Parl Ombud Complaint: Language Discrimination by Supervisory Committee for Judges

Parl Ombud Complaint: Language Discrimination by Supv Comm for Judges

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.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Ecofeminist v. Breivik | 09 January 2013

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.

Argument:

[1] Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges Norwegian Language Rulings to complaints filed in English are in violation of Article 14: Prohibition of Discrimination and Article 13: Right to an Effective Remedy , read in conjunction with Article 6 (3)(a): Right to a Fair Hearing in a language which you understand .

[2] Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges failure to clearly inform me of their intention to provide Rulings in Norwegian, in response to my complaints filed in English, are in violation of ECHR ruling in Lithgow & Others v. United Kingdom , where it held that the rule of law requires provisions of legislation to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law.

Relief Requested:

Request for English Translation of Supervisory Committee for Judges Rulings in Complaints against (i) Judge Nina Opsahl (12-071), (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen (12-072) and (3) Justice Tore Schei (12-073).

Supv. Comm. for Judges: Ruling: Breivik Case Irregularities Complaints Against Judges Opsahl, Arntzen and Schei

Supv. Comm. for Judges: Ruling: Breivik Case Irregularities Complaints Against Judges Opsahl, Arntzen and Schei



Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminist vs. Breivik |02 November 2012

[Received 02 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).

Correspondence: Supervisory Committee of Judges: Re: Complaints: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl

Correspondence: Supervisory Committee of Judges: Re: Complaints: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl



Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 01 August 2012

Complaint to Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges:

On 30 May 2012 complainant filed three complaints with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges against respectively: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl.

On 06 June 2012 complainant noted that she had not yet received any information detailing the process and procedure for her complaints, and additionally provided the completed signed “Skjema for klage på dommere til Tilsynsutvalget for dommere (TU)” forms for her complaints.

On 02 July 2012 complainant noted: “I am still waiting for the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, to provide me with a Case and/or Reference Number for my complaint/s, including details about processing of my complaint/s in Norway v. Breivik matter against respectively: (1) Judge Nina Opsahl, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Chief Justice Tore Schei.”

On 04 July 2012 complainant filed a complaint with the Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing or Failure to Provide Case Processing by Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges

On 11 July Parliamentary Ombudsman responded (Ref: 2012/1943). On 20 July I recontacted the Supervisory Committee to provide me with a Case and/or Reference Number for my complaint/s, by 27 July 2012.

On 31 July the Supervisory Committee of Judges responded, to which I responded.

Parl. Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943: Slow Case Processing of Norway v Breivik Complaint to Sec. for Supv. Comm of Judges

Parl. Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943: Slow Case Processing of Norway v Breivik Complaint to Secretariat for Supv. Committee of Judges: Against Justice Tore Schei | Judge Wenche Arntzen | Judge Nina Opsahl

[SOM: 2012-1943]: Re: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: Klage: Justice Tore Schei | Judge Wenche Arntzen | Judge Nina Opsahl

20 July 2012 | Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik

On 04 July 2012, I filed two complaints with the Ombudsmans office, via their official complaints procedure.

On 20 July I received a response from the Ombudsman offices by land mail (Ref: 2012/1943), in response to my complaint to the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges:

“On 30 May 2012 complainant filed three complaints with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges respectively against respectively: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl. On 06 June 2012 complainant noted that she had not yet received any information detailing the process and procedure for her complaints, and additionally provided the completed signed “Skjema for klage på dommere til Tilsynsutvalget for dommere (TU)” forms for her complaints. On 02 July 2012-07-02 complainant noted: “I am still waiting for the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, to provide me with a Case and/or Reference Number for my complaint/s, including details about processing of my complaint/s in Norway v. Breivik matter against respectively: (1) Judge Nina Opsahl, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Chief Justice Tore Schei.””

As per the Ombudsman's Instructions, I again contacted the Secretariat Supervisory Committee of Judges for a response, and noted that in the absence of such a response, I shall again contact the Ombudsman, to provide his Office with the information to proceed in the matter.

[Update] RettsNorge/JustNorway: Herman Berge: ‘Corrupt Appointment of Judges renders Breivik Court Case Null & Void’

[Update] RettsNorge/JustNorway: Herman Berge: ‘Corrupt Appointment of Judges renders Breivik Court Case Null & Void’

Updated & Accurate Translation:

Herman J. Berge | Retts Norge | 05 July 2012 (Updated & Translated from 02 July)

Herman J Berge is a Norwegian Lawyer known for winning Norway's largest single payment to a private person, for his clients Amelia and Einar Riis. He is currently the editor of RettsNorge/Just Norway. RettsNorge's purpose is to provide a critical look at Norway's application of the law in its courts. RettsNorge believes that too many people experience unbalanced and unfair decisions in Norway's courts, and even worse that many of the legal representatives do not serve their clients interests. On this issue the evidence is huge; the most recent case being a suit brought against Adv. Christian Haneborg, who according to Business Today is being sued for 50 million for having deceived his previous clients. RettsNorge wishes to educate citizens about the reality behind Norway's legal propaganda image. For forty years the media have been silent, while sitting on burning data; and instead of doing their duty as the fourth estate to hold power accountable, the media have censored evidence of the corruption of Norway's courts to maintain good relationships with the power elite. RettsNorge hopes to illuminate legal reality as it truly is, not as most wish it to be, or pretend it to be.

In the Updated and Accurately Translated Article: MAIN HEARING IN BREIVIK-CASE IS INVALID, Mr. Berge writes, among others:

“The two judges in the Breivik-case were actually "picked" for the job, hence the case was not distributed to the two judges according to law. A further consequence of this unprecedented procedure is that these two judges (from an objective point of view) are considered to be disqualified and the judges should obviously have recused themselves, see the Norwegian Court Administration Act § 108 (NCAA). Consequently the court was not legally constituted, and there has to be a retrial.

[..] Allow me to warn those of you who have not yet discovered it, that Mr. Engebretsen’s special private procedure, which seems to have been hailed by the media, is in itself a confirmation that this procedure is neither uncommon nor considered unfortunate among the leaders and deputy leaders in Norway, which is alarming. The fact that the press does not oppose or even react against this, but rather seems to admire that descendants of the country's old elite now has been specially selected to continue in their ancestors tracks, are equally alarming.

As you will see from the above, we are not faced with a random assignment of cases, but rather with a deliberate unlawful selection of judges, which in itself is a confirmation of a judicial system and a court in decay.”

Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow case processing by Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges

Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow case processing by Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges of Complaints against Judges Nina Opsahl, Wenche Arntzen & Justice Tore Schei



Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 04 July 2012

Complaint to Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges:

On 30 May 2012 complainant filed three complaints with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges respectively against respectively: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl.

On 06 June 2012 complainant noted that she had not yet received any information detailing the process and procedure for her complaints, and additionally provided the completed signed “Skjema for klage på dommere til Tilsynsutvalget for dommere (TU)” forms for her complaints.

On 02 July 2012-07-02 complainant noted: “I am still waiting for the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, to provide me with a Case and/or Reference Number for my complaint/s, including details about processing of my complaint/s in Norway v. Breivik matter against respectively: (1) Judge Nina Opsahl, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen & (3) Chief Justice Tore Schei.”

RettsNorge/JustNorway: Herman Berge: ‘Corrupt Appointment of Judges renders Breivik Court Case Null & Void’

RettsNorge/JustNorway: Herman Berge: ‘Corrupt Appointment of Judges renders Breivik Court Case Null & Void’

When we see what Oslo Court Officials have been able to do in this case, where all the people's eyes and ears have been directed at them, and where they still plowed the law and Constitution like dirt into the ground; one can only imagine what they are doing in less interesting cases which "only" affect individuals

03 July 2012 | Herman Berge | RettNorge

Herman J Berge is a Norwegian Lawyer known for winning Norway's largest single payment to a private person, for his clients Amelia and Einar Riis. He is currently the editor of RettsNorge/Just Norway. RettsNorge's purpose is to provide a critical look at Norway's application of the law in its courts. RettsNorge believes that too many people experience unbalanced and unfair decisions in Norway's courts, and even worse that many of the legal representatives do not serve their clients interests. On this issue the evidence is huge; the most recent case being a suit brought against Adv. Christian Haneborg, who according to Business Today is being sued for 50 million for having deceived his previous clients. RettsNorge wishes to educate citizens about the reality behind Norway's legal propaganda image. For forty years the media have been silent, while sitting on burning data; and instead of doing their duty as the fourth estate to hold power accountable, the media have censored evidence of the corruption of Norway's courts to maintain good relationships with the power elite. RettsNorge hopes to illuminate legal reality as it truly is, not as most wish it to be, or pretend it to be.

In the article: The Deliberations in the Breivik Case are Null and Void, published on 02 July 2012, Editor: Herman Berge argues that the Breivik court case was invalid, due to illegal and irregular appointment of the Judges in the case; who were specifically 'picked out'; instead of the required coincidence principle.

Simply put he writes that Judge Geir Engebretsen committed a coup d'etat of the Oslo District Court, without a single lawyer or journalist objecting in protest at the irregularities. Amazing. Furthermore Breivik's case must be retried, with new judges appointed in the proper legally required procedure.

Finally Judge Engrebertsen's procedure of deliberately choosing Breivik's Judges without any objections from political leaders, lawyers or the media confirms a Judicial court system in moral decay.

Conspiracy & Corruption in Judge's Chambers in Breivik Case

Conspiracy & Corruption in Judge's Chambers in Breivik Case

Court Censorship of Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 14 June 2012

On 13 June 2012 Complaints against Mette Yvonne Larsen, Siv Hallgren, Frode Elgesem, Geir Lippestad, Vibeke Hein Baera, Tord Jordet and Odd Ivar Aursnes Gron were submitted to the Norwegian Bar Association for Violation of: CCBE Code of Ethics: Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial, to (1) deny Defendant his Political Necessity Treason Trial; and (2) support Corruption of the Court to deny submittal to the Court of Controversial Evidence related to: [1] Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection. On 14 June 2012, the coverup in court continued...

Complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges

Complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media), 15 (Collegial Intervention).

06 June Update: Letter to Supv. Comm. of Judges

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 30 May 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:15 PM
To: 'Supv. Comm. Judges'
Cc: 'Norway Supreme Court Admin'; Ch.Justice Tore Schei
Subject: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: Klage: Justice Tore Schei: Brudd på: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12.

Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges,
National Courts Administration,
Tel: 73 56 70 00 | Fax: 73 56 70 01
E-mail: Supv. Comm. Judges (**@domstol.no)

CC: Chief Justice Tore Schei
Norway Supreme Court | Norges Høyesterett
Post: Postboks 8016 Dep., 0030 Oslo, Norge.
Høyesteretts plass 1, Oslo
Telefon: 22 03 59 00 Telefaks: 22 33 23 55
E-post: Norway Supreme Court Admin (**@hoyesterett.no)
E-post: Ch.Justice Tore Schei (**@hoyesterett.no)

Complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media), 15 (Collegial Intervention).

Complaint against Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges

Complaint against Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media).

06 June Update: Letter to Supv. Comm. of Judges

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v Breivik | 30 May 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:10 PM
To: 'Supv. Comm. Judges'
Cc: Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints; NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court; NO Oslo District Court: Admin; Judge Wenche Arntzen (**@domstol.no)
Subject: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: Klage: Judge Wenche Arntzen: Brudd på: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12.

Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges,
National Courts Administration,
Tel: 73 56 70 00 | Fax: 73 56 70 01
E-mail: Supv. Comm. Judges (**@domstol.no)

CC: Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen
Judge: Oslo District Court
Postboks 8023 Dep., 0030 Oslo | C.J. Hambros Plass 4, 0164 Oslo
Sentralbord 22 03 52 00 | Tel/Faks: 22 03 5212 | 22 03 53 54
E-post: **@domstol.no, **@postmottak@domstol.no
E-post: Judge Wenche Arntzen (**@domstol.no)

Complaint against Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media).

Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges

Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media).

06 June Update: Letter to Supv. Comm. of Judges

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 30 May 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:07 PM
To: 'Supv. Comm. Judges'
Cc: Judge Nina Opsahl; NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court; NO Oslo District Court: Admin
Subject: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: Klage: Judge Nina Opsahl: Brudd på: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12.

Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges,
National Courts Administration,
Tel: 73 56 70 00 | Fax: 73 56 70 01
E-mail: Supv. Comm. Judges (**@domstol.no)

CC: Judge Nina Opsahl
Judge: Oslo District Court
Postboks 8023 Dep., 0030 Oslo | C.J. Hambros Plass 4, 0164 Oslo
Sentralbord 22 03 52 00 Tel/Faks: 22 03 5212 | 22 03 53 54
E-post: **@domstol.no, **@domstol.no
E-post: Judge Nina Opsahl (**@domstol.no)

Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media).