Parl Ombud Complaint: Language Discrimination by Supervisory Committee for Judges

Parl Ombud Complaint: Language Discrimination by Supv Comm for Judges

Language Discrimination and Lack of Clear Principles by Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges Norwegian Language Rulings, in response to English Language complaints in Case 12-071: Judge Nina Opsahl, 12-072: Judge Wenche Arntzen, 12-073: Judge Tore Schei.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Ecofeminist v. Breivik | 09 January 2013

Language Discrimination and Lack of Clear Principles by Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges Norwegian Language Rulings, in response to English Language complaints in Case 12-071: Judge Nina Opsahl, 12-072: Judge Wenche Arntzen, 12-073: Judge Tore Schei.

Argument:

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

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

Relief Requested:

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

ECHR: Oslo District Courts Breivik Necessity Judgement is Discriminatory & Ineffective Remedy

ECHR: European Court of Human Rights Application: Oslo District Courts Breivik Necessity Judgement is Discriminatory & Ineffective Remedy

Right wing extremist terrorist Anders Breivik deserves a free and fair trial, and an objective and subjective enquiry into his political necessity evidence; by the Left wing extremist Norwegian Government; upon the same Norwegian rule of law due process principles; as left wing extremist terrorist Nelson Mandela deserved a free and fair trial, and an impartial objective and subjective enquiry into the evidence for his defence; by the Right wing extremist South African Apartheid government.

19 January 2013 | Ecofeminist v Breivik | Andrea Muhrrteyn

Human Rights Violations complained of:

• Discrimination: 24 August 2012: Oslo District Court: Judge Wenche Arntzen: Norway v. Anders Breivik Necessity Judgement

• Discrimination and Denied Right to an Effective Remedy: Supreme Court: Secretary General Gunnar Bergby: 10 September 2012 Decision

• Discrimination and Denied Right to an Effective Remedy: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Head of Division: Berit Sollie: 15 November 2012 Ruling

The (i) 10 September 2012, administrative decision of Norway Supreme Court Secretary General Gunnar Bergby, denying Applicant Access to Court by refusing to process her 27 August 2012, Application for Review of the Oslo District Court: ‘Breivik Judgement’; and (ii) the 15 November 2012 ruling by Parliamentary Ombudsman, that Secretary General’s Gunnar Bergby’s administrative decision, was a ‘judgement/decision by a court of law’, thereby justifying his refusal to order Secretary General Bergby to process Applicants Application for Review; were (iii) violations of applicants right to an Effective Remedy and (iv) were motivated acts of ideological discrimination against the ‘right wing’ or ‘cultural conservatives’, and against anyone – particularly anyone who is not ‘right wing’ -- who opposes, or objects to Ideological Discrimination against ‘right wing’ (cultural conservatives).

Parl Ombud rules Supreme Court 'admin decision', re Review of Breivik Judgement is an Official Court Judgement

Parliamentary Ombudsman rules Supreme Court Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby's 10 September 'admin decision' re: Review of Breivik Judgement; is an Official Court Judgement



27 December 2012 | EcoFeminist v. Breivik

On 27 August 2012, I filed an Application (PDF) to Norway Supreme Court for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement Ruling; 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.

The Supreme Court Registrar refused to respond to my application, so i filed a complaint of Slow Processing (PDF) to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on 02 September 2012. On 10 September 2012, Supreme Court Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby responded - (Application for review of Oslo District Court Judgement of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24). He implied my application was an 'appeal', and that I lacked legal standing (locus standi), because only the 'parties to the case' can appeal.

On 11 September 2012, I responded (PDF) that my application was not an appeal, but a Review, and furthermore, that matters of locus standi are investigated by courts, after hearing evidence on the matter, not by Registrars. I requested him to provide me with a statute that granted him the authority to make a ruling on legal standing (locus standi); thereby denyiing me access to the court.

On 08 October 2012, I sent a reminder request to Sec. Gen. Bergby, but received no response. On 03 November I filed another complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: Complaint of Supreme Crt Registrar Slow Case Processing (PDF), requesting the Parliamentary Ombudsman order Sec. Gen. Bergby to either (a) provide me with the relevant statute granting him the authority to make a ruling on legal standing, or (b) process my application for review of the Breivik judgement.

On 15 November, the Parliamentary Ombudsman ruled that Sec. Gen. Bergby's 'administrative decision' was not an 'administrative decision', but a 'Decision (Judgement) by a court of law'; and that the Parliamentary Ombudsman has no authority to investigate 'decisions by a court of law', only administrative decisions of slow case processing.

So, the Parliamentary Ombudsman is saying that if you file an application with a court, and the registrar makes some administrative decision about your application, that is a 'judgement by a court of law'. Very strange, cause 'judgements/decisions by a court of law', only occur after a court has heard all the relevant evidence in the matter, from all parties.

So, it appears that the Parliamentary Ombudsman is not willing to rock the boat, and do their job by ordering the Supreme Court Secretary General, to either provide the relevant statute granting him the authority to make a decision on locus standi, or to process my application.

This means however, that an Application can be filed with the European Court of Human Rights, since the highest Norwegian court (Supreme Court) has issued a judgement (without general due process procedures), on my Application for Review.

NO Env. Appeals Board Rules 'Media's Censorship of Population & Consumption does not Affect Environment''

NO Env. Appeals Board Rules 'OverPopulation and Consumption does not Affect Environment'

The Environmental Appeals Board’s ruling that Editors decision-making to censor information about the Media’s Population-Environment-Terrorism Connection during Breivik’s Highly Public Terrorism trial, alleging that it was not ‘Environmental Information’ is beyond absurd, and totally lacking in factual and legal justifications.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 12 November 2012

Anders Breivik Alleged that his Terrorism was motivated by the Media’s Censorship of Non-Violent Problem Solving, which facilitated a socio-political pressure cooker reality for the media's If it Leads, It Bleeds Profit from violence.

Oslo Organized Crime Police Investigation Report: "Explanation of 22 July 2011, doc 08,01, states:

“[Breivik] emphasizes that if he had not been censored by the media all his life, he would not have had to do what he did. He believes the media have the main responsibility for what has happened because they did not publish his opinions.... The low-intensity civil war that he had already described, had lasted until now with ideological struggle and censorship of cultural conservatives...... He explains that this is the worst day of his life and that he has dreaded this for 2 years. He has been censored for years. He mentions Dagbladet and Aftenposten as those who among other things have censored him..... He says that he also wrote “essays” that he tried to publish via the usual channels, but that they were all censored..... The subject summarizes: As long as more than twelve were executed, the operation will still be a success. The experts ask how the number twelve comes into consideration. Twelve dead are needed to penetrate the censorship wall, he explains..... About his thoughts on the Utøya killings now, the subject says: The goal was to execute as many as possible. At least 30. It was horrible, but the number had to be assessed based on the global censorship limit. Utøya was a martyrdom, and I am very proud of it..... The subject says in the conversation that he knows the truth that is hidden from others. He believes that there is a civil war in the country. He believes he had to kill at least twelve, because there is a censorship-wall preventing an open debate about what is happening in the country..... So I knew I had to cross a certain threshold to exceed the censorship-wall of the international media."

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

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



Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminist vs. Breivik |02 November 2012

[Received 02 November] On 23 October, the Supervisory Committee for Judges changed their minds and decided they were not going to process the complaints. Previously they had said that the complaints would be processed, whereby all the Judges would be required to submit a statement about their reasons, in accordance to the issues raised in the complaints.

However the Supervisory Committee for Judges now decided that all the Judges do not have to submit their affidavits, and the complaints will be ruled as 'obviously unfounded'.

The decision by the Committee is in Norwegian (I have not translated all of it yet): Judge Opsahl (PDF), Judge Arntzen (PDF), Justice Schei (PDF).

Supreme Crt. Sec. Gen. Gunnar Bergby Response to Application to Review Breivik Judgement

10 Sept: Ruling by Norway Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby: No Legal Standing

Response: If Mr. Breivik wants to deny himself and other White Nationalists, their right to the court conducting a full impartial objective and subjective enquiry into their necessity evidence, that is their choice. It is my assertion that the Breivik judgement necessity ruling is discriminatory, by setting a precedent that can deny (or can due to ignorance deny themselves, by lacking the knowledge to assert their right thereto); other necessity activists an objective and subjective examination of their necessity evidence.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminist vs. Breivik | 11 September 2012

Ruling by Supreme Court of Norway: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby in: Application for review of Oslo District Court Judgement of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24)

Reference is made to your e-mails sent 27 August, 28 August and 31 August 2012 regarding the above mentioned matter.

