Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media). (PDF)
Text of Email: Notice of Complaint: Judge Nina Opsahl
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:07 PM
To: 'Supv. Comm. Judges'
Cc: Judge Nina Opsahl; NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court; NO Oslo District Court: Admin
Subject: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: Klage: Judge Nina Opsahl: Brudd på: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12.
Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges,
National Courts Administration,
Tel: 73 56 70 00 | Fax: 73 56 70 01
E-mail: Supv. Comm. Judges (**@domstol.no)
CC: Judge Nina Opsahl
Judge: Oslo District Court
Postboks 8023 Dep., 0030 Oslo | C.J. Hambros Plass 4, 0164 Oslo
Sentralbord 22 03 52 00 Tel/Faks: 22 03 5212 | 22 03 53 54
E-post: **@domstol.no, **@domstol.no
E-post: Judge Nina Opsahl (**@domstol.no)
Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media).
[A] Overview of Complaint:
Complainant filed a legal application to the Oslo District Court in the Norway v. Breivik matter being adjudicated by Judge Opsahl. Judge Opsahl refuses to provide any judgement to the applications whatsoever, whether to clarify any procedural errors by the applicant requiring correction, or to deny the applications with written reasons in accordance to due process. [See complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei: The complainant finally filed an application for review to the Norway Supreme Court, who refused to hear the application stating “that the Supreme Court of Norway only handles appeals against judgments given by the lower courts and can consequently not deal with the issue mentioned in your e-mails”; even though Judge Opsahls conduct clearly indicated irregularities in her refusal to provide a ‘judgement’. Judge Opsahl simply refuses to provide any due process response which could lead to a free and fair hearing ‘judgement’, in response to the applications to her court. Conduct by a Judge which refuses to provide an applicant to their right to relevant due process procedure for a fair hearing to reach a judgement, is thereby in and of itself, a ‘judgement decision’ to deny the individual access to a free and fair hearing due process judgement.].
[A] Overview of Complaint
[B] Chronology of Facts
[C] Judge Opsahls Violation of Ethical Principles for Judges
[D] ECHR: Rule of law requires adequately Precise and Accessible Legislation
[E] Controversial Arguments in Complainants Application
Please find attached the Complaint & Annexures
Respectfully Submitted | Respektfullt Sendt
Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
[A] SA Constitutional Court Order by the Chief Justice in CCT 23-10 on 03 May 2010
[B] 30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court for a Writ of Habeus Mentem