Note to Readers:

Please Note: The editor of White Refugee blog is a member of the Ecology of Peace culture.

Summary of Ecology of Peace Radical Honoursty Factual Reality Problem Solving: Poverty, slavery, unemployment, food shortages, food inflation, cost of living increases, urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, pollution, peak oil, peak water, peak food, peak population, species extinction, loss of biodiversity, peak resources, racial, religious, class, gender resource war conflict, militarized police, psycho-social and cultural conformity pressures on free speech, etc; inter-cultural conflict; legal, political and corporate corruption, etc; are some of the socio-cultural and psycho-political consequences of overpopulation & consumption collision with declining resources.

Ecology of Peace RH factual reality: 1. Earth is not flat; 2. Resources are finite; 3. When humans breed or consume above ecological carrying capacity limits, it results in resource conflict; 4. If individuals, families, tribes, races, religions, and/or nations want to reduce class, racial and/or religious local, national and international resource war conflict; they should cooperate & sign their responsible freedom oaths; to implement Ecology of Peace Scientific and Cultural Law as international law; to require all citizens of all races, religions and nations to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits.

EoP v WiP NWO negotiations are updated at EoP MILED Clerk.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

RettsNorge/JustNorway: Herman Berge: ‘Corrupt Appointment of Judges renders Breivik Court Case Null & Void’

RettsNorge/JustNorway: Herman Berge: ‘Corrupt Appointment of Judges renders Breivik Court Case Null & Void’

When we see what Oslo Court Officials have been able to do in this case, where all the people's eyes and ears have been directed at them, and where they still plowed the law and Constitution like dirt into the ground; one can only imagine what they are doing in less interesting cases which "only" affect individuals

03 July 2012 | Herman Berge | RettNorge

Herman J Berge is a Norwegian Lawyer known for winning Norway's largest single payment to a private person, for his clients Amelia and Einar Riis. He is currently the editor of RettsNorge/Just Norway. RettsNorge's purpose is to provide a critical look at Norway's application of the law in its courts. RettsNorge believes that too many people experience unbalanced and unfair decisions in Norway's courts, and even worse that many of the legal representatives do not serve their clients interests. On this issue the evidence is huge; the most recent case being a suit brought against Adv. Christian Haneborg, who according to Business Today is being sued for 50 million for having deceived his previous clients. RettsNorge wishes to educate citizens about the reality behind Norway's legal propaganda image. For forty years the media have been silent, while sitting on burning data; and instead of doing their duty as the fourth estate to hold power accountable, the media have censored evidence of the corruption of Norway's courts to maintain good relationships with the power elite. RettsNorge hopes to illuminate legal reality as it truly is, not as most wish it to be, or pretend it to be.

In the article: The Deliberations in the Breivik Case are Null and Void, published on 02 July 2012, Editor: Herman Berge argues that the Breivik court case was invalid, due to illegal and irregular appointment of the Judges in the case; who were specifically 'picked out'; instead of the required coincidence principle.

Simply put he writes that Judge Geir Engebretsen committed a coup d'etat of the Oslo District Court, without a single lawyer or journalist objecting in protest at the irregularities. Amazing. Furthermore Breivik's case must be retried, with new judges appointed in the proper legally required procedure.

Finally Judge Engrebertsen's procedure of deliberately choosing Breivik's Judges without any objections from political leaders, lawyers or the media confirms a Judicial court system in moral decay.


02 July 2012 | Herman Berge | Google Translate of Retts Norge

The negotiation of Breivik case is invalid, this when the two judges in the matter has not been assigned to the matter legally. As the judges were actually "picked out", they are objectively considered to be disqualified, see Court Act § 108, with the result that the court was not legally constituted.

The deeper cause (very deep need but not to go) is the simple fact that cases will be extracted and assigned to the court's judges after an accident policy (preferably through a system that automatically selects the next judge from an alphabet ethical drawn list, or similar automatic system, see eg Principle 2, paragraph e, the Council of Europe, Recommendation No. R (94) 12). I put the principle in the original text:

Principle 1, 2, e:
"The distribution of cases Should not be influenced by the wishes of any party to a case or any person Concerned with the results of the case. Such distribution may, for instance, be made ​​by drawing lots or of a system for automatic distribution According to alphabetic order or some similar system."

This means that a judge in a fair and legitimate legal system will never be asked to "take" a case. Such questions will simply not occur. Consequently, an independent judge who works at an independent tribunal never be faced with a situation where they must answer yes or no to a question to participate in (take on) a case, unless he / she is overworked, ill or obviously biased at first glance. It follows that a judge can only work on matters they lawfully have been assigned.

