Upload
andrea-muhrrteyn
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: Violation of: 2.1 (Independence), 2.2 (Honesty), 2.4 (Multiculti Legal Respect) & 4,1 (Rule of Law Conduct) of CCBE Code of Ethics
Citation preview
\;J Advokatforeningen
Personopplysnings!oven krever at du som klager gir oss tiHatelse tit a motta og behandle personopplysninger om degog din klagesak. Du ma derfor fyUe ut og levere dette skjemaet sam men med klagen. Din klage pa advokat kan ikke behandlesfar Advokatforeningen har mottatt dette skjemaet.
Skjemaet skal skrives ut, signeres og legges ved klagens dokumenter. Vi minner om at klagen skal sendes i to eksemplarer.Konvalutten merkes «klage pa advokat».
Klagen sendes per post ti!:Advokatforeningen, Kristian Augusts gate 9, 0164 Oslo
Nayn pa klager (deg)
NAVN * Lara Johnstone
POSTAORESSE *
POSTNUMMER *
E·POST
POBox 5042, George East, 6539, South Africa
16 Taaibos Ave STED * George
[email protected] TELEFON +27 (71) 170 1954
Nayn pa adyokaten som klagen gjelder
ADVOKATENS NAVN * Judge Nina Opsahl
FIRMAETS NAVN * Oslo District Court I Oslo Tinghus
POSTAORESSE * Postboks 8023 Dep., 0030 Oslo
POSTNUMMER * CJ Hambros Plass 4 STED * Oslo
Klagen gjelder (sett kryss)* Cbligatoriske felt
KLAGEN GJELOER [gJ BRUOD pA REGLER FOR GOD ADVOKATSKIKK DSALkRKRAVET [X) ANNET
Samtykke og underskrift
Samtykke tit behandling av personopp!ysninger
leg bekrefter a ha lest vedlagt informasjon am disipliniErutvalgets behandling av personapplysninger.
leg samtykker med dette til at Advokatfareningens disipliniErutvalg kan behandle personopplysninger om meg etterpersonopplysningsloven §§ 8 f0rste ledd og 9 f0rste ledd bokstav a, jf. § 11 f0rste ledd bokstav a.
STED Jieorge _::~h Africa
UNDERSKRIFT ,~"'~.
DATO 28 May 2012
28/05/12 Complaint Against Judge Nina Opsahl norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
Norway v. Breivik Case: 11-188627 MED-05
‘Lawyers are either social engineers, or they are parasites. Social Engineer Lawyers aim to eliminate the difference between what the laws say and mean, and how they are applied; whereas legal parasites aim to entrench their parasitism from the difference between what the laws say and mean, and the application of such differences to their parasitic benefit.’ - Prof. Charlie Houston, mentor of Justice Thurgood Marshall, Simple Justice: History of Brown v. Board of Education1
P O Box 5042 George East, 6539 Cell: (071) 170 1954
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 Email: Adv.For. Disciplinary Complaints ([email protected]) 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 Disciplinary Committee: ([email protected]) E-post: Judge Moe ([email protected]) CC: Judge Nina Opsahl c/o Registrar of the Oslo District Court Postboks 8023 Dep., 0030 Oslo | C.J. Hambros Plass 4, 0164 Oslo Sentralbord 22 03 52 00 Tel/Faks: 22 03 5212 | 22 03 53 54 E-post: [email protected], [email protected] E-post: Judge Nina Opsahl ([email protected])
Complaint against Judge Nina Opsahl: 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) 2 | Klage mot dommer Nina Opsahl Brudd på: 2.1
1 Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education, the epochal Supreme Court decision that outlawed segregation, and of black America’s century-long struggle for equality under law, by Richard Kluger; Random House (1975) (pp126-129) 2 http://www.advokatforeningen.no/Etiske-regler/Internasjonale-regler/CCBEs-etiske-regler-norsk/
28/05/12 Complaint Against Judge Nina Opsahl norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
(Uavhengighet), 2.2 (ærlighet), 2,4 (Multiculti Juridisk Respekt) og 4,1 (Rule of Law
gjennomføre) CCBEs etiske regler (norsk oversettelse)
Overview of Complaint:
Complainant filed a legal application – Writ of Habeus Mentem - to the Oslo District Court in the
Norway v. Breivik matter being adjudicated by Judge Opsahl. Judge Opsahl refused to provide
any judgement to the applications whatsoever, whether to clarify any procedural errors by the
applicant requiring correction, or to deny the applications with written reasons in accordance to
due process. [See complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei: The complainant finally filed an
application for review to the Norway Supreme Court, who refused to hear the application
stating “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”; even
though Judge Opsahl‟s conduct clearly indicated irregularities in her refusal to provide a
„judgement‟].
