170 Bar Association Complaints filed against Norway v. Breivik Attorneys (Defendant: 4; Victims Families: 166)
Norsk Advokat Foreningen/Bar Association: Complaints: Violation of: CCBE Code of Ethics: Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial, to (1) deny Defendant his Political Necessity Treason Trial; and (2) support Corruption of the Court [here]. Bar Association Response & response to the Bar Association correspondence is below.
Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 21 June 2012
From: Disiplinærnemnden for advokater: The Disciplinary Board has received your complaints concerning numerous lawyers participating in the case against Anders Behring Breivik.....
From: Advokatforeningen: The Norwegian Bar Association’s Disciplinary Committee has received your complaints concerning numerous lawyers participating in the case against Anders Behring Breivik......
From: Habeus 4 Mentem: Right to Legal Sanity:
[1] Please provide The Bar Association Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for demanding complainants waste paper, ink and non-renewable transporation resources by printing, signing and mailing complaints to the Bar Association; and refusing digitally signed complaints submitted by email, which are much more beneficial to the environment, and are exact environmentally digital copies of print versions?
[A] Does the Bar Association endorse the European Court of Human Rights (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom) principle that every individual who files a legal application to a Norwegian Court has a right to a timeous and precise written response informing them whether their application has been accepted, or if denied, reasons for such denial, or to inform the individual of additional information required before the complaint can be accepted?
Request to Norsk Advokaat Foreningen: Disciplinary Complaints: for Environment and Health Information ITO S.10 and S28
From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:34 PM
To: 'Inger-Johanna Hammer'; 'Baard Amundsen'
Cc: 'Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints'
Subject: Den Norske Advokatforening: Berit Reiss-Andersen: Req for Env. & Health Info ITO S.28 and S.10
Chairperson: Berit Reiss-Andersen
Sec./Exec. Officer: Inger-Johanna Hammer
Comm: Baard Amundsen
The Norwegian Bar Association | Den Norske Advokatforening
Juristenes Hus Kristian Augusts gate 9, 0164 Oslo
Tel: 22 03 50 50 | Fax: 22 11 53 25
CC: Disciplinary Complaints
The Norwegian Bar Association | Den Norske Advokatforening
Juristenes Hus Kristian Augusts gate 9, 0164 Oslo
Tel: 22 03 50 50 | Fax: 22 11 53 25
Dear Ms. Reiss-Andersen,
Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Complaints filed against Attorneys for Defendant (4) and Victims Families (166) in Norway v. Breivik matter: 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) : Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial, to (1) deny Defendant his Political Necessity Treason Trial; and (2) support Corruption of the Court to deny submittal to the Court of Controversial Evidence related to: [1] Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; [2] Norway’s endorsement of Political Psychiatry & Psychiatric Fraud; [3] Masculine Insecurity Human Farming for Profit Kaffir Legal Matrix; [4] Norwegian Goverments Endorsement for ANC’s Terrorism & Breeding War; [5] Norwegian Commitment to Rainbow Race Multiculturism is a Fraud
Thank you for the email from the Norwegian Bar Association’s Disciplinary Committee, dated Tue 6/19/2012 10:16 AM; in response to the 170 complaints I filed against Attorney’s for Defendant (4) and Victims Families (166) in Norway v. Breivik matter. In response, I request the following information:
Request for Information:
[1] List of Attorney’s I filed complaint against who are not members of the Bar Association, whose complaints cannot be handled by the Disciplinary Committee and require referral to the Disciplinary Board.
[2] The Bar Association ‘Legal Interest’ Decision Making Justifications:
[A] Does the Bar Association endorse the European Court of Human Rights (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom) principle that every individual who files a legal application to a Norwegian Court has a right to a timeous and precise written response informing them whether their application has been accepted, or if denied, reasons for such denial, or to inform the individual of additional information required before the complaint can be accepted?
[B] If so, if or when any Judge refuses to provide any applicant in any court proceeding that any Norwegian Lawyer is a participant in, with such prompt written response, it is the duty of honourable and ethical Lawyers to uphold the respect for impartial court due process proceedings to object to, and expose such discrimatory corrupt practices being practiced by a Norwegian Magistrate or Judge?
[C] In consideration for [A] and [B], could the Bar Association be detailed specific about how and why it alleges that my complaints do not meet the Bar Association’s ‘legal interest requirement’?
