide the Committee with an argument upon which he justifies his lack of consent; which would provide the Committee with a better understanding and an opportunity to reassess their 28 August decision whether Mr. Breivik’s reasons and evidence for his lack of consent are justified with regard to the relevant principles involved.
Appeal to Secretary General for Access to Information; in terms of (i) Statutes of the Press Complaints Commission, Section 4; (ii) Public Administration Act (PAA), section 23, 24, 25, and (iii) Freedom of Information Act: Section 2.
Relief Requested: Order the: (A) Secretariat of the Norwegian Press Association to provide complainant with their Written Reasons for their 28 August 2012 decision to refuse my representation that special circumstances of journalistic/editorial ethics warrant that my complaint (Case 239/12 - Lara Johnstone vs. Views and News from Norway) be processed in the absence of Mr. Breivik’s consent.
Alternatively, (B) If the Secretariat of the Norwegian Press Association are sincerely concerned about the reasons for Mr. Breivik’s lack of consent; that the Committee ask Mr. Breivik to provide the Committee with an argument upon which he justifies his lack of consent; which would provide the Committee with a better understanding and an opportunity to reassess their 28 August decision whether Mr. Breivik’s reasons and evidence for his lack of consent are justified with regard to the relevant principles involved.
07 Sept: Reminder Request to PFU Sec. Gen: for Written Reasons:
Reminder Request submitted to PFU General Secretary: Per Edgar Kokkvold: General Secretary: Still waiting for (Case 239/12 - Lara Johnstone vs. Views and News from Norway) Written Reasons: Appeal to Secretary General for Access to Information; in terms of (i) Statutes of the Press Complaints Commission, Section 4; (ii) Public Administration Act (PAA), section 23, 24, 25, and (iii) Freedom of Information Act: Section 2. (PDF): "I am still awaiting a response upon my Appeal submitted to the Secretary General on 04 September 2012."
08 Oct: Remind Request to PFU Sec. Gen: Req for Written Reasons:
Correspondence to Per Edgar Kokkvold: General Secretary and Kjell Nyhuus: Commission Secretary of Press Complaints Commission (PFU): Subject: RE: Appeal to PFU Sec.Gen. ITO Public Admin Act (S.23,24,25) & Freedom of Info Act (S.2): Case 239/12
Appeal to Secretary General for Access to Information; in terms of (i) Statutes of the Press Complaints Commission, Section 4; (ii) Public Administration Act (PAA), section 23, 24, 25, and (iii) Freedom of Information Act: Section 2.
I am still awaiting a response upon my Appeal submitted to the Secretary General on 04 September 2012.
In the absence of a response, by 10 October, the matter shall be referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Relief Requested:
Order the: (A) Secretariat of the Norwegian Press Association to provide complainant with their Written Reasons for their 28 August 2012 decision to refuse my representation that special circumstances of journalistic/editorial ethics warrant that my complaint (Case 239/12 - Lara Johnstone vs. Views and News from Norway) be processed in the absence of Mr. Breivik’s consent.
Alternatively, (B) If the Secretariat of the Norwegian Press Association are sincerely concerned about the reasons for Mr. Breivik’s lack of consent; that the Committee ask Mr. Breivik to provide the Committee with an argument upon which he justifies his lack of consent; which would provide the Committee with a better understanding and an opportunity to reassess their 28 August decision whether Mr. Breivik’s reasons and evidence for his lack of consent are justified with regard to the relevant principles involved.
Appeal to Secretary General for Access to Information; in terms of (i) Statutes of the Press Complaints Commission, Section 4; (ii) Public Administration Act (PAA), section 23, 24, 25, and (iii) Freedom of Information Act: Section 2.
I am still awaiting a response upon my Appeal submitted to the Secretary General on 04 September 2012.
In the absence of a response, by 10 October, the matter shall be referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Relief Requested:
Order the: (A) Secretariat of the Norwegian Press Association to provide complainant with their Written Reasons for their 28 August 2012 decision to refuse my representation that special circumstances of journalistic/editorial ethics warrant that my complaint (Case 239/12 - Lara Johnstone vs. Views and News from Norway) be processed in the absence of Mr. Breivik’s consent.
Alternatively, (B) If the Secretariat of the Norwegian Press Association are sincerely concerned about the reasons for Mr. Breivik’s lack of consent; that the Committee ask Mr. Breivik to provide the Committee with an argument upon which he justifies his lack of consent; which would provide the Committee with a better understanding and an opportunity to reassess their 28 August decision whether Mr. Breivik’s reasons and evidence for his lack of consent are justified with regard to the relevant principles involved.
03 Nov: Complaint to Parl. Ombud: Slow Appeal Processing by PFU:
Complaint (PDF) submitted to Ombudsman of Slow Case Processing by PFU: Press Complaints Commission: RE: Appeal to PFU Sec.Gen. ITO Public Admin Act (S.23,24,25) & Freedom of Info Act (S.2): Case 239/12; Re: Complaint: News & Views from Norway: News in English Article.
Appeal to Secretary General for Access to Information; in terms of (i) Statutes of the Press Complaints Commission, Section 4; (ii) Public Administration Act (PAA), section 23, 24, 25, and (iii) Freedom of Information Act: Section 2.
Relief Requested: Order the: (A) Secretariat of the Norwegian Press Association to provide complainant with their Written Reasons for their 28 August 2012 decision to refuse my representation that special circumstances of journalistic/editorial ethics warrant that my complaint (Case 239/12 - Lara Johnstone vs. Views and News from Norway) be processed in the absence of Mr. Breivik’s consent.
Alternatively, (B) If the Secretariat of the Norwegian Press Association are sincerely concerned about the reasons for Mr. Breivik’s lack of consent; that the Committee ask Mr. Breivik to provide the Committee with an argument upon which he justifies his lack of consent; which would provide the Committee with a better understanding and an opportunity to reassess their 28 August decision whether Mr. Breivik’s reasons and evidence for his lack of consent are justified with regard to the relevant principles involved.
Appeal to Secretary General for Access to Information; in terms of (i) Statutes of the Press Complaints Commission, Section 4; (ii) Public Administration Act (PAA), section 23, 24, 25, and (iii) Freedom of Information Act: Section 2.
Relief Requested: Order the: (A) Secretariat of the Norwegian Press Association to provide complainant with their Written Reasons for their 28 August 2012 decision to refuse my representation that special circumstances of journalistic/editorial ethics warrant that my complaint (Case 239/12 - Lara Johnstone vs. Views and News from Norway) be processed in the absence of Mr. Breivik’s consent.
Alternatively, (B) If the Secretariat of the Norwegian Press Association are sincerely concerned about the reasons for Mr. Breivik’s lack of consent; that the Committee ask Mr. Breivik to provide the Committee with an argument upon which he justifies his lack of consent; which would provide the Committee with a better understanding and an opportunity to reassess their 28 August decision whether Mr. Breivik’s reasons and evidence for his lack of consent are justified with regard to the relevant principles involved.