10 April: ECHR Head of Division: Soren Prebensen writes (PDF) that Polish Judge Krystof Wojtyczek sitting between 20 March and 03 April, decided to declare the application inadmissible; without providing any written reasons whatsoever for his 'inadmissible' decision whatsoever. The decision is final and not subject to appeal. The file will be destroyed one year after the single judge's decision.
Update:
10 April: ECHR Head of Division: Soren Prebensen writes (PDF) that Polish Judge Krystof Wojtyczek sitting between 20 March and 03 April, decided to declare the application inadmissible; without providing any written reasons whatsoever for his 'inadmissible' decision whatsoever. The decision is final and not subject to appeal. The file will be destroyed one year after the single judge's decision.
0 Comments
JAG EOPGASM Notice to Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee Secretariat: Ms. Smagadi, Aarhus Convention Committee Members; and Media, Bar Association & Breivik parties: RE: Aarhus CCC (ref. ACCC/C/2013/82) ruling re: Media Censorship of Env-Scarcity-Conflict Connection during Breivik trial. I have copied Aarhus Convention Committee Members, due to your failure to honourably and professionally respond to my last request for confirmation of my interpretation of the Committee’s statement. Specifically, I have still received no confirmation from the Committee to my interpretation that your statement “The reasons are clear” as confirmation of “The Committee is alleging that my requests for environmental information submitted to the media industry and bar association does not meet the committee’s interpretation of the convention’s definition of ‘environmental information.” Please take note that in the absence of a response from the Committee confirming my interpretation, my application to the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union for an Application for Annulment under Article 263 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union; shall request the General Court to interpret the application of Lara Johnstone, for annulment, as also being from JAG Lt. Cdr. Lara Braveheart, as authorized by US Navy Judge Advocate General: Vice Adm. Nanette Derenzi, as part of the NSA Æquilibriæx Sustainable Security Theses Ecology of Peace v. Near Term Extinction campaign. The declaration to US Navy Judge Advocate General: VADM Nanette Derenzi, CC: Asst. Sec. for Energy, Installations & Environment: VADM Dennis McGinn and Senator James Inhofe: NSA Æquilibriæx Sustainable Security Theses Ecology of Peace v. Near Term Extinction campaign is in support of Æquilibriæx Amicus Applications filed in among others the following cases: Germany v. Beate Zschape; United Kingdom v. Michael Adebolajo; US v Bradley Manning; US v Edward Snowden; ACLU v Clapper; Unitarian Church of LA v NSA. Appeal (PDF) to Aarhus Convention Comm (CC: Parties & Anders Breivik; Bjørn Magnus Jacobsen Ihler, Center 4 Free & Creative Expression; Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn & Former CIA Dir. James Woolsey): Request for Written Reasons: Re: Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee 26 April 2013 “manifestly unreasonable” ruling concerning compliance by Norway with provisions of the Convention in connection to ‘Scarcity & Conflict’ and ‘Environmental Complaints Policy’ access to information and access to justice (ACCC/C/2013/82).Supporting Documentation: A. List of Aarhus Convention Inadmissible Rulings. (PDF) B. ECHR: 16325/13: Johnstone v. Norway: Oslo District Court’s Breivik Necessity Judgement was Discriminatory & Ineffective Remedy. (PDF) C. Media Censorship: Citizens are ignorant of how to contribute to Sustainable Security: Procreate and Consume below carrying capacity, to avoid scarcity induced resource war conflict: Maher, Michael (1997/03): How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection.(PDF) D. Every Child Increases a Woman’s Carbon Footprint by a factor of 20: A woman can reduce her carbon footprint 19 times more by having one fewer child than by all other energy efficiency actions the E.P.A. suggests combined: Paul A. Murtaugh, Michael G. Schlax (2009): Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals; Global Environmental Change.(PDF) E. Only Civilization Collapse will prevent runaway global climate change: Industrial Civilization/Consumption Developmentism as Heat Engine Root cause of Scarcity-Conflict Climate Change-National Security Impending Near-term Extinction reality: Timothy J. Garrett (Nov. 2009), Are there basic physical constraints on future anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide?; Climatic Change.