12-09-02: Parl.Ombud: Secr.Supv.Comm.4.Judges: Case 2012-1943: Slow Case Processing

Complaints form Slow Case Processing or Failure to Provide Case Processing by Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges 2. september 2012

Complainant Submitted by Forename: Surname: Organisation: Address: Postcode: Town: E-mail: Telephone: Fax:

Lara Johnstone SHARP P O Box 5042 6539 George East, RSA jmcswan@mweb.co.za +27-71 170 1954

Complainant Forename: Surname: Address: Postcode: Town:

Complaint Which public agency does your complaint refer to?

Supv. Comm. for Judges/ Tilsynsutvalget for dommere Enter the public agency's case number or reference if known Unknown 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 12-09-01_Ombudsman-SSCJ_2012-1943_HoD-BSollie_Adv-THNagelhus.pdf 12-07-01_C_2012-1943_SSC4J_HeadofDiv_BeritSollie.pdf

Grounds for complaint Describe your complaint Overview: Slow Case Processing: Supv. Comm. for Judges/ Tilsynsutvalget for dommere have obstructed my requests for a Case number since 06 June 2012, and for information about the level of transparency of their ?standard procedure? since 31 July 2012.

Failure to Provide Case Processing: Supv. Comm. for Judges/ Tilsynsutvalget for dommere appear to be attempting to refuse to provide me with a Case Number, in their attempts to obstruct my complaint from the public record.

On 04 July 2012 I filed a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on this matter.

On 11 July 2012 Parliamentary Ombudsman responded ? Case 2012 ? 1943 ? as follows: "Therefore, you should give a written request to Tilsynsutvalget for dommere, where you call for answer to your applications. If you do not receive a response to this request within a reasonable time, you can contact the Ombudsman, with an enclosed copy of the last request to Tilsynsutvalget for dommere."

On 20 July 2012, I again contacted the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges: National Courts Administration: ?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 31 July 2012, Supv. Comm. for Judges/ Tilsynsutvalget for dommere (Senior Advisor: Ms. Espen Eiken) responded: "We refer to your three complaints to the Supervisory Committee for Judges (Tilsynsutvalget for dommere). Your complaints will be handled according to our standard procedure. According to our standard procedure we don?t send a confirmation letter to inform that we have received a complaint. Each complaint will be given a case number. The average handling time for the Supervisory Committee has lately been up to six months."

On 01 August 2012, I responded to Supv. Comm. for Judges / Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: "I am a little unclear as to a few issues in your correspondence: ... It is unclear from aforementioned procedures, whether all parties statements are public statements provided to all parties? Can you please clarify; so that I am crystal clear about the Committee's process, and can continue these proceedings with confidence in the Committee's impartial objectivity and professionalism: 1. It will

Complaints form take six months for me to be issued a case number? 2. Or, it will take six months to complete the complaint enquiry?"

On 21 August 2012, I again contacted Ms. Espen at Supv. Comm. for Judges / Tilsynsutvalget for dommere, with a request for aforementioned information.

On 31 August 2012, I again contacted Ms. Espen at Supv. Comm. for Judges / Tilsynsutvalget for dommere, with a request for aforementioned information.

Norway v. Breivik

Case: 11-188627 MED-05 P O Box 5042 George East, 6539 Cell: (071) 170 1954 01 September 2012

PO Ref: Case 2012-1943 Adv: Torbjorn Hagerup Nagelhus Head of Div.: Berit Sollie Parliamentary Ombudsman P.O. Box 3 Sentrum NO - 0101 Oslo 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.

Overview: Slow Case Processing: Supv. Comm. for Judges/ Tilsynsutvalget for dommere have

obstructed my requests for a Case number since 06 June 2012, and for information about the level of transparency of their „standard procedureâ€&#x; since 31 July 2012.

Failure to Provide Case Processing: Supv. Comm. for Judges/ Tilsynsutvalget for

dommere appear to be attempting to refuse to provide me with a Case Number, in their attempts to obstruct my complaint from the public record.

