Before you read his research, look at this “news” report we received earlier today. See if your reaction isn’t similar to the old saying “denial is not the name of a river in Egypt”…
Norway is quite fragile and will be for a long time to come. A culture which steadfastly refuses to metabolize normal human anger at what was done to its children is a culture in deep trouble:
Many survivors and victims’ families have been in court to watch the proceedings, yet there has been no display of anger or desire for revenge. The same is true for people outside of the court in Oslo or elsewhere in Norway.
One man, giving his name only as Carl, tied roses to the fence surrounding the court entrance. It formed part of a growing sea of flowers with written messages of hope, peace and condolences — an echo of last summer when flowers covered nearly every one of Oslo’s public squares in a response to the violence.
“We can’t show any anger here, because everything is so crazy,” he said.
“So this is our way of — not forgetting it — but thinking of something else and focusing on what happened last summer after the explosion … all the flowers in Oslo. I think it is the same thing we want to do, just to show what we mean about this.”
One Norwegian author and commentator who is following the case, Anders Giaever of the Oslo daily Verdens Gang (VG), told DW the reaction was “typically Norwegian.”
“Breivik is such an extraordinary crime, it’s the first time we experience anything like it. If something like this were to happen again I think the mood would change,” Giaever said.
I’ll bet “the mood” would change all right. And then “nice” Norway — the country famous for hating Jews and loving the terrorists of Hamas — would suddenly become more congruent.
That brittle façade would shatter into five million angry pieces.
So much for my say. The important part, Beach Bum’s observations and research are below. His conclusions are likely to send those in charge of his native country even further into denial.
Is the trial of Anders Behring Breivik unconstitutional?
by Beach Bum
Law is a complex subject, and given that the author of this post is not a lawyer, the content of what I have to say cannot be guaranteed to be entirely accurate. However, the subject matter uncovers a hidden story with enough truth to make further investigations worthwhile for those who do possess knowledge of Norwegian law.
It is worth noting that the original laws are not written in English, so wording in the translation will necessarily differ from that of the original Norwegian text. However, these minor issues have no bearing on the underlying truth on which the facts presented here are based.
The conclusion is that the trial of the Norwegian terrorist and mass murderer, Anders Behring Breivik, is unconstitutional. Because of this, any verdict handed down by the judges could be annulled and declared void. That sad fact is inescapable.
I will substantiate this claim and demonstrate how the Norwegian state and its legal systems have been thoroughly corrupted.
This situation is known by the Norwegian media. They have been contacted on several occasions by any number of people, but to no avail. Having been presented with the facts you will read here, they have chosen not to pursue the issues in any satisfactory fashion.
The first person to bring attention to these problems was the Norwegian lawyer, Herman J. Berge. He learned that some of the judges who were presiding over cases in which he was involved professionally had failed to sign and file their judicial oaths in the correct manner, something that judges in Norway are required to do by law. After investigating the matter more closely, Mr. Berge and other investigators discovered that the problem was much more widespread than he had initially suspected: the number of judges who had failed to properly submit and file these oaths possibly number in the hundreds.
Article 60 of the ‘law of the Norwegian courts’ states that:
“All judges with the exemption of lay judges shall submit a written declaration that they will conscientiously perform their duties. The declaration shall be submitted to the court administration or the county general. The declaration is also required for judges in conflict resolution councils. The King shall determine the wording of the declaration.”
Thus, before any judge is allowed to preside over a case in any Norwegian court, there are several steps to satisfying the obligation for a judge:
|(1)||He must swear the judicial oath, and|
|(2)||He must also submit a written declaration attesting to this.|
|(3)||This declaration is then stamped and filed with the office of the Court Administration.|
The consequences for failing to take the judicial oath or neglecting to process this declaration correctly are supposed to be levied automatically. That is, such omissions should lead to the nullification or voiding of any verdicts handed down by “irregular” judges.
This is not new. Legal precedent in the matter was set in 1916 when the Supreme Court of Norway ruled to nullify a verdict in a lower court on just this basis — i.e., that the presiding judge in a specific case had failed to submit his written declaration at the time the trial took place. Indeed, a similar case is currently scheduled to go before the Norwegian Supreme Court on June 14, 2012. (Felxiped AS vs. Brødrene Fossum AS).
The consequences resulting from these many failures to adhere to the law these ‘rogue’ judges purportedly pledge to uphold are ominous for the rule of law in my native country. Numerous sitting judges in Norway have flouted the law themselves. In so doing, they are not legally permitted to preside over court cases. This wanton disregard of the mandates of the Norwegian constitution is disturbing. It is also illegal.
In Norway a judge is classified as an “embedsmann”. Essentially this means he or she is a higher public servant or official. Such a position requires that an oath or a pledge of allegiance to the Constitution and the King take place before assuming office. A list (which is a work in progress) of the names of sitting judges, plus those who have retired, all of them having failed to abide by the Constitution, can be found here. And retired judges that have failed to do so according to the correct procedures can be found on this page.
