This article which primarily deals with Norwegian
law, is a somewhat adapted and translated
version of this Norwegian article dated
24.11.2011. Some linked documents
are in Norwegian, others in English
The consequence of the judicial oath
The independence of judges, or perhaps rather, an independent tribunal is not an end in itself, but only a part of the one objective above all; the concept of a fair trial. Without an independent judge/court, one is at best left with a worrying uncertainty whether the parties in a legal dispute have been offered a fair trial or not. The common man’s confidence in a court as well as the court’s legitimacy externally, depends entirely on its independence. A court which comprise (or is “occupied” by) persons who are not independent, will – as soon as this should be known among the general public – lose its credibility and above all; the people's confidence/trust. At this point the court will have no legitimate basis for further activity. Abandoning the principles which – in simple words – have formed the concept of judicial independence and in turn; the concept of a fair trial, would be alarming as such a notion after all would not only be contrary to the ideas and the legal foundation you will find “beneath” the Council of Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but to everything that for the last centuries have been taught, lectured and chanted in regards to fundamental rights.
By Herman J Berge LLB
As I have
indicated in previous articles, including here,
It is an absolute requirement that a civil servant who has been appointed as a judge, prior to taking the seat, is to sign a written oath, cf. the Norwegian Court Administration Act (CAA) § 60 which reads:
”All judges, except lay judges and assessors
shall give written oath that they will conscientiously fulfil their
obligations. The oath is to be submitted to the NCA,
or to the
As one can see the appointed judge is responsible for dispatching the oath to the National Court Administration (NCA), which will obviously take place before he/she takes office as a judge, cf. "... shall give written oath that they will conscientiously fulfil..."
judicial oath was passed by Royal Decree on
“I declare that I conscientiously will fulfil my duties as a judge – and that I will act and judge in such manner as I according to law and my consciousness can defend, and neither of hate nor friendship, neither for favour nor gift or by other reason fall away from right and justice.”
Besides that the paragraph has been subject to a minor update as a result of changes in the language, it has not been changed since 1927. In pursuance of CAA § 60, and the said Decree, the actual oath is therefore to be read as stated above.
It follows from the CAA § 60 that a person who has not signed and dispatched the judicial oath is not to be regarded as a judge in any legal sense, which in turn means that he/she cannot serve let alone take seat as a judge. Consequently, all actions taken by such a person are considered null and void, and the given case is thus pending as it was before the person in question put his/her hands on it.
What is mentioned above is supported by both the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 14, and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 6, but this is - as you will see - only in theory. Below I will try to give you a picture of the difference between theory and practice in this regard.
For your convenience, I’ll provide you with the text of the aforementioned provisions relevant to my article, focusing on the independence of the courts and the citizens' rights in this respect:
ICCPR Article 14 reads:
“In the determination ... of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
ECHR Article 6 reads:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations...everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
From the practical life
During the administration of two lawsuits (Lundquist v the Norwegian Government) before Borgarting Court of Appeals in the summer of 2010, it became clear that none of the two preliminary justices, Mary-Ann Hedlund and Anne Ellen Fossum had taken the judicial oath. They hadn’t even taken the mandatory office oath, an allegiance which is supposed to be sworn to the King, this according to the Norwegian Constitution § 21. My job was then to remove the judges, immediately, and get the cases transferred to some “real” judges, which is unfortunately not that simple a task as there are only a few persons among the “judges” who have actually taken those two mandatory oaths.
In our pleading of August 18 2010 – which also gives an account of the current legislation on the issue – I informed the Court of Appeals about our findings; that the judges in question had not taken any oath, and that we, based on this new information, petitioned the President of the court to remove the said judges, and to assign the cases to some lawfully inaugurated judges. The pleadings can be found here (Hedlund) and here (Fossum).
The court refrained from responding to our petitions.
In her letter of August 23 2010 – please observe that we are concentrating only on the subject of the article; judicial independence, judicial oath, office oath and consequences – “justice” Fossum attempts to wriggle out of the problem by making it look like we are faced with a question of possible errors made during the process of the appointment of her as a judge, circumstances which in such case could be used as ground for an appeal. With this spin Fossum deliberately sought to bring the focus away from the actual issue; that she for more than 10 years has refused to take both the judicial oath as well as the office oath.
