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).

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).

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.

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.

Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow case processing by Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges

Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow case processing by Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges of Complaints against Judges Nina Opsahl, Wenche Arntzen & Justice Tore Schei



Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 04 July 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 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.”

Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges

Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media).

06 June Update: Letter to Supv. Comm. of Judges

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 30 May 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:07 PM
To: 'Supv. Comm. Judges'
Cc: Judge Nina Opsahl; NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court; NO Oslo District Court: Admin
Subject: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: Klage: Judge Nina Opsahl: Brudd på: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12.

Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges,
National Courts Administration,
Tel: 73 56 70 00 | Fax: 73 56 70 01
E-mail: Supv. Comm. Judges (**@domstol.no)

CC: Judge Nina Opsahl
Judge: Oslo District Court
Postboks 8023 Dep., 0030 Oslo | C.J. Hambros Plass 4, 0164 Oslo
Sentralbord 22 03 52 00 Tel/Faks: 22 03 5212 | 22 03 53 54
E-post: **@domstol.no, **@domstol.no
E-post: Judge Nina Opsahl (**@domstol.no)

Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges: 1. (Rule of Law), 2. (Independence), 3 (Impartiality), 4 (Integrity), 5 (Equality), 7 (Formulation of Court Decisions), 12 (Judges relation to the media).

Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: Violation of CCBE Code of Ethics

Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: Violation of: 2.1 (Independence), 2.2 (Honesty), 2.4 (Multiculti Legal Respect) & 4,1 (Rule of Law Conduct) of CCBE Code of Ethics (Norwegian translation)

29-05-12: 11:17: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-12: 12:25: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee
29-05-12: 13:11: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-12: 13:11: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee
29-05-12: 13:41: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-12: 13:41: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 28 May 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:02 PM
To: 'Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints'; 'Disciplinary Committee'; 'Judge Moe'
Cc: NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court (**@domstol.no); NO Oslo District Court: Admin (**@domstol.no); Judge Nina Opsahl (**@domstol.no)
Subject: Klage: Nina Opsahl: Brudd på: 2.1, 2.2, 2,4 og 4,1 CCBEs etiske regler | Complaint: Nina Opsahl: Violation of: 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 & 4,1 of CCBE Code of Ethics

Disciplinary Complaints
The Norwegian Bar Association | Den Norske Advokatforening
Email: Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints (**@advokatforeningen.no)

Head: Judge Ernst Moe
Sec: Beate Sundstrøm
Disciplinary Committee | Disiplinærnemnden
Disciplinary Committee: (**@jus.no)
E-post: Judge Moe (**@domstol.no)

CC: Judge Nina Opsahl
c/o Registrar of the Oslo District Court
E-post: **@domstol.no, **@domstol.no
E-post: Judge Nina Opsahl (**@domstol.no)

Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: Violation of: 2.1 (Independence), 2.2 (Honesty), 2.4 (Multiculti Legal Respect) & 4,1 (Rule of Law Conduct) of CCBE Code of Ethics (Norwegian translation) | Klage mot dommer Nina Opsahl Brudd på: 2.1 (Uavhengighet), 2.2 (ærlighet), 2,4 (Multiculti Juridisk Respekt) og 4,1 (Rule of Law gjennomføre) CCBEs etiske regler (norsk oversettelse)

Norway Supreme Crt Update: Min Culture: Is Norway (A) a Children-of-Rainbow Legal Multiculti (right to invoke Sharia?) State; or (B) Monocultural Indigenous EU Supremacy Legal Hegemonic State?

Norway Min Culture: Is Norway (A) a Children-of-Rainbow Legal Multiculti (right to invoke Sharia?) State; or (B) Monocultural Indigenous EU Supremacy Legal Hegemonic State?

Application Requests Supreme Court to Order the Norwegian Ministry of Culture to act in accordance to European Court of Human Rights ruling in Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom, and clarify in adequately accessible and sufficiently precise statement; whether Norway is (A) a ‘Children of the Rainbow’ State legally committed to Multiculturalism, providing all cultures their right to invoke cultural law and hence granting the Applicant her rights to invoke Radical Honoursty cultural law; or (B) a Monocultural Indigenous European Supremacy Legal Hegemonic State, and that the Labour Party Immigration policy is a tactic to maintain their grip on power, by importing Non-Western immigrants as Labour Party vote-fodder.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | 10 May 2012 | Norway v. Breivik

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 1:49 PM
To: Crt: SupremeCrt: Chief Justice Tore Schei (**@domstoladministrasjonen.no); Crt: SupremeCrt: Kjersti Ruud (**@hoyesterett.no) ; Crt: SupremeCrt: Info: Svein Tore Andersen (**@hoyesterett.no) [SS]
Subject: NO Supreme Crt: Justice Schei, c/o K.Ruud & ST.Andersen: NO-Breivik: Supreme Crt Applic for Review & Decl. Order

Chief Justice Tore Schei
Post: Postboks 5678 Sluppen 7485 Trondheim
Telefon: 73 56 70 00 | Telefaks: 73 56 70 01

I am still awaiting the Court Registrar to provide me with a Case Number.

Attached are the updated 10 May 2012 Filing Sheet, Notice of Motion, Founding Affidavit and Proof of Service PDF's, with updated respondents.