I wish to draw your attention to the Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act section 306 (a copy in English is enclosed). According to this regulation, 1st paragraph, the parties may appeal against a criminal judgment rendered by the district or appellate court. Persons or legal entities that are not parties to the case are not given the right of appeal. Mr. Anders Behring Breivik and the prosecution authority are the only parties in the specific case mentioned above, and the right of appeal is constricted to these.

Consequently, the Supreme Court of Norway will not be able to comply with the request set forth in your e-mails. Further requests and applications from you will neither be handled nor answered by the Supreme Court.

Breivik Judgement Review filed with Norway Supreme Court; to Set Aside Necessity & Conviction Rulings

Breivik Judgement Review filed with Norway Supreme Court; to Set Aside Necessity & Conviction Rulings

Application for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement Ruling; 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.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminist vs. Breivik | 27 August 2012

Application submitted to Norway Supreme Court for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement Ruling; 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. [Notice to Respondents]

Respondents:
First: OSLO DISTRICT COURT
Second: KINGDOM OF NORWAY (Prosecution)
Third: ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK
Fourth: VICTIMS FAMILIES

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”).

PFU to discuss processing of Breivik Guilty Complaint against Nina Berglund on 28 August

Breivik denies consent for EcoFeminist's 'Breivik is Innocent till Found Guilty' Media Complaint



Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 17 August 2012

On 31 July, a complaint was submitted to Press Complaints Commission against a Norway News in English, article wherein Editor, Ms. Nina Berglund wrote that 'Breivik's Guilt was Established Long Ago'.

According to Norwegian Press Complaints Commission procedures a request for consent was also submitted to Mr. Breivik, via his attorneys: Request for Consent to file Complaint against Nina Berglund, Editor: News & Views from Norway: Violation of 3.1, 3.2, 4.5 of Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press in Article: Breivik Moved to New Prison (PDF)

The Complaint (PDF) requests an order from the PFU, that Ms. Berglund be required to: (A) Correct the error of her statement that “Breivik’s guilt has been established (long ago)”; and/or provide the source for her statement of alleged fact. (B) Confirm that Anders Breivik’s is entitled to due process, including the right to be considered ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in accordance to the rule of law; and that no court of law has yet found Anders Breivik Guilty of any crime, and; (C) Apologize to Mr. Anders Breivik for violating his right to the presumption of innocence, and; (D) Apologize to her readers, for encouraging them to participate in the process of trial by media to violate Mr. Breivik’s right to the presumption of innocence.

Subsequent correspondence with Lippestad attorneys confirmed that they had informed Breivik of the request for consent, on behalf of newspapers respecting his right to presumption of innocence, until a court of law has made a finding of guilt. Mr. Breivik has so far declined to respond by either providing or declining consent; the implication thereof being that he has chosen to deny consent.

Direct correspondence and requests for clarification were sent to both Mr. Breivik and his advocate: Mr. Geir Lippestad.

PFU: Process News w. Views 'Breivik Guilty' Complaint as Public Interest Judicial Reporting Important matter

PFU: Process News w. Views Complaint as Public Interest Judicial Reporting Important matter

HOWEVER: Irrespective of whether Mr. Breivik himself believes in his guilt, and is involved in a massive Bullshit the Public Relations Image Management Campaign; EVERY ACCUSED -- EVEN THOSE WHO PLEAD GUILTY, OR CONSIDER THEMSELVES GUILTY -- SHOULD ONLY BE REPORTED ON, AS 'GUILTY'; ONCE A COURT OF LAW HAS MADE A 'FINDING OF GUILT'.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 15 August 2012

Request to PFU The Norwegian Press Complaints Commission: Kjell Nyhuus, Commission secretary:

I am unable - so far - to get a clear answer from Lippestad Attorneys. My current working hypothesis conclusion (until provided with additional information) is as follows:

1. Mr. Lippestad stated in court proceedings that Breivik's claim of innocence and necessity was purely a formality: i.e. my interpretation: Breivik does not subjectively believe his claims of (Anti-Islamicization) necessity; 22/07 Attacks and the trial were all just propaganda bullshit campaign.