Chronology of Facts: Complaint to Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges: On 30 May 2012 I 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 I noted that she had not yet received any information detailing the process and procedure for her complaints, and additionally provided the completed

01/09/12 P.Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943: Env. Appeals Brd: Media Env. Censorship

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

signed “Skjema for klage på dommere til Tilsynsutvalget for dommere (TU)” forms for her complaints.

On 02 July 2012 I 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 I filed a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on this matter.

On 11 July 2012 Parliamentary Ombudsman responded – Case 2012 – 1943 – as follows: Therefore, you should give a written request to Tilsynsutvalget for dommere, where you call for answer to your applications. If you do not receive a response to this request within a reasonable time, you can contact the Ombudsman, with an enclosed copy of the last request to Tilsynsutvalget for dommere.

On 20 July 2012, I again contacted1 the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges: National Courts Administration.

“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 31 July 2012, Supv. Comm. for Judges/ Tilsynsutvalget for dommere (Senior Advisor: Ms. Espen Eiken) responded2: "We refer to your three complaints to the Supervisory Committee for Judges (Tilsynsutvalget for dommere). Your complaints will be handled according to our standard procedure. According to our standard procedure we don‟t send a confirmation letter to inform that we have received a complaint. Each complaint will be given a case number. The average handling time for the Supervisory Committee has lately been up to six months."

On 01 August 2012, I responded3 to Supv. Comm. for Judges / Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: I am a little unclear as to a few issues in your correspondence: 1. Committee does not Acknowledge Receipt of Complaints I am confused: Is the Committee deliberately or negligently ignorant that it's behaviour contradicts its alleged goals of encouraging confidence in the courts?[1]. If the Committee is unable to identify very basic common sense unethical conduct in its own procedures (namely to professionally acknowledge receipt of any complaint to inform a complainant of the complaints procedures); is such behaviour not conducive to undermining confidence in the Committee's work; and consequently in the broader role of the court system?

2. Standard Procedure: Your brochure states: "The proceedings are in writing. All parties involved are informed and are given an opportunity to make a statement. When the case is ready for hearing – after all parties 1 2 3

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/07/120720_sscj-po.html http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/07/120731_da-eikene.html http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/120801_scj_eikene.html

01/09/12 P.Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943: Env. Appeals Brd: Media Env. Censorship

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

have made their statements – this takes place at a meeting which all the Committee members attend. Complaints are generally dealt with on the basis of written statements. But the parties are entitled to make verbal statements to the Supervisory Committee, unless the Committee should consider this as obviously unnecessary to the elucidation of the case. In special cases, it may be relevant to obtain statements from others, examine witnesses, etc."

It is unclear from aforementioned procedures, whether all parties statements are public statements provided to all parties?

Can you please clarify; so that I am crystal clear about the Committee's process, and can continue these proceedings with confidence in the Committee's impartial objectivity and professionalism: 1. It will take six months for me to be issued a case number?

2. Or, it will take six months to complete the complaint enquiry?

On 21 August 2012, I again contacted4 Ms. Espen at Supv. Comm. for Judges / Tilsynsutvalget for dommere, with a request for aforementioned information, ITO: It is unclear from aforementioned procedures, whether all parties statements are public statements provided to all parties?

Can you please clarify; so that I am crystal clear about the Committee's process, and can continue these proceedings with confidence in the Committee's impartial objectivity and professionalism: 1. It will take six months for me to be issued a case number?

2. Or, it will take six months to complete the complaint enquiry?

On 31 August 2012, I again contacted5 Ms. Espen at Supv. Comm. for Judges / Tilsynsutvalget for dommere, with a request for aforementioned information, ITO: It is unclear from aforementioned procedures, whether all parties statements are public statements provided to all parties?

Can you please clarify; so that I am crystal clear about the Committee's process, and can continue these proceedings with confidence in the Committee's impartial objectivity and professionalism: 1. It will take six months for me to be issued a case number?

2. Or, it will take six months to complete the complaint enquiry?

Relief Requested: Supervisory Committee for Judges be ordered to provide me with the following Case Processing information:

1. Whether their standard procedure involves full transparency of all parties statements: Are all parties statements public and hence provided to all parties?