It is a criminal offence to assume office before submitting the written declaration outlined above. Such behaviour is tantamount to impersonating a judge. The second step, having the declaration signed, stamped and filed, is a necessary part of the legal validation of any judge’s standing within the judicial system.
Here’s another point worth considering: obviously a clean criminal record is a basic requirement for assuming this position in Norway. Thus, the so-called judges who have failed to abide by the basic rules of validation for their position are operating outside the law they seem to uphold. In other words, they have broken the law. In consequence, as law-breakers, they are not eligible to sit on the bench. A deliberate act of omission is still a crime.
Consequences for the Trial of Anders Behring Breivik
There have been allegations made that two of the judges in the current trial of Breivik failed to follow Norway’s constitutional requirements for the position they hold. It may be the case that both Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen and Arne Lyng are ineligible to serve in the positions they hold.
These allegations are difficult to prove beyond doubt because of the lack of cooperation by the country’s elites in the responding to petitions by Norwegian citizens to have the matter addressed.
Having been ignored by the government and media elites, concerned Norwegians have begun employing social media to bring attention to this breach of law. Using Facebook and Twitter, they have banded together to demand investigations into the allegation made here — i.e., that two judges in this trial of the century do not have the legal standing to preside in this case because they failed to follow constitutional law themselves.
If it is indeed true that neither Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen nor Arne Lyng submitted their declarations in accordance with the constitution of Norway, what does that mean for the current proceeding against Breivik? At the very least, it presents a nightmare possibility that Breivik’s defence team will use the opportunity to demand a retrial, this time with legal judges.
What this demand might do to the career prospects for the defence lawyers in a small country like Norway is an open question. Will they do the right thing, or will they go along to get along, keeping quiet for the sake of ‘peace’ and ‘justice’ and the fear of being shamed or shunned themselves?
The Future of the Rule of Law in Norway
Many Norwegians have simply had enough of these kinds of gross malfeasance by their elites. Citizens have started working actively to expose the massive corruption in their legal/political system. In recent years organized groups have begun to fight back via the internet. Facebook has a number of sites dedicated to the problem; the biggest of these is “Dommerforsikringer”. Obviously to access the page you must be registered with Facebook yourself.
In addition, a meeting organized by the group was held in the city of Bergen last month, and a demonstration tentatively planned for May 12th, will take place in Oslo. Instead of getting together to sing songs against Breivik, brave souls will meet in public to bring this situation to light at some point in this trial. The main goal of the group is to get members from the international media to cover their case. They hope that international attention to the current unlawful practice of permitting unconstitutional judges to preside over court cases in Norway will begin the process of reining them in. This will not be easy. There are powerful people in Norway who will oppose having any sunlight shine on this shameful situation.
Questions for My Fellow Norwegians
If the members of the judiciary do not follow the constitution then who will? In fact, who else can if they refuse to police their own ranks?
How can a purportedly democratic nation, claiming to operate under the rule of law, permit this ongoing open defiance of our Constitution?
Requests for additional information can be obtained by contacting the administrators of the Facebook group mentioned above. They are also willing to meet and talk with journalists in Oslo.
Lawyer, Herman J Berge, has a . He also runs the Facebook group, “RettsNorge”.
The activist group on Facebook mentioned above — “Dommerforsikringer” — has a Facebook page also. Again, if you have a Facebook account, look here:
Rune Fardal has additional information on the written declarations and the laws related to this subject. Go here.
Note from Dymphna: Even though Gates of Vienna has a Facebook ‘presence’ (if I remember correctly it’s called “Gates of Vienna II” or something like) we are not the admin and don’t use Facebook. Or as one commenter called it recently, “Face Ache”; he has a point. Given all that the Baron has to do just to stay a week behind, adding FB to the mix isn’t possible. Unless I clone him.
However, I urge even those who don’t speak Scandinavian languages can avail themselves of Google’s Translate page. I did so for the Rune Fardal site and managed to retrieve this:
For years, hundreds of judges sitting right in without having the following law, nødvandige formalities. They have been illegal court and thus violated the law. The practice of having judges without judgment or embetsed insurance and is accepted in the courts simply because it is so widespread that no one will notice how different it really is. The consequences are so great for the legal system that most people were familiar with this it would completely paralyze the courts and their “confidence” would be reduced significantly. Therefore, judges break the law, but when others do something they are not certified to do, such as driving without a valid license, they are punished by the same judges! The law is very clear. According to the Supreme Court’s decision as early as 1916, a judgment issued by a judge without a judge void the insurance. It is to be regarded as invalid, a nullitet.
I know. Machine translations and all that. But machines ‘speak’ better Norwegian than I do, so I’m glad to have the assistance.
Notice the mention of insurance. Evidently this is also a problem — i.e., a judiciary without insurance. Hmm… that in itself is an intriguing aspect of the whole scofflaw mindset.
I repeat what Caroline Glick said so succinctly: Norway may well be a totalitarian democracy. That is hardly a judgment, since my own country is moving rapidly in that direction.