Complaint against Judge Wenche Arntzen: 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: 11:05: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-2012: 12:19: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee
29-05-12: 13:08: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-2012: 13:08: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee
29-05-12: 13:39: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-2012: 13:39: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee
Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 28 May 2012
From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:05 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 Wenche Arntzen (**@domstol.no)
Subject: Klage: Wenche E Arntzen: Brudd på: 2.1, 2.2, 2,4 og 4,1 CCBEs etiske regler | Complaint: Wenche E Arntzen: 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 Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen
c/o Registrar of the Oslo District Court
E-post: **@domstol.no, **@domstol.no
E-post: Judge Wenche Arntzen (**@domstol.no)
Complaint against Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: 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 Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen 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)
Overview of Complaint:
Complainant filed a legal application to the Oslo District Court in the Norway v. Breivik matter being adjudicated by Judge Arntzen. Judge Arntzen refuses to provide any judgement to the applications whatsoever, whether to clarify any procedural errors by the applicant requiring correction, or to deny the applications with written reasons in accordance to due process. [See complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei: The complainant finally filed an application for review to the Norway Supreme Court, who refused to hear the application stating “that the Supreme Court of Norway only handles appeals against judgments given by the lower courts and can consequently not deal with the issue mentioned in your e-mails”; even though Judge Arntzen’s conduct clearly indicated irregularities in her refusal to provide a ‘judgement’].
Judge Arntzen’s conduct is a violation of her CCBE Code of Ethics duty to:
(2.1) Independence: to be totally free and independent from all other influences, including political or media (public relations) influence or pressure;
(2.2) Honesty: withholding of honest information is a form of lying and deception, and also a violation of the principle that the rule of law requires legislation (or judgements) to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom );
(2.4) Multiculti Legal Respect: Complainant is a paralegal member of the Radical Honesty culture [See: SA Constitutional Court Order by the Chief Justice in CCT 23-10: The Citizen v. Robert McBride 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.” (Annex A)] and does not think it is too much ‘Multiculti Legal Respect’ to ask for any honest, impartial Judge to provide any individual, not just lawyers from ‘legal organisations’, with a fair honest response to their legal application to their court;
(4.1) Rule of Law Conduct: Provide all applicants with honest and clear response from the Court regarding the status of their applications, in terms of the rule of law principle that requires legislation (or judgements) to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom )
Please find attached the relevant documents: Klagskjema, Complaint & Annexures
Respectfully Submitted | Respektfullt Sendt
Lara Johnstone
Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/
Annexures:
[A] SA Constitutional Court Order by the Chief Justice in CCT 23-10 on 03 May 2010
[C] 15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court to proceed as an Amicus Curiae
» » » » [PDF]
From: Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:24 AM
To: Lara
Cc: Judge Wenche Arntzen; Advokatforeningen; 'Judge Moe'
Subject: RE: Klage: Wenche E Arntzen: Brudd på: 2.1, 2.2, 2,4 og 4,1 CCBEs etiske regler | Complaint: Wenche E Arntzen: Violation of: 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 & 4,1 of CCBE Code of Ethics
Vi har mottatt din e-post med bilag.
Disiplinærmyndighetene behandler klager på advokater som skal ha opptrådt i strid med Regler for god advokatskikk eller for øvrig i strid med domstolloven eller annen lov, samt klager over at en advokat har krevd for høyt salær, jf. Advokatforskriftens § 5-3 og Behandlingsregler for Advokatforeningens disiplinærutvalg.
Disiplinærmyndighetene vurderer primært advokatens opptreden i forhold til de advokatetiske regler og kan bare i begrenset utstrekning ta stilling til, og eventuelt overprøve, kvaliteten på de råd advokaten gir i anledningen behandlingen av konkrete saker. For at advokatens faglige utførelse av et oppdrag skal anses som brudd på Regler for god advokatskikk, må det foreligge klare feil eller forsømmelser fra advokatens side. En alminnelig kvalitetsvurdering av advokaters arbeid og faglige utførelse av oppdrag faller således i utgangspunktet utenfor klageordningen.
Klager mot advokater som er medlemmer av Advokatforeningen, behandles av Advokatforeningens disiplinærutvalg som første instans. I disse klagesakene er Disiplinærnemnden ankeinstans. I klagesaker mot advokater som ikke er medlem av Advokatforeningen, er nemnden første og eneste instans, med mindre advokaten samtykker i at Advokatforeningens regionale utvalg skal behandle saken.
Dommer Wenche E. Arntzen er ikke praktiserende advokat og din henvendelse legges til arkiv i det disiplinærmyndighetene ikke kan behandle klagen.
Med vennlig hilsen
Beate Sundstrøm
advokatassistent DNA – sekretær / saksbehandler
Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
Kristian Augusts gate 9, 0164 Oslo T 22 03 50 50
From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:46 AM
To: 'Disiplinærnemnden for advokater'
Cc: 'Judge Wenche Arntzen'; 'Advokatforeningen'; 'Judge Moe'
Subject: RE: Klage: Wenche E Arntzen: Brudd på: 2.1, 2.2, 2,4 og 4,1 CCBEs etiske regler | Complaint: Wenche E Arntzen: Violation of: 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 & 4,1 of CCBE Code of Ethics
Ms. Beate Sundstrøm
Secretary / executive officer
Disciplinary Committee for solicitors
Ms. Sundstrom,
Thank you for your response in Norwegian. I have used google translate to translate it, so am not sure whether the translation is accurate. Here is google’s translation:
We have received your e-mail with your vouchers.
Disciplinary authorities with complaints of lawyers who should have acted in contravention of the Code of Conduct or otherwise in violation of Court Act or other law, as well complain that a lawyer has demanded too high fees, see Attorney Regulations § 5-3 and Processing Rules Bar Association disciplinary board.
Disciplinary authorities are primarily lawyer's conduct in relation to the lawyer's ethical rules and only to a limited extent, decide, and if necessary overrule, the quality of the advice the lawyer gives the opportunity the treatment of specific cases. For the lawyer's professional execution of the order shall be deemed a breach of Code of Conduct, it must be clear errors or omissions from the lawyer's side. A general quality assessment of lawyers' work and academic performance of the contract falls basically outside the complaints procedure.
Complaints against lawyers who are members of the Bar Association, dealt with by the Bar Association's disciplinary board in the first instance. In these appeals is the Disciplinary Committee appeal. In complaints against lawyers who are not members of the Bar Association, the committee's first and only resort, unless the prosecutor agrees that the Bar Association's regional committee shall consider the matter.
Judge Wenche E. Arntzen is a practicing attorney and your inquiry will be to archive the disciplinary authorities can not resolve your complaint.
The following paragraph is unclear from the translation: “Judge Wenche E. Arntzen is a practicing attorney and your inquiry will be to archive the disciplinary authorities can not resolve your complaint.”
Are you stating that:
1. The matter is under investigation by the Disciplinary committee and my complaint is to be archived IF the disciplinary authorities can not resolve my complaint, or
2. The Disciplinary Committee has made a decision on the complaint, that the disciplinary committee can not resolve my complaint, and that my complaint is being archived?
Sincerely,
Lara Johnstone
Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/
From: Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:10 PM
To: jmcswan@mweb.co.za
Cc: 'Judge Wenche Arntzen'; Advokatforeningen; 'Judge Moe'
Subject: SV: Klage: Wenche E Arntzen: Brudd på: 2.1, 2.2, 2,4 og 4,1 CCBEs etiske regler | Complaint: Wenche E Arntzen: Violation of: 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 & 4,1 of CCBE Code of Ethics
Lara Johnstone.
It appears to be an spelling error in the translation from google.
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen is not a practicing attorney and therefore your complaint can`t be treated by the disciplinary authorities.
I hope this answers your question.
Med vennlig hilsen
Beate Sundstrøm
advokatassistent DNA – sekretær / saksbehandler
From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:43 PM
To: 'Disiplinærnemnden for advokater'
Cc: 'Judge Wenche Arntzen'; 'Advokatforeningen'; 'Judge Moe'
Subject: RE: Klage: Wenche E Arntzen: Brudd på: 2.1, 2.2, 2,4 og 4,1 CCBEs etiske regler | Complaint: Wenche E Arntzen: Violation of: 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 & 4,1 of CCBE Code of Ethics
Beate Sundstrøm:
Thank you for that clarification of ‘lost in translation’. ;-)
It would appear that you are saying that individuals who work for the State as prosecutors, court administrators and judges, practicing law in the same courts of law that ‘practicing attorneys’ practice are not to be held to the same standards of conduct and code of ethics as ‘practicing attorneys’?
Please could you inform me where I can find the code of ethics for ‘Prosecutors, court administrators and Judges’ (“State legal practioners”), as well as the disciplinary committee that holds these ‘State Legal Practioners’ accountable?
Sincerely,
Lara Johnstone
Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/
From: Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 1:01 PM
To: jmcswan@mweb.co.za
Cc: 'Judge Wenche Arntzen'; Advokatforeningen; 'Judge Moe'
Subject: SV: Klage: Wenche E Arntzen: Brudd på: 2.1, 2.2, 2,4 og 4,1 CCBEs etiske regler | Complaint: Wenche E Arntzen: Violation of: 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 & 4,1 of CCBE Code of Ethics
Lara Johnstone.
To complaint on a judge, you must address it to the Tilsynsutvalget for dommere, (Supervisory Committee for Judges) as that the correct body.
The ethical principles for judges behavior can be read on; http://www.domstol.no/Nar-jeg-skal-i-retten/Aktorene-i-retten/Dommere/Etiske-prinsipper-for-dommeratferd/.
Med vennlig hilsen
Beate Sundstrøm
advokatassistent DNA – sekretær / saksbehandler
From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 1:30 PM
To: 'Disiplinærnemnden for advokater'
Cc: 'Judge Wenche Arntzen'; 'Advokatforeningen'; 'Judge Moe'
Subject: RE: Klage: Wenche E Arntzen: Brudd på: 2.1, 2.2, 2,4 og 4,1 CCBEs etiske regler | Complaint: Wenche E Arntzen: Violation of: 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 & 4,1 of CCBE Code of Ethics
Beate Sundstrøm:
Thank you kindly for the information about the Tilsynsutvalget for dommere, (Supervisory Committee for Judges) and Ethical Code of Conduct for Judges.
I shall file my complaints with the Tilsynsutvalget for dommere, (Supervisory Committee for Judges).
Sincerely,
Lara Johnstone
Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment