RH Court Records: Environmental Appeals Board:
Case 2012/02 (Archive: 2012/708)
Media Censorship: Env. Pop. Terror Connection & Pol. Psychiatry
19 June 2012: Addresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 & VG
Complaint submitted to Environmental Appeals Board: Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Censorship in Norway’s Media: (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny (PDF) from: Adresseavisen: Editor: Arne Blix; Aftenposten: Editor: Hilde Haugsgjerd; Bergens Tidende: Editor: Trine Eilertsen; Dagbladet: Editor: John Arne Markussen; NRK: Editor: Hans Tore Bjerkaas; TV2: Editor: Alf Hildrum; VG: Editor: Torry Pedersen.
On 25 May 2012, correspondence was submitted to each of the respondents requesting information related to their decision-making to censor information related to the (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny. Each respondent was additionally provided a copy of the 22 April 2012 Earth Day: “If It Bleads, It Leads” Media’s Population-Terrorism Connection Report (PDF). Respondents were requested to provide such information by 17:00 hrs on 11 June 2012. As of 17:00 hrs on 18 June 2012, all respondents have declined to respond or to provide the information requested.
On 25 May 2012, correspondence was submitted to each of the respondents requesting information related to their decision-making to censor information related to the (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny. Each respondent was additionally provided a copy of the 22 April 2012 Earth Day: “If It Bleads, It Leads” Media’s Population-Terrorism Connection Report (PDF). Respondents were requested to provide such information by 17:00 hrs on 11 June 2012. As of 17:00 hrs on 18 June 2012, all respondents have declined to respond or to provide the information requested.
25 June 2012: Complaint to Min. Environment: Deletion of Complaint to Env. App. Board:
Complaint submitted to The Ministry of the Environment: Minister of Environment: Bård Vegar Solhjell: Complaint: Environmental Appeals Board Deletion of my Complaint for Review of Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) sent to Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2, VG and Addresseavisen: RE: Censorship in Norway’s Media: (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny.
25 June 2012: Response from Env. App. Board:
Response from Env. Appeals Board: Ref: 2012/708-1: Complaint: Addresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 & VG
27 June 2012: Request for Clarification to Env. App. Board:
Request for clarification to Env. Appeals Board: Ref: 2012/708-1: Complaint: Addresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 & VG
28 June 2012: Response Env. Appeals Board: Processing After Summer Vacation
Response from Secretary for the Environment Appeals Board notifying me that my complaint will only be processed after the summer vacation.
29 June 2012: Complaint to Min. of Justice: Obstruction of Justice by Env. App. Board:
Complaint submitted to Minister of Justice, requesting Clarification & Response: Min.Justice: G.Faremo: Complaint RE: Minister of Environment: Bård Vegar Solhjell & Miljoklagenemnda Obstruction of Justice (PDF): (1) Is there any Norwegian law that provides for discrimination of due process court or administrative procedures against Non-Norwegian citizens? (2) Do courts and administrative bodies in Norway totally shut down for Summer vacations? (3) Complaint: The Environmental Appeals Board appears to be refusing me access to its administrative due process complaint resolution procedures, and the Minister of Environment appears to approve such discrimination; (4) If your Administration is not their Supervisory Body, please provide contact details of whom exactly are their Supervisory Body/ies?
03 July 2012: Min of Justice: Env Appeals Board Discrimination
Response from Secretary of Environmental Appeals Board: Summer vacation ends in August. Request for clarification submitted to Minister of Justice: Grete Faremo: I am still waiting for a Case Number from Environmental Appeals Board; and the answer to questions regarding discrimination by Environmental Appeals Board and failure to publicize summer vacation dates for slow processing of complaints.
04 July 2012: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Environmental Appeals Board Complaint:
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: Parliamentary Ombudsman Response: Case 2012-1987: Env. Appeals Board
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.
Ombudsman ignores the complaint of discrimination and states that the Appeals Board for Environmental Information's decision to consider the complaint submitted to them on 18 June by August does not comprise slow case processing.
Ombudsman ignores the complaint of discrimination and states that the Appeals Board for Environmental Information's decision to consider the complaint submitted to them on 18 June by August does not comprise slow case processing.