2. How long will it take for the Supv. Comm. for Judges / Tilsynsutvalget for dommere to provide me with an Official Case Number?

4 5

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/120818_ssc4j-update.html http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/120831_ssc4j-caseno.html

01/09/12 P.Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943: Env. Appeals Brd: Media Env. Censorship

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

3. If more than two weeks; written reasons for the delay of providing a Case Number for a Complaint, which generally is provided within - at most - less than five days.

Respectfully Submitted

Lara Johnstone Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com Encl: [A] Email Correspondence [B] Other Enclosures were provided in 04 July 2012 complaint.

01/09/12 P.Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943: Env. Appeals Brd: Media Env. Censorship

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

From: Lara [**@mweb.co.za] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 12:52 PM To: Crt: Supv. Comm. Judges (**@domstol.no) Cc: NO: Lippestad (**@advokatlippestad.no); Crt: Pros Holden. Politie: Oslo (**@namsfogden.no); Crt: Victims: Siv Hallgren (**@elden.no); Crt: Victims: Frode Elgesem (**@thommessen.no); Crt: Victims: Mette Yvonne Larsen (**@advokatstabell.no) Subject: [SOM: 2012-1943]: Re: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: Klage: Justice Tore Schei | Judge Wenche Arntzen | Judge Nina Opsahl Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges National Courts Administration, Tel: 73 56 70 00 | Fax: 73 56 70 01 CC: Norway v. Breivik: Prosecutor, Victims Families, Defendant RE: 30 May 2012 Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges complaints against Complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei; Judge Wenche Arntzen and Judge Nina Opsahl.

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.

Please Note: 1. In case of Absence of Response from Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges, providing a case number and details of processing of my complaint (or alternatively a final date by when such information shall be provided to me by the Committee), by 27 July 2012; the complaint shall be submitted to: Parliamentary Ombudsman Head of Division: Berit Sollie Advisor: Torbjorn Hagerup Nagelhus Case: 2012/1943 Re: Lack of Response from the Supervisory Committee of Judges 2. As a member of Radical Honesty culture, I practice Total Transparency; hence have no requirements for secrecy. All correspondence can be submitted by email.

Respectfully Submitted Lara Johnstone Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/

Lara (Clann/Tribe Name: Johnstone): I (Sovereign or alleged Corporate identity) do not endorse any contract which does not fulfill the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract, namely: (1) Full Disclosure; (2) Equal Consideration; (3) Lawful Clear and Concise Terms and Conditions simply explained; and (4) Signatures of both/all Parties. All my correspondence is public and a matter of record. If you wish to conduct private correspondence with me: File a written request, including 01/09/12 P.Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943: Env. Appeals Brd: Media Env. Censorship

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

your evidence and reasons, and only if your evidence is of sufficient weight, shall I be willing to enter into an agreement with you to keep your correspondence 'private' (i.e. secret). As a member of Radical Honesty culture I always endorse the resolution of all disagreements and/or misunderstandings in accordance to Radical Honesty cultural practices (See: Practicing Radical Honesty, by Brad Blanton & Concourt CCT 23-10 order by Justices 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."), or via independent arbitration that does not involve bloodsucking parasite lawyers; and am willing to consider the practices of other cultures, who seriously and sincerely consider mine.

From: Eiken, Espen [**@domstoladministrasjonen.no] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:46 AM To: 'jmcswan@mweb.co.za' Subject: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl We refer to your three complaints to the Supervisory Committee for Judges (Tilsynsutvalget for dommere).

Your complaints will be handled according to our standard procedure. According to our standard procedure we donâ€&#x;t send a confirmation letter to inform that we have received a complaint. Each complaint will be given a case number. The average handling time for the Supervisory Committee has lately been up to six months.

