Sivilombudsmannen The parliamentary Ombudsman Norway
Office address Akersgata 8, entrance Tollbugata Postal address P.O.B. 3 Sentrum N-0101 Oslo, Norway
Telephone +47 2282 85 00 Fax +47 2282 85 1] postmortak@sivilombudsmannen.no
Lara Johnstone PO Box 5042 George 6539 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Our ref
SIOM
Your ref
2012/1943
II
Enquiries to
Date
Torbj0m Hagerup Nagelhus
11.07.2012
LACK OF RESPONSE FROM THE SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR ._
-JUDGES- -~--_~
"
.__ ~~_..
~. __.
_
Reference is made to your letter of 4 July 2012 with attachments. Your complaint regards the lack of response to your three complaints 30 May 2012 to the Supervisory Committee for Judges (Tilsynsutvalget for dommere). Anyone who believes to be the victim of injustice from the public administration, can file a complaint to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman's control is subsequent to the administration's handling ofthe case, which means that a case can only be processed here when the administration has taken a final decision to the question for this case. The Ombudsman can still handle complaints about the lack of response, before the case is processed in the administration (slow case processing). It is a condition that you have made a written approach to the administration, and that a written reminder has been sent. Therefore, you should give a written request to Tilsynsutvalget for dommere, where y()tt-eall-fof-an-&W~8-to-your-applications.lf_~Qu_do-.-notxec.eive a resQonse to this --:-:-----:-----------request within a reasonable time, you can contact the Ombudsman, with an enclosed copy of the last request to Ti1synsutvalget for dommere.
On behalf of the Ombudsman
~~
Head of Division
www.sivilombudsmannen.no
Complaints form Slow Case Processing or Failure to Provide Case Processing by Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges 4. july 2012
Complainant Submitted by Forename: Surname: Organisation: Address: Postcode: Town: E-mail: Telephone: Fax:
Lara Johnstone SHARP P O Box 5042 6539 George, RSA jmcswan@mweb.co.za
Complainant Forename: Surname: Address: Postcode: Town:
Complaint Which public agency does your complaint refer to? Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges Enter the public agency's case number or reference if known
I complain about a decision made
Nei
When was the decision made (date of letter)?
I complain about slow case processing or failure to reply I complain about other issues (e.g. bad treatment)
Ja Nei
Complaints form
Attachments 12-07-04_Ombudsman.pdf 12-06-05_Tilsynsutvalgetfordommere_ CJ Tore Schei_##.pdf 12-06-05_Tilsynsutvalgetfordommere_J Nina Opsahl_##.pdf 12-06-05_Tilsynsutvalgetfordommere_J Wenche E Arntzen_##.pdf
Grounds for complaint Describe your complaint Chronology of Facts: 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 p책 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.?
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 04 July 2012 Parliamentary Ombudsman: Arne Fliflet The Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public Administration P.O. Box 3 Sentrum NO - 0101 Oslo Telephone: +47 22 82 85 00 Tel: 22 82 85 00 | Toll: 800 800 39 | Fax: 22 82 85 11 E-mail: postmottak@sivilombudsmannen.no
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. Chronology of Facts: 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
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)
02/07/12 Complaint: Ombudsman norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
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.” Legal Application Filed in Norway v. Breivik Matter: Judge Nina Opsahl: [1]
30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court: Habeus Mentem: 1.
On 30 November 2011, complainant filed an Application2 to the Oslo District Court: Application for a [I] writ of Habeus Mentem on behalf of Anders Breivik psychocultural 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 court3 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.
On 30 May 2012 a complaint was filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges4 as a result of Respondents failure to provide the complainant with a transparent due process response5; which was a violation of their CCBE Ethical Duties to the court and all applicants to courts in all court disputes.
Legal Application Filed in Norway v. Breivik Matter: Judge Wenche Arntzen: [2]
15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court: Amicus Curiae: 1.
On 15 April 2012, Complainant filed an Application6 to the Oslo District Court: Application to proceed as In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amicus Curiae for an Order (1) to approve the Applicant as an In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amici Curiae, and (2) Amending the Charges Against the Defendant and Applicant to include Treason in terms of Article 85 of Norwegian Constitution, and if found guilty, in a free and fair trial; to be executed by firing squad. The application requested the Prosecution and Defence to respond by 23 April 2012 either consenting to, or objecting to, the application.
2
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2011/12/oslo-district-court-norway-v-breivik.html http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2011/12/notice-to-oslo-court-request-date-judge.html http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/search/label/DA%3A%20Sec.%20Supv.%20Comm.%20for%20Judges 5 [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. 6 http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/no-v-breivik-ecofeminist-application-to.html 3 4
02/07/12 Complaint: Ombudsman norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
2.