[D] Is the Bar Association’s ‘Legal Interest’ Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of the Human-Farming-EcoSuicide-Kaffir-Legal-Matrix?: Whether the Bar Association’s decision-making to allege that my complaint did not meet the ‘Bar Association’s ‘legal interest requirement’ had anything to do with silencing, suppressing or obstructing my legal applications to the court in this matter exposing the Human Farming Kaffir Legal Matrix: the Iron Mountain ‘War is a Racket Military Industrial Complex’s centralisation of power and tyranny , founded on Kaffir Law/Legislation which provides citizens with the Inalienable Eco-Suicide ‘Right to Breed’ and ‘Right to Vote’, but demands that Citizens need a Licence to Own a Gun, a Licence to Drive a Car, a Licence to Practice Law, a television licence, a credit licence, a licence to earn a living, a university exemption licence, a licence to fish, a licence to hunt, a liquor licence, a business licence, a marriage licence, a Marxist/Capitalist Traitor Hunting licence, etc, etc.
[D] Is the Bar Association’s ‘Legal Interest’ Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of Norway’s endorsement of the Legal Establishment’s use of Whores of the Court Psychiatrists for the purposes of White Supremacy cultural supremacy and social control; ignoring the reality their ‘Whores of the Court’ Bullshit the public and the court with “psychobabble with scientific foundations equal to horoscope charts… the science behind it all is nonexistent”?
[3] The Bar Association Environmental Principles Decision-Making
[1] Please provide The Bar Association Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for demanding complainants waste paper, ink and non-renewable transporation resources by printing, signing and mailing complaints to the Bar Association; and refusing digitally signed complaints submitted by email, which are much more beneficial to the environment, and are exact environmentally digital copies of print versions?
[2] Please provide The Bar Association Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for printed complaints; when even third world goverments and Bar Associations environmental policies allow courts and organisations to accept email complaints?
ECHR: Rule of law requires adequately Precise and Accessible Legislation:
In Lithgow & others v United Kingdom , the European Court of Human Rights 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:
“As regards the phrase "subject to the conditions provided for by law”, it requires in the first place the existence of and compliance with adequately accessible and sufficiently precise domestic legal provisions (see, amongst other authorities, the alone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 31-33, paras. 66-68).”
[..]
Conclusion:
If an individual files a legal application to a Norwegian Court; does the Bar Association support the due process principles; that
1. such an individual has a right to a prompt and clear written response from the Court informing the applicant their legal application has been accepted or if not, whether further information is required or what is required from the individual for such legal application to be accepted
2. When any legal applicant is denied such due process written response by the court; it is the honourable duty of all legal parties involved in the matter to uphold the respect for due process and the law, by demanding the Judge provide the applicant with a clear and written response to their application.
We live on a finite resource planet and not even Bar Associations have the right to believe that resources are infinite and to demand ‘complaints’ procedures that require complainants to waste scarce resources, when alternative procedures exist that are more environmentally resource friendly.
Full complaint in attached PDF.
Respectfully Submitted
Lara Johnstone
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/
________________________________________
From: Advokatforeningen [SS]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:16 AM
To: Lara
Subject: RE: Adv.For: Klage:
Dear Ms Lara Johnstone,
The Norwegian Bar Association’s Disciplinary Committee has received your complaints concerning numerous lawyers participating in the case against Anders Behring Breivik. Complaints concerning a lawyer’s possible breach of the Code of conduct for lawyers can be brought before the Disciplinary Committee as long as the lawyer is a member of the Norwegian Bar Association. If the lawyer is not a member, the complaint must be addressed to the Disciplinary Board.
The Disciplinary Committee’s handling of complaints is regulated by The Norwegian Bar Association’s bylaws § 13-1, cf. the Disciplinary Committee’s processing regulations.
We would like to point out that anyone whose complaint is based on a legal interest is entitled to file a complaint. In practice this means that the attorney’s client has a right to complain. Complaints regarding the other party’s attorney may also be filed. It is thus primarily the parties involved in a case that can file a complaint against a lawyer, as the complainant must have a direct connection to the circumstances that the complaint is built on. If the complainant has no such legal interest, the complaint will be rejected. A complaint may also be rejected if it is obviously baseless.
Based on the information received in your complaints, it seems like these are not in compliance with the legal interest- requirement.
Should you nevertheless uphold your complaints, please be aware that all complaints must be submitted in writing and signed, and send us as two originals by ordinary mail. We would like to emphasize the importance of sending your complaints by ordinary mail due to the fact that the Norwegian Bar Association does not accept any complaints sent by e-mail.
The following items should be included in the complaint:
1. Name and address of the attorney who is the subject of the complaint.
2. Indicate the date you became aware of the matter(s) that is/are the subject of the complaint.
3. Write why you believe the attorney has violated the rules of proper conduct and/or why you believe the demanded fee is too high. Provide a brief presentation of the factual circumstances. It is important, to the extent you can, that you provide dates for all events.
4. Enclose copies of letters and other documents that you believe are relevant to the complaint.
5. Complete an attorney complaint form with declaration of consent to the processing and handling of personal data.
The Norwegian Bar Association cannot process the complaint without a completed and signed attorney complaint form. Documents received without the complaint form attached will be returned to the complainant.
Please send two copies of the signed written complaint enclosed with any documentation you find relevant, in duplicate, and a filled-out and signed consent form in original to:
Advokatforeningen
Kristian Augustsgt. 9
NO-0164 Oslo
Label the envelope “Disciplinary Complaint”.
Kind regards
The Norwegian Bar Association
» » » » [PDF :: Norsk Bar Assoc: Ethics]
Request to Judge Ernst Moe's: Disciplinary Board: for Environment and Health Information ITO S.10 and S28
From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:38 PM
To: 'Disiplinærnemnden for advokater'; 'Judge Ernst Moe'
Subject: Disciplinary Board Head: Judge Ernst Moe: Req for Env. & Health Info ITO S.28 and S.10
Head: Judge Ernst Moe
Sec: Beate Sundstrøm
Disciplinary Committee | Disiplinærnemnden
Kristian Augustsgt. 9 0164 OSLO
Tlf. 22 03 50 50 | Tlf: 22 03 51 08 | Fax 22 11 53 25
Dear Judge Moe,
Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Complaints filed with Disciplinary Board against Attorneys for Victims Families in Norway v. Breivik matter: 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) : Obstruction of Justice Participation in a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial, to (1) deny Defendant his Political Necessity Treason Trial; and (2) support Corruption of the Court to deny submittal to the Court of Controversial Evidence related to: [1] Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; [2] Norway’s endorsement of Political Psychiatry & Psychiatric Fraud; [3] Masculine Insecurity Human Farming for Profit Kaffir Legal Matrix; [4] Norwegian Goverments Endorsement for ANC’s Terrorism & Breeding War; [5] Norwegian Commitment to Rainbow Race Multiculturism is a Fraud
Thank you for your email from the Disciplinary Board, dated Tue 6/19/2012 10:26 AM; in response to the 170 complaints I filed against Attorney’s for Defendant (4) and Victims Families (166) in Norway v. Breivik matter. I am awaiting response from the Disciplinary Committee to inform me which Attorney’s are not members of the Bar Association, whose complaints I am required to file with the Disciplinary Board. In the meantime, in response to the issues raised in your Tue 6/19/2012 10:26 AM email, I request the following information:
Request for Information:
[2] The Disciplinary Board’s ‘Legal Interest’ Decision Making Justifications:
[A] Does the Disciplinary Board endorse the European Court of Human Rights (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom ) principle that every individual who files a legal application to a Norwegian Court has a right to a timeous and precise written response informing them whether their application has been accepted, or if denied, reasons for such denial, or to inform the individual of additional information required before the complaint can be accepted?
[B] If so, if or when any Judge refuses to provide any applicant in any court proceeding that any Norwegian Lawyer is a participant in, with such prompt written response, it is the duty of honourable and ethical Lawyers to uphold the respect for impartial court due process proceedings to object to, and expose such discrimatory corrupt practices being practiced by a Norwegian Magistrate or Judge?
[C] In consideration for [A] and [B], could the Disciplinary Board be detailed specific about how and why it alleges that my complaints do not meet the Disciplinary Boards ‘legal interest requirement’?
[D] Is the Disciplinary Board’s ‘Legal Interest’ Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of the Human-Farming-EcoSuicide-Kaffir-Legal-Matrix?: Whether the Disciplinary Board’s decision-making to allege that my complaint did not meet the Disciplinary Board’s ‘legal interest requirement’ had anything to do with silencing, suppressing or obstructing my legal applications to the court in this matter expoing the Human Farming Kaffir Legal Matrix: the Iron Mountain ‘War is a Racket Military Industrial Complex’s centralisation of power and tyranny , founded on Kaffir Law/Legislation which provides citizens with the Inalienable Eco-Suicide ‘Right to Breed’ and ‘Right to Vote’, but demands that Citizens need a Licence to Own a Gun, a Licence to Drive a Car, a Licence to Practice Law, a television licence, a credit licence, a licence to earn a living, a university exemption licence, a licence to fish, a licence to hunt, a liquor licence, a business licence, a marriage licence, a Marxist/Capitalist Traitor Hunting licence, etc, etc.
[D] Is the Disciplinary Board’s ‘Legal Interest’ Decision Making an Endorsement of Censoring Exposure of Norway’s endorsement of the Legal Establishment’s use of ‘Whores of the Court’ Psychiatrists for the purposes of White Supremacy cultural supremacy and social control; ignoring the reality their ‘Whores of the Court’ Bullshit the public and the court with “psychobabble with scientific foundations equal to horoscope charts… the science behind it all is nonexistent”?
[3] The Disciplinary Board’s Environmental Principles Decision-Making
[1] Please provide the Disciplinary Board’s Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for demanding complainants waste paper, ink and non-renewable transporation resources by printing, signing and mailing complaints to the Disciplinary Board’s; and refusing digitally signed complaints submitted by email, which are much more beneficial to the environment, and are exact environmentally digital copies of print versions?
[2] Please provide Disciplinary Board’s Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for printed complaints; when even third world goverments and Bar Associations environmental policies allow courts and organisations to accept email complaints?
[..]
Conclusion:
If an individual files a legal application to a Norwegian Court; does the Disciplinary Board’s support the due process principles; that
1. such an individual has a right to a prompt and clear written response from the Court informing the applicant their legal application has been accepted or if not, whether further information is required or what is required from the individual for such legal application to be accepted;
2. When any legal applicant is denied such due process written response by the court; it is the honourable duty of all legal parties involved in the matter to uphold the respect for due process and the law, by demanding the Judge provide the applicant with a clear and written response to their application.
We live on a finite resource planet and not even Bar Associations have the right to believe that resources are infinite and to demand ‘complaints’ procedures that require complainants to waste scarce resources, when alternative procedures exist that are more environmentally resource friendly.
Please see PDF for full detailed request including footnotes.
Respectfully Submitted
Lara Johnstone
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/
________________________________________
From: Disiplinærnemnden for advokater [SS]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:26 AM
To: Lara
Subject: RE:
Dear Ms Lara Johnstone,
The Disciplinary Board has received your complaints concerning numerous lawyers participating in the case against Anders Behring Breivik.
The Board’s handling of complaints is regulated by chapter five of the Regulations for Advocates (Regulations) (Advokatforskriften). Complaints may in some cases be decided by the chair of the Board alone, cf. section 5-5 of the Regulations.
We would like to point out that anyone whose complaint is based on a legal interest is entitled to file a complaint. In practice this means that the attorney’s client has a right to complain. Complaints regarding the other party’s attorney may also be filed. It is thus primarily the parties involved in a case that can file a complaint against a lawyer, as the complainant must have a direct connection to the circumstances that the complaint is built on. If the complainant has no such legal interest, the complaint will be rejected. A complaint may also be rejected if it is obviously baseless.
Based on the information received in your complaints, it seems like these are not in compliance with the legal interest- requirement.
Should you nevertheless uphold your complaints, please be aware that all complaints must be submitted in writing and signed, and send us as two originals by ordinary mail. We would like to emphasize the importance of sending your complaints by ordinary mail due to the fact that the Disciplinary Board does not accept any complaints sent by e-mail.
All complaints must be submitted in writing and signed.
1. Indicate the date you became aware of the matter(s) that is/are the subject of the complaint.
2. Explain why you believe the attorney has violated the rules of proper conduct and/or why you believe the demanded fee is too high. Provide a brief presentation of the factual circumstances. It is very important, to the extent you can, that you provide dates for all events that are subject to your complaint.
3. Enclose copies of letters and other documents that you believe are relevant to the complaint.
4. The documents submitted should always be sorted and copied in duplicate. Send your complaint as an original by regular post and a filled-out and signed form of consent to:
Disiplinærnemnden
Kristian Augustsgt. 9
NO – 0164 Oslo
Label the envelope; “Disciplinary Complaint”.
The Disciplinary Board and the Secretariat are subject to a duty of confidentiality.
Kind regards,
The Disciplinary Board
» » » » [PDF :: Norsk Bar Assoc: Ethics]
No comments:
Post a Comment