12-09-09: AU Press Council: Inaccuracy in Sydney Morning Herald Breivik Article by Andrea Muhrrteyn

P O Box 5042 George East, 6539 Cell: (071) 170 1954 09 September 2012

Australian Press Council Suite 10.02, 117 York Street, Sydney 2000 Fax: (02) 9267-6826 Email: complaints@presscouncil.org.au Ref: Judy Prisk Readers Editor Sydney Morning Herald SMH Readers Ed (readersed@smh.com.au) Dear AU Press Council,

Complaint against Sydney Morning Herald: No Breivik Appeal as Case Formally Ends1: Relief Requested in terms of General Statement of Principles2: 2. Correction of inaccuracy 3. Publishing responses

Sydney Morning Herald Article: No Breivik appeal as case formally ends Lawyers for right-wing extremist Anders Behring Breivik have confirmed he will not appeal his conviction and sentencing for bombing and shooting attacks in Norway that killed 77 people. After meeting Breivik in prison, his main lawyer Geir Lippestad said there was "no doubt" the legal process is now over and his prison term would begin at midnight on Friday (0800 AEST Saturday). The Oslo district court handed down the 21-year sentence on August 24, after convicting Breivik for Norway's worst acts of violence since World War II - a bombing in Oslo and a shooting rampage on the island of Utoya.

1 2

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/no-breivik-appeal-as-case-formally-ends-20120908-25kjb.html http://www.presscouncil.org.au/statements-of-principles/

09/09/12 AU Press Council: SMH: Correction of (2) Inacuracy & (3) Reply www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

Error: The case has not ‘formally ended’. [1] 27 August Application to Supreme Court for Review of Breivik Judgement. On 27 August 2012 an application3 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. Additionally the application for review also requested an Order to Set Aside the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement’s failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint (PDF4) against Judge Wenche Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariaty for the Supervisory Committee for Judges (Case 2012-0725), as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5)6 principles and general ECHR public accountability transparency (Lithgow & Others v. United Kingdom) 7 principles. 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 was submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on 02 September 2012. (Annex A) Mr. Breivik, his attorneys: Mr. Geir Lippestad and Ms. Baera; and Ms. Siv Hallgren, Ms. Yvonne Mette Larsen and Mr. Frode Elgesem (attorney’s liaison for all attorneys representing victims families), Prosecutors Svein Holden and Inga Bejer Engh are all well aware of the Application for Review.

[2] Notifications to Norwegian Foreign Press Association (FPA) The Norwegian Foreign Press Association8 as well as all their members, which include journalists from Reuters, Agence France Presse (AFP), Associated Press (AP), Al Arabija, Al Jazeera, BBC, Bloomberg, Globe and Mail, Xinhua, Die Welt, Irish Times, Himalayan Times, Itar-Tass, etc., were notified9 by 13:00 hrs (GM+2) on 07 September 2012 of aforementioned information, that: (A) Application for Review of Breivik Judgement filed with Norway Supreme Court;

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/27-aug-12-review-applic.html http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120530_tilsynsutvalget_arntzen?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/12-072-judge-wenche-arntzen.html 6 Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decisioin-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf 7 The rule of law requires legislation (or judgements or court officials decision-making) to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom). Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html 8 http://www.fpanorway.com/2008/08/members.html 9 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/no-foreign-press-assoc.html 4 5

09/09/12 AU Press Council: SMH: Correction of (2) Inacuracy & (3) Reply www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

(B) Complaint filed with Parliamentary Ombudsman against Supreme Court, for slow case processing; (C) Pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Judge Wenche Arntzen.

Direct Association: Yes. I filed the application for Review of the Breivik Judgement to the Oslo Supreme Court, as well as prior Habeus Mentem (Right to Legal Sanity) applications to the Oslo District Court, on behalf of Mr. Breivik's sanity. Contact with Publication: Yes. I contacted Sydney Morning Herald Readers Editor with a Request for a Correction on Sat 9/8/2012 12:29 AM. On Monday, September 10, 2012 9:19 AM, Ms. Judy Prisk, their readers editor responded refusing to publish a correction, or to change the story online, as follows: â&#x20AC;&#x153;We will not be publishing a correction; nor will we change the story online.â&#x20AC;? Respectfully Submitted

Lara Johnstone Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist | Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com Encl: [A] Email Correspondence [B] Documentation submitted to Sydney Morning Herald

From: Habeus Mentem [mailto:habeusmentem@mweb.co.za] Sent: Saturday, 8 September 2012 8:29 AM To: SMH Readers Ed Subject: SMH Reader Editor: Request Correction of Inacuraccy in "No Breivik Appeal as Case Formally Ends" Readers Editor Sydney Morning Herald GPO Box 506 Sydney NSW 2001 Email: readersed@smh.com.au Dear Sir/Madam, Request Correction of Inaccuracy in: Sydney Morning Herald: No Breivik Appeal as Case Formally Ends: The case has not 'formally ended': [1] 27 August Application to Supreme Court 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 09/09/12 AU Press Council: SMH: Correction of (2) Inacuracy & (3) Reply www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

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. Additionally the application for review also requested an Order to Set Aside the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement's failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint (PDF) against Judge Wenche Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges (Case 2012-072), as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5) principles and general ECHR public accountability transparency (Lithgow & Others v. United Kingdom) principles. 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 was submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on 02 September 2012. Mr. Breivik, his attorneys: Mr. Geir Lippestad and Ms. Baera; and Ms. Siv Hallgren, Ms. Yvonne Mette Larsen and Mr. Frode Elgesem (attorney's liaison for all attorneys representing victims families) are all well aware of the Application for Review. [2] Notifications to Norwegian Foreign Press Association (FPA) The Norwegian Foreign Press Association as well as all their members, which include journalists from Reuters, Agence France Presse (AFP), Associated Press (AP), Al Arabija, Al Jazeera, BBC, Bloomberg, Globe and Mail, Xinhua, Die Welt, Irish Times, Himalayan Times, Itar-Tass, etc., were notified by 13:00 hrs (GM+2) on 07 September 2012 of: (A) Application for Review of Breivik Judgement filed with Norway Supreme Court; (B) Complaint filed with Parliamentary Ombudsman against Supreme Court, for slow case processing; (C) Pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Judge Wenche Arntzen. Respectfully Submitted Lara Johnstone Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com Encl: [A] Norway Supreme Court: Application for Review of Breivik Judgement: Filing Sheet. [B] Supreme Court Registrar Slow Case Processing to Parl. Ombudsman.

From: SMH Readers Ed [mailto:readersed@smh.com.au] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 9:19 AM To: Lara Subject: RE: SMH Reader Editor: Request Correction of Inacuraccy in "No Breivik Appeal as Case Formally Ends" Dear Lara Johnstone, We will not be publishing a correction; nor will we change the story online. Thank you for writing, Judy Judy Prisk Readers' editor readersed@smh.com.au

09/09/12 AU Press Council: SMH: Correction of (2) Inacuracy & (3) Reply www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

P O Box 5042 George East, 6539 Cell: (071) 170 1954 07 September 2012

Readers Editor Sydney Morning Herald GPO Box 506 Sydney NSW 2001 Email: readersed@smh.com.au Dear Sir/Madam,

Request Correction of Inaccuracy in: Sydney Morning Herald: No Breivik Appeal as Case Formally Ends1: No Breivik appeal as case formally ends Lawyers for right-wing extremist Anders Behring Breivik have confirmed he will not appeal his conviction and sentencing for bombing and shooting attacks in Norway that killed 77 people. After meeting Breivik in prison, his main lawyer Geir Lippestad said there was "no doubt" the legal process is now over and his prison term would begin at midnight on Friday (0800 AEST Saturday). The Oslo district court handed down the 21-year sentence on August 24, after convicting Breivik for Norway's worst acts of violence since World War II - a bombing in Oslo and a shooting rampage on the island of Utoya. Breivik's decision did not come as a surprise. He told the court last month that he would not appeal its ruling. Lippestad and co-lawyer Vibeke Hein Baera expressed relief that the case had come to an end. Siv Hallgren, one of the lawyers who represented victims and bereaved at the 10-week trial, said her clients welcomed that there would not be an appeal case, news agency NTB reported.

The case has not â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;formally endedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;: [1] 27 August Application to Supreme Court for Review of Breivik Judgement. On 27 August 2012 an application2 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 1

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/no-breivik-appeal-as-case-formally-ends-20120908-25kjb.html

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/27-aug-12-review-applic.html

07/09/12 Sydney Morning Herald:Req. Correction of Inacuracy www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

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. Additionally the application for review also requested an Order to Set Aside the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement’s failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint (PDF3) against Judge Wenche Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariaty for the Supervisory Committee for Judges (Case 2012-0724), as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5)5 principles and general ECHR public accountability transparency (Lithgow & Others v. United Kingdom) 6 principles. 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 was submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on 02 September 2012. (Annex A) Mr. Breivik, his attorneys: Mr. Geir Lippestad and Ms. Baera; and Ms. Siv Hallgren, Ms. Yvonne Mette Larsen and Mr. Frode Elgesem (attorney’s liaison for all attorneys representing victims families) are all well aware of the Application for Review. [2] Notifications to Norwegian Foreign Press Association (FPA) The Norwegian Foreign Press Association7 as well as all their members, which include journalists from Reuters, Agence France Presse (AFP), Associated Press (AP), Al Arabija, Al Jazeera, BBC, Bloomberg, Globe and Mail, Xinhua, Die Welt, Irish Times, Himalayan Times, Itar-Tass, etc., were notified by 13:00 hrs (GM+2) on 07 September 2012 of: (A) Application for Review of Breivik Judgement filed with Norway Supreme Court; (B) Complaint filed with Parliamentary Ombudsman against Supreme Court, for slow case processing; (C) Pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Judge Wenche Arntzen. Respectfully Submitted

