\;J Advokatforeningen
Personopplysnings!oven krever at du som klager gir oss tiHatelse tit a motta og behandle personopplysninger om deg og din klagesak. Du ma derfor fyUe ut og levere dette skjemaet sam men med klagen. Din klage pa advokat kan ikke behandles far Advokatforeningen har mottatt dette skjemaet. Skjemaet skal skrives ut, signeres og legges ved klagens dokumenter. Vi minner om at klagen skal sendes i to eksemplarer. Konvalutten merkes «klage pa advokat». Klagen sendes per post ti!: Advokatforeningen, Kristian Augusts gate 9, 0164 Oslo
Nayn pa klager (deg) NAVN
*
Lara Johnstone
POSTAORESSE
*
POBox
POSTNUMMER
*
16 Taaibos Ave
E·POST
5042, George East, 6539, South Africa STED
*
George
jmcswan@mweb.co.za
TELEFON
+27 (71) 170 1954
Nayn pa adyokaten som klagen gjelder ADVOKATENS NAVN FIRMAETS NAVN POSTAORESSE POSTNUMMER
* Judge Nina Opsahl
*
* *
Oslo District Court I Oslo Tinghus Postboks 8023 Dep., 0030 Oslo CJ Hambros Plass 4
STED
*
Oslo * Cbligatoriske
Klagen gjelder (sett kryss) KLAGEN GJELOER
[gJ
BRUOD pA REGLER FOR GOD ADVOKATSKIKK
D
[X) ANNET
SALkRKRAVET
Samtykke og underskrift Samtykke tit behandling av personopp!ysninger leg bekrefter a ha lest vedlagt informasjon
am disipliniErutvalgets
behandling
av personapplysninger.
leg samtykker med dette til at Advokatfareningens disipliniErutvalg kan behandle personopplysninger §§ 8 f0rste ledd og 9 f0rste ledd bokstav a, jf. § 11 f0rste ledd bokstav a. personopplysningsloven DATO
UNDERSKRIFT
, ~"'~.
STED
Jieorge _::~h Africa
om meg etter
28 May 2012
felt
Norway v. Breivik
Case: 11-188627 MED-05
‘Lawyers are either social engineers, or they are parasites. Social Engineer Lawyers aim to eliminate the difference between what the laws say and mean, and how they are applied; whereas legal parasites aim to entrench their parasitism from the difference between what the laws say and mean, and the application of such differences to their parasitic benefit.’ - Prof. Charlie Houston, mentor of Justice Thurgood Marshall, Simple Justice: History of Brown v. Board of Education1 P O Box 5042 George East, 6539 Cell: (071) 170 1954 Disciplinary Complaints The Norwegian Bar Association | Den Norske Advokatforening Juristenes Hus Kristian Augusts gate 9, 0164 Oslo Tel: 22 03 50 50 | Fax: 22 11 53 25 Email: Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints (post@advokatforeningen.no) Head: Judge Ernst Moe Sec: Beate Sundstrøm Disciplinary Committee | Disiplinærnemnden Kristian Augustsgt. 9 0164 OSLO Tlf. 22 03 50 50 | Tlf: 22 03 51 08 | Fax 22 11 53 25 Disciplinary Committee: (nemnden@jus.no) E-post: Judge Moe (ernst.moe@domstol.no) CC: Judge Nina Opsahl c/o Registrar of the 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: oslo.tinghus.sentralbord@domstol.no, oslo.tingrett.postmottak@domstol.no E-post: Judge Nina Opsahl (Nina.opsahl@domstol.no)
Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: Violation of: 2.1 (Independence), 2.2 (Honesty), 2.4 (Multiculti Legal Respect) & 4,1 (Rule of Law Conduct) of CCBE Code of Ethics (Norwegian translation) 2 | Klage mot dommer Nina Opsahl Brudd på: 2.1
1
Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education, the epochal Supreme Court decision that outlawed segregation, and of black America’s century-long struggle for equality under law, by Richard Kluger; Random House (1975) (pp126-129) 2 http://www.advokatforeningen.no/Etiske-regler/Internasjonale-regler/CCBEs-etiske-regler-norsk/
28/05/12 Complaint Against Judge Nina Opsahl norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
(Uavhengighet), 2.2 (ærlighet), 2,4 (Multiculti Juridisk Respekt) og 4,1 (Rule of Law gjennomføre) CCBEs etiske regler (norsk oversettelse)
