![Picture](/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/3929013.png)
"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. ![]() Response to Supervisory Committee for Judges: Senior Advisor: Ms. Espen Eiken: RE: [03.09] RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl "Thank you for the information. I am now clear of what is expected of me. I shall wait to receive the parties statements; and acknowledge that I am aware that the complete handling time can be upto six months. I have no objections thereto. Until I receive any parties statement, I do not expect you to be hearing from me, until I respond thereto. I filed a subsequent complaint of slow case handling to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, on 02 September. I shall notify them, that it is no longer necessary, and withdraw the complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. I shall provide you a copy of my withdrawal of the complaint for your records. I hope to do so later today." ![]() Correspondence from Supervisory Committee for Judges: Senior Advisor: Espen Eiken: RE: [31.08] RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl "Your complaints have been given the case numbers 12-071 (Judge Nina Opsahl), 12-072 (Judge Wenche E. Arntzen) and 12-073 (Justice Tore Schei). The complete handling time can be close to six months. If a party have given a statement in the case, these will be provided the complainant. The Supervisory Committee has not received statements from the other parties involved." ![]() Complaint (PDF) submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing / Failure to Provide Case Processing by Supreme Court Registrar; to Application for Review of ‘Breivik Judgement’. Slow Case Processing: Application for Review of ‘Breivik Judgement’ filed with Supreme Court Registrar on 27 August 2012 to Set Aside the Judgements (1) ‘Necessity (Nodrett) Ruling’ and (2) 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. Subsequent follow up requests made on 28 August and 31st August requesting Registrar to provide a case number, or clarify their reasons for failure to provide a case number. ![]() Complaint (PDF) submitted to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing or Failure to Provide Case Processing by Ministry of Environment Appeals Board (Media Censorship of Environment Information). 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; then simply ignored my complaint in August still refusing to process it. 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. ![]() Complaint (PDF) submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing or Failure to Provide Case Processing by Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges: RE: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges Complaints in Norway v. Breivik matter against (i) Chief Justice Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Judge Nina Opsahl. Slow Case Processing: Supv. Comm. for Judges/ Tilsynsutvalget for dommere have obstructed my requests for a Case number since 06 June 2012, and for information about the level of transparency of their ‘standard procedure’ since 31 July 2012. Failure to Provide Case Processing: Supv. Comm. for Judges/ Tilsynsutvalget for dommere appear to be attempting to refuse to provide me with a Case Number, in their attempts to obstruct my complaint from the public record. 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. ![]() Correspondence to Environmental Appeals Board: Subject: [31.08] Env. App. Brd.: Req for Env. Info ITO S28 Complaints: (1) Bar Association Disc. Comm; (2) Disc. Brd for Advocates Request for Information on Delay of Processing of Complaint: I have not yet received any reference for this complaint filed on 16 August 2012. I request the following case processing information: (1) A case number; (2) Processing details of the Env. Appeals Board Respondents: (1) Chairperson: Berit Reiss-Andersen, Sec./Exec. Officer: Inger-Johanna Hammer, Disciplinary Committee, The Norwegian Bar Association; (2) Head: Judge Ernst Moe, Disciplinary Board for Advocates Complaint: Request for Access to Environment Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Norwegian Bar Association’s Anti-Environmental Printed Complaints Policy ![]() 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 Respondents: 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 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 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 (42pgs) |
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
|