Corresponsendence 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.

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, 

(C) 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.

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