(PDF) Norway Transparency Notice's RE: Application to European Court of Human Rights: Johnstone v. Norway: Re: Violations of Article 13 (Effective Remedy) and 14 (Discrimination); sent to: Anders Breivik & Geir Lippestad (PDF); Addresseavisen: Arne Blix (PDF); Subject: Aftenposten: Ed. Haugsgjerd (PDF); Bergens Tidende: Ed Eilertsen (PDF); Dagbladet: Ed. Markussen (PDF); Env. App. Board: Ms. Strom (PDF); Fremskrittspartiet: Ms. Siv Jensen (PDF); Min Foreign Aff: Mr. Espen Eide (PDF); Min of Justice: Grete Faremo (PDF); NRK: Ed: Hans Bjerkaas (PDF); Supreme Court: Sec. Gen. Gunnar Bergby (PDF); Supreme Court: Justice Tore Schei (PDF); Oslo Dist Court: Judge Arntzen (PDF); Oslo Dist Court: Judge Nina Opsahl (PDF); Parl Ombudsman: Arne Fliflet (PDF); Pros Svein Holden & Inga Engh, c/o NO Police (PDF); Den Rettsmedisinske Kommisjon: Psych Husby & Sorheim (PDF); Supv. Comm for Judges: Espen Eiken (PDF); TV2: Ed: Alf Hildrum (PDF); VG: Ed: Torry Pedersen (PDF); 22 Juli Victim Families; c/o Hallgren, Elgesem & Larsen (PDF); Miljøpartiet De Grønne: Marcussen & Nissen (PDF); Hoyre: Erna Solberg (PDF); KRF: Knut Arild Hareide (PDF); KSP: Ørnulf Nandrup (PDF); Arbeiderpartiet: Jens Stoltenberg (PDF); AUF: Eskil Pedersen (PDF); PensionerParty: Einar Lonstad (PDF); Rodt: Bjornar Moxnes (PDF); SV: Audun Lysbakken (PDF); Venstre: Trine Skei Grande (PDF) I have filed an application to the European Court of Human Rights, under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Rules 45 and 47 of the Rules of Court. Specifically the violations are: • Discrimination: 24 August 2012: Oslo District Court: Judge Wenche Arntzen: Norway v. Anders Breivik Necessity Judgement • Discrimination and Denied Right to an Effective Remedy: Supreme Court: Secretary General Gunnar Bergby: 10 September 2012 Decision • Discrimination and Denied Right to an Effective Remedy: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Head of Division: Berit Sollie: 15 November 2012 Ruling Respectfully, Lara Johnstone Encl: Johnstone v. Norway Application to ECHR (Application Exhibits not enclosed) Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Language Discrimination and Lack of Clear Principles by Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges Norwegian Language Rulings, in response to English Language complaints in Case 12-071: Judge Nina Opsahl, 12-072: Judge Wenche Arntzen, 12-073: Judge Tore Schei. (PDF) On 30 May 2012 and 06 June 2012, I filed three complaints with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges respectively against: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl. After much delay and obstruction, on 03 September 2012, I was issued Case Numbers and informed that my complaints had been given the case numbers of 12-071 (Judge Nina Opsahl), 12-072 (Judge Wenche E. Arntzen) and 12-073 (Justice Tore Schei). Furthermore that “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.” I was never informed the rulings of the Judges would be in Norwegian. I was also never provided with any parties statements. On 23 October 2012, the Supervisory Committee for Judges issues the rulings in the matter (without hearing any of the parties statements, or providing me with a response to their statements), and issued the rulings in Norwegian. On 12 November I requested an English translation. On 14 November the Supervisory Committee for Judges refused to provide me with an English translation, stating that the ‘decisions are always in Norwegian’. Furthermore that allegedly “there has never been a tradition to write the decisions in English even if the complaint is in English”. The Supervisory Committee for Judges did not provide any evidence for this statement. Requests on 14 November and 15 December for English translations have been ignored. Correspondence to Supv. Comm. for Judges: Espen Eiken: RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl I am still awaiting a response to my email of 14 November: I repeat: Are you saying that the Supervisory Committee for Judges who dealt with my complaints cannot speak or write English? Who translated my complaint for them, or did they just ignore it, cause they do not speak English, and refuse all complaints that are not in Norwegian? Surely if a court accepts a complaint written in a particular language, then they should provide the speaker of such language with the response in their language, or they should inform the complainant to fuck off, because they refuse to accept complaints in any language except Norwegian? How did the Justices know what the complaint was about, if they cannot speak English? Does the Supervisory Committee for Judges accept complaints in English? If so, how can they justify providing a ruling that is not in the language of the complaint? Either they should only accept complaints in Norwegian, or if they accept complaints in other languages, then they should provide a ruling in that particular language? Subject: RE: [12.