RH Court Records: Norway Supreme Court:
27 August 2012: Review of 24.08.2012 'Breivik Judgement'
27 Aug 2012: Application for Review and Declaratory Order:
Filing Sheet: Applic. for Review of Breivik Judgement
Application (PDF) submitted to Norway Supreme Court for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement Ruling; 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. [Notice to Respondents]
Respondents:
First: OSLO DISTRICT COURT
Second: KINGDOM OF NORWAY (Prosecution)
Third: ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK
Fourth: VICTIMS FAMILIES
Excerpts from Notice of Motion.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the applicant intends to apply for leave to review against parts of the judgement by Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Fagdommer: Arne Lyng; Meddommere: Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff, delivered on 24 August 2012 (herein after referred to as the “Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement”).
{I} REVIEW ORDERS REQUESTED:
The following ‘Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement’ decisions are reviewed:
[A.1] Set Aside the Judgements ‘Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling’ (pg.67):
[A.2] Set Aside 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.3] If Defendant refuses to cooperate with Further Evidence proceedings; an order to change his plea to ‘guilty’; and/or ‘Non-Precedent’ Setting Declaratory Order
[A.4] If Failure of Justice Irregularity Does not Influence Conviction and/or Sentence Verdict; a ‘Non-Precedent Setting’ Declaratory Order
[B] Set Aside the Judgements Failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges, as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5) principles, and general ECHR public accountability Transparency (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom) principles.
[C] The respondents who oppose this application are ordered jointly and severally to pay their own costs in terms of this application.
{II} GROUNDS FOR REVIEW:
The application for review is based on the grounds of (A) Irregularities & Illegalities in the Proceedings before the Oslo District Court: in terms of (1) A Failure of Justice and Failure of a True and Correct Interpretation of the Facts; (2) Judicially Un-Investigated Facts; (3) Failure of Application of Mind and (4) Rejection of Admissible or Competent Evidence: (i) Prosecutor & Judges failure to examine objective and subjective necessity test; and (ii) Courts denial of due process to applicants Habeus Mentem and Amicus Curiae applications.
[A.1.a] Necessity Judgement fails to provide any necessity criminal provisions that prohibit killing of Government Officials in case of Necessity.
[A.1.b] Necessity Judgement Ignores that Criminal Necessity provisions do not prohibit the killing of Government Officials in case of objective and subjective Necessity.
[A.1.c] Necessity Judgement’s Erroneous interpretation of Necessity related criminal law provisions and international necessity related human rights law.
[A.1.d] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Failure to conduct required Objective and Subjective Tests for Defendant’s Necessity Defence:
[A.1.e] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Inadequate
[A.1.f] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Clarification Upon which party the Onus of Proof lies in a Case of Necessity; and how or why their evidence was insufficient renders the Judgements Conclusions inadequate.
[A.1.g] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Discriminatory Precedent
[A.1.h] Necessity Judgements ‘Extreme Political Objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test
[A.1.i] Necessity Judgements ‘Extreme Political Objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test; and is a Patriarchal Left vs. Right Wing Blame Game Parasite Leeching Polarization – not a Matriarchal Ecological and Psychological Integrity Root Cause Problem Solving – conclusion.
[B] Judgement’s Transparency Failure violates Aarhus Convention principles and public accountability impartiality principles.
-----------------
Table of Contents of Founding Affidavit:
* Review: “Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement”
* Legal Interest: Judicially Un-Investigated Facts
* Legal Questions: Matriarchal Ecological Wild Law Legal Principles Worldview
* The Parties:
* Failure of Justice: Judicially UnInvestigated Facts: Necessity and Guilt:
* Oslo Court: Breivik Defence of Necessity:
* Prosecutor Engh and Holden ‘Refuse to touch Breivik’s Principle of Necessity’:
* Necessity in Norwegian Law:
* Norwegian Necessity Judgement: Subjective and Objective Test:
* Necessity Defence: International and Foreign Law:
* Common Law Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing:
* Civil Disobedience Political Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing:
* Military Necessity and International Humanitarian Law:
* Military Necessity: use of Nuclear Weapons for Self-Preservation:
* Military Necessity in Nuremberg German High Command Trial:
* Military Necessity: The Rendulic Rule: Importance of the Subjective Test:
* Military Necessity: Rendulic Rule: Subjective Honesty in current Military Doctrine:
* Onus of Proof: Norwegian State or Breivik to Prove Necessity?