31 Aug: Request to Env. Appeals Board for Case Number & Processing Info:
Correspondence to Environment Appeals Board: Subject: [31.08] RE: Env. Appeals Board Complaint: Reference no: 2012/708 - 1
I am still awaiting a response from the Environment Appeals Board to process my complaint as follows: (1) A Case Number; (2) Details of processing procedures
I am still awaiting a response from the Environment Appeals Board to process my complaint as follows: (1) A Case Number; (2) Details of processing procedures
10 Sept: Env. App. Brd: Benedikte Strom: Ruling without Due Process:
Response from Benedikte Strøm: Secretary for the Appeals Board for Environmental Information : Subject: Decisions of the Appeals Board for Environmental Information
We refer to your appeal of June 18 2012 against Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG regarding the undertakings decline to provide a justification for the decision not to publish two articles related to the incident on July 22 2011 and terrorism. We also refer to your appeal of August 16 2012 against the Norwegian Bar Association´s Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Board regarding their refusal to provide an environmental justification for the policy to refuse complaints by e-mail.
According to the Environmental Information Act section 16 (1) "Any person is entitled to receive environmental information from undertakings such as are mentioned in section 5, sub-section 2, concerning factors related to the undertaking, including factor inputs and products, which may have an appreciable effect on the environment".
When used in the Environmental Information Act, the term "environment" means the external environment, including archaeological and architectural monuments and sites and cultural environments, cf. section 2 (2) of the act. Information regarding the social environment is thus not considered "environmental information" as the term is defined in the act. Information concerning human health, safety and living conditions, is only considered "environmental information" to the extent that these factors are or may be affected by the state of the external environment or factors that affect or may affect the environment, cf. section 2 (1).
The right to receive environmental information from undertakings is limited to information concerning factors "which may have an appreciable effect on the environment".
Concerning your first appeal, the Appeals Board for Environmental Information would like to point out that the editorial choices made by the staff working for newspapers, TV channels etc. are not factors related to the undertaking which may have an effect on the environment. The information that you have requested from Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG is thus not "environmental information".
Regarding your second appeal, against the Norwegian Bar Association´s Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Board, the Appeals Board finds that the policy to refuse complaints by e-mail is not a factor which may have an appreciable effect on the environment.
On these grounds, the Appeals Board has made the following decision:
The appeals are denied as not justified.
The decision of the board is final and is not subject for further appeals. Disputes about the duties of undertakings according to The Environmental Information Act may be subject for legal proceedings.
Regarding your first appeal, the secretariat for the Appeals Board adds that editors` freedom to make decisions in editorial issues is granted in the Act regarding Editorial Freedom in the Media section 4.
We refer to your appeal of June 18 2012 against Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG regarding the undertakings decline to provide a justification for the decision not to publish two articles related to the incident on July 22 2011 and terrorism. We also refer to your appeal of August 16 2012 against the Norwegian Bar Association´s Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Board regarding their refusal to provide an environmental justification for the policy to refuse complaints by e-mail.
According to the Environmental Information Act section 16 (1) "Any person is entitled to receive environmental information from undertakings such as are mentioned in section 5, sub-section 2, concerning factors related to the undertaking, including factor inputs and products, which may have an appreciable effect on the environment".
When used in the Environmental Information Act, the term "environment" means the external environment, including archaeological and architectural monuments and sites and cultural environments, cf. section 2 (2) of the act. Information regarding the social environment is thus not considered "environmental information" as the term is defined in the act. Information concerning human health, safety and living conditions, is only considered "environmental information" to the extent that these factors are or may be affected by the state of the external environment or factors that affect or may affect the environment, cf. section 2 (1).
The right to receive environmental information from undertakings is limited to information concerning factors "which may have an appreciable effect on the environment".
Concerning your first appeal, the Appeals Board for Environmental Information would like to point out that the editorial choices made by the staff working for newspapers, TV channels etc. are not factors related to the undertaking which may have an effect on the environment. The information that you have requested from Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG is thus not "environmental information".
Regarding your second appeal, against the Norwegian Bar Association´s Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Board, the Appeals Board finds that the policy to refuse complaints by e-mail is not a factor which may have an appreciable effect on the environment.
On these grounds, the Appeals Board has made the following decision:
The appeals are denied as not justified.
The decision of the board is final and is not subject for further appeals. Disputes about the duties of undertakings according to The Environmental Information Act may be subject for legal proceedings.
Regarding your first appeal, the secretariat for the Appeals Board adds that editors` freedom to make decisions in editorial issues is granted in the Act regarding Editorial Freedom in the Media section 4.
11 Sept: Req to Env. App. Brd: for Statutory Authority to violate Due Process Rights:
Correspondence to Benedikte Strøm: Secretary for the Appeals Board for Environmental Information: Subject: RE: [11.09] Decisions of the Appeals Board for Environmental Information
It is my understanding that general due process procedure includes the following:
[A] Complainant files complaint; [B] Adjudicating Authority immediately issues a Case Number; [C] Complaint provided to Respondents, who are given a specific time period for their response; [D] Respondents provide their arguments, detailing issues such as – FOR EXAMPLE in this case - alleged inaccurate ‘environmental information’ definitions; or ‘rights to discriminate against certain cultures/races/religions and censor all information about such culture/religions/races opinions or actions in any court proceeding’; [E] The Complainant is given the opportunity to respond to the issues raised by the Respondent/s; [F] If there are additional issues still unclear, the adjudicating authority can ask for another round of submissions, repeating [D] and [E]; [G] The Adjudicating authority makes a final decision based upon the evidence and arguments submitted to it; which were transparently provided to both parties, and which both parties had the ‘right of reply’ to.
Media Censorship Complaint: Skip [B-F] and go straight to [G]
Now, in my complaint to the Environmental Appeals Board against the media publications of (a) Addresseavisen, (b) Aftenposten, (c) Bergens Tidende, (d) Dagbladet, (e) NRK, (f) TV2 and (g) VG, the Environmental Appeals Board has skipped the due process procedures of [B] to [F] and gone straight to [G].
Could you provide the statutory authority that provides the Environmental Appeals Board with this authority to violate due process procedures?
If the Environmental Appeals Board did receive submissions from any of the Media Publications Respondents; please clarify what authority authorizes you to withhold such submissions from the complainant and to deny the complaint a response to such submissions; and provide the complainant with copies of these submissions that were made to the Environmental Appeals Board?
It is my understanding that general due process procedure includes the following:
[A] Complainant files complaint; [B] Adjudicating Authority immediately issues a Case Number; [C] Complaint provided to Respondents, who are given a specific time period for their response; [D] Respondents provide their arguments, detailing issues such as – FOR EXAMPLE in this case - alleged inaccurate ‘environmental information’ definitions; or ‘rights to discriminate against certain cultures/races/religions and censor all information about such culture/religions/races opinions or actions in any court proceeding’; [E] The Complainant is given the opportunity to respond to the issues raised by the Respondent/s; [F] If there are additional issues still unclear, the adjudicating authority can ask for another round of submissions, repeating [D] and [E]; [G] The Adjudicating authority makes a final decision based upon the evidence and arguments submitted to it; which were transparently provided to both parties, and which both parties had the ‘right of reply’ to.
Media Censorship Complaint: Skip [B-F] and go straight to [G]
Now, in my complaint to the Environmental Appeals Board against the media publications of (a) Addresseavisen, (b) Aftenposten, (c) Bergens Tidende, (d) Dagbladet, (e) NRK, (f) TV2 and (g) VG, the Environmental Appeals Board has skipped the due process procedures of [B] to [F] and gone straight to [G].
Could you provide the statutory authority that provides the Environmental Appeals Board with this authority to violate due process procedures?
If the Environmental Appeals Board did receive submissions from any of the Media Publications Respondents; please clarify what authority authorizes you to withhold such submissions from the complainant and to deny the complaint a response to such submissions; and provide the complainant with copies of these submissions that were made to the Environmental Appeals Board?
18 Sept: Response from Env. Appeals Board: Benedikte Strom:
Response from Benedikte Strøm: Secretary for the Appeals Board for Environmental Information: RE: Media Censorship &Bar Association complaints; RE: Request for Statutory Authority authorising due process violations.
The secretariat for the Appeals Board for Environmental Information refers to your e-mails of September 10 and 11 2012.
The Appeals Board`s reference number for you appeal of June 18 2012 against Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG is 2012/2. For archival purposes the reference number 2012/708 is used in addition. The Appeals Board's reference number for your appeal of August 16 2012 against the Norwegian Bar Association´s Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Board is 2012/5. For archival purposes the number 2012/1023 is used in addition.
The information on www.miljoklagenemnda.no about how cases prepared has only status as guidance. The rules that are binding for the Appeals Board are found in the regulation December 14 2003 regarding the Appeals Board for Environmental Information. This regulation is available in Norwegian at http://www.lovdata.no/for/sf/md/xd-20031214-1572.html.
When receiving appeals that clearly have to be denied, it is not necessary to ask the respondents to provide their arguments. In these cases the secretariat prepares a draft decision and consults the members of the board. If the draft decision is approved by the members of the board, no further discussion is needed. This makes the Appeals Board able to settle obvious cases without arranging unnecessary meetings. Your appeals have been settled this way. Because no meeting has taken place, you will not receive a signed decision.
The secretariat for the Appeals Board for Environmental Information refers to your e-mails of September 10 and 11 2012.
The Appeals Board`s reference number for you appeal of June 18 2012 against Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG is 2012/2. For archival purposes the reference number 2012/708 is used in addition. The Appeals Board's reference number for your appeal of August 16 2012 against the Norwegian Bar Association´s Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Board is 2012/5. For archival purposes the number 2012/1023 is used in addition.
The information on www.miljoklagenemnda.no about how cases prepared has only status as guidance. The rules that are binding for the Appeals Board are found in the regulation December 14 2003 regarding the Appeals Board for Environmental Information. This regulation is available in Norwegian at http://www.lovdata.no/for/sf/md/xd-20031214-1572.html.
When receiving appeals that clearly have to be denied, it is not necessary to ask the respondents to provide their arguments. In these cases the secretariat prepares a draft decision and consults the members of the board. If the draft decision is approved by the members of the board, no further discussion is needed. This makes the Appeals Board able to settle obvious cases without arranging unnecessary meetings. Your appeals have been settled this way. Because no meeting has taken place, you will not receive a signed decision.
08 Oct: Corr to Env. App. Board: Req. for Clarification on Definition of 'Environment'
Request to Benedikte Strom: Subject: Appeals Board for Environmental Information Decisions: Media Censorship & AdvokatForengin Disc. Brd & Committee
Please could you clarify for me your reasoning viz a viz: “When receiving appeals that clearly have to be denied”
It is not remotely clear to me why my complaints ‘clearly had to be denied’; unless your office is massively corrupt, like many other Norwegian government offices, on the matter of Mr. Breivik’s case and surrounding issues.
The Dept of Environment clearly encourages people to be active in holding Government Departments and corporations accountable on environmental issues:
---------
A prerequisite for environmental law to work as intended is that the public uses it actively.
The law will put citizens able to:
* contribute to the protection of the environment
* protect against health and environmental
* influence public and private decision makers in environmental issues
---------
According to: LAW 2003-05-09 # 31: Act concerning the right to information and participation in public decision-making processes relating to the environment (environmental law).
http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-20030509-031.html
--------
§ 2 What is understood by environmental
(1) An environmental means factual information and reviews about
a) environment,
b) factors that affect or may affect the environment, including
- planned and implemented measures and activities in the environment,
- product features or content,
- Ratio of operating the business, and
- administrative decisions and actions, including individual decisions, agreements, regulations, plans, strategies and programs, and associated analyzes, calculations and assumptions,
c) human health, safety and living conditions to the extent they are or may be affected by the state of the environment or the factors mentioned in b
(2) The environment means the environment including cultural heritage.
--------
The Aarhus Convention defines 'environmental information' as:
-----------
3. “Environmental information” means any information in written, visual, aural, electronic or any other material form on:
(a) The state of elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites, biological
diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms, and the interaction among these elements;
(b) Factors, such as substances, energy, noise and radiation, and activities or measures, including administrative measures, environmental
agreements, policies, legislation, plans and programmes, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment within the scope of subparagraph (a) above, and cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used in environmental decision-making;
(c) The state of human health and safety, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures, inasmuch as they are or may be affected
by the state of the elements of the environment or, through these elements, by the factors, activities or measures referred to in subparagraph (b) above;
-----------
The information requested of the Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG clearly - if you read it - falls under both LAW 2003-05-09 # 31: Environmental Law and the Aarhus Convention definitions.
The information requested of Norwegian Bar Association´s Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Board clearly falls under both LAW 2003-05-09 # 31: Environmental Law and the Aarhus Convention definitions.
It is therefore not remotely obvious why you wrote:
"When receiving appeals that clearly have to be denied, it is not necessary to ask the respondents to provide their arguments. In these cases the secretariat prepares a draft decision and consults the members of the board. If the draft decision is approved by the members of the board, no further discussion is needed. This makes the Appeals Board able to settle obvious cases without arranging unnecessary meetings. Your appeals have been settled this way. Because no meeting has taken place, you will not receive a signed decision."
Is the secretariat for the Appeals Board for Environmental Information | www.miljoklagenemnda.no | Environmental Appeals Board just a Fake PR front for Corporate whores raping the planet? Setup just to pretend Nowegian Government gives a fuck about the environment? You just sit there and rubber stamp environmental requests with " clearly have to be denied" and laugh how massively stupid the citizens are for believing the bullshit in your Duhmockery press releases that you legislate laws to encourage citizens to:
* contribute to the protection of the environment
* protect against health and environmental
* influence public and private decision makers in environmental issues
Please could you clarify for me your reasoning viz a viz: “When receiving appeals that clearly have to be denied”
It is not remotely clear to me why my complaints ‘clearly had to be denied’; unless your office is massively corrupt, like many other Norwegian government offices, on the matter of Mr. Breivik’s case and surrounding issues.
The Dept of Environment clearly encourages people to be active in holding Government Departments and corporations accountable on environmental issues:
---------
A prerequisite for environmental law to work as intended is that the public uses it actively.
The law will put citizens able to:
* contribute to the protection of the environment
* protect against health and environmental
* influence public and private decision makers in environmental issues
---------
According to: LAW 2003-05-09 # 31: Act concerning the right to information and participation in public decision-making processes relating to the environment (environmental law).
http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-20030509-031.html
--------
§ 2 What is understood by environmental
(1) An environmental means factual information and reviews about
a) environment,
b) factors that affect or may affect the environment, including
- planned and implemented measures and activities in the environment,
- product features or content,
- Ratio of operating the business, and
- administrative decisions and actions, including individual decisions, agreements, regulations, plans, strategies and programs, and associated analyzes, calculations and assumptions,
c) human health, safety and living conditions to the extent they are or may be affected by the state of the environment or the factors mentioned in b
(2) The environment means the environment including cultural heritage.
--------
The Aarhus Convention defines 'environmental information' as:
-----------
3. “Environmental information” means any information in written, visual, aural, electronic or any other material form on:
(a) The state of elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites, biological
diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms, and the interaction among these elements;
(b) Factors, such as substances, energy, noise and radiation, and activities or measures, including administrative measures, environmental
agreements, policies, legislation, plans and programmes, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment within the scope of subparagraph (a) above, and cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used in environmental decision-making;
(c) The state of human health and safety, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures, inasmuch as they are or may be affected
by the state of the elements of the environment or, through these elements, by the factors, activities or measures referred to in subparagraph (b) above;
-----------
The information requested of the Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG clearly - if you read it - falls under both LAW 2003-05-09 # 31: Environmental Law and the Aarhus Convention definitions.
The information requested of Norwegian Bar Association´s Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Board clearly falls under both LAW 2003-05-09 # 31: Environmental Law and the Aarhus Convention definitions.
It is therefore not remotely obvious why you wrote:
"When receiving appeals that clearly have to be denied, it is not necessary to ask the respondents to provide their arguments. In these cases the secretariat prepares a draft decision and consults the members of the board. If the draft decision is approved by the members of the board, no further discussion is needed. This makes the Appeals Board able to settle obvious cases without arranging unnecessary meetings. Your appeals have been settled this way. Because no meeting has taken place, you will not receive a signed decision."
