Attunda tingsrätt

Okej

Ovälkomnande, konstig och otrevlig attityd mot åhörare två dagar i rad. Trots jag blev visiterad följer de flera gånger efter en och går in i salen och …

Unwelcoming, strange and unpleasant attitude towards the audience two days in a row. Despite being searched, they follow you several times and enter the hall and check on you, even when there are already guards in the hall or safety glass in front of the audience gallery, sometimes they take you out of the hall in the middle of a hearing to ask a lot of questions when you are sitting in the hall as an audience and find it strange, unpleasant, disturbing and worrying that you go to another hall when a hearing is concluded, it is decided to be held behind closed doors or a long break is taken. They call it "running between halls", "sweeping around and entering all the halls", "strange behavior". They disrupt the hearing and the audience who is just sitting calmly and quietly. They make it difficult for the audience to be an audience. They may want you to just walk into a room that is uninteresting and sit there uninterested for several hours because you are not allowed to listen a little with the door ajar first to know if it is interesting enough. Opening a room door ajar and listening for a few seconds to feel out whether you want to go in and be a listener when the light is green, i.e. a public hearing, is considered strange, unpleasant, disturbing and worrying, and it led to a rejection from the entire building while you were sitting and listening from the very beginning to a public main hearing. It was said that a chairman in a room that I have not even been to, whose door I opened a little ajar for 4 seconds to hear if it is a sufficiently interesting room to spend hours in as a listener, wanted to be rejected from the entire building. They have chosen to have the doors that barely make any noise. They go in and out, pull chairs here and there, rustle pens and paper, bags, coughs, sneezes, impulse sounds, keyboard keys, microphone taps, etc. but when a listener carefully opens the door, they may suddenly be oversensitive. Coffee machines make watery chocolate, by the way. Legal explanation for why Attunda District Court, in my opinion, does not respect the right to be heard. The right to be heard in Sweden is based on several fundamental freedoms and rights that are protected in Sweden's constitution, especially the Constitution. The Constitution establishes that all public power in Sweden originates from the people and that the People's Board is based on free opinion formation and universal and equal voting rights. Specifically, these rights include: Freedom of expression: The right to express thoughts, opinions and feelings. Freedom of information: The right to seek and receive information. Freedom of assembly: The right to organize and participate in gatherings. Freedom of demonstration: The right to organize and participate in demonstrations. These rights are also protected by international agreements to which Sweden has acceded, such as the UN Conventions on Human Rights. The right to be heard in courts, also known as the principle of public hearing, has a long tradition in Sweden and is an important part of the rule of law and democracy. Here are some of the main reasons why this right exists: Transparency and visibility: The principle of public hearing ensures that legal proceedings are open to the public, which helps to build trust in the legal system. By allowing hearings, the public can see that legal proceedings are fair and impartial. Control of the exercise of power: By making legal proceedings public, citizens and the media can scrutinize how the courts and other authorities exercise their power. This reduces the risk of abuse of power and corruption. Education and information: Public trials give citizens the opportunity to learn about the legal system and how it works. This can increase understanding and respect for laws and legal processes. Protection of rights: By having open trials, it can be ensured that the rights of the parties involved are respected and that they receive fair treatment. Historical background: The principle of publicity has its roots in older Swedish legislation and has developed over time to strengthen democracy and legal certainty.