Lara Johnstone Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com Encl: [A] Norway Supreme Court: Application for Review of Breivik Judgement: Filing Sheet. [B] Supreme Court Registrar Slow Case Processing to Parl. Ombudsman. 3

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120530_tilsynsutvalget_arntzen?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/12-072-judge-wenche-arntzen.html

Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decisioin-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf 6

The rule of law requires legislation (or judgements or court officials decision-making) to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom). Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html 7

http://www.fpanorway.com/2008/08/members.html

07/09/12 Sydney Morning Herald:Req. Correction of Inacuracy www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

NEW Personalise your news, save articles to read later and customise settings View Demo

Sign-up

Hi there!

BETA

SMH Real Estate Cars Jobs Dating Newsletters More

5:42AM Saturday Sep 08, 2012 1,120 online now See today's paper Subscribe

Ask a Lawyer - Free Get a quick, free response to your legal questions from top lawyers. www.avvo.com/ask-a-lawyer Accident Lawyer Accident? Talk to a Local Accident Lawyer for a Free Consultation!

www.InjuryHelpLineAttorney.com

Find A Lawyer Free. Legal help for injury, criminal, DUI, malpractice, work comp, SSD www.Lawyers-Attorneys-USA.com NSW

National

World Business

Sport

National Times

Tech Digital Life

Entertainment

Life & Style

Travel

You are here: Home Breaking News World Article

Search here...

No Breivik appeal as case formally ends

Recommend

Exec Style

Photos

smh.com.au

Read later

September 8, 2012 - 12:25AM

Email article

Cars

DPA Lawyers for right-wing extremist Anders Behring Breivik have confirmed he will not appeal his conviction and sentencing for bombing and shooting attacks in Norway that killed 77 people. After meeting Breivik in prison, his main lawyer Geir Lippestad said there was "no doubt" the legal process is now over and his prison term would begin at midnight on Friday (0800 AEST Saturday). The Oslo district court handed down the 21-year sentence on August 24, after convicting Breivik for Norway's worst acts of violence since World War II - a bombing in Oslo and a shooting rampage on the island of Utoya.

Top 5 Breaking News World articles

Top 5 Breaking News World articles 1. No 'global trade conspiracy': Emerson 2. Pussy Riot sentence too harsh: PM 3. Christchurch rebuilding plans laid out 4. Obama urges America not to give up on him 5. Police search LA bank manager's home

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

SMH Home NSW National Environment Opinion Business Technology Digital Life Entertainment Life & Style Travel Cars Exec Style Sport Weather Sydney Morning Herald Sitemap About Us Contact Us Advertise with Us AM Today Last 8 days Text Version Site Accessibility Guide

Connect Mobile Site SMH for iPad Digital Edition iPhone App RSS Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

Our Sites Our Partners

Products & Services Subscribe Manage My Subscription Herald Benefits Good Food Guide SMH Shop Newsletters

Classifieds Place an Ad Classifieds & Notices Accommodation Cars Dating Jobs Property Price Data Real Estate Buy and Sell Tributes Celebrations Special Reports

Fairfax Media Member Centre Conditions of Use Privacy Policy News Store Archive Photo Sales Purchase Front Pages Fairfax Syndication Fairfax Events Fairfax Careers Press Council

The Sydney Morning Herald The Age MyCareer Domain Drive RSVP Essential Baby InvestSMART APM Stayz Weatherzone The Vine Business Hair Salons Computer Repairs Electricians Painters Lawyers Credit Cards Cruises Rubbish Removals Tax Refunds Weddings Copyright ÂŠ 2012 Fairfax Media

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY NSC Case #: ___________ Oslo District Crt #: 11-188627MED-OTIR/05 In the Application of: LARA JOHNSTONE

Application for Review

In the matter between: OSLO DISTRICT COURT

First Respondent

KINGDOM OF NORWAY

Second Respondent

ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK

Third Respondent

VICTIMS FAMILIES

Fourth Respondent

FILING SHEET: Application for REVIEW and DECLARATORY ORDER:

Please find attached the following for filing in this matter: 

Notice of Motion: Application for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement



Founding Affidavit of Lara Johnstone



Annex A: 03 May 2012: Concourt Ruling: Lara Johnstone: Radical Honesty culture



Annex B: Cullinan, Cormac: Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice (Summary)



Annex C: Clugston, Chris: Sustainability Defined



Annex D: 13 Aug 2012: Letter to Mr. Anders Breivik



PROOF OF SERVICE Affidavit of Lara Johnstone

Dated at George, Southern Cape, South Africa, on 27TH of AUGUST 2012.

___________________________ LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se PO Box 5042, George East, 6539 Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za

Complaints form Slow Case Processing / Failure to Provide Case Processing by Supreme Court Registrar; to Application for Review of ?Breivik Judgement?. 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? Supreme Court Registrar / Norges HĂ¸yesterett 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_SupremeCourtRegistrar.pdf 12-08-27_NO-Breivik_SupremeCrt_Review_FS-NoM-Affid-EncABCD-PoS.pdf

Grounds for complaint Describe your complaint Overview: Slow Case Processing: Application for Review of ?Breivik Judgement? filed with Supreme Court Registrar on 27 August 2012 to Set Aside the Judgements (1) ?Necessity (Nodrett) Ruling? and (2) Defendant?s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. Subsequent follow up requests made on 28 August and 31st August requesting Registrar to provide a case number, or clarify their reasons for failure to provide a case number. Chronology of Facts: On 27 August 2012, I filed an Application for Review of the Breivik Judgement to the Supreme Court Registrar. On 28 August 2012, I submitted correspondence to Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Subject: Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Req. Case Number for Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement: "Could you please provide me with a case number for my application for review; or inform me by when you will issue a case number?" On 31 August 2012, I again submitted correspondence to Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Subject: [31.08] RE: Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Req. Case Number for Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement: "Norway Supreme Court Registrar: I am still waiting for a case number for my application for review. Could you kindly provide such case number or clarify reasons for your failure to do so." As far as I am aware, and based upon my personal experience; Court Registrars generally issue a court case number immediately or within a day or two, subsequent to filing an application, unless there is a procedural error in the application, whereupon they inform you what the error is, for your correction and refiling.

Ref: Norway v. Breivik

Case: 11-188627 MED-05 P O Box 5042 George East, 6539 Cell: +27 (71) 170 1954 01 September 2012

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 / Failure to Provide Case Processing by Supreme Court Registrar; to Application for Review of ‘Breivik Judgement’. Overview: Slow Case Processing: Application for Review of „Breivik Judgement‟ filed with Supreme Court Registrar on 27 August 2012 to Set Aside the Judgements (1) „Necessity (Nodrett) Ruling‟ and (2) Defendant‟s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. Subsequent follow up requests made on 28 August and 31st August requesting Registrar to provide a case number, or clarify their reasons for failure to provide a case number.

Chronology of Facts: On 27 August 2012, I filed1 an Application for Review of the Breivik Judgement to the Supreme Court Registrar2; which requests that the following „Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement‟ decisions be reviewed: [A.1] Set Aside the Judgements „Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling‟ (pg.67): [A.2] Set Aside Defendant‟s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. [A.3] If Defendant refuses to cooperate with Further Evidence proceedings; an order to change his plea to „guilty‟; and/or „Non-Precedent‟ Setting Declaratory Order

1 2

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/120827_nsc-rev-ocbj.html http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/27-aug-12-review-applic.html

01/09/12 Ombudsman: Supreme Court Registrar: Review Breivik Judgement

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

[A.4] If Failure of Justice Irregularity Does not Influence Conviction and/or Sentence Verdict; a â&#x20AC;&#x17E;Non-Precedent Settingâ&#x20AC;&#x; Declaratory Order [B] Set Aside the Judgements Failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges, as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5) principles, and general ECHR public accountability Transparency (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom) principles. [C] The respondents who oppose this application are ordered jointly and severally to pay their own costs in terms of this application.

On 28 August 2012, I submitted correspondence3 to Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Subject: Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Req. Case Number for Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement "Could you please provide me with a case number for my application for review; or inform me by when you will issue a case number?"

On 31 August 2012, I again submitted correspondence4 to Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Subject: [31.08] RE: Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Req. Case Number for Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement Norway Supreme Court Registrar: I am still waiting for a case number for my application for review. Could you kindly provide such case number or clarify reasons for your failure to do so.

As far as I am aware, and based upon my personal experience; Court Registrars generally issue a court case number immediately or within a day or two, subsequent to filing an application, unless there is a procedural error in the application, whereupon they inform you what the error is, for your correction and refiling. Respectfully Submitted

Lara Johnstone Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com Encl: [A] Email Correspondence [B] Application for Review of Breivik Judgement: Filing Sheet, Notice of Motion, Founding Affidavit, Proof of Service & Encl.

3 4

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/120828_nsc-reg-caseno.html http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/120831_nsc-bjreview.html

01/09/12 Ombudsman: Supreme Court Registrar: Review Breivik Judgement

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 3:10 PM To: Crt: SupremeCrt: Chief Justice Tore Schei (postmottak@domstoladministrasjonen.no); HRET: postmottak (hretpost@hoyesterett.no) Cc: Helga MĂŚrde Gruer (Helga.Gruer@hoyesterett.no); Kjersti Ruud (Kjersti.Ruud@hoyesterett.no) ; Svein Tore Andersen (svein.tore.andersen@hoyesterett.no) ; Dep.Sec.Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard (kbn@hoyesterett.no); Ch.Justice Tore Schei (tore.schei@hoyesterett.no) Subject: Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement TO: Norway Supreme Court Registrar Respondents: First: OSLO DISTRICT COURT Second: KINGDOM OF NORWAY (Prosecution) Third: ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK Fourth: VICTIMS FAMILIES Please find attached the following for filing in this matter: * Notice of Motion: Application for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement - Encl: Lovdata: 2012-08-24: Tingret Oslo: 2011-188627-24 Judgement * -

Founding Affidavit of Lara Johnstone Annex A: 03 May 2012: Concourt Ruling: Lara Johnstone: Radical Honesty culture Annex B: Cullinan, Cormac: Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice (Summary) Annex C: Clugston, Chris: Sustainability Defined Annex D: 13 Aug 2012: Letter to Mr. Anders Breivik

* PROOF OF SERVICE Affidavit of Lara Johnstone Dated at George, Southern Cape, South Africa, on 27TH of AUGUST 2012.

Respectfully Submitted, LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se PO Box 4052, George, 6539 Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za ==============

01/09/12 Ombudsman: Supreme Court Registrar: Review Breivik Judgement

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

Excerpts from Notice of Motion. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the applicant intends to apply for leave to review against parts of the judgement by Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Fagdommer: Arne Lyng; Meddommere: Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff, delivered on 24 August 2012 (herein after referred to as the “Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement”). {I} REVIEW ORDERS REQUESTED: The following „Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement‟ decisions are reviewed: [A.1] Set Aside the Judgements „Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling‟ (pg.67): [A.2] Set Aside Defendant‟s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. [A.3] If Defendant refuses to cooperate with Further Evidence proceedings; an order to change his plea to „guilty‟; and/or „Non-Precedent‟ Setting Declaratory Order [A.4] If Failure of Justice Irregularity Does not Influence Conviction and/or Sentence Verdict; a „Non-Precedent Setting‟ Declaratory Order [B] Set Aside the Judgements Failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges, as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5) principles, and general ECHR public accountability Transparency (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom) principles. [C] The respondents who oppose this application are ordered jointly and severally to pay their own costs in terms of this application.

{II} GROUNDS FOR REVIEW: The application for review is based on the grounds of (A) Irregularities & Illegalities in the Proceedings before the Oslo District Court: in terms of (1) A Failure of Justice and Failure of a True and Correct Interpretation of the Facts; (2) Judicially UnInvestigated Facts; (3) Failure of Application of Mind and (4) Rejection of Admissible or Competent Evidence: (i) Prosecutor & Judges failure to examine objective and subjective necessity test; and (ii) Courts denial of due process to applicants Habeus Mentem and Amicus Curiae applications. [A.1.a] Necessity Judgement fails to provide any necessity criminal provisions that prohibit killing of Government Officials in case of Necessity.

01/09/12 Ombudsman: Supreme Court Registrar: Review Breivik Judgement

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

[A.1.b] Necessity Judgement Ignores that Criminal Necessity provisions do not prohibit the killing of Government Officials in case of objective and subjective Necessity. [A.1.c] Necessity Judgement‟s Erroneous interpretation of Necessity related criminal law provisions and international necessity related human rights law. [A.1.d] Necessity and Guilt Judgement‟s Failure to conduct required Objective and Subjective Tests for Defendant‟s Necessity Defence: [A.1.e] Necessity and Guilt Judgement‟s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Inadequate [A.1.f] Necessity and Guilt Judgement‟s Absence of Clarification Upon which party the Onus of Proof lies in a Case of Necessity; and how or why their evidence was insufficient renders the Judgements Conclusions inadequate. [A.1.g] Necessity and Guilt Judgement‟s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Discriminatory Precedent [A.1.h] Necessity Judgements „Extreme Political Objectives‟ conclusion unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test

[A.1.i] Necessity Judgements „Extreme Political Objectives‟ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test; and is a Patriarchal Left vs. Right Wing Blame Game Parasite Leeching Polarization – not a Matriarchal Ecological and Psychological Integrity Root Cause Problem Solving – conclusion. [B] Judgement‟s Transparency Failure violates Aarhus Convention principles and public accountability impartiality principles. ----------------Table of Contents of Founding Affidavit: * * * * * * * * * *

Review: “Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement” Legal Interest: Judicially Un-Investigated Facts Legal Questions: Matriarchal Ecological Wild Law Legal Principles Worldview The Parties: Failure of Justice: Judicially UnInvestigated Facts: Necessity and Guilt: Oslo Court: Breivik Defence of Necessity: Prosecutor Engh and Holden „Refuse to touch Breivik‟s Principle of Necessity‟: Necessity in Norwegian Law: Norwegian Necessity Judgement: Subjective and Objective Test: Necessity Defence: International and Foreign Law:

01/09/12 Ombudsman: Supreme Court Registrar: Review Breivik Judgement

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

* Common Law Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing: * Civil Disobedience Political Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing: * Military Necessity and International Humanitarian Law: * Military Necessity: use of Nuclear Weapons for Self-Preservation: * Military Necessity in Nuremberg German High Command Trial: * Military Necessity: The Rendulic Rule: Importance of the Subjective Test: * Military Necessity: Rendulic Rule: Subjective Honesty in current Military Doctrine: * Onus of Proof: Norwegian State or Breivik to Prove Necessity? * Transparency Disclosure: Correspondence to Mr. Breivik and Mr. Geir Lippestad: * Environmental Transparency: Aarhus Environment Info Transparency Convention * ECHR: Lithgow on Transparency: Precise and Accessible Legislation: * The interests of justice: Multicultural Matriarchy vs. Monocultural Patriarchy? * Multi-cultural Law Must (a) avoid Mono-cultural legal Hegemony, (b) draw on legal cultural diversity:

From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:41 AM To: Crt: SupremeCrt: Chief Justice Tore Schei (postmottak@domstoladministrasjonen.no); HRET: postmottak (hretpost@hoyesterett.no) Cc: Helga MĂŚrde Gruer (Helga.Gruer@hoyesterett.no); Kjersti Ruud (Kjersti.Ruud@hoyesterett.no) ; Svein Tore Andersen (svein.tore.andersen@hoyesterett.no) ; Dep.Sec.Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard (kbn@hoyesterett.no); Ch.Justice Tore Schei (tore.schei@hoyesterett.no) Subject: Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Req. Case Number for Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement Norway Supreme Court Registrar Could you please provide me with a case number for my application for review; or inform me by when you will issue a case number? Respectfully, Respectfully Submitted, LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se PO Box 4052, George, 6539 Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za From: DA (postmottak) [mailto:dapost@domstoladministrasjonen.no] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:47 AM To: Lara 01/09/12 Ombudsman: Supreme Court Registrar: Review Breivik Judgement

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

Subject: Lest: Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Req. Case Number for Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement Meldingen Til: DA (postmottak) Emne: Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Req. Case Number for Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement Sendt: 28. august 2012 10:41:20 (UTC+01.00) Amsterdam, Berlin, Bern, Roma, Stockholm, Wien ble lest 28. august 2012 10:46:48 (UTC+01.00) Amsterdam, Berlin, Bern, Roma, Stockholm, Wien.

From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:53 AM To: Crt: Pros Holden. MJus: Grete Faremo (grete.faremo@jd.dep.no); NO: MinJustice: Pol Advisor: Astrid Bergmal (astrid.bergmal@jd.dep.no); NO: MinJustice: Admin: Karin Bugge (karin.bugge@jd.dep.no); NO: MinJustice: Admin: Anne Herse (annek.herse@jd.dep.no); NO: MinJustice: Admin: Thor Aass (thor.aass@jd.dep.no); NO: MinJustice: Comm: Gunnar Johansen (gunnar.johansen@jd.dep.no) ; NO: MinJustice: Admin: Kjersein Askholt (kjerstin.askholt@jd.dep.no); NO: MinJustice: Admin: Knut Reinskou (knut.reinskou@jd.dep.no); NO: MinJustice: Admin: Hans Sjovold (hans.sjovold@jd.dep.no); NO: MinJustice: Admin: Hans Ostgaard (hansolav.ostgaard@jd.dep.no); NO: MinJustice: Int Director: Tonje Meinich (tonje.meinich@jd.dep.no); NO: MinJustice: Admin: Mette Stangerhaugen (mette.stangerhaugen@jd.dep.no); NO: MinJustice: Admin: Marianne Vollan (marianne.vollan@jd.dep.no); NO: MinJustice: Admin: Sissil Pettersen (sissil.pettersen@jd.dep.no); NO: MinJustice: Ch.Staff: Morten Ruud (morten.ruud@jd.dep.no) Cc: NO: FRP: Storting (frp.postmottak@stortinget.no); NO: Hoyre: Office (hoyre.postmottak@stortinget.no); NO: Venstre: Storting: (stortingsgruppen@venstre.no); NO: Soc. Left: Storting (stortinget@sv.no); NO: Rodt: Leder: Turid Thomassen (turid.thomassen@raudt.no); NO: PM: Jens Stoltenberg: (jens.stoltenberg@smk.dep.no) Subject: Min. Justice: G. Faremo: RE: Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement: Confirm receipt by Pros. Holden & Engh, via. Min.Justice & Politie: Min. of Justice: Grete Faremo Ms. Faremo, Could you please ask Prosecutors Holden and Engh to confirm receipt of the 27 August 2012 Application for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement delivered on 24 August 2012; submitted to them via your office? 01/09/12 Ombudsman: Supreme Court Registrar: Review Breivik Judgement

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

Copies of documents are available at: http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/nom--affidavit.html Respectfully, LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se PO Box 4052, George, 6539 Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za From: Morten Ruud [mailto:morten.ruud@jd.dep.no] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:03 PM To: Lara Subject: Lest: Min. Justice: G. Faremo: RE: Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement: Confirm receipt by Pros. Holden & Engh, via. Min.Justice & Politie:

From: Postmottak Høyre [mailto:hoyre.postmottak@stortinget.no] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:46 PM To: Lara Subject: Lest: Min. Justice: G. Faremo: RE: Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement: Confirm receipt by Pros. Holden & Engh, via. Min.Justice & Politie: Meldingen Til: Postmottak Høyre Emne: Min. Justice: G. Faremo: RE: Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement: Confirm receipt by Pros. Holden & Engh, via. Min.Justice & Politie: Sendt: 28. august 2012 10:53:21 (UTC+01.00) Amsterdam, Berlin, Bern, Roma, Stockholm, Wien ble lest 28. august 2012 12:45:56 (UTC+01.00) Amsterdam, Berlin, Bern, Roma, Stockholm, Wien. From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 2:43 PM To: Crt: SupremeCrt: Chief Justice Tore Schei (postmottak@domstoladministrasjonen.no); HRET: postmottak (hretpost@hoyesterett.no) Cc: Helga Mærde Gruer (Helga.Gruer@hoyesterett.no); Kjersti Ruud (Kjersti.Ruud@hoyesterett.no) ; Svein Tore Andersen (svein.tore.andersen@hoyesterett.no) ; Dep.Sec.Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard (kbn@hoyesterett.no); Ch.Justice Tore Schei (tore.schei@hoyesterett.no); Crt: Lippestad: Tord Jordet (tord@advokatlippestad.no); Crt: Victims: Siv Hallgren (siv.hallgren@elden.no); Crt: Victims: Frode Elgesem (elg@thommessen.no); Crt: Victims: Mette Yvonne Larsen (mette.larsen@advokatstabell.no); Crt: Pros Holden. 01/09/12 Ombudsman: Supreme Court Registrar: Review Breivik Judgement

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

MJus: Grete Faremo (grete.faremo@jd.dep.no); Crt: Pros Holden. Politie: Org.Crime (post.okokrim@politiet.no) Subject: [31.08] RE: Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Req. Case Number for Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement Norway Supreme Court Registrar I am still waiting for a case number for my application for review. Could you kindly provide such case number or clarify reasons for your failure to do so. Respondents: First: OSLO DISTRICT COURT Second: KINGDOM OF NORWAY (Prosecution) Third: ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK Fourth: VICTIMS FAMILIES Application for leave to review against parts of the judgement by Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Fagdommer: Arne Lyng; Meddommere: Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff, delivered on 24 August 2012 (herein after referred to as the “Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement”). {I} REVIEW ORDERS REQUESTED: The following „Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement‟ decisions are reviewed: [A.1] Set Aside the Judgements „Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling‟ (pg.67): [A.2] Set Aside Defendant‟s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. [A.3] If Defendant refuses to cooperate with Further Evidence proceedings; an order to change his plea to „guilty‟; and/or „Non-Precedent‟ Setting Declaratory Order [A.4] If Failure of Justice Irregularity Does not Influence Conviction and/or Sentence Verdict; a „Non-Precedent Setting‟ Declaratory Order [B] Set Aside the Judgements Failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges, as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5) principles, and general ECHR public accountability Transparency (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom) principles. [C] The respondents who oppose this application are ordered jointly and severally to pay their own costs in terms of this application.

01/09/12 Ombudsman: Supreme Court Registrar: Review Breivik Judgement

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

Respectfully,

LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se PO Box 4052, George, 6539 Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za

From: Mette Larsen [mailto:mette.larsen@advokatstabell.no] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:00 PM To: Lara Subject: Lest: [31.08] RE: Norway Supreme Court Registrar: Req. Case Number for Notice of Review of 24.08.2012 Breivik Judgement Meldingen ble lest 31. august 2012 12:59:35 UTC.

01/09/12 Ombudsman: Supreme Court Registrar: Review Breivik Judgement

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist vs. Knights Templar Anders Breivik

RH Shibumi:

RH Court Records:

RH Complaints:

KT Court Records:

RH - KT Debate:

Data Archives:

Supv. Comm. for Judges: Issuance of Case Numbers for Complaints: Opsahl, Arntzen & Schei 03/09/2012

0 Comments

Correspondence from Supervisory Committee for Judges: Senior Advisor: Espen Eiken: RE: [31.08] RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl "Your complaints have been given the case numbers 12-071 (Judge Nina Opsahl), 12-072 (Judge Wenche E. Arntzen) and 12-073 (Justice Tore Schei). The complete handling time can be close to six months. If a party have given a statement in the case, these will be provided the complainant. The Supervisory Committee has not received statements from the other parties involved."

Text of Email: From: Eiken, Espen [**@domstoladministrasjonen.no] Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 2:45 PM To: 'Lara' Subject: RE: [31.08] RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl Your complaints have been given the case numbers 12-071 (Judge Nina Opsahl), 12-072 (Judge Wenche E. Arntzen) and 12-073 (Justice Tore Schei). The complete handling time can be close to six months. If a party have given a statement in the case, these will be provided the complainant. The Supervisory Committee has not received statements from the other parties involved. On behalf of the Supervisory Committee for Judges Espen Eiken Senior Adviser

Comments

Contact:

RH Data Archive: Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist legal applications and complaints submitted to Norwegian and European Authorities in the Norway v. Breivik trial.

Archives September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 February 2012 December 2011 November 2011

Categories All 22.07 Defence 22.07 Families 22.07 Prosecution Acquit.v.Execute Adv: Bar Association Adv: Disciplinary Board Adv: Disciplinary Comm Crt: Administration Crt: ICC: Int. Criminal Court Crt: Oslo District Crt: Rev. Breivik Judgement Crt: Supreme Court Crt: Supv Comm 4 Judges Eco: Pentti Linkola Eco: Wild Law Nature Rights ECRE: ELENA ECRE: NOAS ECRE: NO Refugee Cnl Env. Appeals Board EU Cncl. Legal Medicine EU: MP: Mem. Parl. converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Office address

Sivilombudsmannen The parliamentary Ombudsman Norway

Akersgata 8, entrance Tollbugata Postal address P.0.B.3 Sentrum N-OIOI Oslo, Norway

Telephone +47 22828500 Fax '+47 22 82 85 11 postmottak@sivilombudsmannen.no

Lara Johnstone PO Box 5042 George 6539 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

Gur ref

810M

Your ref

2012/1943

Enquiries to

Date

Torbj0rn Hagerup Nagelhus

11.07.2012

LACK OF RESPONSE FROM THE SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR -JUDGES-""- -"__- "--" __ 0

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 of the 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 Y6u-call-for-ansv.râ&#x201A;Źfs-toyour-applications.~Ly-ou_do_nDtreceive a resRonse 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 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 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 â&#x20AC;&#x17E;standard procedureâ&#x20AC;&#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 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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 [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 12:52 PM To: Crt: Supv. Comm. Judges (tilsynsutvalget@domstol.no) Cc: NO: Lippestad (tord@advokatlippestad.no); Crt: Pros Holden. Politie: Oslo (oslo@namsfogden.no); Crt: Victims: Siv Hallgren (siv.hallgren@elden.no); Crt: Victims: Frode Elgesem (elg@thommessen.no); Crt: Victims: Mette Yvonne Larsen (mette.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/

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

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

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 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 [mailto:Espen.Eiken@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&#x20AC;&#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 [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 1:28 AM To: 'Eiken, Espen' Cc: Judge Wenche Arntzen (wenche.arntzen@domstol.no); Judge Nina Opsahl (Nina.opsahl@domstol.no); Ch.Justice Tore Schei (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: 01/09/12 P.Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943: Env. Appeals Brd: Media Env. Censorship

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

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 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; after all parties have made their statements â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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,

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

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/OmTilsynsutvalget/

From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:44 AM To: 'Eiken, Espen' Cc: Judge Wenche Arntzen (wenche.arntzen@domstol.no); Judge Nina Opsahl (Nina.opsahl@domstol.no); Ch.Justice Tore Schei (tore.schei@hoyesterett.no); Crt: Lippestad: Tord Jordet (tord@advokatlippestad.no); Crt: Pros Holden. Politie: Police Directorate (politidirektoratet@politiet.no); Crt: Victims: Siv Hallgren (siv.hallgren@elden.no); Crt: Victims: Frode Elgesem (elg@thommessen.no); Crt: Victims: Mette Yvonne Larsen (mette.larsen@advokatstabell.no) Subject: 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 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-v-breivik.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‟. 01/09/12 P.Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943: Env. Appeals Brd: Media Env. Censorship

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

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

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

(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 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; after all parties have made their statements â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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/OmTilsynsutvalget/ 01/09/12 P.Ombudsman: Case 2012-1943: Env. Appeals Brd: Media Env. Censorship

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:43 AM To: 'Eiken, Espen'; Crt: Supv. Comm. Judges (tilsynsutvalget@domstol.no) Cc: Judge Wenche Arntzen (wenche.arntzen@domstol.no); Judge Nina Opsahl (Nina.opsahl@domstol.no); Ch.Justice Tore Schei (tore.schei@hoyesterett.no); Crt: Lippestad: Tord Jordet (tord@advokatlippestad.no); Crt: Pros Holden. Politie: Police Directorate (politidirektoratet@politiet.no); Crt: Victims: Siv Hallgren (siv.hallgren@elden.no); Crt: Victims: Frode Elgesem (elg@thommessen.no); Crt: Victims: Mette Yvonne Larsen (mette.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 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; after all parties have made their statements â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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?

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

www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

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