On behalf of the Supervisory Committee for Judges Espen Eiken Senior Adviser

From: Lara [**@mweb.co.za] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 1:28 AM To: 'Eiken, Espen' Cc: Judge Wenche Arntzen (**@domstol.no); Judge Nina Opsahl (**l@domstol.no); Ch.Justice Tore Schei (**@hoyesterett.no) Subject: RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl Ms. Eiken, Supervisory Committee for Judges Many thanks for your correspondence dated 31 July 2012.

I am a little unclear as to a few issues in your correspondence: 1. Committee does not Acknowledge Receipt of Complaints I am confused: Is the Committee deliberately or negligently ignorant that it's behaviour contradicts its alleged goals of encouraging confidence in the courts?[1]. If the Committee is unable to identify very basic common sense unethical conduct in its own procedures (namely to professionally acknowledge receipt of any complaint to inform a complainant of the complaints procedures); is such behaviour not conducive to undermining confidence in the Committee's work; and consequently in the broader role of the court system?

2. Standard Procedure: 01/09/12 P.Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943: Env. Appeals Brd: Media Env. Censorship

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

Your brochure states: "The proceedings are in writing. All parties involved are informed and are given an opportunity to make a statement. When the case is ready for hearing – after all parties have made their statements – this takes place at a meeting which all the Committee members attend. Complaints are generally dealt with on the basis of written statements. But the parties are entitled to make verbal statements to the Supervisory Committee, unless the Committee should consider this as obviously unnecessary to the elucidation of the case. In special cases, it may be relevant to obtain statements from others, examine witnesses, etc."

It is unclear from aforementioned procedures, whether all parties statements are public statements provided to all parties?

My complaints were filed on 06 June 2012, with a follow-up enquiry on 02 July, with no response whatsoever from the Committee until 31 July 2012, subsequent to complaints filed with the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Can you please clarify; so that I am crystal clear about the Committee's process, and can continue these proceedings with confidence in the Committee's impartial objectivity and professionalism: 1. It will take six months for me to be issued a case number?

2. Or, it will take six months to complete the complaint enquiry?

Or put differently; how long should I wait for a professional response from the Committee, before concluding that -- like Norwegian Judges, Prosecutors, Police and Editors -- the Committee just ignores politically incorrect complaints, as if the people who file such complaints simply do not exist?

Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/ [1] Committee's Purpose: The Supervisory Committee's most important guideline is to work to identify factors that are likely to undermine confidence in the courts. This work requires three important considerations must be weighed against each other: For the courts to function appropriately in society must be turned down on the factors that contribute to doubt that judges act on the basis of appropriate judicial conduct. That ethical standards that support and develop confidence in the courts as independent, impartial and competent public institutions for conflict resolution. http://www.domstol.no/no/Enkelt-domstol/Tilsynsutvalget-for-dommere/Om-Tilsynsutvalget/

From: Lara [**@mweb.co.za] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:44 AM To: 'Eiken, Espen' Cc: Judge Wenche Arntzen (**@domstol.no); Judge Nina Opsahl (**@domstol.no); Ch.Justice Tore Schei (**@hoyesterett.no); Crt: Lippestad: Tord Jordet (**@advokatlippestad.no); Crt: Pros Holden.

Politie: Police Directorate (**@politiet.no); Crt: Victims: Siv Hallgren (**@elden.no); Crt: Victims: Frode Elgesem (**@thommessen.no); Crt: Victims: Mette Yvonne Larsen (**@advokatstabell.no) Subject: RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl

01/09/12 P.Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943: Env. Appeals Brd: Media Env. Censorship

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

Ms. Eiken, Supervisory Committee for Judges RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl Transparency Update: [1] Updated Info: Relevant Excerpt: RH Ecofeminist Letter to Mr. Breivik: [2] The 170 complaints (CCBE Code of Ethics: Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial) against Defence and Victims Families Attorneys referred to Bar Associations, have been submitted to the Environmental Appeals Board ecofeminist-vbreivik.weebly.com > RH Court Records > Env. Appeals Board: [3] No Response from Supv. Comm. for Judges to my questions (01 August 2012) in response to your correspondence (31 July 2012). ********************** [1] Updated Info: Relevant Excerpt: RH Ecofeminist Letter to Mr. Breivik: http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/rh-13-aug-2012.html ------------Request Clarification: RE: Habeus Mentem, Amicus Curiae and Review Applications Filed: I am not quite clear. You acknowledge receipt of the legal applications I filed in the Norway v.

