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 Chief Justice Tore Schei: Violation of Ethical Principles for Norwegian Judges

Complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei: 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), 15 (Collegial Intervention).

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 2:15 PM
To: 'Supv. Comm. Judges'
Cc: 'Norway Supreme Court Admin'; Ch.Justice Tore Schei
Subject: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere: Klage: Justice Tore Schei: 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: Chief Justice Tore Schei
Norway Supreme Court | Norges Høyesterett
Post: Postboks 8016 Dep., 0030 Oslo, Norge.
Høyesteretts plass 1, Oslo
Telefon: 22 03 59 00 Telefaks: 22 33 23 55
E-post: Norway Supreme Court Admin (**@hoyesterett.no)
E-post: Ch.Justice Tore Schei (**@hoyesterett.no)

Complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei: 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), 15 (Collegial Intervention).

Complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei: Violation of CCBE Code of Ethics

Complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei: 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: 10:54: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-12: 12:02: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee
29-05-12: 12:57: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-12: 12:57: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee
29-05-12: 13:33: Response from Disiplinærnemnden for advokater
29-05-12: 13:33: Response to Adv. For. Disciplinary Committee


Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 28 May 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:18 PM
To: 'Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints'; 'Disciplinary Committee'; 'Judge Moe'
Cc: 'Court Administration'; 'Dep.Sec.Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard'; 'Norway Supreme Court Admin'; 'Ch.Justice Tore Schei'
Subject: Klage: Tore Schei: Brudd på: 2.1, 2.2, 2,4 og 4,1 CCBEs etiske regler | Complaint: Tore Schei: 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: Chief Justice Tore Schei
c/o: Dep. Sec. Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard
Norway Supreme Court | Norges Høyesterett
E-post: Norway Supreme Court Admin (**@hoyesterett.no)
E-post: Ch.Justice Tore Schei (**@hoyesterett.no)

Complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei: 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 Tore Schei 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)

KRIPOS: 16 May: EcoFeminist Death Battalion Notice: Interpol Environmental Crimes Charges against Norwegian Supreme Court Chief Justice Tore Schei and Dep Sec Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard

16 May: EcoFeminist Death Battalion Notice: Interpol Environmental Crimes Charges against Norwegian Supreme Court Chief Justice Tore Schei and Dep Sec Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard

“The economic and political problems with which we concern ourselves are merely manifestations of our ecological predicament -- they are symptoms, not the disease.” – Chris Clugston: Scarcity: Humanity's Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Non-Renewable Natural Resources and its implications and consequences for humanity

“If the men refuse to fight for Rule of Ecological Law, we’ll show them what the women can do!” - Maria Bochkareva, Russian Joan of Arc: “Black Hussars Battalion of Death”

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 17 May 2012

From: Habeus Mentem
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 7:41 PM
To: Crt: SupremeCrt: Chief Justice Tore Schei (**@domstoladministrasjonen.no); Crt: SupremeCrt: Kjersti Ruud (**@hoyesterett.no) ; Crt: SupremeCrt: Info: Svein Tore Andersen (**@hoyesterett.no); NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court (**@domstol.no); NO Oslo District Court: Admin (**@domstol.no)
Cc: NO: Crt: Breivik: Lippestad (**@advokatlippestad.no); NO: Lippestad (**@advokatlippestad.no); NO: Lippestad (**@advokatlippestad.no); Crt: Victims: Siv Hallgren (**@elden.no); Crt: Victims: Frode Elgesem (**@thommessen.no); Crt: Victims: Mette Yvonne Larsen (**@advokatstabell.no); Crt: Pros Holden. MJus: Grete Faremo (**@jd.dep.no); Crt: Pros Holden. Politie: Org.Crime (**@politiet.no)
Subject: NO Supreme Crt: T.Schei & K.Nygaard: Obstruction of Environmental Justice Complaint to Interpol

TO: Chief Justice Tore Schei & Dep. Sec. Gen: Kjersti Nygaard
Norway Supreme Court

CC: Prosecution, Defence, Victims Families

Please find attached PDF Complaint:

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

COMPLAINT: Charges of Obstruction of Access to Environmental & Indigenous Rights Justice, by Norwegian Chief Justice Tore Schei and Dep Sec Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard

NO Supreme Crt: Dep Sec Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard Response to EcoFeminist Indigenous Rights Application to Norway Supreme Court in Breivik Matter

NO Supreme Crt: Dep Sec Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard Response to EcoFeminist Indigenous Rights Application to Norway Supreme Court in Breivik Matter

Judgement from the Oslo District Court: My legal application (per ecolaw email) - Affidavit part C: District Court Monocultural Masculine Insecurity EU Supremacy, paragraphs 30 to 36 - informs you of the Judgement from the Oslo District Court which could politely be paraphrased as ‘Judge Opshal and Arntzen don’t have the honour and integrity to officially deny Johnstone’s application, let alone provide her with written reasons for why we are denying it, cause Johnstone practices problem solving, not parasite leeching, so Johnstone has fuck all followers, to force us to do our jobs, so we will just pretend Johnstone does not exist, hence Johnstone's applications to this court also don’t exist’.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 15 May 2012

From: Andrea Muhrrteyn
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 2:40 PM
To: DO-B: Muslim Soc Trondheim (**@msit.no); DO-B: Muslim Soc Trondheim: Imam (**@msit.no); DO-B: Muslim Soc Trondheim: Mehran Emadipour (**@hotmail.com)
Subject: [11.MuslimSocTrondheim.JJOksvold] NO Supreme Crt: Dep Sec Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard Response to SHARP Application

TO: [11] MUSLIM SOC. OF TRONDHEIM: JJ OKSVOLD

[04] NO REFUGEE COUNCIL: ELISABETH RASMUSSEN [05] UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR: INDIGENOUS RIGHTS: JAMES ANAYA [06] ELENA: LEG.ADV: FRIHAGEN, RISNES, BLEKASTAD, DAHL [07] ELENA: NOAS: ANDREAS FURUSETH [08] MINISTER OF CULTURE: ANNIKEN HUITFELDT [09] PROGRESS PARTY: SIV JENSEN [10] CHURCH OF NORWAY: BERIT HAGEN AGOY [11] MUSLIM SOC. OF TRONDHEIM: JJ OKSVOLD [12] NUPI: HELGE LURAS

Please find attached my PDF response to Supreme Court: Deputy Secretary General: Kjersti Buun Nygaard refusal to provide a case number for my case.

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.

Norway Supreme Court: EcoFeminist Application for Review & Declaratory Order

Min Justice: 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 | Norway v. Breivik | 07 May 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 12:31 PM
To: Crt: SupremeCrt: Chief Justice Tore Schei (**@hoyesterett.no); Crt: SupremeCrt: Kjersti Ruud (**@hoyesterett.no)
Subject: [NO SUPREME CRT: Justice Tore Schei] NO-Breivik: Supreme Crt Applic for Review & Decl. Order

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


IN THE NORWAY SUPREME COURT: NORWAY V. BREIVIK

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER & REVIEW

Oslo District Court Case #: 11-188627 MED-05