"Case 239/12 - Lara Johnstone vs. Views and News from Norway
The commission cannot and will not handle the complaint without a written consent from mr. Breivik. This is according to § 5 in the commissions statutes.
Case closed."
Response from PFU: Commission Secretary: Kjell Nyhuus: RE: Request for Written Reasons for PFU 28.08.12 decision in Lara Johnstone v. News & Views from Norway "Case 239/12 - Lara Johnstone vs. Views and News from Norway The commission cannot and will not handle the complaint without a written consent from mr. Breivik. This is according to § 5 in the commissions statutes. Case closed."
0 Comments
Request for Written Reasons (PDF) submitted to PFU: General Secretary: Per Edgar Kokkvold: PFU: Request for Written Reasons for PFU 28.08.12 decision in Lara Johnstone v. News & Views from Norway Request for Written Reasons for PFU 28 August 2012 decision refusing to process Complaint against Nina Berglund, Editor: News & Views from Norway: Violation of 3.1, 3.2, 4.5 of Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press in Article: Breivik Moved to New Prison ; in the absence of Mr. Breivik’s consent. The written reasons for the decision which is to include the committee’s evaluation of the facts and the relevant Principles in Conflict: Editorial Ethics | Public Interest in Accurate Information | Mr. Breivik’s Representation (Verbal, written and conduct); such as: (A) The Findings of Fact; (B) The Relevant Principles in Conflict; (C) Application of Facts to the Relevant Principles in Conflict Alternatively, I would imagine if the Committee is seriously concerned about the issue of Mr. Breivik’s lack of consent, then the Committee could 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 whether Mr. Breivik’s reasons and evidence for his lack of consent are justified with regard to the relevant principles involved. Supreme Court Registrar: Req. for Case Number or Reasons for Failure to Provide Case Number31/8/2012 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. Respondents: First: OSLO DISTRICT COURT; Second: KINGDOM OF NORWAY (Prosecution); Third: ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK; Fourth: VICTIMS FAMILIES On 27 August 2012 an application was filed with the Norwegian Supreme Court for Review of the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement, to set aside (A) the Necessity ruling, and (B) the conviction; and remit to the Oslo District Court for the hearing of further evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. The finding of guilt, in the absence of full Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Conclusions renders the Guilt Finding Inadequate. 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? Correspondence to Press Complaints Commission Secretary: Mr. Kjell Nyhuus: Request for Decision of 28 Aug meeting, and subsequent thereto, for written reasons for the decision. Instead of written reasons, Mr. Nyhuus just provided the Commission Statutes, ignoring the request for written reasons. "I did not ask for the Statutes of the Commission. I asked for the written reasons in terms of the Comissions ruling/judgement response to my presentation to the Committee that: >>Special circumstances of journalistic/editorial ethics warrant that the complaint be treated without Breivik's consent. Factual legal findings of guilt, cannot be made by an accused, their lawyer, or any journalist, or editor; only an impartial court of law; and any reporter/editor who reports an accused to have been found guilty -irrespective if the accused pled guilty or not - is MISSTATING LEGAL FACTS.<< Could you kindly ask the Committee to provide WRITTEN REASONS -- namely how and why they argue that an editor or a journalist can publish LIES -- make findings of guilt about an accused who has not been found guilty by a court of law; as long as the accused consents to such deception of the public? " Sendt: 29. august 2012 13:17 RE: PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago' Norway Supreme Court Application of: LARA JOHNSTONE: Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement delivered on 24 August 2012 (PDF) Respondents: First: OSLO DISTRICT COURT Second: KINGDOM OF NORWAY (Prosecution) Third: ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK Fourth: VICTIMS FAMILIES {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. Correspondence to Ms. Eiken: Supervisory Committee for Judges: RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl Transparency Update: [1] Updated Info: Relevant Excerpt: RH Ecofeminist Letter to Mr. Breivik: Request to Mr. Breivik to "please clarify what exactly your instructions were to your Attorneys in response to the applications I filed in Oslo District Court: Judge Nina Opsahl (Habeus Mentem: Right to Legal Sanity) and Judge Wenche (Amicus Curiae: Friend of the Court) and the Norwegian Supreme Court: Review and Declaratory Order." [2] The 170 complaints (CCBE Code of Ethics: Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial) against Defence and Victims Families Attorneys referred to Bar Associations, have been submitted to the Environmental Appeals Board ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com > RH Court Records > Env. Appeals Board: [3] No Response from Supv. Comm. for Judges to my questions (01 August 2012) in response to your correspondence (31 July 2012). Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:44 AM Subject: RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl Response from PFU: Kjell Nyhuus Subject: SV: PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago' The Norwegian Press Complaints Commission will on august 28th decide if your complaint can be handled by the commission without consent from mr. Beivik. We will also discuss with the ms. Berglund of Views and News if her website is within our competence (our area). Req for Response from PFU: Re: 'Breivik Guilty' Complaint against News with Views: Nina Berglund17/8/2012 Request for Response to PFU: The Norwegian Press Complaints Commission, Kjell Nyhuus, Commission secretary: RE: PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago' I am still awaiting a response from the PFU to my request for information as to the procedure to process this complaint, in the absence of Mr. Brievik's consent; either by: (A) presentation to the committee, that special circumstances of journalistic/editorial ethics (factual legal findings of guilt, cannot be made by an accused, their lawyer, or any journalist, or editor; only an impartial court of law; and any reporter/editor who reports an accused to have been found guilty (irrespective if they pled guilty or not) is MISSTATING LEGAL FACTS) warrant that the complaint be treated without Breivik's consent. Or (B) An appeal to the Press Association's Secretary General, on his own initiative to request the matter be processed, as it is -- I imagine -- a matter of great fundamental public interest, that journalists not go around accusing people of 'findings of guilt' without a proper court of law having made such a legal finding of guilt. Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 11:44 AM Subject: RE: PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago' Request to PFU The Norwegian Press Complaints Commission Kjell Nyhuus, Commission secretary: I am unable - so far - to get a clear answer from Lippestad Attorneys. My current working hypothesis conclusion (until provided with additional information) is as follows: 1. Mr. Lippestad stated in court proceedings that Breivik's claim of innocence and necessity was purely a formality: i.e. my interpretation: Breivik does not subjectively believe his claims of (Anti-Islamicization) necessity; 22/07 Attacks and the trial were all just propaganda bullshit campaign. 2. Mr. Breivik has never contradicted Mr. Lippestad's statements that Breivik's 'Necessity' claim is simply a formality; or instructed Mr. Lippestad to withdraw his statements to the court; however Mr. Breivik's testimony, repeatedly focussed on his claim of necessity as the source for his innocence. 3. So, it is unclear: If Mr. Breivik sincerely believes his claims of innocence and necessity: (a) Why has he not instructed Lippestad to retract his statement; (b) If Lippestad refuses: placed the dispute with his attorney before the court and ask for new counsel; or (c) Lippestad is telling the truth; and Breivik really doesn’t subjectively believe in his necessity claim towards innocence, he is simply engaging in a bullshit the public relations propaganda campaign HOWEVER: Irrespective of whether Mr. Breivik himself believes in his guilt, and is involved in a massive Bullshit the Public Relations Image Management Campaign; EVERY ACCUSED -- EVEN THOSE WHO PLEAD GUILTY, OR CONSIDER THEMSELVES GUILTY -- SHOULD ONLY BE REPORTED ON, AS 'GUILTY'; ONCE A COURT OF LAW HAS MADE A 'FINDING OF GUILT'. So, whether Mr. Breivik consents to my complaint, or not; I request information as to the procedure to process this complaint, in the absence of Mr. Brievik's consent; either by (A) presentation to the committee, that special circumstances of judicial ethics (factual legal findings of guilt, cannot be made by an accused, their lawyer, or any journalist, or editor; only an impartial court of law; and any reporter/editor who reports an accused to have been found guilty (irrespective if they pled guilty or not) is MISSTATING LEGAL FACTS) warrant that the complaint be treated without Breivik's consent; Or (B) An appeal to the Press Association's Secretary General, on his own initiative to request the matter be processed, as it is -- I imagine -- a matter of great fundamental public interest, that journalists not go around accusing people of 'findings of guilt' without a proper court of law having made such a legal finding of guilt. Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 12:06 PM Subject: RE: PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago' |
RH Data Archive:Radical Honoursty Eco-Feminist legal applications and complaints submitted to Norwegian and European Authorities in the Norway v. Breivik trial.
Archives
April 2016
Categories
All
|