Email to Secr. Supervisory Committee for Judges: Espen Eiken: Subject: [31.08] RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl
I am still awaiting a response to the questions in my correspondence of 01 August 2012, and 21 August, in response to your correspondence of 31 July 2012.
1. Committee does not Acknowledge Receipt of Complaints
I am confused: Is the Committee deliberately or negligently ignorant that it's behaviour contradicts its alleged goals of encouraging confidence in the courts?[1]. If the Committee is unable to identify very basic common sense unethical conduct in its own procedures (namely to professionally acknowledge receipt of any complaint to inform a complainant of the complaints procedures); is such behaviour not conducive to undermining confidence in the Committee's work; and consequently in the broader role of the court system?
2. Standard Procedure:
Can you please clarify; so that I am crystal clear about the Committee's process, and can continue these proceedings with confidence in the Committee's impartial objectivity and professionalism:
1. It will take six months for me to be issued a case number?
2. Or, it will take six months to complete the complaint enquiry?
I am still awaiting a response to the questions in my correspondence of 01 August 2012, and 21 August, in response to your correspondence of 31 July 2012.
1. Committee does not Acknowledge Receipt of Complaints
I am confused: Is the Committee deliberately or negligently ignorant that it's behaviour contradicts its alleged goals of encouraging confidence in the courts?[1]. If the Committee is unable to identify very basic common sense unethical conduct in its own procedures (namely to professionally acknowledge receipt of any complaint to inform a complainant of the complaints procedures); is such behaviour not conducive to undermining confidence in the Committee's work; and consequently in the broader role of the court system?
2. Standard Procedure:
Can you please clarify; so that I am crystal clear about the Committee's process, and can continue these proceedings with confidence in the Committee's impartial objectivity and professionalism:
1. It will take six months for me to be issued a case number?
2. Or, it will take six months to complete the complaint enquiry?
Email to Supv. Comm. for Judges: Espen Eiken:
From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:43 AM
To: 'Eiken, Espen'; Crt: Supv. Comm. Judges
Cc: Judge Wenche Arntzen; Judge Nina Opsahl; Ch.Justice Tore Schei; Crt: Lippestad: Tord Jordet; Crt: Pros Holden. Politie: Police Directorate; Crt: Victims: Siv Hallgren; Crt: Victims: Frode Elgesem; Crt: Victims: Mette Yvonne Larsen
Subject: [31.08] RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl
Ms. Eiken,
Supervisory Committee for Judges
RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl
No Response from Supv. Comm. for Judges to my questions (01 August 2012)(21 August 2012) in response to your correspondence (31 July 2012).
I am still awaiting a response to the questions in my correspondence of 01 August 2012, and 21 August, in response to your correspondence of 31 July 2012.
I repeat:
1. Committee does not Acknowledge Receipt of Complaints
I am confused: Is the Committee deliberately or negligently ignorant that it's behaviour contradicts its alleged goals of encouraging confidence in the courts?[1]. If the Committee is unable to identify very basic common sense unethical conduct in its own procedures (namely to professionally acknowledge receipt of any complaint to inform a complainant of the complaints procedures); is such behaviour not conducive to undermining confidence in the Committee's work; and consequently in the broader role of the court system?
2. Standard Procedure:
Your brochure states: "The proceedings are in writing. All parties involved are informed and are given an opportunity to make a statement. When the case is ready for hearing – after all parties have made their statements – this takes place at a meeting which all the Committee members attend. Complaints are generally dealt with on the basis of written statements. But the parties are entitled to make verbal statements to the Supervisory Committee, unless the Committee should consider this as obviously unnecessary to the elucidation of the case. In special cases, it may be relevant to obtain statements from others, examine witnesses, etc."
It is unclear from aforementioned procedures, whether all parties statements are public statements provided to all parties?