Breivik matter, but refer to them as „my letter and email compaigns‟? Do you dispute their contents as being unworthy of being considered legal applications; and if so, could you clarify how and why you do so? Or why do you refer to these legal applications as „letters and emails‟.

In terms of my definition of „honour‟; to be „honourable‟ is to legally acknowledge the application by responding to the issues raised therein, as part of court procedure.

If you do not dispute them as legal applications: Could you please clarify what exactly your instructions were to your Attorneys in response to the applications I filed in Oslo District Court: Judge Nina Opsahl (Habeus Mentem: Right to Legal Sanity) and Judge Wenche (Amicus Curiae: Friend of the Court) and the Norwegian Supreme Court: Review and Declaratory Order.

--------------******************** [2] 16 Aug 2012: Env. App. Brd: Req. for Env. Info from AdvFor: Disc. Comm. & Disc. Brd. for Adv. Application to Environment Appeals Board: for an Order that the Disciplinary Board and Committee: Provide their Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for demanding complainants waste paper, ink and non-renewable transporation resources by printing, signing and mailing complaints to them; and refusing digitally signed complaints submitted by email, which are much more beneficial to the environment, and are exact environmentally digital copies of print versions?

CCBE Code of Ethics Disciplinary Complaints were filed against 170 Advocates in the Norway v.

Breivik matter (4 with Disciplinary Board of Advocates (“Disciplinary Board” (PDF); 166 with Bar Association: Disciplinary Committee (“Disciplinary Committee” (PDF)), by email.

01/09/12 P.Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943: Env. Appeals Brd: Media Env. Censorship

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

Both the Disciplinary Board and Committee responded that according to their complaints policy; they refuse to accept complaints submitted by email; all complaints must be submitted in hardcopy (printed and sent by landmail).

Repeated requests to both respondents to provide their environmental justifications for their policy to refuse email complaints were refused. http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/bar-association1.html ****************** [3] I am still awaiting a response to the questions in my correspondence of 01 August 2012, in response to your correspondence of 31 July 2012.

I repeat: 1. Committee does not Acknowledge Receipt of Complaints I am confused: Is the Committee deliberately or negligently ignorant that it's behaviour contradicts its alleged goals of encouraging confidence in the courts?[1]. If the Committee is unable to identify very basic common sense unethical conduct in its own procedures (namely to professionally acknowledge receipt of any complaint to inform a complainant of the complaints procedures); is such behaviour not conducive to undermining confidence in the Committee's work; and consequently in the broader role of the court system?

2. Standard Procedure: Your brochure states: "The proceedings are in writing. All parties involved are informed and are given an opportunity to make a statement. When the case is ready for hearing – after all parties have made their statements – this takes place at a meeting which all the Committee members attend. Complaints are generally dealt with on the basis of written statements. But the parties are entitled to make verbal statements to the Supervisory Committee, unless the Committee should consider this as obviously unnecessary to the elucidation of the case. In special cases, it may be relevant to obtain statements from others, examine witnesses, etc."

It is unclear from aforementioned procedures, whether all parties statements are public statements provided to all parties?

My complaints were filed on 06 June 2012, with a follow-up enquiry on 02 July, with no response whatsoever from the Committee until 31 July 2012, subsequent to complaints filed with the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Can you please clarify; so that I am crystal clear about the Committee's process, and can continue these proceedings with confidence in the Committee's impartial objectivity and professionalism: 1. It will take six months for me to be issued a case number?

2. Or, it will take six months to complete the complaint enquiry?

Or put differently; how long should I wait for a professional response from the Committee, before concluding that -- like Norwegian Judges, Prosecutors, Police and Editors -- the Committee just ignores politically incorrect complaints, as if the people who file such complaints simply do not exist?