-09] RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl Espen Eiken: The decisions of the Supervisory Committee for Judges are always written in Norwegian. There has never been a tradition to write the decisions in English even if the complaint is in English. There was no individual person who decided that the decisions should be made in Norwegian. The Committee has no arrangement for translating its decisions. It is therefore assumed that the complainants provides necessary translations. The Supervisory Committee have not received any statements from the parties. Lara Johnstone: So, are you saying that the Supervisory Committee for Judges who dealt with my complaints cannot speak or write English? Who translated my complaint for them, or did they just ignore it, cause they do not speak English, and refuse all complaints that are not in Norwegian? Surely if a court accepts a complaint written in a particular language, then they should provide the speaker of such language with the response in their language, or they should inform the complainant to fuck off, because they refuse to accept complaints in any language except Norwegian? How did the Justices know what the complaint was about, if they cannot speak English? Does the Supervisory Committee for Judges accept complaints in English? If so, how can they justify providing a ruling that is not in the language of the complaint? Either they should only accept complaints in Norwegian, or if they accept complaints in other languages, then they should provide a ruling in that particular language?
Correspondence to Ms. Eiken: Subject: [12.-09] RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl I have received the rulings. Thank you. 1. Could you clarify why they are in Norwegian? 2. Could you clarify who the person was who made the decision that the rulings should be made in Norwegian 3. Could you provide an English translation? 4. If not, could you provide me with the name of the person who refuses to provide an English translation. 5. Finally: Could you also confirm whether the Supervisory Committee received any verbal or written statements from the parties; and if so, why such statements were not provided to me. Espen Eiken: 03 Sep: "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) to Parliamentary Ombudsman of Slow Case Processing by Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby: Re: Request for Statute Granting Sec Gen Authority to make ruling on Legal Standing: On 27 September Petitioner filed an 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. A complaint of slow case processing was filed with the Ombudsman on 02 September 2012. On 10 September, Secretary General Gunnar Bergby issued a ruling denying Petitioners’s Application for review citing Petitioner’s alleged lack of legal standing. On 11 September, Petitioner filed a request for clarification of the ruling, requesting among others the specific statute that grants a Sec. Gen. the authority to make a ruling on legal standing, when, this is generally a matter that is decided upon by a court, if the respondent party raises it as a matter of dispute. No response has been received to petitioner’s 08 October reminder letter. [Received 03 November] On 23 October, the Supervisory Committee for Judges changed their minds and decided they were not going to process the complaints. Previously they had said that the complaints would be processed, whereby all the Judges would be required to submit a statement about their reasons, in accordance to the issues raised in the complaints. However the Supervisory Committee for Judges now decided that all the Judges do not have to submit their affidavits, and the complaints will be ruled as 'obviously unfounded'. The decision by the Committee is in Norwegian (I have not translated all of it yet): Judge Opsahl (PDF), Judge Arntzen (PDF), Justice Schei (PDF). |
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
|