Is the secretariat for the Appeals Board for Environmental Information | www.miljoklagenemnda.no | Environmental Appeals Board just a Fake PR front for Corporate whores raping the planet? Setup just to pretend Nowegian Government gives a fuck about the environment? You just sit there and rubber stamp environmental requests with " clearly have to be denied" and laugh how massively stupid the citizens are for believing the bullshit in your Duhmockery press releases that you legislate laws to encourage citizens to:
* contribute to the protection of the environment
* protect against health and environmental
* influence public and private decision makers in environmental issues
03 Oct: Req for Info ITO Public Admin Act S.23,24,25: 'Environment Definition' etc
Correspondence (PDF) to Env. Appeals Board: Benedikte Strom:Subject: RE: Appeals Board for Environmental Information Decisions: Media Censorship & AdvokatForengin Disc. Brd & Committee
Request to Environment Appeals Board in terms of Public Administration Act (PAA), section 23, 24, 25, and (iii) Freedom of Information Act: Section 22.
I have received no response to my request for information submitted to you on 08 October: Appeals Board for Environmental Information Decisions: Media Censorship & AdvokatForengin Disc. Brd & Committee; in response to your ruling of 18 September 2012.
Relief Requested:
In terms of the Public Administration Act, Section, 24, 25, and 26, and Freedom of Information Act, Section 2: Please could you kindly provide a ruling in consideration of clarifying what factual and legal grounds you considered in terms of coming to your conclusion that my complaint ‘clearly had to be denied’; including clarifying exactly how my complaints do not fit the definition of Environment as clarified by the Aarhus convention and LAW 2003-05-09 # 31: Act concerning the right to information and participation in public decision-making processes relating to the environment (environmental law), as requested in correspondent of 08 October.
Request to Environment Appeals Board in terms of Public Administration Act (PAA), section 23, 24, 25, and (iii) Freedom of Information Act: Section 22.
I have received no response to my request for information submitted to you on 08 October: Appeals Board for Environmental Information Decisions: Media Censorship & AdvokatForengin Disc. Brd & Committee; in response to your ruling of 18 September 2012.
Relief Requested:
In terms of the Public Administration Act, Section, 24, 25, and 26, and Freedom of Information Act, Section 2: Please could you kindly provide a ruling in consideration of clarifying what factual and legal grounds you considered in terms of coming to your conclusion that my complaint ‘clearly had to be denied’; including clarifying exactly how my complaints do not fit the definition of Environment as clarified by the Aarhus convention and LAW 2003-05-09 # 31: Act concerning the right to information and participation in public decision-making processes relating to the environment (environmental law), as requested in correspondent of 08 October.
06 Nov: Response from Ms. Strom: Req for Info Denied & Original Ruling on Letterhead:
Response from Env. Appeals Board: Benedikte Strom: Subject:Information from the secretariate for the Appeals Board for Environmental Information
Reference is made to your e-mails of October 8 and November 3 2012, where you request a justification for statements in the e-mail of September 18 2012 from the secretariat for the Appeals Board for Environmental Information. The secretariat would like to point out that our e-mail of September 18 2012, were we explained how your appeals had been prepared prior to the Appeals Board decision, is not an administrative decision. We can not provide you with a ruling clarifying the factual and legal grounds for our statements in this e-mail. However, as the decision of the Appeals Board for Environmental Information shows, the board agreed that your appeals were not justified and therefore had to be denied. The board´s grounds for this were, in accordance with the Public Administration Act § 24, stated in the e-mail of September 10 2012 notifying you of the decision. The secretariat does not wish to add anything to these grounds, and will not reply to further e-mail from you regarding this same matter. We can however inform you that we have chosen to provide you the Appeals Board's decision on an official letterhead. You will find this document enclosed. |
12 Nov: Erroneous Decisions in Environmental Appeals Board Information Appeals
Parliamentary Ombudsman Complaint (PDF): The Environmental Appeals Board “appeals that clearly have to be denied” (PDF) refusal to process Complainants Appeals against Media Respondents and Bar 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.
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.
27 Nov: Parl Ombudsman Ruling: Appeal Denied:
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.
Norway Juridical Bodies 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. ««