Judge Opsahl’s conduct is a violation of her CCBE Code of Ethics duty to:
(2.1) Independence: to be totally free and independent from all other influences, including
political or media (public relations) influence or pressure;
(2.2) Honesty: withholding of honest information is a form of lying and deception, and also a
violation of the principle that the rule of law requires legislation (or judgements) to be
adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in
accord with the law (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom3);
(2.4) Multiculti Legal Respect: Complainant is a paralegal4 member of the Radical Honesty
culture [See: SA Constitutional Court Order by the Chief Justice in CCT 23-10: The Citizen v.
Robert McBride5 on 03 May 2010: “The Chief Justice has issued the following directions: Ms. Lara
Johnstone, Member of the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion is admitted as an Amicus
Curiae.” (Annex A)] and does not think it is too much „Multiculti Legal Respect‟ to ask for any
honest, impartial Judge to provide any individual, not just lawyers from „legal organisations‟
with a fair honest response to their legal application to their court;
(4.1) Rule of Law Conduct: Provide all applicants with honest and clear response from the
Court regarding the status of their applications, in terms of the rule of law principle that
requires legislation (or judgements) to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to
enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law (Lithgow & others v United
Kingdom6)
ECHR: Rule of law requires Adequately Precise and Accessible Legislation:
In Lithgow & others v United Kingdom7, 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:
3 Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html 4 Paralegal Certificate & Diplomate: Lara Johnstone Download: http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/060111_paralegal-lj Read: http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/060111_paralegal-lj?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage 5 Robert McBride was a member of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the South African Liberation Struggle, and was convicted for the bombing of Magoo's Bar / “Why Not” Restaurant in Durban, which killed 3 and injured 69 in 1986. He applied for and was granted amnesty for this and other militant actions taken during his time with MK by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Citizen newspaper was subsequently found guilty of defaming McBride by calling him a murderer (McBride argued his crimes had been forgiven and erased by the TRC) and appealed to the Concourt. Johnstone‟s Amicus dealt with evidence for how and why South Africas Truth and Reconciliation Hearings were not a sincere investigation as to the root ecological and demographic (overpopulation youth bulge) cause of Apartheid or current SA political violence; and offered the court parties an opportunity to correct the error of SA‟s TRC Fraud by addressing its errors so that true and sincere reconciliation could occur. Even though Johnstone‟s application was accepted by the Concourt and filed, both McBride and the SA media refused the offer to address the evidence of ecological causes of SA‟s apartheid violence and the consequence TRC Fraud, and correct the error; since both McBride (the ANC) and the media socio-politically and financially benefit from SA‟s TRC Fraud and current violence. 6 Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html 7 Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html
28/05/12 Complaint Against Judge Nina Opsahl norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
“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).”