2. Mr. Breivik has never contradicted Mr. Lippestad's statements that Breivik's 'Necessity' claim is simply a formality; or instructed Mr. Lippestad to withdraw his statements to the court; however Mr. Breivik's testimony, repeatedly focussed on his claim of necessity as the source for his innocence.

3. So, it is unclear: If Mr. Breivik sincerely believes his claims of innocence and necessity: (a) Why has he not instructed Lippestad to retract his statement; (b) If Lippestad refuses: placed the dispute with his attorney before the court and ask for new counsel; or (c) Lippestad is telling the truth; and Breivik really doesn’t subjectively believe in his necessity claim towards innocence, he is simply engaging in a bullshit the public relations propaganda campaign

HOWEVER: Irrespective of whether Mr. Breivik himself believes in his guilt, and is involved in a massive Bullshit the Public Relations Image Management Campaign; EVERY ACCUSED -- EVEN THOSE WHO PLEAD GUILTY, OR CONSIDER THEMSELVES GUILTY -- SHOULD ONLY BE REPORTED ON, AS 'GUILTY'; ONCE A COURT OF LAW HAS MADE A 'FINDING OF GUILT'.

So, whether Mr. Breivik consents to my complaint, or not; I request information as to the procedure to process this complaint, in the absence of Mr. Brievik's consent; either by

(A) presentation to the committee, that special circumstances of judicial ethics (factual legal findings of guilt, cannot be made by an accused, their lawyer, or any journalist, or editor; only an impartial court of law; and any reporter/editor who reports an accused to have been found guilty (irrespective if they pled guilty or not) is MISSTATING LEGAL FACTS) warrant that the complaint be treated without Breivik's consent; Or

(B) An appeal to the Press Association's Secretary General, on his own initiative to request the matter be processed, as it is -- I imagine -- a matter of great fundamental public interest, that journalists not go around accusing people of 'findings of guilt' without a proper court of law having made such a legal finding of guilt.

Below is a copy of the correspondence with Lippestad Attorney's; and excerpts of correspondence sent to Mr. Breivik himself, on the matter .........

Q's to Mr. Lippestad: Req for Clarity Re: guilt/innocence issue ignored in Breivik Trial by Prosecutors & Defence Counsel

Necessity Defence Cases that resulted in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing (incl. Mass Murder)

Mr. Geir Lippestad: Req for Clarity Re: guilt/innocence issue ignored in Breivik Trial by Prosecutors & Defence Counsel

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 13 August 2012

Request for Clarification regarding Defence Counsel’s focus on ‘sane/safety’ issue, while seemingly ignoring the ‘innocence/guilt’ issue, thereby denying Breivik’s right to Impartial trial to enquire into the evidence for and against his Necessity Defence.

Questions I have:

1. Why did Defence Counsel not demand Prosecutor Engh and Holden provide reasons for their refusal to address Breivik’s claim of necessity?

2. Is it common for Norwegian Prosecutors to refuse to provide the court with the Prosecutor’s Office assessment of an accused’s evidence for their claim of necessity?

3. In Norwegian Law upon which party does the Onus of Proof lie in a claim of necessity?

4. Is there some political correct conformity conspiracy between Defence Counsel and Prosecution to ignore Breivik’s claims of necessity?

5. Why did your Defence of Breivik state that the only issues before the court – as the media have been reporting and you said to the court – are the sane/safety issue?

6. How exactly can the only issue before the court be the ‘sane/safety’; since when is the ‘guilt/innocence’ issue irrelevant in a political criminal trial?

7. If Lippestad attorney’s are denying the court to be required to seriously examine the necessity evidence for Breivik’s guilt or innocence; upon what grounds and authority did Lippestad Attorney’s find Breivik to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

8. Or is it a matter of first ascertaining Breivik’s sanity; and then if, or when Breivik is finally deemed sane, does he then get a new trial with a focus on ‘guilty/innocence’ issue; to determine his innocence or guilt, based upon the evidence for and against his necessity defence?