Overview of Complaint: Complainant filed a legal application – Writ of Habeus Mentem - to the Oslo District Court in the Norway v. Breivik matter being adjudicated by Judge Opsahl. Judge Opsahl refused to provide any judgement to the applications whatsoever, whether to clarify any procedural errors by the applicant requiring correction, or to deny the applications with written reasons in accordance to due process. [See complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei: The complainant finally filed an application for review to the Norway Supreme Court, who refused to hear the application stating “that the Supreme Court of Norway only handles appeals against judgments given by the lower courts and can consequently not deal with the issue mentioned in your e-mails”; even though Judge Opsahl‟s conduct clearly indicated irregularities in her refusal to provide a „judgement‟]. Judge Opsahl’s conduct is a violation of her CCBE Code of Ethics duty to: (2.1) Independence: to be totally free and independent from all other influences, including political or media (public relations) influence or pressure; (2.2) Honesty: withholding of honest information is a form of lying and deception, and also a violation of the principle that the rule of law requires legislation (or judgements) to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom3); (2.4) Multiculti Legal Respect: Complainant is a paralegal4 member of the Radical Honesty culture [See: SA Constitutional Court Order by the Chief Justice in CCT 23-10: The Citizen v. Robert McBride5 on 03 May 2010: “The Chief Justice has issued the following directions: Ms. Lara Johnstone, Member of the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion is admitted as an Amicus Curiae.” (Annex A)] and does not think it is too much „Multiculti Legal Respect‟ to ask for any honest, impartial Judge to provide any individual, not just lawyers from „legal organisations‟ with a fair honest response to their legal application to their court; (4.1) Rule of Law Conduct: Provide all applicants with honest and clear response from the Court regarding the status of their applications, in terms of the rule of law principle that requires legislation (or judgements) to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom6)
ECHR: Rule of law requires Adequately Precise and Accessible Legislation: In Lithgow & others v United Kingdom7, the European Court of Human Rights 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: 3
Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html Paralegal Certificate & Diplomate: Lara Johnstone Download: http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/060111_paralegal-lj Read: http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/060111_paralegal-lj?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage 5 Robert McBride was a member of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the South African Liberation Struggle, and was convicted for the bombing of Magoo's Bar / “Why Not” Restaurant in Durban, which killed 3 and injured 69 in 1986. He applied for and was granted amnesty for this and other militant actions taken during his time with MK by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Citizen newspaper was subsequently found guilty of defaming McBride by calling him a murderer (McBride argued his crimes had been forgiven and erased by the TRC) and appealed to the Concourt. Johnstone‟s Amicus dealt with evidence for how and why South Africas Truth and Reconciliation Hearings were not a sincere investigation as to the root ecological and demographic (overpopulation youth bulge) cause of Apartheid or current SA political violence; and offered the court parties an opportunity to correct the error of SA‟s TRC Fraud by addressing its errors so that true and sincere reconciliation could occur. Even though Johnstone‟s application was accepted by the Concourt and filed, both McBride and the SA media refused the offer to address the evidence of ecological causes of SA‟s apartheid violence and the consequence TRC Fraud, and correct the error; since both McBride (the ANC) and the media socio-politically and financially benefit from SA‟s TRC Fraud and current violence. 6 Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html 7 Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html 4
28/05/12 Complaint Against Judge Nina Opsahl norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
“As regards the phrase "subject to the conditions provided for by law”, it requires in the first place the existence of and compliance with adequately accessible and sufficiently precise domestic legal provisions (see, amongst other authorities, the alone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 31-33, paras. 66-68).”