* Transparency Disclosure: Correspondence to Mr. Breivik and Mr. Geir Lippestad:
* Environmental Transparency: Aarhus Environment Info Transparency Convention
* ECHR: Lithgow on Transparency: Precise and Accessible Legislation:
* The interests of justice: Multicultural Matriarchy vs. Monocultural Patriarchy?
* Multi-cultural Law Must (a) avoid Mono-cultural legal Hegemony, (b) draw on legal cultural diversity:
Respondents:
First: OSLO DISTRICT COURT
Second: KINGDOM OF NORWAY (Prosecution)
Third: ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK
Fourth: VICTIMS FAMILIES
Excerpts from Notice of Motion.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the applicant intends to apply for leave to review against parts of the judgement by Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Fagdommer: Arne Lyng; Meddommere: Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff, delivered on 24 August 2012 (herein after referred to as the “Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement”).
{I} REVIEW ORDERS REQUESTED:
The following ‘Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement’ decisions are reviewed:
[A.1] Set Aside the Judgements ‘Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling’ (pg.67):
[A.2] Set Aside 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.3] If Defendant refuses to cooperate with Further Evidence proceedings; an order to change his plea to ‘guilty’; and/or ‘Non-Precedent’ Setting Declaratory Order
[A.4] If Failure of Justice Irregularity Does not Influence Conviction and/or Sentence Verdict; a ‘Non-Precedent Setting’ Declaratory Order
[B] Set Aside the Judgements Failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges, as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5) principles, and general ECHR public accountability Transparency (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom) principles.
[C] The respondents who oppose this application are ordered jointly and severally to pay their own costs in terms of this application.
{II} GROUNDS FOR REVIEW:
The application for review is based on the grounds of (A) Irregularities & Illegalities in the Proceedings before the Oslo District Court: in terms of (1) A Failure of Justice and Failure of a True and Correct Interpretation of the Facts; (2) Judicially Un-Investigated Facts; (3) Failure of Application of Mind and (4) Rejection of Admissible or Competent Evidence: (i) Prosecutor & Judges failure to examine objective and subjective necessity test; and (ii) Courts denial of due process to applicants Habeus Mentem and Amicus Curiae applications.
[A.1.a] Necessity Judgement fails to provide any necessity criminal provisions that prohibit killing of Government Officials in case of Necessity.
[A.1.b] Necessity Judgement Ignores that Criminal Necessity provisions do not prohibit the killing of Government Officials in case of objective and subjective Necessity.
[A.1.c] Necessity Judgement’s Erroneous interpretation of Necessity related criminal law provisions and international necessity related human rights law.
[A.1.d] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Failure to conduct required Objective and Subjective Tests for Defendant’s Necessity Defence:
[A.1.e] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Inadequate
[A.1.f] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Clarification Upon which party the Onus of Proof lies in a Case of Necessity; and how or why their evidence was insufficient renders the Judgements Conclusions inadequate.
[A.1.g] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Discriminatory Precedent
[A.1.h] Necessity Judgements ‘Extreme Political Objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test
[A.1.i] Necessity Judgements ‘Extreme Political Objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test; and is a Patriarchal Left vs. Right Wing Blame Game Parasite Leeching Polarization – not a Matriarchal Ecological and Psychological Integrity Root Cause Problem Solving – conclusion.