9. If not, when exactly is Breivik entitled to an impartial trial where the issue before the court is Breivik’s ‘guilt/innocence’ and Prosecutors and Defence Counsel are required to seriously legally examine the evidence for and against his Necessity Defence?

As you are aware, I recently filed a Press complaint with PFU against News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'.

In summary, according to my paralegsal understanding of the law: “The prosecutor’s irregular decisions to ‘refuse to touch Breivik’s invocation of Necessity’ does not: (a) have the power to nullify Breivik’s invocation of necessity; (b) grant the court the authority to ‘refuse to touch Breivik’s invocation of necessity’; (c) grant the media the authority to find Mr. Breivik ‘guilty’ in a ‘trial by media ignorance of the law’.

A Norwegian friend responded to my complaint to the PFU with:

"I would rather think this would be grounds for requesting a retrial due to gross neglect by his counsel. My thinking is that they all simply ignored his claim of necessity hoping that if all did the same no one would call out the bluff, the bluff being the absence of an imperative to discuss the claim of necessity. If both prosecution and defense behave as if it is simply so ridiculous that by ignoring it they "spared" Breivik of the humiliation of being confronted with how insane and ludicrous it is, then the court, the media and, more importantly, the public would by into that fraud as well."

My understanding of Norwegian and International/Foreign Law on Necessity (in attached PDF)

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

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



Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 01 August 2012

Complaint to Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges:

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

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

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

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

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

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

PFU Press Complaint: News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'

PFU Press Complaint: News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'

The prosecutor’s irregular decisions to ‘refuse to touch Breivik’s invocation of Necessity’ does not: (a) have the power to nullify Breivik’s invocation of necessity; (b) grant the court the authority to ‘refuse to touch Breivik’s invocation of necessity’; (c) grant the media the authority to find Mr. Breivik ‘guilty’ in a ‘trial by media ignorance of the law’.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 31 July 2012

Glanville Williams expressed the necessity doctrine this way: “[S]ome acts that would otherwise be wrong are rendered rightful by a good purpose, or by the necessity of choosing the lesser of two evils.” He offers this example:

“Suppose that a dike threatens to give way, and the actor is faced with the choice of either making a breach in the dike, which he knows will result in one or two people being drowned, or doing nothing, in which case he knows that the dike will burst at another point involving a whole town in sudden destruction. In such a situation, where there is an unhappy choice between the destruction of one life and the destruction of many, utilitarian philosophy would certainly justify the actor in preferring the lesser evil.”

In United States v. Holmes, 26 F. Cas. 360 (E.D. Pa. 1842) (No. 15,383), Holmes was involved in a shipwreck, where the crew were charged with manslaughter for throwing sixteen passengers overboard in a frantic attempt to lighten a sinking lifeboat. The Prosecutor argued the passengers should be protected at all costs, whereas the Defence placed the jurors in the sinking lifeboat with the defendant. The Defendant was found guilty, but the jurors requested leniency, to which the court complied by sentencing the defendant to six months in prison and a fine of twenty dollars.

The following reports indicate that Prosecutor Engh and Holden violated their duty of objectivity in terms of (a) impartially enquiring into and/or responding to the Accuseds’ Defence; and (b) providing the court with the Prosecution’s evaluation and conclusion of the evidence for and against Breivik’s invocation of his Necessity Defence.

In her closing statement, Prosecutor Engh acknowledge’s that:

(1) Norwegian prosecutors have a duty to conduct their investigation with objectivity;
(2) Norwegian law allows for an accused to plead to necessity and/or self defence,
(3) Where an accused does invoke necessity, it is the court and prosecutor’s duty to investigate the accused’s necessity defence arguments and evidence;
(4) If an accused successfully invokes a necessity defence, this can and must result in either mitigation of sentence and/or a verdict of innocence;
(5) Breivik invoked the defence of necessity;
(6) Despite the fact that Breivik invoked the necessity defence, both Prosecutor Engh and Holden ‘refuse to touch the principle of necessity’.

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

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

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

20 July 2012 | Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated & Accurate Translation:

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

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

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

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

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

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