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.

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 & discrimination by Environmental Appeals Board

Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow case processing & discrimination by Environmental Appeals Board of complaints against Aftenposten, Dagbladet, TV2, VG, Addresseavisen, Bergens Tidende & NRK



04 July 2012 | Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik

Slow Case Processing: Environment Appeals Board first deleted my appeal without reading it, then I was refused a case number and only provided a 'reference number'; and then told my 'enquiry' would only be addressed in August at the end of summer holidays.

Failure to Provide Case Processing: Environment Appeals Board appear to be attempting to refuse to provide me with a Case Number, in their attempts to obstruct my appeal from the public record.

Discrimination: Environment Appeals Board state my appeal is only an 'enquiry' and my 'enquiry' will only be addressed in August and refuse to confirm whether their 'summer holiday policy' is applicable to all complainants, or only my complaint; also refuse to put a public notice on their website stating their 'summer holiday policy' and whom it does and does not apply to.

Full Chronology of Facts details provided in attached PDF:

On 25 May 2012, Requests for Access to Environment and Health Information were submitted to the editors of Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2, VG and Addresseavisen requesting information related to their decision-making to censor information related to the (I) Media's Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway's Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny. Each respondent was additionally provided a copy of the 22 April 2012 Earth Day: 'If It Bleads, It Leads' Media's Population-Terrorism Connection Report (42pgs). The Media Publications were requested to provide the requested information by 17:00 hrs on 11 June 2012. As of 17:00 hrs on 18 June 2012, they had declined to do so.

On 18 June 2012 a complaint was filed with the Environmental Appeals Board: Appeals of environmental information.

Since 18 June 2012 I have been trying to get Environmental Appeals Board to issue me with a Case number; they refuse stating they are on summer vacation until August, but refuse to say if this is standard policy for everyone, or only my complaint.

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.”