On 26 April 2012, Complainant informed the court7 that: “There has been no response from the Prosecution and Defence either consenting to, or objecting to, my application to proceed as an Amicus. Please could you confirm: (1) The date my application is to be submitted to Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, or the relevant Judge, for her/their consideration. (2) The date the said Judge intends to provide me with their ruling approving or denying my application.”
3.
On 30 May 2012 a complaint was filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges8 as a result of Respondents failure to provide the complainant with a transparent due process response9; which was a violation of their CCBE Ethical Duties to the court and all applicants to courts in all court disputes.
Legal Application Filed in Norway v. Breivik Matter: Chief Justice Tore Schei: [3]
10 May 2012 Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review & Declaratory Orders: 1.
On 10 May 2012, Complainant filed an Application10 to the Norway Supreme Court: Application (1) to be admitted as a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee; (2) for An Order demanding the Norwegian Ministry of Culture to act in accordance to European Court of Human Rights ruling in Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom, and clarify in adequately accessible and sufficiently precise statement; whether Norway is (A) a ‘Children of the Rainbow’11 State legally committed to Multiculturalism, providing all cultures their right to invoke cultural law and hence granting the Applicant her rights to invoke Radical Honoursty cultural law; or (B) a Monocultural Indigenous European Supremacy Legal Hegemonic State, and that the Labour Party Immigration policy is a tactic to maintain their grip on power, by importing Non-Western immigrants as Labour Party vote-fodder; (3) to Review the Oslo District Court failure to act in accordance of due process to a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee Applicant member of the Radical Honesty culture.
2.
On 11 May 2012 complainant requested from Norway Supreme Court Officials: Mr. Svein Andersen / Mr. Kjersti Ruud: “Could you kindly clarify when the Registrar shall issue a Case Number; or whether you require additional documentation or information?”
3.
On 15 May 2012, Kjersti Buun Nygaard responded12 with: “Reference is made to your emails regarding the above issue. Please be advised 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. Further inquiries from you regarding the above issue can not be expected to be answered.”
4.
On 15 May 2012, complainant responded13 with: (I) Error in Supreme Court: Deputy Secretary General: Kjersti Buun Nygaard Response to SHARP Application to Supreme Court for Declaratory Orders and Review of Oslo District Court’s Decisions.
7
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/update-ecofeminist-applic-to-oslo-court.html http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/search/label/DA%3A%20Sec.%20Supv.%20Comm.%20for%20Judges [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. 10 http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/ecofeminists-deep-green-ecology.html 11 Europost: Children of the Rainbow against Anders Breivik http://www.europost.bg/article?id=4409 12 http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/no-supreme-crt-dep-sec-gen-kjersti-buun.html 13 http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/no-supreme-crt-dep-sec-gen-kjersti-buun.html 8 9
02/07/12 Complaint: Ombudsman norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
5.
On 17 May 2012, complainant filed an Environmental Crime Complaint to Interpol14, via Norway Police; Charges: Obstruction of Environmental & Indigenous Rights Justice Committed by Chief Justice Tore Schei & Dep. Sec. Gen: Kjersti Nygaard.
6.
On 30 May 2012 a complaint was filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges15 as a result of Respondents failure to provide the complainant with a transparent due process response16; which was a violation of their CCBE Ethical Duties to the court and all applicants to courts in all court disputes.
Respectfully Submitted
Lara Johnstone Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/ Annexures: (Not Included: Links provided for download): [A] SA Constitutional Court Order by the Chief Justice in CCT 23-10 on 03 May 2010 (PDF17) [B] 30 Nov 2011 Application to Oslo District Court for a Writ of Habeus Mentem (PDF18) [C] 15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court to proceed as an Amicus Curiae (PDF19) [D] 10 May 2012 Appl. to Norway Supreme Court for Review & Declaratory Orders (PDF20) [E] 15 May 2012 Error in Supreme Crt Dep Sec. Gen Response to Applic for Review (PDF21) [F] 17 May 2012 Interpol Complaint: Obstruction of Env. & Ind. Rights Justice (PDF22)
14
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/16-may-ecofeminist-death-battalion.html http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/search/label/DA%3A%20Sec.%20Supv.%20Comm.%20for%20Judges [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. 17 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/100718_rhwr-concourt-amicus 18 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/111130_breivik-habeus 19 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120414_amicus 20 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120510_nsc-rev 21 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120515_nsc-nygaard 22 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120517_interpol 15 16
02/07/12 Complaint: Ombudsman norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr