Category: - Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist vs. Knights Templar Anders Breivik

Parl. Ombudsman: 2012-2970: Re: Press Complaints Commission Complaint

6/11/2012

Decision by Parliamentary Ombudsman: Complaint Regarding the Norwegian Press Complaints Commission.

Reference is made to your letter 3 November 2012 where you seem to be asking for assistance from the Ombudsman in regards to slow case processing by The Norwegian Press Complaints Commission (PFU).

According to the Act concerning the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public Administration 29 June 1962 No. 8 ("The Ombudsman Act") Section 4, the Ombudsman may consider complaints regarding "public services". Hence, the Ombudsman may investigate most types of matters that have been dealt with and decided on by Norwegian public authorities. Private disputes and questions regarding private associations and organisations, on the other hand, fall outside his jurisdiction. The Norwegian Press Complaints Commission (PFU) was established by the Norwegian Press Association and is not consider part of public administration.

Based on the above, your letter cannot be dealt with by the Ombudsman.

Parl Ombud: Complaint Slow Processing of Appeal by PFU

2/11/2012

Complaint (PDF) submitted to Ombudsman of Slow Case Processing by PFU: Press Complaints Commission: RE: Appeal to PFU Sec.Gen. ITO Public Admin Act (S.23,24,25) & Freedom of Info Act (S.2): Case 239/12; Re: Complaint: News & Views from Norway: News in English Article.

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.

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, (B) 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.

PFU: Reminder Req Info Re: Complaint: News & Views from Norway

8/10/2012

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.

NO Foreign Press Assoc: Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement

7/9/2012

Memo and Info sent to all members of Norwegian Foreign Press Association (N-FPA): RE: N-FPA: Norges Høyesterett Application for Review of Breivik Judgement

[1] Norway Supreme Court / Norges Høyesterett Application for Review of Breivik Judgement.

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 Oslo District Court for 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.

The Norwegian Supreme Court Registrar has so far refused to issue a Case Number for the Application for Review of the Breivik Judgement, or to provide reasons for their refusal. A complaint of Slow Case Processing against the Supreme Court Registrar has been submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman (Annex A)

[2] Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges / Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: Norway v. Breivik Judicial Ethics Violations Complaints

(1)   Judge Nina Opsahl: Case #2012-071
(2)   Judge Wenche Arntzen: Case #2012-072
(3)   Justice Tore Schei: Case #2012-073

PFU Sec. Gen: Reminder RE: Written Reasons for Case 239-012 (LJ v. News w Views) 28 Aug Decision: Refuse Complaint with Breivik consent

7/9/2012

Reminder Request to PFU General Secretary: Per Edgar Kokkvold: General Secretary: Still waiting for (Case 239/12 - Lara Johnstone vs. Views and News from Norway) Written Reasons: 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. (PDF)

I am still awaiting a response upon my Appeal submitted to the Secretary General on 04 September 2012.

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.

PFU: Sec. Gen. Kokkvold: 239/12 Appeal ITO Public Admin Act & FOIA

4/9/2012

Appeal (PDF) submitted to PFU: Sec Gen. Per Edgar Kokkvold: 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.

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, (B) 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.

PFU: Kjell Nyhuus: Case 239/12: Refuse Written Reasons for 28.08 Decision

4/9/2012

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."

PFU: Sec. Gen: Req. Written Reasons for 28 Aug NwV Decision

3/9/2012

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.

PFU: Kjell Nyhuus: PFU refuse to process News with Views 'Breivik Guilty' complaint & refuse to provide written reasons.

29/8/2012

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'

Response from PFU: Kjell Nyhuus RE: 'Breivik Guilty' Complaint against News & Views:

17/8/2012

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).