In our pleadings of August 25 2010 I reminded the acting President of the Court of Appeals about our previous pleadings (underlining the gravity of the problem where the Borgarting Court of Appeals in fact allows anyone to exercise judicial powers and duties), and reiterated our requests/petitions. Furthermore we informed the President that we of obvious reasons could not obey to any letters, decisions or demands from these two "judges" as they are not lawfully inaugurated and hence are not entitled to act as judges whatsoever.
President of Borgarting Court of Appeals would
nevertheless not show any signs of being affected by the fact that he is
heading a court in which the majority of the “judges” actually are not judges.
Since it is a felony to pretend to be something you are not, including acting
as a judge without authorization, we had to do something about this. On August
30 2010 Lundquist thus filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Fossum as she had 1) on a continuous basis deliberately
acted as a judge although she was fully aware of the fact that the conditions
necessary to take seat and act as a judge had not been met, and 2) that she had
committed fraudulent concealment as she had failed to inform both me as well as
my clients about the fact that she had refused to take the said oath. The
surprisingly we did not hear from any of the involved authorities. Given the
seriousness of the matter, I approached the Secretary
General of the Council of Europe, Thorbjørn Jagland, this in a secret
hope that he had to intervene as Norway – with this practice – on a
continuous basis violates both the London Treaty Article 3, as well as the European Convention
on Human Rights Article 6. The letter of
On September 22 2010 Lundquist filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Hedlund based on similar legal grounds as for the case-Fossum, and the day after, on September 23 2010 we yet again approached the Court of Appeal with our requests and reminders, which can be read here (Hedlund) and here (Fossum).
In the meantime, the President of the Court of Appeals, Ola Dahl – who at this point had taken over the presidency from justice Espen Bergh – turned around and considered our requests. His conclusion, which you will find in his letters of September 21 (Hedlund) and 22 2010 (Fossum) in which he states that he can’t see any problem in permitting his staff act as judges although lacking the mandatory oath, is not only discouraging and a criminal act, but it is also a scandal for the Norwegian legal system in whole. By his statement President Dahl actually declares that he couldn’t care less whether his “judges” refuse to take the said oaths or not. Consequently, President Dahl sees no problem in letting unauthorized persons in his court act as judges, persons who explicitly refuse to declare (their independence) that they neither of hatred, friendship, favour or gift shall fall away from right and justice. With such a refusal, these judges have explicitly declared that they will not put up with nor will they let themselves be led by these guidelines, guidelines that once were meant to protect the citizens against arbitrary process and other governmental violations, and this – my dear readers – is accepted by President Dahl.
As a result of a mix of Norwegian legal tradition – which spreads in all directions, away from fairness, justice, law and international treaties – and the judiciary’s own arrogance, President Dahl can’t imagine that these systematic crimes, which are considered contrary to the principle of an independent tribunal, will ever be realized by the common man. Nor does he – of the very same reasons – see the consequences of his own actions. Fair enough.
It was now
high time to update both the Parliament as well as the Council of Europe in
Shortly after, it was revealed that President Ola Dahl for over ten years had refused to submit his office oath. Furthermore, we could now prove that he for more than 12 years had refused to sign his judicial oath. The sacking of the Appeal Court President Nils Erik Lie during the spring/summer of 2010, seems to have been instrumental for Dahl’s signing of the judicial oath. Dahl had thus served as a "judge" for more than ten years without ! having the paperwork in order, and with the inevitable consequence that all his decisions are regarded null and void, which in turn leaves him and the court – and not least the Government – with all the unprecedented consequences this activity will entail the very day the common man understands what have taken place in our so called democratic courts.
It was now
obvious that this new information had to be forwarded to both the Norwegian
Parliament and the Council of Europe, which was done in our letter of
The case was now prepared for a thorough examination by the Parliamentary Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs as well as by the Council of Europe. In the light of the facts in this case, the outcome of the assessment in these two institutions was given, one would assume. Well, what would you think happened?
To put it in other words, first: In the light of the responses we have received from relevant authorities in these two cases, having in mind the broad experience I have gained through the course of many years of investigating the interface and interaction between public authorities/institutions and the citizens, these indicators clearly points in the direction that none of the so-called democratically established institutions (laws, governments and their ministries, courts, parliaments and other elected bodies, prosecutors, human rights organizations, international institutions and treaties, etc) have been set up to protect you and your rights, as though many of you in blissful ignorance still believe. On the contrary, these institutions are established to protect the elite against you and any attacks you might find proper to initiate in your fight for your rights. This is how it is, and this is how it has always been. So, then, lets move somewhat forward to the answer.
The response from the Norwegian Parliament of October 27 2010 is in itself an admission of failure, and this failure comes from The institution which after all is the country's democratically elected legislature and the nation's supreme controlling authority. Regardless of the fact that it is the Parliament that has passed the law of which so blatantly is being violated on a daily basis, the Parliament briefly declared that this is an internal court-problem (which it obviously is not), outside the Parliament's field of responsibility.
By this declaration, the Parliament has once again fallen to their knees for some higher power, and it is therefore appropriate to ask the question why the Parliament in such an important constitutional question (should the courts’ practice of employing people of their own likings, people who despites and rejects the above mentioned oath, be left to their own discretion and this without any parliamentary or democratic control, or should the courts obey the law and only engage those persons/judges who have come to terms with the idea of being left alone with the true meaning of the said oath? In other words: Should the Norwegian court’s non-compliance with the law be left unattended by the Parliament, or not?) simply finds itself paralyzed.
As you will recall from Ola Dahl's letter of September 21 and 22, he sees no reason to do anything in this regard, while the Parliament simply throws the problem to the courts, which in turn have declared that they will do nothing. You see the problem?
For those of you who still find this problem somewhat difficult to grasp the concept of, there might be hope in a somewhat simpler picture: This problem – that well over half of the Norwegian judges are not entitled to practice as judges, as they have refused to take the judicial oath – is obviously not an internal court-matter which can be left to the courts’ own discretion to determine the outcome of. On the contrary, this is a constitutional problem, a parliamentary problem, which only the Parliament can address (in this regard; make note that the Constitution is intended to ensure an independent judiciary. The Parliament is the guardian of the Constitution. When a violation against the constitution occurs, then the Parliament has to address this problem. What then when the Parliament is paralyzed?). By taking a look at Appeal Court President Dahl's opinion and conclusion we get a fairly good picture of how wrong it can all go if such issues should be left to the judges/courts own discretion to solve.
this down to its essence we end up with the following legal situation in
Application is sent to
consequence of the Parliament's acceptance of the courts continuous violation
of the London Treaty and the ECHR, I prepared an application to the European Court of Human Rights in
of the application to the Court in
I am sorry
but I have to emphasize the problem yet once more. Although the case has been
brought to the Court in
Article 8 of the London Treaty shall ensure that Article 3 of the same treaty is complied with. The Parliament's acceptance of letting people take seat as judges without requiring a judicial oath from these persons, is a blatant violation of CAA § 60. But not only that, it is also a violation of the highly appreciated principle of the independence of the judiciary (a principle that both the UN and the Council of Europe for years – apparently – have worked hard to emphasize and strengthen) and in this regard; the citizens' privileges to have their rights and obligations assessed and tried by an independent tribunal, privileges that are enshrined in both the ECHR Article 6 and the ICCPR Article 14.
we are facing a violation of the same articles in case the government allows
(as is the case in
Treaty and its Article 8 is clear: Violations of Article 3 shall lead to the
suspension of the offending State concerned.
back to the case again. The naked consequence of the Human Rights
commissioner’s letter is that nobody within the Council of Europe can or will
deal with systematic violations of human rights. This disturbing conclusion
stands quite firm, as the response came from the hand of this certain office. I
had of course no choice but to write back to this human rights office and ask
who, then, can address systematic violations against human rights. You can find
the letter of
comes: What would you think was the basis for the consensus and creation of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the London Treaty and the European
Convention on Human Rights? Discontent among the citizens of
The impoverishment and the usurpation of the people’s property, workforce, will, sovereignty, rights and voice could thus continue, until the people again would start crying for more rights of these very reasons. Then the elite would just repeat its exercise and give them exactly what they ask for; written words and another building, which seem to be more than sufficient to calm down the masses and get them back on track again.
So you see, now and again we find ourselves standing at the gates of the elite, asking for justice, and what do we get; words on a paper, nothing more, nothing less. But why stand there in the first place, as beggars asking for those rights we were actually born with? The power the elite are controlling is nothing but the power you have given them, or they have usurped from you. As this power concerns it's more or less like withdrawing money from your bank account: No one can stop you the minute you have made up your mind. It’s your money and you can do whatever you want with it.
When the Council of Europe perishes, not too long from now, you can be sure that "they" will try to build up something new for you to believe in, something (mostly words and buildings) that yet again will appeal to your sense of justice, and the elite is on track again. This time though we must be prepared.
Talking about the Council of Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights; have you ever questioned who established these institutions, who passed the laws of which these institutions exists and acts upon, who is mandated to appoint the judges, etc.? True, it was not the people, but the states and their most blind-faithed public servants. So then, what could you possibly expect from these institutions?
that the defendant in any pleadings before the Court in
If I may highlight the issue a little differently, you will certainly understand my point: Let's assume that your neighbour chop down one of your finest trees, or build his garage partly over your driveway. This could surely lead to a dispute, but first you will try to appeal to your neighbour’s sense of justice, asking him to replace the tree, or demolish the garage and rebuild it within his own borders. Should your neighbour reject your suggestions, would you then have accepted the following response from him: - Hey, I have a solution, and it’s a good one, I promise. I make the rules for how to resolve the matter. Then I find three judges that I know of and who I trust, and then we let them look into the matter and decide upon our little problem. How do you feel about that? I think you should accept it, because this is the best solution you could ever ask for, believe me, I know these things.
be okay for you? Would you really have accepted such a one-sided administration
of your case? Hardly, but this is nevertheless the basis of any court case
processed in the Court in
Furthermore, you should ask yourself why citizens normally do not have physical access to the Court in Strasbourg (or to its employees); why they have put up glass booths (which you most likely will only find in movies from visiting rooms in American prisons) right at the entrance where you must sit and talk with a secretary (if you are really lucky to even get an appointment) through a microphone and speaker; why these transparent cubicles are equipped with thick bulletproof glass walls; why you will never have access to the records of the court administration and proceedings, or the list of documents in your case for that matter; why the Court is actually a closed vault?
ever thought about the actual consequences or rather; the effect of a ruling
This is how ECHR concluded in Adele I (1996):
“The Court recalls that the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company constitutes a fundamental element of family life and that domestic measures hindering such enjoyment amount to an interference with the right protected by Article 8… The Court considers that taking a child into care should normally be regarded as a temporary measure to be discontinued as soon as circumstances permit and that any measures of implementation of temporary care should be consistent with the ultimate aim of reuniting the natural parent and the child.”
Having this in mind (an imminent reuniting) the future should look bright for Adele and her daughter, but as expected, this decision – like most of the decisions from this court – had no effect whatsoever on the losing party, the Norwegian Government. Not long after the verdict had been rendered (and regardless of its content), Adele’s daughter was forcibly adopted, hence leaving Adele with three additional troublesome and time-consuming rounds of struggling in the Norwegian court system, followed by a second round in Strasbourg. At the time of the second round (2002), Adele’s daughter had been kept away from her mother for all of her 12 years on this earth. Hence it was with ease the Court in Strasbourg concluded (based upon the Norwegian Government’s arguments) that since the daughter had lived all of her life with other people, it would be devastating for her to be torn away from her foster parents (it is quite strange though that the child care never is confronted with this argument when they pick up 12 year old children who are to be fed into their ever expanding business). Adele lost completely.
After years of experience in different European legal systems, I have come to a number of realizations. One of these is that we, the common man among the masses, are slaves of the elite, which we have been since the origin of the elite a few thousand years ago. Another realization is that you will never get help (to succeed) from those (the elite) who have no concern for you. The third realization is that all the so-called democratically established institutions (elected bodies, governments, courts, prosecutors, etc.) are in the hands of the elite, which really is not as strange as it sounds, as it is – after all – the elite who has established and consequently has controlled the development of these institutions. The conclusion is therefore that in important, fundamental issues brought to court which in one way or other might have a negative impact for the elite, the common man will never win through. The few cases that from time to time, apparently, succeed, must be regarded as necessary controlled losses (which we experience in all fields of law), arranged by the elite to reassure and prove that the judiciary both works according to its intentions, and is fair.