CCBE Code of Ethics (Norwegian translation): 2.1 (Independence), 2.2 (Honesty), 2.4
(Multiculti Legal Respect) & 4,1 (Rule of Law Conduct) | CCBEs etiske regler (norsk
oversettelse): 2.1 (Uavhengighet), 2.2 (ærlighet), 2,4 (Multiculti Juridisk Respekt) og
4,1 (Rule of Law gjennomføre)
2.1. Independence
2.1.1. The many duties a lawyer undertakes, requires that the lawyer is totally
independent and free from all other influence, especially such as may result from
their own personal interests or external pressure. Such independence is as necessary
for confidence in the judicial process that the judge's impartiality. A lawyer must
therefore avoid having his or her independence in any way impaired, and be careful
not to compromise their professional standards to please the client, the court or third
parties.
2.1.2. Independence is necessary, both in litigation and other legal issues. Advice from
a lawyer to a client has no value if the lawyer provides advice just to please others, to
earn their own personal interests or as a result of external pressure.
2.1. Uavhengighet
2.1.1. De mange forpliktelser en advokat påtar seg, krever at advokaten er totalt
uavhengig og fri for all annen påvirkning, særlig en slik påvirkning som kan følge av
egne, personlige interesser eller press utenfra. En slik uavhengighet er like nødvendig
for tilliten til rettsprosessen som dommerens upartiskhet. En advokat må derfor unngå
at hans eller hennes uavhengighet på noen måte svekkes, og være nøye med ikke å gå
på akkord med sine faglige standarder å tekkes klienten, retten eller tredjeparter.
2.1.2. Uavhengighet er nødvendig både i rettstvister og i andre juridiske spørsmål. Råd
fra en advokat til en klient har ingen verdi dersom advokaten gir rådet bare for å
tekkes andre, for å tjene egne, personlige interesser eller som en følge av press
utenfra.
2.2. Trust and Personal Integrity
It may just be a trusting relationship if the lawyer's personal honor, honesty and
integrity are beyond doubt. These traditional virtues of the lawyer's obligations that
come with the profession.
2.2. Tillit og personlig integritet
Det kan bare være et tillitsfullt forhold dersom advokatens personlige heder, ærlighet
og integritet er hevet over tvil. Disse tradisjonelle dyder er for advokaten forpliktelser
som følger med yrket.
2.4. Respect for the rules of other legal organizations
By cross-border activities, a lawyer from another Member State be obliged to comply
with the host state's professional rules. Lawyers have a duty to keep themselves
informed of the rules that will affect them in relation to a particular business.
2.4. Respekt for reglene i andre advokatorganisasjoner
28/05/12 Complaint Against Judge Nina Opsahl norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
Ved virksomhet over landegrensene kan en advokat fra en annen medlemsstat ha plikt
til å følge vertsstatens profesjonsregler. Advokater har plikt til å holde seg informert
om hvilke regler som vil berøre dem i forbindelse med en bestemt virksomhet.
4.1. Rules of Conduct in court
A lawyer meetings or participate in legal proceedings, must follow the rules of
conduct that apply to the court.
4.1. Atferdsregler i retten
En advokat som møter eller deltar i en sak for domstolen, må følge de atferdsregler
som gjelder ved den domstolen.
Chronology of Facts
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] There has been no response from the Clerk of the Court. I imagine that the Judge has ordered
the Clerk to ignore the application. Refusal to respond to an application implies that the
application is being denied, and that the applicant is unworthy of a transparent due process
response8.
[4] [See complaint against Chief Justice Tore Schei].
Respectfully Submitted | Respektfullt Sendt
Lara Johnstone
Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/
Annexures:
[A] SA Constitutional Court Order by the Chief Justice in CCT 23-10 on 03 May 2010
[B] 30 November 2011 Application to Oslo District Court for a Writ of Habeus Mentem
8 [Field Manual No. FM 3-0, Headquarters Department of the Army, June 2001: Chapter 11: Information Superiority] When you engage someone openly with “white” information operations, i.e. IO (Information Operations) where your identity is clear and explicit, you imply that they are roughly your equal. By speaking to or of them directly, you point up that they are important enough to demand your attention and your reply.