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.”

Parliamentary Ombudsman: Arne Fliflet
The Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public Administration
P.O. Box 3 Sentrum NO - 0101 Oslo
Telephone: +47 22 82 85 00
Tel: 22 82 85 00 | Toll: 800 800 39 | Fax: 22 82 85 11

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.


Chronology of Facts:

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 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.”


Legal Application Filed in Norway v. Breivik Matter: Judge Nina Opsahl:

[1] 30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court: Habeus Mentem:

1. On 30 November 2011, complainant filed an Application to the Oslo District Court: Application for a [I] 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.

2. On 15 December 2012 complainant informed the court that: “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.”

3. On 30 May 2012 a complaint was filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges as a result of Respondents failure to provide the complainant with a transparent due process response; which was a violation of their CCBE Ethical Duties to the court and all applicants to courts in all court disputes.

Legal Application Filed in Norway v. Breivik Matter: Judge Wenche Arntzen:

[2] 15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court: Amicus Curiae:

1. On 15 April 2012, Complainant filed an Application to the Oslo District Court: Application to proceed as In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amicus Curiae for an Order (1) to approve the Applicant as an In Forma Pauperis Jus Sanguinis Norwegian African White Refugee Amici Curiae, and (2) Amending the Charges Against the Defendant and Applicant to include Treason in terms of Article 85 of Norwegian Constitution, and if found guilty, in a free and fair trial; to be executed by firing squad. The application requested the Prosecution and Defence to respond by 23 April 2012 either consenting to, or objecting to, the application.

2. On 26 April 2012, Complainant informed the court that: “There has been no response from the Prosecution and Defence either consenting to, or objecting to, my application to proceed as an Amicus. Please could you confirm: (1) The date my application is to be submitted to Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, or the relevant Judge, for her/their consideration. (2) The date the said Judge intends to provide me with their ruling approving or denying my application.”

3. On 30 May 2012 a complaint was filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges as a result of Respondents failure to provide the complainant with a transparent due process response ; which was a violation of their CCBE Ethical Duties to the court and all applicants to courts in all court disputes.

Legal Application Filed in Norway v. Breivik Matter: Chief Justice Tore Schei:

[3] 10 May 2012 Application to Norway Supreme Court: Review & Declaratory Orders:

1. On 10 May 2012, Complainant filed an Application to the Norway Supreme Court: Application (1) to be admitted as a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee; (2) for An Order demanding 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; (3) to Review the Oslo District Court failure to act in accordance of due process to a Jus Sanguinis Radical Honoursty African EcoFeminist White Refugee Applicant member of the Radical Honesty culture.

2. On 11 May 2012 complainant requested from Norway Supreme Court Officials: Mr. Svein Andersen / Mr. Kjersti Ruud: “Could you kindly clarify when the Registrar shall issue a Case Number; or whether you require additional documentation or information?”

3. On 15 May 2012, Kjersti Buun Nygaard responded with: “Reference is made to your e-mails regarding the above issue. Please be advised 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. Further inquiries from you regarding the above issue can not be expected to be answered.”

4. On 15 May 2012, complainant responded with: (I) Error in Supreme Court: Deputy Secretary General: Kjersti Buun Nygaard Response to SHARP Application to Supreme Court for Declaratory Orders and Review of Oslo District Court’s Decisions.

5. On 17 May 2012, complainant filed an Environmental Crime Complaint to Interpol, via Norway Police; Charges: Obstruction of Environmental & Indigenous Rights Justice Committed by Chief Justice Tore Schei & Dep. Sec. Gen: Kjersti Nygaard.

6. On 30 May 2012 a complaint was filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges as a result of Respondents failure to provide the complainant with a transparent due process response ; which was a violation of their CCBE Ethical Duties to the court and all applicants to courts in all court disputes.

Respectfully Submitted

Lara Johnstone
Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/

Annexures: (Not Included: Links provided for download):
[A] SA Constitutional Court Order by the Chief Justice in CCT 23-10 on 03 May 2010 (PDF)
[B] 30 Nov 2011 Application to Oslo District Court for a Writ of Habeus Mentem (PDF)
[C] 15 April 2012 Application to Oslo District Court to proceed as an Amicus Curiae (PDF)
[D] 10 May 2012 Appl. to Norway Supreme Court for Review & Declaratory Orders (PDF)
[E] 15 May 2012 Error in Supreme Crt Dep Sec. Gen Response to Applic for Review (PDF)
[F] 17 May 2012 Interpol Complaint: Obstruction of Env. & Ind. Rights Justice (PDF)

» » » » [PDF :: Parliamentary Ombudsman]