Respectfully,

01/09/12 P.Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943: Env. Appeals Brd: Media Env. Censorship

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

Lara Johnstone Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/ [1] Committee's Purpose: The Supervisory Committee's most important guideline is to work to identify factors that are likely to undermine confidence in the courts. This work requires three important considerations must be weighed against each other: For the courts to function appropriately in society must be turned down on the factors that contribute to doubt that judges act on the basis of appropriate judicial conduct. That ethical standards that support and develop confidence in the courts as independent, impartial and competent public institutions for conflict resolution. http://www.domstol.no/no/Enkelt-domstol/Tilsynsutvalget-for-dommere/Om-Tilsynsutvalget/

From: Lara [**@mweb.co.za] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:43 AM To: 'Eiken, Espen'; Crt: Supv. Comm. Judges (**@domstol.no) Cc: Judge Wenche Arntzen (**@domstol.no); Judge Nina Opsahl (**@domstol.no); Ch.Justice Tore Schei (**@hoyesterett.no); Crt: Lippestad: Tord Jordet (**@advokatlippestad.no); Crt: Pros Holden.

Politie: Police Directorate (**@politiet.no); Crt: Victims: Siv Hallgren (**@elden.no); Crt: Victims: Frode Elgesem (**@thommessen.no); Crt: Victims: Mette Yvonne Larsen (**@advokatstabell.no) Subject: [31.08] RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl Ms. Eiken, Supervisory Committee for Judges RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl

No Response from Supv. Comm. for Judges to my questions (01 August 2012)(21 August 2012) in response to your correspondence (31 July 2012).

I am still awaiting a response to the questions in my correspondence of 01 August 2012, and 21 August, in response to your correspondence of 31 July 2012.

I repeat: 1. Committee does not Acknowledge Receipt of Complaints I am confused: Is the Committee deliberately or negligently ignorant that it's behaviour contradicts its alleged goals of encouraging confidence in the courts?[1]. If the Committee is unable to identify very basic common sense unethical conduct in its own procedures (namely to professionally acknowledge receipt of any complaint to inform a complainant of the complaints procedures); is such behaviour not conducive to undermining confidence in the Committee's work; and consequently in the broader role of the court system?

2. Standard Procedure: Your brochure states: "The proceedings are in writing. All parties involved are informed and are given an opportunity to make a statement. When the case is ready for hearing – after all parties have made their statements – this takes place at a meeting which all the Committee members attend. Complaints are generally dealt with on the basis of written statements. But the parties are 01/09/12 P.Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943: Env. Appeals Brd: Media Env. Censorship

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

entitled to make verbal statements to the Supervisory Committee, unless the Committee should consider this as obviously unnecessary to the elucidation of the case. In special cases, it may be relevant to obtain statements from others, examine witnesses, etc."

It is unclear from aforementioned procedures, whether all parties statements are public statements provided to all parties?

My complaints were filed on 06 June 2012, with a follow-up enquiry on 02 July, with no response whatsoever from the Committee until 31 July 2012, subsequent to complaints filed with the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Can you please clarify; so that I am crystal clear about the Committee's process, and can continue these proceedings with confidence in the Committee's impartial objectivity and professionalism: 1. It will take six months for me to be issued a case number?

2. Or, it will take six months to complete the complaint enquiry?

Or put differently; how long should I wait for a professional response from the Committee, before concluding that -- like Norwegian Judges, Prosecutors, Police and Editors -- the Committee just ignores politically incorrect complaints, as if the people who file such complaints simply do not exist?

Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/ [1] Committee's Purpose: The Supervisory Committee's most important guideline is to work to identify factors that are likely to undermine confidence in the courts. This work requires three important considerations must be weighed against each other: For the courts to function appropriately in society must be turned down on the factors that contribute to doubt that judges act on the basis of appropriate judicial conduct. That ethical standards that support and develop confidence in the courts as independent, impartial and competent public institutions for conflict resolution. http://www.domstol.no/no/Enkelt-domstol/Tilsynsutvalget-for-dommere/Om-Tilsynsutvalget/

01/09/12 P.Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943: Env. Appeals Brd: Media Env. Censorship

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr