Parl Ombud rules Supreme Court 'admin decision', re Review of Breivik Judgement is an Official Court Judgement

Parliamentary Ombudsman rules Supreme Court Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby's 10 September 'admin decision' re: Review of Breivik Judgement; is an Official Court Judgement



27 December 2012 | EcoFeminist v. Breivik

On 27 August 2012, I filed an Application (PDF) to Norway Supreme Court for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement Ruling; to Set Aside the Judgements (1) ‘Necessity (Nodrett) Ruling’ and (2) Defendant’s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry.

The Supreme Court Registrar refused to respond to my application, so i filed a complaint of Slow Processing (PDF) to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on 02 September 2012. On 10 September 2012, Supreme Court Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby responded - (Application for review of Oslo District Court Judgement of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24). He implied my application was an 'appeal', and that I lacked legal standing (locus standi), because only the 'parties to the case' can appeal.

On 11 September 2012, I responded (PDF) that my application was not an appeal, but a Review, and furthermore, that matters of locus standi are investigated by courts, after hearing evidence on the matter, not by Registrars. I requested him to provide me with a statute that granted him the authority to make a ruling on legal standing (locus standi); thereby denyiing me access to the court.

On 08 October 2012, I sent a reminder request to Sec. Gen. Bergby, but received no response. On 03 November I filed another complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: Complaint of Supreme Crt Registrar Slow Case Processing (PDF), requesting the Parliamentary Ombudsman order Sec. Gen. Bergby to either (a) provide me with the relevant statute granting him the authority to make a ruling on legal standing, or (b) process my application for review of the Breivik judgement.

On 15 November, the Parliamentary Ombudsman ruled that Sec. Gen. Bergby's 'administrative decision' was not an 'administrative decision', but a 'Decision (Judgement) by a court of law'; and that the Parliamentary Ombudsman has no authority to investigate 'decisions by a court of law', only administrative decisions of slow case processing.

So, the Parliamentary Ombudsman is saying that if you file an application with a court, and the registrar makes some administrative decision about your application, that is a 'judgement by a court of law'. Very strange, cause 'judgements/decisions by a court of law', only occur after a court has heard all the relevant evidence in the matter, from all parties.

So, it appears that the Parliamentary Ombudsman is not willing to rock the boat, and do their job by ordering the Supreme Court Secretary General, to either provide the relevant statute granting him the authority to make a decision on locus standi, or to process my application.

This means however, that an Application can be filed with the European Court of Human Rights, since the highest Norwegian court (Supreme Court) has issued a judgement (without general due process procedures), on my Application for Review.

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).

Pentti Linkolian Wild Law Applic to Norway Supreme Court: Review Breivik Judgement Necessity Ruling & Conviction

Pentti Linkolian Wild Law Applic to Norway Supreme Court: Review Breivik Judgement Necessity Ruling & Conviction

Three aspects that are Wild Law or Ecologically Focussed: [1] Courts Breivik Judgement is a Left vs. Right Wing Blame Game Judgement, not an Ecological Root Cause Problem Solving Judgement; [2] Denying Breivik his ‘Necessity’ Defence Right to an Objective and Subjective Test of his Evidence sets horrific Precedent for Denying other Activists, including EcoWarrior Necessity Activists their Necessity Test Rights; [3] Judgement’s Transparency Failure violates Aarhus Environment Transparency Convention principles and public accountability impartiality principles.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminists vs. Breivik | 29 August 2012

The Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist Wild Law essence of my argument is based upon the work of Chris Clugston (Scarcity), that the Judgement - like most Patriarchal Anthropocentric legalism - is about polarisation and parasitisim, not about problem solving, which requires confronting the ecological and psychological integrity root causes of the dispute.

Secondly, the 'necessity defence' argument is also indirectly related to my environmental activism focus. If the court denies Breivik the required objective and subjective test, that is required for any defendant who pleads to necessity... then some day when some Pentti Linkolian eco-warrior goes out and commits some eco-necessity criminal act... then the Breivik precedent can be used to deny that eco-warrior a fair trial, by denying them their right that their eco-warrior evidence be impartially examined by the court, both objectively and subjectively.

My application for review requests the court to set aside the 'necessity judgement' and consequently the 'guilt finding' and to remit the case back to the Oslo Court for the hearing of further evidence in accordance with the requirements of the necessity defence, to examine Breivik's evidence both objectively and subjectively.

Breivik Judgement Review filed with Norway Supreme Court; to Set Aside Necessity & Conviction Rulings

Breivik Judgement Review filed with Norway Supreme Court; to Set Aside Necessity & Conviction Rulings

Application for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement Ruling; to Set Aside the Judgements (1) ‘Necessity (Nodrett) Ruling’ and (2) Defendant’s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminist vs. Breivik | 27 August 2012

Application submitted to Norway Supreme Court for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement Ruling; to Set Aside the Judgements (1) ‘Necessity (Nodrett) Ruling’ and (2) Defendant’s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. [Notice to Respondents]

Respondents:
First: OSLO DISTRICT COURT
Second: KINGDOM OF NORWAY (Prosecution)
Third: ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK
Fourth: VICTIMS FAMILIES

Excerpts from Notice of Motion.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the applicant intends to apply for leave to review against parts of the judgement by Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Fagdommer: Arne Lyng; Meddommere: Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff, delivered on 24 August 2012 (herein after referred to as the “Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement”).