CCBE Code of Ethics (Norwegian translation): 2.1 (Independence), 2.2 (Honesty), 2.4 (Multiculti Legal Respect) & 4,1 (Rule of Law Conduct) | CCBEs etiske regler (norsk oversettelse): 2.1 (Uavhengighet), 2.2 (ærlighet), 2,4 (Multiculti Juridisk Respekt) og 4,1 (Rule of Law gjennomføre) 2.1. Independence 2.1.1. The many duties a lawyer undertakes, requires that the lawyer is totally independent and free from all other influence, especially such as may result from their own personal interests or external pressure. Such independence is as necessary for confidence in the judicial process that the judge's impartiality. A lawyer must therefore avoid having his or her independence in any way impaired, and be careful not to compromise their professional standards to please the client, the court or third parties. 2.1.2. Independence is necessary, both in litigation and other legal issues. Advice from a lawyer to a client has no value if the lawyer provides advice just to please others, to earn their own personal interests or as a result of external pressure. 2.1. Uavhengighet 2.1.1. De mange forpliktelser en advokat påtar seg, krever at advokaten er totalt uavhengig og fri for all annen påvirkning, særlig en slik påvirkning som kan følge av egne, personlige interesser eller press utenfra. En slik uavhengighet er like nødvendig for tilliten til rettsprosessen som dommerens upartiskhet. En advokat må derfor unngå at hans eller hennes uavhengighet på noen måte svekkes, og være nøye med ikke å gå på akkord med sine faglige standarder å tekkes klienten, retten eller tredjeparter. 2.1.2. Uavhengighet er nødvendig både i rettstvister og i andre juridiske spørsmål. Råd fra en advokat til en klient har ingen verdi dersom advokaten gir rådet bare for å tekkes andre, for å tjene egne, personlige interesser eller som en følge av press utenfra. 2.2. Trust and Personal Integrity It may just be a trusting relationship if the lawyer's personal honor, honesty and integrity are beyond doubt. These traditional virtues of the lawyer's obligations that come with the profession. 2.2. Tillit og personlig integritet Det kan bare være et tillitsfullt forhold dersom advokatens personlige heder, ærlighet og integritet er hevet over tvil. Disse tradisjonelle dyder er for advokaten forpliktelser som følger med yrket. 2.4. Respect for the rules of other legal organizations By cross-border activities, a lawyer from another Member State be obliged to comply with the host state's professional rules. Lawyers have a duty to keep themselves informed of the rules that will affect them in relation to a particular business. 2.4. Respekt for reglene i andre advokatorganisasjoner
28/05/12 Complaint Against Judge Nina Opsahl norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
Ved virksomhet over landegrensene kan en advokat fra en annen medlemsstat ha plikt til å følge vertsstatens profesjonsregler. Advokater har plikt til å holde seg informert om hvilke regler som vil berøre dem i forbindelse med en bestemt virksomhet. 4.1. Rules of Conduct in court A lawyer meetings or participate in legal proceedings, must follow the rules of conduct that apply to the court. 4.1. Atferdsregler i retten En advokat som møter eller deltar i en sak for domstolen, må følge de atferdsregler som gjelder ved den domstolen.
Chronology of Facts 30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court: Habeus Mentem: [1]
On 30 November 2011, complainant filed an Application to the Oslo District Court: Application for a [I] writ of Habeus Mentem on behalf of Anders Breivik psycho-cultural integrity right to a free and fair trial; and [II] writ of Certiorari/Review of the Psychiatric Evaluation Report of Psychiatrists: Synne Serheim and Torgeir Husby as to the Mens Rea political necessity criminal liability of Anders Breivik terrorist acts, on 22 July 2011.
[2]
On 15 December 2012 complainant informed the court that: “Please could you confirm: (1) The date my application is to be submitted to Judge Opsahl, or the relevant Judge, for their consideration. (2) The date the said Judge intends to provide me with their ruling on the matter.”
[3]
There has been no response from the Clerk of the Court. I imagine that the Judge has ordered the Clerk to ignore the application. Refusal to respond to an application implies that the application is being denied, and that the applicant is unworthy of a transparent due process response8.
[4]
[See complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei]. Respectfully Submitted | Respektfullt Sendt
Lara Johnstone Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/ Annexures: [A] SA Constitutional Court Order by the Chief Justice in CCT 23-10 on 03 May 2010 [B] 30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court for a Writ of Habeus Mentem
8
[Field Manual No. FM 3-0, Headquarters Department of the Army, June 2001: Chapter 11: Information Superiority] When you engage someone openly with “white” information operations, i.e. IO (Information Operations) where your identity is clear and explicit, you imply that they are roughly your equal. By speaking to or of them directly, you point up that they are important enough to demand your attention and your reply.
28/05/12 Complaint Against Judge Nina Opsahl norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr