«Norway is not a state of laws»

[BmOnline]

søndag 15. april 2012
«Norway is not a state of laws»


By Cathrine Løvaas
26.02.2012

Judges in Norway refuse to give written Judge insurance or pledge and Oaths.
If you are convicted in a trial in Norway, You are supposed to be sentenced by a judge. Being a judge means that this person holds an office. To occur in the office as a judge, this person must give a written oath and insurance to be having their legal paper. There are many judges in Norway who refuse to give this insurance and oath.

In addition to relevant education and practice, judges submit this before they are inserted in their office. These requirements are upheld by law and are mandatory.

Independence of the judges or rather, an independent judiciary is not a goal in itself but only a part of a more high-value target, the concept of a fair trial. Without an independent judge / court, they'll never be sure that the parties of litigation have been given a fair trial. A Court of trust and legitimacy depends entirely on its independence. A court that is occupied by persons who are not independent will, as soon as this get to be known among the general public lose its credibility and people's trust and will not have any legitimate basis for further business.

This is referred to, in the Constitution § 21 and § 60 Courts of Justice Act

The Constitution § 21 say:


The King chooses and provides, after hearing his ministers opinion all civil, cleric and military office holders. These have to, before they are given their offices swear by oath, or if they are exempted from oath, solemnly promise the constitution and the King obedience and allegiance. Non Norwegian citizens can be exempted from this duty by law. A royal family member can not hold a civil office.

Court Act § 60:
All judges, except civil court members shall give written assurance that they will conscientiously fulfil their duties. Insurance are submitted to court administration or to the County in respect of insurance for judges of conciliation court. The King sets out how the insurance should be Phrased

Circular G-46/1999 from the government also states that when a judge is to be appointed, this is one of the requirements: 1-5 "By hiring the judges make an affirmation by the Law § 60 the attached form must be used when the insurance issued.”

It is forbidden by law to issue a false authorization. The relationship is governed, in Penal Code § 120.

Insertion of the judges. Exercise of the constitution.
When a judge is appointed to an office, this is inserted by the King in Council issuing an inserting letter. The King signs this and it is countersigned by the Prime Minister.
This should not be done unless the judge has made an oath and assurance of independence. An independent tribunal that the judge represents in its judgments is one of the foundations of the constitution.

The insurance for judges are granted by Royal Decree. 10. June 1927 and sounds in the original text as follows:

"I assure that I will conscientiously meet my duty as a judge - that I will act and judge the way law and my conscience can defend, and neither of hatred or friendship, neither for favour nor gift, or by any other reason yield right or justice. "
One may ask why so many judges in Norway will not provide this insurance and what is it with this insurance that is so fundamental that judges can not give it?

Norway has a constitution in the form of basic legal principles.
Separation of powers ensures that the exercise of power is divided in three independent authorities.

1. A legislator. i.e., a legislative assembly. In the case of Norway Parliament.
2. An executive authority. ie, a monarch or government. In Norway's case both.
3. A judicial authority. Ie, the Supreme Court and other courts. In Norway's case both, where they interpret laws and applies them.

Separation of powers was formulated so that the distribution of power to operate. Power was thus divided and should be independent of each other. For this to be successful in real life the laws must be followed and things must be done in order.

As we see in the right state of Norway, the judges must declare their independence in order to confirm that it is so. The Norwegian judges do not do this extensively. This means that a judgment issued by a Judge without this declaration is not legally enforceable.
It can be shown that there have been cases that had to be taken up again on the basis of the judge's lack of independence. The government knows this. Both the Government, Parliament, Council, Ministry of Justice, court administration, county governors, the judges themselves, lawyers who work in the system, but also the press which is defined as the "fourth estate" knows this. If the «fourth state» does not take care of important business, I as a blogger will be the «Fifth state» and I will handle my responsibility.

The press' job in this case is thus clarified. It should illuminate and put on the agenda the matters that are not correct.

That the constitution is put out of action and that Norway, in practice, and is not a rule of law is thus beyond doubt.
If the case was just so that there are many non-convictions in Norway it is serious enough, but the case stands worse than this. It is a constitutional issue when agencies to ensure that this is in place, not only fails to provide it, but also ensures that the cases that come up drain, i.e., takes longer, oppose and fails to provide information on such way that it is reasonable to assume that this is done to hide the seriousness, the problem is of a nature that it must be called constitutional.

When we then draw the main lines and see that by the principle are dead, then the Council of Europe conventions, London Treaty and the UN's conventions among others are also lifeless

Why won’t the judges give the oath?
Why won’t the judges give the simple but important oath to ensure that everything is right? Is it impossible for the judges to do this because they know that they are going to break it deliberately?

Who are these officials, and who is it that run the management, that facilitates the separation of powers is set out of the game and why do they do this? What kind of culture is the one shown here, both in the power apparatus in Norway but also on an international basis? The international apparatus have been informed

The debate we are now venturing into is not welcomed in a system like Norway. Both the authorities and common people who initially know little about this, in many ways feel that pulling these huge lines is of a conspiratorial nature. And it is not possible to deny the fact those elite in such a small country like Norway has a certain affinity with each other, both in professional and private environment, through organizations and other institutions.

One must assume that the lines drawn from the private, educational, scientific collections made for the power elite have some common interests. This shows itself in several ways, but the first things many think of these relationships are fraternal lodges.

By entering a membership list we find that highly educated people make up the bulk of the lodge members. Being a member of the Masonic lodges in it is not punishable and it is not illegal for judges, lawyers or other professions to be in.
The fact that we here point out that in these professions are many lodge members has a direct connection with the judges oath to do, and it also has direct connection with why this is referred to as little in the system and in the press.

The Norwegian Masonic Order has over 19,000 members. Many of them have key positions in the courts, police, church, media and other important social functions. They also socialise with people in politics and business. The closed network has several times been criticized because of danger of cronyism and corruption. Professor Carl August Fleischer is one of the critics. In 2006 he published the book "culture of corruption, cronyism and lack of confidence in Norway," where he highlights the problems that can occur in communities that lack transparency. He believes people in a closed fraternity tend to protect each other, and that it is easy to overlook the errors committed.


Masonic membership can be used to build up trust. The minority are assumed to run shady business, but can be helped out from loge operating in good faith. To believe that you should be able to eradicate such opportunities, is naive, says Fleischer.

Author Tom Egeland has drawn in elements from Freemasonry in several of his books. He believes it is problematic that the world does not know the internal rituals and activities. Quote: - What is serious are the invisible threads that extend from the Masonic lodges and out into the community. Can we trust that a judge is impartial and neutral when he meets a brother in the order of a court? I am not in a position to either defend or breed under such suspicion. But just the fact that we ask ourselves the question, is a sufficient problem, Egeland said ...... Quote end. Quote: In the book he describes how his local lodge brother was fired from an office without cause .... end of quote.

Is it so then that judges will not enter into such an oath and can not do this because what they do with their oath can not comply with the requirements of its membership or actually violate the oath even if they are not a member of the Masonic lodge, but can not fulfil the oath because helping colleagues on various issues one should consider that the judge is not possible if one should live by the oath they give?

After all, it is judges we deal with in these cases and they know better than anyone that this is a matter that would come up on the agenda in its full force, the oath they have taken to trap them as a matter of principle. But it does not help when the opposite alternative is to not take an oath and also leads to the same. When you then choose between pest or plague, are left with options where all sins against the same principle and it is so common to do this, of course, choose this option. We must also believe that those who are members of the lodge itself can not take an oath that will automatically undermine their lodge oath. Everything is connected with everything.

We see here some examples of how the system works and the fact that Norway does not currently have a democracy that works properly. How can ordinary people have confidence in the legal system to relate to it being correct and the principle of fair treatment will be present when those who make judgments, perform and judge raise above the law.

Being a silent witness to this without making anything out of it, is worse in light of the fact that we know that this is so and what principles it undermine than to make criminal mistakes made in good or bad faith. The administrative agencies know that this is the case but oppose access to information on the site. This is a serious accusation, but it can be documented.

The principle concerning Judge Insurances and oaths has recently been discussed internally by the authorities, but this has been commented in the press at such a low level that the common man has not had a real opportunity to become aware of this. It has since autumn 2011 been written more about it after the various articles have been published and you see that shift from new year 2011-12 and until the time of writing there is more focus on the problem. No press releases of importance have yet written about this.

We hope that the spotlight is set on the case, but the issue is bigger than that. The principle of the article is in itself controversial. This is an article written to draw the main lines, but all claims can of course be documented and a number of articles supplied under the like if desired.

I want the international press to be aware of this now that the most important trial of Norwegian history after WW2 is coming up.

Norwegian judges and authority is undermining the Norwegian people by thinking that is ok for the judges to run their own law, with the help from the agencies.

I want everybody to be equal.

Cathrine Løvaas © 2012