The Child care is in itself an industry and thus a part of the "ordinary" business. If, let’s say Adele had actually (and not only formally) succeeded in Strasbourg, this would have caused quite serious consequences for the child care sector in general, which of course could not have been accepted by those who control the business and profit from it. In this regard Adele II (EMD 10/10/02) stands as a solid and final wall against those who might think of continuing their fight for their children after a successful decision in Strasbourg, with the slightly hidden message: You won once, but if you are stupid enough to continue the fight for your right to see your child (and the child’s right to live with its parents), then you know the consequences.
Please note (again) that the Court in Strasbourg, and the legislation of which the Court is supposed to safeguard and enforce, are in all its facets established and controlled by those who always cause the damages (of which you later on seek legal redress for), the member states. Put in other words; the offended party has not participated in either the establishment of the Council of Europe, the composing of the European Convention on Human Rights or the establishment of the Court itself. Furthermore the offended party has never had any influence on the appointment of the judges to the Court. In light of the above, honestly; would you accept the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights as the guardian of your rights? NO, of course not! Well, then you should start doing something about it, shouldn’t you?
Actually, the creation of the Court in Strasbourg and the legislation underneath it has – as is the case with the establishment of a number of other international institutions – no other function than to drug/pacify the impoverished masses to the extent that they see hope. At the point when you have lost in all national courts, right up to the Supreme Court. At this point you have reached the end, but there is still hope in Strasbourg, the defeated party is led to think, a situation of which the elite profits from as they thus avoid any uncontrolled reaction from the deprived one.
The hope is thus kept alive, for a very good reason. Even the elite has understood that the one who has been deprived of everything, even faith and hope, is a loose cannon, and this is where the Council of Europe and its Court enters the national battle field between the elite and the masses with their anaesthetic injection (which basically consists of chants like “all people are guaranteed and thus enjoy fundamental rights, we safeguard your rights, you and your rights are in safe hands with us, etc”), which is not necessarily to be injected into the complainant, but rather into the rest of the population who do not know the legal system other than from hearsays and newspaper headlines and therefore are easily manipulated to believe whatever, into eternity. When most people, who doesn’t know the first thing about courts, court cases and other “legal stuff”, are blissfully repeating the chants from the elite, then the very few who really are fighting for their lives within this system and thus know its true face, will not stand a chance in even attempting to tell the masses the truth; that the chanting is just what it is.
It is time to move back to the case in question again. In a simple letter from the Court in Strasbourg of May 31 2011 we learned that a single-judge formation (court) had ruled that the fact that a judge refuses to take the office oath and the judicial oath – and therefore does not meet the criteria set out in CAA § 60 and hence should be banned from taking seat as a judge – in no way is a violation of any of the provisions listed in the European Convention of Human Rights.
To put it
straight forward; this is not the first ridiculous decision I have received
is now – as a consequence of the decision of
The proceedings in the UN
should we do about this, then? Well, the UN has a court-like institution; the UN Human
Rights Committee, which is located in
contrast to the Court in
The response from the UN was even worse than what we got from the Council of Europe and its court. Regardless of its own ICCPR Article 14 and UN’s many conferences and papers focusing on the importance of an independent judiciary, the United Nations determined that it has never been their intention to secure or safeguard an independent judiciary. On the contrary, this thing about the independence of the judiciary is really just nonsense and thus not important at all. The important thing, which clearly surfaces in the letter from this so-called High Commissioner for Human Rights, is whether the fact that Article 14 has been violated actually has caused the complainant to sustain loss or damage. I mean; Hello! If it turns out that only one of the three judges in a main hearing has refused to take the oath, we are then facing an invalid decision which by no means can be regarded as anything else than null and void, hence a blatant violation of ICCPR Article 14.
The Committee was – by our complaint – petitioned to assess whether the facts constituted a violation or not. Lack of independence is in itself the objective of the Committee’s questions and assessments, and if it should find that there has been such a deficiency, the Committee is only to affirm a violation. Article 14 does not provide the Committee with an additional mandate to exercise whether a violation, if so found, has caused any damage.