It appears from press reports that Magistrate Geir Engebretsen had previously decided which judges he thought were best suited to take care of Breivik. Engebretsen has thus simply picked the judges for his personal opinion was best suited to evaluate and determine the state's charges against Anders Breivik Behring.

According to Dagbladet and NRK will Engebretsen in secret - after having decided who would get the job to judge Breivik - have considered the "chosen" the judges' impartiality, that is, whether there were any of these judges (personal or factual) that could cause Breivik would argue that the judges could not judge the case. Subsequently, Engebretsen gone to these two judges and told them that they are impartial, that they can get the job, and that this (obviously) is completely voluntary. There is no basis in Norwegian law that are close to Engebretsen opportunity to do what he did in Breivik case. This is mutiny.

Impartiality Questions in each case is by law placed in the hands of the judge is to administer the case. A competency questions arise (almost) by definition, not until a judge has been assigned a case, cf presumably Court Act § 113, first paragraph: " ... the Finder, a judge, that he is in a position that gives the Parthians ... "

The Act thus not up for that a judge should be able to poke it through the court cases before the cases are distributed, to see what issues to suit the judges, then in absolute secrecy to determine the selected judge's impartiality, to eventually ask the judge if he / she wants to take the case, voluntarily, while stating to the judge that he is not disqualified. Despite the lack of authority, it is precisely this Engebretsen has done, which in itself must be classified as last year's resignation.

I am sorry to repeat myself, but this is important: the Courts Act, requires the opposite of what Engebretsen operates and manages the Oslo District Court, namely that the cases are first distributed (through the coincidence principle, see above) to the given referees, and then might be subject impartiality of trials which initially will be considered by the judge who has been assigned to the case, cf presumably Court Act § § 112 and 113 To put it in other and perhaps simpler words: When a case is brought before a court, the system extracts the judges of the given cases, assign the case to the next judge on the list. On this last point, the case is under the referee's responsibility and management. Any conflicts of interest raised objections to the judge as early as possible, but naturally enough, after the judge has been assigned the case, and of course not so Engebretsen has been the Norwegian people to believe, before the case is assigned to a judge. There are many nuances with regard to impartiality, but these I have chosen to weed out to make the problem more clearly, and hopefully as clear conclusion.

This Engebretsen-scheme that is contrary to the very foundation of a court uanhengighet, as the allocation process is a part of, namely that a case is assigned to a judge through a system that will ensure that no one can influence this process. Neither the judge nor any other judge can then sit down and opt-out cases because the cases fit into his / her idea of ​​what kind of law that is most handsome to practice. If we are to follow Engebretsen-program, will soon be able to end up with judges who take matters alone to kill a person they do not like, or break down a social system they do not like. It may also arise battle for cases on the judge's room and in the country's judges canteens, which naturally enough leads to klikkdannelser in the courts, those who like the boss - because he gives the many fine things - and therefore do everything they can to like him even more and those who are independent and thus falls outside and remain stuck with the crappy stuff, to put that on the tip.

Although it appears that Judge Arntzen have understood more of the principles that will create an independent judiciary than Engebretsen did, see her statements to the paper 23 December 2011:

" It's part of my job as a judge, I shall take the jobs that will be imposed on me"

this has no effect on the outcome of negotiations Breivik, the trial remains valid. In addition to Arntzen immediate reflex reaction have been:

"Sorry, Geir. I understand by this that you have "picked" me out. When I am an independent judge, also in relation to you and your wishes, I can not therefore take me to manage this issue. I consider myself to be incompetent."

Take note also that, in this picture, that a judge who is obviously incompetent and just as obviously have seen this but have failed to withdraw, should be imposed, the Supervisory Committee reprimand for violation of common judge ethics. I understand that some of you are laughing now, with good reason, which shows how wrong it has been to Norway, its judiciary and the ridiculous Supervisory Committee if the Chairman of the Committee and the DA still has not realized that the rest of the people laugh - and suffering - throughout the institution.

That Arne Lyng obviously have not understood its place in the legal system tells his statements to the press the most about:

"I was asked on Monday and agreed to the task. I was not in doubt ."

That he was not in doubt as well just confirms that Lyng on other occasions may have been in doubt, that he has had such issues before, that Heather believes that he can opt out of cases he does not want, and that he therefore did not understand the At least one of the principles that the Court's independence must be built on, namely the principle of random assignment of cases to judges. Now, certainly the Oslo District Court judges think I'm very unfair because the single judge that Stein Husby, Kongsberg never faced these problems, so why would we pick on the Oslo? If so, they reaffirmed that they have not understood the problem.

