Words are our Best Weapon Against the Lies of History (Truth in the Root of the Word).
Today, at 10:30AM I noticed a librarian standing behind me video taping my paperwork, and the research I was doing on the computer.
I asked her (while the video (phone) was still in her hand and recording), what was she doing?
I asked was she filming my documents, and my work?
She told me she was video taping a poster on the wall. (for 20 mins!?)
I asked why was she standing behind me for the past 20mins. She denied it was 20 mins. I told her the first time I turned around (and saw her standing there) she was talking to her colleague at the check-out desk, which was about 20mins prior.
I proceeded to take her identification information (which I must post, as my computer has been disabled), Siri Margrethe C. Vinger Law Librarian.
At the conclusion I motioned to her cellphone, which was still recording, and asked her again was she recording. She agreed she was recording. However, when I turned and caught her, she was too close to the wall to be “recording” the poster (only blocks of color from the poster showed up, no text was legible), but close enough to record my work.
KEY: Earlier, when the Library opened, I asked a librarian for assistance in locating a list of Judges that were currently serving on the bench (as well as historical information relative to Judges). The librarian told me she did not know where such information could be found. After questioning her if I was, indeed at the Law Library and it should be here of all places, she called over Ms. Vinger for assistance. Could this be the reason for such underhanded stealing of private information? As well as computer hacking?
This behavior illustrated by this Law Librarian is just on the heels of having my computer hacked into and broken at the National Library a couple of weeks ago.
Note: I was working on the Article, All Nations Constitutions Are Trust!
Karl Johans gate
Org. Unit ID:341200
Here you will find some historical information as well as different Courts,Cases,
The Courts of Justice consist of three instances:
All the courts mentioned above hear both civil and
criminal cases. The courts do not take up cases of their own accord,
but resolve legal disputes by considering the cases brought before them. Civil cases are brought before the courts by the parties, whereas criminal cases are
brought by the prosecution authority. The prosecution authority consists of the Director of Public Prosecutions (riksadvokaten), the Public Prosecutors (statsadvokaten) and the Prosecuting Authority in the police (påtalemyndigheten i politiet).
Through NCA’s efforts, Norwegian courts are better prepared to meet the challenges of today’s internationalization. NCA facilitates the mutual exchange of knowledge and best practices between the Norwegian court system and external partners.
The international relations also include significant contribution to judicial capacity building in other countries.
The Supreme Court is the nation’s highest court of justice and the instance of appeal for verdicts handed down by courts of a lower level. There is only the one Supreme Court which is situated in Oslo. The decisions made here are are final verdicts and cannot be appealed or complained against. The one special exception is for cases that can be brought before the Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg. Three of the Supreme Court judges form the Interlocutory Appeals Committee. Supreme Court judges serve in succession on this committee.
The Interlocutory Appeals Committee of the Supreme Court is viewed as a court of justice and in specific cases the committee has to agree that a case is to be brought before the Supreme Court. The Committee can make final decisions in a number of cases.
We know that there were legislative, judicial and executive authorities as early as the 10th century. In those days the kinship group was the most important executive power; crimes and conflicts were resolved by negotiation between the kin-groups, often involving agreement on the penalty. In the course of the 11th century there developed local and regional assemblies (bygdeting and lagting), which also functioned as courts; the Norwegian word ting still means both. Their most important function was to reach solutions to various disputes and their formation was driven by population growth, bigger districts and increased collaboration between districts. King Håkon I “the Good” changed the composition of the assemblies from universal attendance to representation by delegates. The most famous regional assemblies from that period are the Gulating for Western Norway and the Frostating for the Trøndelag in the middle of the country. The Hålogaland, Eidsivating and Borgarting assemblies developed in the 12th and 13th centuries, but never achieved the same influence as Gulating and Frostating. Legislative codes from the Gulating and Frostating were rediscovered in modern times. The development of the assemblies and the discovery of the codes clearly show that the rule of law was well on the way to becoming centralised as early as the 12th century.
The most usual legislative instance at that time was customary law: that is to say, there were many rules of law, but not laid down by any public authority. Customary or common law is still in use today not only in international law, but also in national areas such as constitutional and administrative law, some parts of private law and the law of damages.
In the course of the High Middle Ages the king acquired more power, and ultimately discharged all three roles – legislative, judicial and executive. The Church also had a role in all three areas, resulting in a constant tug-of-war for supremacy. The need for codification increased, and in 1274, under king Magnus VI “Lawmender” the old regional laws were reworked and called the National Law (Landsloven). This was meant to be authoritative for the regional courts and to some extent for the district courts.
The Law was regarded as an administrative unification of Norway, the political unification being traditionally dated to 1030. The National Law also involved amendments to the judicial and executive aspects of the legal system, such as royally appointed court presidents (lagmenn) to chair the proceedings between the parties. More higher courts (lagting) were created, and sited in towns or other centres. Crime was no longer conceived as an offence against the kin-group, but as against the King. The period saw not only the beginnings of centralisation, but also of bureaucratising and professionalisation.
Norway was in union with Denmark, and intermittently with Sweden too, from 1390 to 1814, a period in which the Norwegian legal system saw further professionalisation. Norwegian cases began in the city or district court, proceeded to the higher courts and finally to the Overhoffretten in Oslo, from 1624 called Christiania. After Denmark created a Supreme Court in 166 1, Norwegian cases could be appealed there. The Danes had little knowledge of Norwegian laws and legal thinking, and therefore settled cases by their own laws. The Supreme Court was subject to the king, and until 1771 all decisions made by the Supreme Court were to be reviewed by him. In 1771 this review power was abolished, except for death sentences. In the course of the Danish Union, attempts were made to increase the distinction between the judicial and executive powers, at the same time as the king maintained his position as the fount of legislation.
The National Law promulgated under Magnus “Lawmender” was still applicable law in Norway. As the 17th century progressed a need was felt to update it, leading to the Norwegian Law (Den norske lov) of 1687, which was to a certain extent based on the Danish code of 1683. The Supreme Court in Denmark could now deal with two legal codes that were more or less similar.
The principle of “separation of powers” – that is, between the legislative, executive and judicial functions – wasformulated by the French philosopher Montesquieu. Montesquieu’s separation of powers was central to the Norwegian constitution of 1814, adopted after that year’s separation from Denmark. The King was the executive power, the Storting the legislative power and the courts the judicial power. The Norwegian constitution was more liberal than many others, inter alia being based on the principle of popular sovereignty.
Norway acquired its own Supreme Court in 1815. The Norwegian constitution remained in force after the young state entered a union with Sweden, and so the final Norwegian independence in 1905 did not represent any change in the Norwegian legal system. During the German occupation of 1940-45 the Supreme Court resigned, and judges were appointed who were loyal to the occupiers. Neither the judges nor their decisions from this period were recognised after Liberation.