[B] Judgement’s Transparency Failure violates Aarhus Convention principles and public accountability impartiality principles.
-----------------
Table of Contents of Founding Affidavit:
* Review: “Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement”
* Legal Interest: Judicially Un-Investigated Facts
* Legal Questions: Matriarchal Ecological Wild Law Legal Principles Worldview
* The Parties:
* Failure of Justice: Judicially UnInvestigated Facts: Necessity and Guilt:
* Oslo Court: Breivik Defence of Necessity:
* Prosecutor Engh and Holden ‘Refuse to touch Breivik’s Principle of Necessity’:
* Necessity in Norwegian Law:
* Norwegian Necessity Judgement: Subjective and Objective Test:
* Necessity Defence: International and Foreign Law:
* Common Law Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing:
* Civil Disobedience Political Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing:
* Military Necessity and International Humanitarian Law:
* Military Necessity: use of Nuclear Weapons for Self-Preservation:
* Military Necessity in Nuremberg German High Command Trial:
* Military Necessity: The Rendulic Rule: Importance of the Subjective Test:
* Military Necessity: Rendulic Rule: Subjective Honesty in current Military Doctrine:
* Onus of Proof: Norwegian State or Breivik to Prove Necessity?
* Transparency Disclosure: Correspondence to Mr. Breivik and Mr. Geir Lippestad:
* Environmental Transparency: Aarhus Environment Info Transparency Convention
* ECHR: Lithgow on Transparency: Precise and Accessible Legislation:
* The interests of justice: Multicultural Matriarchy vs. Monocultural Patriarchy?
* Multi-cultural Law Must (a) avoid Mono-cultural legal Hegemony, (b) draw on legal cultural diversity:
28 Aug: Request to Registrar: Request for a Case Number:
Correspondence to: Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Subject: Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Req. Case Number for Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement:
"Could you please provide me with a case number for my application for review; or inform me by when you will issue a case number?"
"Could you please provide me with a case number for my application for review; or inform me by when you will issue a case number?"
31 Aug: Request to Registrar: Request for Case Number or Reasons for Refusal:
Correspondence to Supreme Court Registrar: Subject: [31.08] RE: Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Req. Case Number for Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement
Norway Supreme Court Registrar: I am still waiting for a case number for my application for review. Could you kindly provide such case number or clarify reasons for your failure to do so.
Norway Supreme Court Registrar: I am still waiting for a case number for my application for review. Could you kindly provide such case number or clarify reasons for your failure to do so.
02-06 Sep: Parl Ombud Complaint: Slow Case Processing by Supreme Court Registrar
02 September: Complaint (PDF) submitted to the 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.
06 September: Copy of Supreme Court Registrar Slow Case Processing Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman (PDF) transparently provided to Supreme Court Officials: Helga Mærde Gruer; Kjersti Ruud ; Svein Tore Andersen; Dep.Sec.Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard; and Ch.Justice Tore Schei: Subject: Supreme Court Registrar: Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement - Parl Ombudsman Complaint
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.
06 September: Copy of Supreme Court Registrar Slow Case Processing Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman (PDF) transparently provided to Supreme Court Officials: Helga Mærde Gruer; Kjersti Ruud ; Svein Tore Andersen; Dep.Sec.Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard; and Ch.Justice Tore Schei: Subject: Supreme Court Registrar: Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement - Parl Ombudsman Complaint
10 Sept: Sec. Gen. Gunnar Bergby: Response to Breivik Review Applic: No Legal Standing:
Ruling by Supreme Court of Norway: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby in: Application for review of Oslo District Court Judgement of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24)
Reference is made to your e-mails sent 27 August, 28 August and 31 August 2012 regarding the above mentioned matter.
I wish to draw your attention to the Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act section 306 (a copy in English is enclosed). According to this regulation, 1st paragraph, the parties may appeal against a criminal judgment rendered by the district or appellate court. Persons or legal entities that are not parties to the case are not given the right of appeal. Mr. Anders Behring Breivik and the prosecution authority are the only parties in the specific case mentioned above, and the right of appeal is constricted to these.
Consequently, the Supreme Court of Norway will not be able to comply with the request set forth in your e-mails. Further requests and applications from you will neither be handled nor answered by the Supreme Court.
Reference is made to your e-mails sent 27 August, 28 August and 31 August 2012 regarding the above mentioned matter.
I wish to draw your attention to the Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act section 306 (a copy in English is enclosed). According to this regulation, 1st paragraph, the parties may appeal against a criminal judgment rendered by the district or appellate court. Persons or legal entities that are not parties to the case are not given the right of appeal. Mr. Anders Behring Breivik and the prosecution authority are the only parties in the specific case mentioned above, and the right of appeal is constricted to these.
Consequently, the Supreme Court of Norway will not be able to comply with the request set forth in your e-mails. Further requests and applications from you will neither be handled nor answered by the Supreme Court.
11 Sept: Response to Sec. Gen. G. Bergby: RE: Legal Standing is for a Court, not Registrar to decide:
Response (PDF) to Gunnar Bergby: Secretary-General / President: Supreme Court of Norway: Subject: Response to Sec.Gen G.Bergby decision of 09.09.2012 in Review of Breivik Judgement Application (2011-188627-24)
Re: Sec.Gen decision of 09.09.2012, to Application for review of Oslo District Court's judgment of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24)
* Relief Requested:
* Legal Standing: Party in Proceedings: Pending decisions by Supervisory Committee for Judges, etc.
* Legal Standing: Legal Interest ITO (1) ECHR: ARTICLE 13: Right to an effective remedy and (2) ECHR: ARTICLE 14: Prohibition of discrimination
* Request Norwegian Court Officials Provide Consideration to my Review Application, equivalent to the Consideration Given by Military Judge Lind in the Bradley Manning Courtmartial to Letters from Center for Constitutional Rights.
* Judicial Review vs. Appeal Options: Norwegian Justices Confirm Availability of Judicial Review in Norwegian Courts:
1. Former President of Norwegian Supreme Court Justice Carsten Smith, in "Judicial Review of Parliamentary Legislation: Norway as a European pioneer" (Amicus Curiae, Issue 32, November 2000)
2. Chief Justice of the Norway Supreme Court: Tore Schei's, 4 October 2007 letter to President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, Justice Schei discusses how “... we will give a brief overview of the system of judicial review in Norway.."
3. Supreme Court Justice: Karen Bruzelius's letter to the Council of Europe, Venice Commission, where she elucidates on "Judicial Review within a Unified Court System".
* Options for Proceeding with the Application for Judicial Review of the Breivik Judgement in terms of Norwegian Legislation:
(I) Review Application interpreted in terms of Article 13 ECHR read in conjunction with Protocol 7 ECHR and the EFTA Courts Judicial Review Posten Norge Judgement; effectively interpreted as the Right to Judicial Review of an Administrative Decision or a Court Order.
(II) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO Criminal Procedure Act Section 306
(III) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO Criminal Procedure Act Section 377
(IV) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO Criminal Procedure Act Section 389
(V) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO The Dispute Act: Section 29-8 (2)
The Review application can be processed in accordance with any, or a combination of the aforementioned statutory guidelines, referring me either to the Interlocutory Court in terms of Sections 381 to 388, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (Section 389), a relevant Appeals Court.
What the court cannot do, is to deny me due process access to a court. I cannot find any statutory authority that allows a Secretary General to deny me due process access to a court, to make a judicial finding on legal standing (if or where any respondent so demands) in the official proceedings.
Re: Sec.Gen decision of 09.09.2012, to Application for review of Oslo District Court's judgment of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24)
* Relief Requested:
* Legal Standing: Party in Proceedings: Pending decisions by Supervisory Committee for Judges, etc.
* Legal Standing: Legal Interest ITO (1) ECHR: ARTICLE 13: Right to an effective remedy and (2) ECHR: ARTICLE 14: Prohibition of discrimination
* Request Norwegian Court Officials Provide Consideration to my Review Application, equivalent to the Consideration Given by Military Judge Lind in the Bradley Manning Courtmartial to Letters from Center for Constitutional Rights.
* Judicial Review vs. Appeal Options: Norwegian Justices Confirm Availability of Judicial Review in Norwegian Courts:
1. Former President of Norwegian Supreme Court Justice Carsten Smith, in "Judicial Review of Parliamentary Legislation: Norway as a European pioneer" (Amicus Curiae, Issue 32, November 2000)
2. Chief Justice of the Norway Supreme Court: Tore Schei's, 4 October 2007 letter to President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, Justice Schei discusses how “... we will give a brief overview of the system of judicial review in Norway.."
3. Supreme Court Justice: Karen Bruzelius's letter to the Council of Europe, Venice Commission, where she elucidates on "Judicial Review within a Unified Court System".
* Options for Proceeding with the Application for Judicial Review of the Breivik Judgement in terms of Norwegian Legislation:
(I) Review Application interpreted in terms of Article 13 ECHR read in conjunction with Protocol 7 ECHR and the EFTA Courts Judicial Review Posten Norge Judgement; effectively interpreted as the Right to Judicial Review of an Administrative Decision or a Court Order.
(II) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO Criminal Procedure Act Section 306
(III) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO Criminal Procedure Act Section 377
(IV) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO Criminal Procedure Act Section 389
(V) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO The Dispute Act: Section 29-8 (2)
The Review application can be processed in accordance with any, or a combination of the aforementioned statutory guidelines, referring me either to the Interlocutory Court in terms of Sections 381 to 388, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (Section 389), a relevant Appeals Court.
What the court cannot do, is to deny me due process access to a court. I cannot find any statutory authority that allows a Secretary General to deny me due process access to a court, to make a judicial finding on legal standing (if or where any respondent so demands) in the official proceedings.
08 Oct: Reminder Request for Statute Granting Sec Gen Authority on Legal Standing:
Reminder Request to Norway Supreme Court: Secretary General Bergby: Re: Sec.Gen decision of 09.09.2012, to Application for review of Oslo District Court's judgment of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24)
I am still awaiting a response to my request sent Tuesday, September 11, 2012 12:04 AM.
In the absence of a response by 10 October 2012, I shall conclude you have no intention of responding, and refer the matter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Relief Requested as per attached: Response to: Sec.Gen decision of 09.09.2012, to Application for review of Oslo District Court's judgment
of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24)
Could you kindly provide me with the relevant statute in Norway that provides the Secretary General the authority to refuse to process a case, citing lack of locus standi/legal standing; thereby denying such applicant due process access to be heard by an impartial court?
It is my understanding – perhaps incorrect - that it is not a matter for the Secretary General to make a final ruling on the relevant locus standi / legal interest of any party in any dispute, but for the court, if any party raises the matter as a matter of dispute.
I am still awaiting a response to my request sent Tuesday, September 11, 2012 12:04 AM.
In the absence of a response by 10 October 2012, I shall conclude you have no intention of responding, and refer the matter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Relief Requested as per attached: Response to: Sec.Gen decision of 09.09.2012, to Application for review of Oslo District Court's judgment
of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24)
Could you kindly provide me with the relevant statute in Norway that provides the Secretary General the authority to refuse to process a case, citing lack of locus standi/legal standing; thereby denying such applicant due process access to be heard by an impartial court?
It is my understanding – perhaps incorrect - that it is not a matter for the Secretary General to make a final ruling on the relevant locus standi / legal interest of any party in any dispute, but for the court, if any party raises the matter as a matter of dispute.
03 Nov: Parl Ombud: Complaint of Supreme Crt Registrar Slow Case Processing
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.
Continued at:
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. ««