The High Commissioner's view on the
convention she's set to enforce, called for a new letter from me, in which I
yet again had to emphasize how people in general understand the convention and
how this understanding contradicts with the High Commissioner's views. Imagine then
how she, based on such a view, enforces human rights in
UN’s response to my letter was as quick as
the previous one, mixed with an even larger portion of meaninglessness. The
Complaints to the (Norwegian) Supervisory Committee for Judges
Despite our efforts to prevent unauthorized persons from acting as judges in the two above mentioned cases in Borgarting Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals decided (autumn 2011) to reject both cases, regardless though of the fact that we had made complaints against the preliminary proceedings which were presided over by two persons who still refuse to take the oath and thus were not authorized to act as judges. Make note that such decisions can obviously not be appealed, simply because they have not been processed by a court of law.
Six judges – Bjorn Engstrøm, Kristin Robberstad, Lars Ole Evensen, Egil F. Jensen and Vibeke Løvold – had now issued two rulings, so the first thing we had to do was to check the judges' backgrounds. Rather than repeating myself, I refer to our complaints to the Supervisory Committee for Judges against: Bjorn Engstrøm, Kristin Robberstad, Lars Ole Evensen, Egil F. Jensen and Vibeke Løvold. Please read these complaints and feel free to carry out the same exercise as the one we have done. The conclusion is evident. These people have no right to sit as judges, and the only feasible way to get these persons removed, and to make a thorough clean-up within the Norwegian judiciary, is your and other readers relentless effort. It should be noted that that the Supervisory Committee still has not responded to our complaints.
What I attempted to achieve with this article was to demonstrate; 1) that we have a clear and irrefutable set of laws concerning the independence of the judiciary, including both the office oath as well as the judicial oath, and 2) that these regulations apparently are supported and encouraged by international institutions of which Norway is a member of, and 3) that Norway on a daily basis is violating these set of laws.
Furthermore I have, through the example of Hedlund/Fossum, demonstrated that neither the Norwegian Parliament nor the Norwegian courts have found any reason to act upon these violations, regardless of the fact that the two aforementioned persons are not entitled to sit as judges. I have also – hopefully – achieved the feat of getting you to realize that the Commissioner for Human Rights (Council of Europe), the European Court of Human Rights and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights enforce the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 6) and ICCPR (Article) 14 in violation of the Convention's own provisions and principles. The next question is whether you are able to realize the consequences of the Council of Europe’s and the UN's misconduct in this regard.
as stated above more than half of the Norwegian “judges” have no right to act
as judges (this according to information obtained from the NCA),
as they initially have refused to take the mandatory office oath and judicial
oath. This conclusion is based upon a number of inquiries to the NCA, both from me and from a number of my readers. The
response we have received (and the NCA’s lack of
response) clearly indicates that far more than half of the approximately 800
active judges in
(relevant) curiosity I should mention something that happened during the first
court hearing with the notorious Anders Behring Breivik of which was conducted on
find the whole issue somewhat confusing – what has been accounted for above, or
the description of this small but although so important piece of the Norwegian
legal system, the judicial oath – you might be quite right. I mean, the whole
Norwegian legal system is in complete chaos, which will be additionally
confirmed in other similar articles regarding; the traditional refusal of
signing court decisions (most court decisions from the Courts of Appeals and
the Supreme Court are not signed but nevertheless served, unsigned); judges who
sign decisions they have not participated in and other judges who actually have
participated in the decision but nevertheless refuse to sign it; court records
that are changed and forged; judicial oaths that are forged; Lovisa, a
Norwegian document management system which is incorporated in many of the most
important national institutions (including the courts) and is constructed in
such a way that it is possible for anyone who has access (which actually many
institutions outside the courts do have) to enter the system and change/forge a
court decision. This is possible as all court decisions in
Some practical and useful information for first time users of the courts
For those of you who do not know the judge in your case, or are not sure whether he/she has his papers in order, I strongly recommend that you ask the person in question to identify himself, and legitimize his authority. In other words: Can the person present a valid office oath and a valid judicial oath? Any judge who exacts respect for himself and for his work from users of the court, will surely have a copy of the oaths in his office.
The original judicial oath shall – subsequent to a legislative amendment in 2002 – be dispatched to the NCA where it is supposed to be assigned a case number and a stamp, thus recording when it was received and where it is filed. Without the NCA's verification, the document is of no legal value, regardless of it being located/filed in the archives of the NCA.
If the judge rejects your petition for access to his/her judicial oath or otherwise rejects your requests, the President of the court shall immediately discontinue the proceedings. This is a consequence of the simple fact that only judges can preside over court proceedings and that no one has any right to take seat as a judge unless the person concerned verifies his/her identity and position. Should this likely scenario occur, well, then you have been invited to examine the matter and the judge’s papers with the NCA.
Should it turn out that the NCA does not hold the original judicial oath, it then follows from the law that the judge in question has not taken the oath. It can of course be that the "judge" in question will attempt to throw a twist or two: - Ehm, sorry, I forgot to submit it. It will not happen again, or – It has been stashed away in a drawer at my old job and was inadvertently left behind when I moved to my new office, or – when I and my wife moved a few years ago, it was mistakenly stashed together with our Christmas decorations, and there it remained until today when we were splitting the stuff, or - Why should I send it in now? I have been a judge for 30 years and everyone looks up to me. You can not seriously think that I am not a judge now? These excuses will obviously not clear away the fundamental problem, let alone legitimizing their position.
The judicial oath is valid from the date it is signed, provided that it is posted to the NCA (or the county governor, under the former legislation) without delay. The judicial oath is thus not valid, even though it has been signed, if it for some reason or other has not been posted to the NCA. It goes without saying that the effect of the oath would be lost to the great nothingness if we should accept to instate judges who behind closed doors has called out to themselves that they solemnly promise to be independent and respectful to the law at any cost.
finally, if it has been revealed that a judge has chosen or for whatever reason
has been “led” to take the said oaths a year or ten after he took office as a judge, such documents should then be
rejected and the judge should immediately be removed from his office. The main
reason for never accepting such an enforced submission of a judicial oath is
that the judge through his longstanding refusal has demonstrated and confirmed
that he does not possess the qualities that constitute an independent judge.
The person has, after all, refused to declare that he; will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this
realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, as the judicial oath
Obviously no one can trust such a person for the above mentioned reasons which in turn means that any party to a court proceeding is (as soon as the party is informed about the background of the judge) entitled to have this person replaced pursuant to the general disqualification rule in CAA § 108. It stands thus quite clear that this person will appear as chronically incompetent and therefore out of necessity can not act as a judge, at all, whatsoever.
oath must be signed and submitted, and shall read as printed in the royal
decree of 1927. It can thus not be worded like Supreme Court "Judge"
Karl Arne Utgård has done with his oath. As you will
discover Utgård has scribbled down his own little mini-oath, even in his own west coast dialect, omitting a
very important passage, namely that a judge shall neither of hate nor friendship,
neither for favour nor gift…fall away from right and justice. What
could be the reason for "justice" Utgård to
omit this important passage? Anyway, Utgård’s
judicial oath does not meet the conditions listed in CAA
§ 60, cf. Royal Decree of
* * *
The judge is nothing close to God – as though many, including the judges themselves, might think – who can decide that you shall lose your authority, lose your property, lose your child, or pay your counterparty’s ride for that matter, if there is no basis for these conclusions in the law. Neither have a judge any authority to treat you as an inferior incessant whiner when you find it hard to accept his abuse of power and thus file complaints about his conduct, or appeals his decisions based on his abuse of power. The judge has no right to order you to shut up when you are in court respectfully pleading your own case. Nor has he the authority to stop you from defending yourself in court. He can not stop others from helping you, and I have by this passed into another topic which I will leave right away, but only after having asked you the following (legislative question): Have any of you ordinary people ever been involved in determining – or authorized someone to determine through legislation – that you should be banned from asking other people (than lawyers) for assistance in a legal dispute? Who do you think has decided that only lawyers should be allowed to speak your defence and your rights? And have you thought about what grounds and considerations the lawyer monopoly is actually resting on? The concern for your rights, perhaps? I will let this float a bit until I come back with another article questioning the lawyer monopoly and the citizens' fundamental rights in this regard.
The judges are appointed as the guardians and servants of the law, nothing more, nothing less. Consequently they have been designated to administer and enforce the law under certain circumstances and answer thus actually only to the law. More than 200 years ago the British politician Sir Philip Francis wrote, it is believed, the following about the divine gift of which today's judges have snatched and thus can enjoy without any form of actual control (let me emphasize that the Norwegian Supervisory Committee for Judges actually does not function, neither as a supervisory body nor as a “lecturer” for judges who misbehave):
“The government of
As you have become familiar with above, the abuse of power, especially among judges or rather within the judiciary, has extended far beyond what Mr. Francis ever imagined. Not only are the judges of today acting according to the elite’s wants and needs, but they are also deliberately violating one of the most important conditions required to sit as a judge – namely the obligation to take the judicial oath and thereby declare themselves independent. These persons then actually start off their career as judges by breaking the law, a practice that they continue – every day – throughout their “mission”.
A judge who lacks the judicial oath is no judge, as a pilot without a license is not a pilot.
So what is the situation then, when you have brought a lawsuit against the Ministry of Justice – as the Lundquists have done – and the judges in the case refuse to take both the office oath as well as the judicial oath, and by such refuse to declare themselves independent of the defendant, the Ministry of Justice?
question leaves us with many discouraging answers, of which one is more
definite than the others: As of today
As demonstrated above, both the Council of Europe as well as the United Nations accepts the impossible (thus demonstrating that the people of the world don’t need and have no use of these institutions), namely that there is no need for this pillar and that it has actually never existed. Imagine the consequences this fact will have when it reaches the masses, with your help!
You may feel better personally – and thus stand firm in your defence of your rights – by regarding the judges for what they are; spineless lackeys subject to the elite’s self-centered will. Strong words? Yes, maybe for those of you who still are afraid of coming to terms with an inevitable conclusion, which though contradicts the traditional dogma.
Above I advised you to make certain initial requests to your judge. You should know, though, that judges will obviously not allow you asking questions about their own independence, as this – of all things – will be regarded as impairing their independence and questioning (the traditional misconception) that judges are above the law (rather than below). During the course of a court case, you will – independently of your ever-so-well-founded objections – eventually be summoned to the main hearing, or the case will be decided upon in writing, regardless of the law and your protests. My recommendation is: Do not engage in any discussion or correspondence with these people, and of course, do not even think of showing up in any hearing which is presided over or has been prepared by a such a “judge”. Showing up in such a hearing, you have then accepted the judge's “constitution”, no matter how poorly it may be, and you will find it harder to resist his/her rules and adamant commands than would be the case if you did not engage in this game.
It's all a bit absurd. Here we are surrounded by people (from the PM down to the lawyers, judges, journalist and most of the laymen) who reassure us that everything is in order, and then I comes around destroying this little world-view which apparently looks so well but which actually is created by so much evil. I will though continue to believe that more and more of you out there have come to the realization that we, the citizens, have let it go too far, have endured enough, and that something must be done, now. A simple search on Google; “the courts are corrupt…" leaves us with a strong signal that the limit of tolerance has been reached long ago.
There are several alternative methods to remedy the chaos within the Norwegian judicial system, but please remember that all these options are only available if you take back and then use your power against the continued abuse of power exercised from today's courts. Please also note that anyone who objects to the abuse of power will obviously find it hard succeeding within an institution of which persons basically doesn’t want you any good. I have in this regard previously stated that the courts and other democratically established institutions in fact have been established as a consequence of the elite's everlasting efforts to protect and secure its usurped power thus preserving status quo, and not to protect citizens against abuse. My conclusion is supported by former Judge Gunnar Knoph through his statement in the Oslo City Court sometimes at the end of the 80’;
“The judicial system is the Government’s principal instrument of power to be used to settle disputes in the Government's interests.”
With this in mind, and with both the Council of Europe and the United Nations as our opponents, it seems clear that we are forced to vindicate our rights and seek redress outside the courts, at least as long as these institutions refuse to force the Norwegian Government to honour the relevant treaties it has signed and provide us with independent tribunals. So, what’s next?
Pick up the glove and vindicate your rights!