There is also no doubt that Engebretsen not know what he's playing with, when he has made ​​it clear to the press that the two judges were Court's first choice. Engebretsen had thus picked out a number of other judges as "the second and third choice" if the first choice was to opt out, see the minutes of the VG 23 December 2011:

"They were the court's first choice, and both agreed to work without doubt."

As stated in the press headlines, the award is clearly influenced by Geir Engebretsen (and those who control him) and his motives. Further confirming the VG's minutes of the press conference that Engebretsen in secret sitting and reviewing cases (at least in the more "interesting" cases), picks out the judges and referee team, evaluates and determines the judges' impartiality (note: Unless the judges know about it, talk about trust), a plan B if the "selected" to say no, offer cases for the "chosen" and leave it up to their own discretion whether to accept the job or not. To put it in simple terms: Engebretsen coup Oslo District Court and the introduction of anarchy in its jurisdiction, this without a single lawyer or journalist has to budge in protest. Amazing.

The main negotiation against Breivik must be repeated, and the case against Breivik must then necessarily the case be tried again, that is, from the time Engebretsen first took hold in the case. That this will cost taxpayers Norwegian new billion is Engebretsen's problem, not ours.

When Engebretsen is familiar with the role of judge, and what builds up under an independent judiciary, should be raised both prosecution against him, as well as compensation for the financial loss he has caused the country, and especially all those involved.

Let me in the end be allowed to warn those of you who have not yet discovered it, that Engebretsen special form of procedure, which seems to have been hailed by the media, is in itself a confirmation that it is neither uncommon nor considered unfortunate among the leaders and deputy leaders, which is alarming. The fact that the press does not react against this, but rather seems that all it is both admirable and amazing that the descendant of the country's old elite now - completely democratic, that is - has been selected to continue in old tracks are equally alarming.

As you will see from the above, we are not faced with a random assignment of cases, but a deliberate utplukking of judges, which in itself is a confirmation of a judicial system and a court of decay.

And let me finally get to say a few (perhaps) cryptic words to those who rely on national security etc; independence of the courts take precedence over the Security Act and its regulations . Put another way: Safety and Security Act (and its regulations) is - in so far as these may affect the independence of the courts - clearly in violation of the Constitution, the independence of the courts as provided for in the Constitution.

Court Act § 12, third paragraph, § 21, third paragraph, and Safety Regulation, Chapter 7 is therefore contrary to the Constitution and its principle that courts should be independent. These aforementioned provisions which involves access to some specially selected judges, can pick out individual judges and judges team for special cases, which is obviously contrary to the Constitution. What these provisions do not explicitly say, but that can be interpreted from the text of the Act and therefore should be a key theme in the discussion about the courts 'and judges' independence, is that many of the nation's judges do not have security clearance, and hence - believe the government - not to trust. These judges will therefore never be asked by Engebretsen & Co. if they fancy a bit juicy case. Do you think that Norway still has an independent judiciary?

Herman J Berge

Nuku'alofa, Tonga

Update: 07/03/2012

Appointment of Judges in Breivik case

We have received some comments, including that the appointment of lay judges is invalid, which is correctly observed.

The following can be read in Dagbladet's article, mentioned above:

"Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen and Arne Lyng will judge Behring Anders Breivik, Engebretsen makes it clear. The two will now consider the expert report and the forensic commission's conclusion Breivik's psyche, find three competent legdommere and prepare for Norway's largest litigation."

NRK in the article mentioned above also understand that it will "work" to find three lay judges:

"In addition to the two judges, there shall be three lay judges ... work to find three lay judges begins next year."

If we assume, and we have to do that Dagbladet and NRK minutes is accurate rendition of what played out at the press conference, we see again that no one has understood (objectively, of course, have these guys understand) the rules concerning the allocation of cases and removal of judges (lay judges).

You must not think of believing that Arntzen, or Heather, or any other judges can initiate a process of picking judges for a trial. There are rules for such things, rules that Engebretsen and his disciples have set aside.

Lay judges are drawn to the particular case under the rules of Court Act § § 86-92. Court Act § 88, first paragraph, explain when it will be judges, and who should do it. In the Courts of Justice Act § 86, second paragraph, explained the details of the procedure, which otherwise seems to be in line with Council of Europe Recommendation week. R (94) 12, mentioned above:

" ... judges should be drawn at random manner among all registered in the samples in the draw circle in which the hearing will be held."

The provision makes it therefore a simple formality in height will take a few minutes and does not open up for the judges who secretly has been picked for a case to have the great honor of investigating all registered judges, and then pick out them that these two judges believe that Engebretsen says the "best fit" to the case. According to the media, it seems that it is precisely this that has happened, and I can not see any place among the newspapers that Engebretsen, Lyng and Arntzen has gone out and said that newspapers have interpreted them incorrectly.

There is also no doubt, judges should be drawn, not picked, and it shall be done on the principle of coincidence, in order to avoid - as previously mentioned - that the process will be affected (to the detriment of a fair and equitable treatment of the case) and where simultaneously manifests / documents to the general public that the selection process was actually unaffected.

Statements in the country's major newspapers confirms beyond any doubt that the selection process was not only influenced, but that it also was completely controlled by the judge where he and then his two chosen consciously been looking around for the judges to the task.

I mention finally under this section that if later on turns out that the randomly selected lay judges are disqualified, or for other reasons can not serve as a lay judge, regulate the Courts of Justice Act § 92 what then will happen: you summon deputy member of the same sex, and if not it goes, pull again. As it can be read in the Law § 88, first paragraph, the draw made in good time so that you have finished the preliminary procedural issues - such as Engebretsen believes he can best solve its secret utplukkingsprosess - by hovedforhandlingens start.

Telling the judges' assessment of impartiality - no reaction

The second point that should be discussed a little bit wider, is why none of aid lawyers responded that their coordinating lawyers went into the secret and illegal negotiations with the judges that the time was not even chosen to treat Breivik case?

The following can be read in Dagbladet's article mentioned above:

"It is a unique case, says Judge Engebretsen, which evaluated the judges impartiality are considered along with defender Geir Lippestad, prosecutors and the three coordinating aid lawyers."

What was it that drove the best criminal lawyers and government lawyers Sven Holden and Inga Bejer to enter such negotiations with the judge and discuss potential judge's impartiality, knowing that this scheme is unauthorized and illegal, and that the judges were not even aware that they were examined? Just to have said it, the situation would have improved a single paragraph, even if the judges were aware that they were under investigation and perhaps even participated in Engebretsen-scheme, this since they still approved this unauthorized and corruption-friendly process without make the slightest anskrik.

When we see what these guys have been able to do in this case, where all the people's eyes and ears have been directed against them, and where they still plow the law and Constitution as if it was dirt that was in the ground, the one could only imagine what they are doing less interesting cases "only" affect the individual party.

We can not accept this kind of social democratic justice (the Communist leader / dictator gets to decide what is best for the people). Nobody in this world will accept the social democratic law [1] when they first get an insight into what this actually is about something, what it means for man, and I encourage you all to demand Breivik negotiations declared invalid, then demand that case should be suspended until a time when Norway has been the order of the courts and Norwegian law. Only at this later stage can then be set to work with - this time - fair and equitable procedures in accordance with law, the Constitution and international agreements binding.

Herman J Berge

Nuku'alofa, Tonga

» » » » [Retts Norge/Just Norway]

No comments:

FLEUR-DE-LIS HUMINT :: F(x) Population Growth x F(x) Declining Resources = F(x) Resource Wars

KaffirLilyRiddle: F(x)population x F(x)consumption = END:CIV
Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement (13:10)
Unified Quest is the Army Chief of Staff's future study plan designed to examine issues critical to current and future force development... - as the world population grows, increased global competition for affordable finite resources, notably energy and rare earth materials, could fuel regional conflict. - water is the new oil. scarcity will confront regions at an accelerated pace in this decade.
US Army: Population vs. Resource Scarcity Study Plan
Human Farming Management: Fake Left v. Right (02:09)
ARMY STRATEGY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: Office of Dep. Asst. of the Army Environment, Safety and Occupational Health: Richard Murphy, Asst for Sustainability, 24 October 2006
2006: US Army Strategy for Environment
CIA & Pentagon: Overpopulation & Resource Wars [01] [02]
Peak NNR: Scarcity: Humanity’s Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity’s Consequences, by Chris Clugston
Peak Non-Renewable Resources = END:CIV Scarcity Future
Race 2 Save Planet :: END:CIV Resist of Die (01:42) [Full]

:: Fair Use Notice ::

FAIR USE NOTICE: The Norway v. Breivik blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to provide information for research and educational purposes, and advance understanding for the EcoFeminist vs. Breivik: Beyond Left and Right Wing: From an ecological perspective, all human economics and politics are irrelevant’ Argument. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyright owners who object to the fair use of their copyright news reports, may submit their objections to Norway v. Breivik Blog at: [EcoFeminist]