My complaints were filed on 06 June 2012, with a follow-up enquiry on 02 July, with no response whatsoever from the Committee until 31 July 2012, subsequent to complaints filed with the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Can you please clarify; so that I am crystal clear about the Committee's process, and can continue these proceedings with confidence in the Committee's impartial objectivity and professionalism:
1. It will take six months for me to be issued a case number?
2. Or, it will take six months to complete the complaint enquiry?
Or put differently; how long should I wait for a professional response from the Committee, before concluding that -- like Norwegian Judges, Prosecutors, Police and Editors -- the Committee just ignores politically incorrect complaints, as if the people who file such complaints simply do not exist?
Respectfully,
Lara Johnstone
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/
[1] Committee's Purpose:
The Supervisory Committee's most important guideline is to work to identify factors that are likely to undermine confidence in the courts. This work requires three important considerations must be weighed against each other:
For the courts to function appropriately in society must be turned down on the factors that contribute to doubt that judges act on the basis of appropriate judicial conduct. That ethical standards that support and develop confidence in the courts as independent, impartial and competent public institutions for conflict resolution.
http://www.domstol.no/no/Enkelt-domstol/Tilsynsutvalget-for-dommere/Om-Tilsynsutvalget/
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:43 AM
To: 'Eiken, Espen'; Crt: Supv. Comm. Judges
Cc: Judge Wenche Arntzen; Judge Nina Opsahl; Ch.Justice Tore Schei; Crt: Lippestad: Tord Jordet; Crt: Pros Holden. Politie: Police Directorate; Crt: Victims: Siv Hallgren; Crt: Victims: Frode Elgesem; Crt: Victims: Mette Yvonne Larsen
Subject: [31.08] RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl
Ms. Eiken,
Supervisory Committee for Judges
RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl
No Response from Supv. Comm. for Judges to my questions (01 August 2012)(21 August 2012) in response to your correspondence (31 July 2012).
I am still awaiting a response to the questions in my correspondence of 01 August 2012, and 21 August, in response to your correspondence of 31 July 2012.
I repeat:
1. Committee does not Acknowledge Receipt of Complaints
I am confused: Is the Committee deliberately or negligently ignorant that it's behaviour contradicts its alleged goals of encouraging confidence in the courts?[1]. If the Committee is unable to identify very basic common sense unethical conduct in its own procedures (namely to professionally acknowledge receipt of any complaint to inform a complainant of the complaints procedures); is such behaviour not conducive to undermining confidence in the Committee's work; and consequently in the broader role of the court system?
2. Standard Procedure:
Your brochure states: "The proceedings are in writing. All parties involved are informed and are given an opportunity to make a statement. When the case is ready for hearing – after all parties have made their statements – this takes place at a meeting which all the Committee members attend. Complaints are generally dealt with on the basis of written statements. But the parties are entitled to make verbal statements to the Supervisory Committee, unless the Committee should consider this as obviously unnecessary to the elucidation of the case. In special cases, it may be relevant to obtain statements from others, examine witnesses, etc."
It is unclear from aforementioned procedures, whether all parties statements are public statements provided to all parties?
My complaints were filed on 06 June 2012, with a follow-up enquiry on 02 July, with no response whatsoever from the Committee until 31 July 2012, subsequent to complaints filed with the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Can you please clarify; so that I am crystal clear about the Committee's process, and can continue these proceedings with confidence in the Committee's impartial objectivity and professionalism:
1. It will take six months for me to be issued a case number?
2. Or, it will take six months to complete the complaint enquiry?
Or put differently; how long should I wait for a professional response from the Committee, before concluding that -- like Norwegian Judges, Prosecutors, Police and Editors -- the Committee just ignores politically incorrect complaints, as if the people who file such complaints simply do not exist?
Respectfully,
Lara Johnstone
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/
[1] Committee's Purpose:
The Supervisory Committee's most important guideline is to work to identify factors that are likely to undermine confidence in the courts. This work requires three important considerations must be weighed against each other:
For the courts to function appropriately in society must be turned down on the factors that contribute to doubt that judges act on the basis of appropriate judicial conduct. That ethical standards that support and develop confidence in the courts as independent, impartial and competent public institutions for conflict resolution.
http://www.domstol.no/no/Enkelt-domstol/Tilsynsutvalget-for-dommere/Om-Tilsynsutvalget/
RSS Feed