Notice to Oslo Court: Request Date Judge to Provide Ruling on Breivik Habeus Mentem (Right to Legal Sanity) Application

Notice to Oslo Court: Request Date Judge to Provide Ruling on Breivik Habeus Mentem Application

15 December 2011 | Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik

From: Lara Johnstone

Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 2:56 PM

To: NO: Crt: Oslo District Court: Tinghus Sentralbord; NO Oslo District Court: Tingrett Postmottak

Cc: NO Emb: Pta: Amb Tor Hildan; NO: Crt: Forensic Medicine: Tarjei Rygnestad; NO: Crt: Breivik: Lippestad; NO: Lippestad: Tord; NO: Lippestad: Odd; NO: Prison: Ila: Knut Bjarkeid; NO: Prison: Ila: Post; NO: Crt: SupremeCrt: Chief Justice Tore Schei; NO Police Security Svc; NO Police: Oslo; NO Police Directorate; NO: Police: Justice Dept; NO: MinJustice: Grete Faremo; NO: MinJustice: Pol Advisor: Astrid Bergmal; NO: PM: JStoltenberg: Chief of Staff: Karl Schjott-Pedersen; NO: PM: JStoltenberg: State Sec: Tor Brostigen

Subject: [2] Oslo District Court: Norway v. Breivik: Application: Respondent: Judge Nina Opsahl

Importance: High

Oslo District Court: Registrar,

In the matter between: KINGDOM OF NORWAY v. ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK

Application between:
LARA JOHNSTONE Applicant
JUDGE NINA OPSAHL First Respondent
ANDERS BREVICK Second Respondent
GEIR LIPPESTAD Third Respondent
SYNNE SERHEIM Fourth Respondent
TORGEIR HUSBY Fifth Respondent
TARJEI RYGNESTAD Sixth Respondent
SVEIN HOLDEN Seventh Respondent

Please could you confirm:

1. The date my application is to be submitted to Judge Opsahl, or the relevant Judge, for their consideration.
   
2. The date the said Judge intends to provide me with their ruling on the matter.

Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr

Oslo District Court: Norway v. Breivik: Judge Nina Opsahl: Application for Writ of Habeus Mentem & Certiorari/Review

Oslo District Court: Norway v. Breivik: Judge Nina Opsahl: Application for Writ of Habeus Mentem & Certiorari/Review

01 December 2011 | Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 8:35 PM
To: NO Oslo District Court: Sentralbord; NO Oslo District Court: Admin
Subject: Oslo District Court: Norway v. Breivik: Application: Respondent: Judge Nina Opsahl

ATTENTION:

REGISTRAR & FIRST & SECOND RESPONDENTS
Registrar of the Oslo District Court
Sorenskriver og administrasjon
Postadresse: Postboks 8023 Dep., 0030 Oslo
Besøksadresse: C.J. Hambros Plass 4, 0164 Oslo
Sentralbord 22 03 52 00
Tel/Faks: 22 03 5212 | 22 03 53 54
E-post: **********@domstol.no
E-post: **********@domstol.no

In the matter between:

KINGDOM OF NORWAY v. ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK

Application between:
LARA JOHNSTONE Applicant
JUDGE NINA OPSAHL First Respondent
ANDERS BREVICK Second Respondent
GEIR LIPPESTAD Third Respondent
SYNNE SERHEIM Fourth Respondent
TORGEIR HUSBY Fifth Respondent
TARJEI RYGNESTAD Sixth Respondent
SVEIN HOLDEN Seventh Respondent

Please find attached for your attention the following PDF documents: Application in terms of Article’s 2, 4, 85, 100, 110a, 110b, of Norwegian Constitution; and Article’s 1, 5, 6, 9, 13 and 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

• Filing Sheet
  
• Notice of Motion
  
• Founding Affidavit

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the applicant herewith applies to this court for an order from Judge Nina Opsahl that (A) Anders Breivik be provided a copy of this application for his consideration, and to be ordered to provide the court with his personal written response to the application, to be documented into the court record. (B) If approved by Anders Breivik, additional orders as follows: [I] A writ of Habeus Mentem on behalf of Anders Breivik psycho-cultural integrity right to a free and fair trial; and [II] writ of Certiorari/Review of the Psychiatric Evaluation Report of Psychiatrists: Synne Serheim and Torgeir Husby as to the Mens Rea political necessity criminal liability of Anders Breivik terrorist acts, on 22 July 2011. Please take notice that the accompanying affidavit of Lara Johnstone will be used in support of this application. 

KINDLY place this matter before Judge Nina Opsahl for her consideration at her earliest convenience. 

Dated at George, Southern Cape, South Africa, this 29th day of November, 2011. Lara Johnstone, Pro Se Honourable Transparency Copies: (A) Honourable Tore Schei, Chief Justice (B) King Harald V, King of Norway (C) Hon. Jens Stoltenberg, Prime Minister (D) Hon. Dag Terje Andersen, President (E) Gen. Harald Sunde, NATO: Military Comm.: Chief of Staff, Chief of Defence (F) HE Tor Christian Hildan, Ambassador of Norway, Pretoria (G) Professor Duarte Nuno Vieira (Portugal), European Council of Legal Medicine: Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal, I.P.[1]; and The International Academy of Legal Medicine[2] 

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 (In accordance to Common Law, I also consider corporations to be without legal standing, as they have no mind, body, legs, eyes, emotions; and hence are legal fictions). 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), 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.