Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
FORMAL NOTIFICATION
OF STATE SUPPORTED CRIMINALITY
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
THROUGH:
1
The Sheriff Office, NO-6270 Brattvåg, Norway.
REMARKS:
REFERENCES:
2
c) letter 108/08-63/ROS004 dated Jan 29 HA from the Norwegian Director
General of Public Prosecutions, Mr Tor-Aksel BUSCH (NO-Oslo); 1
page,
e) e-mail of Oct 28, 2007, from Mr Wilh. Werner WINTHER to the Special
Investigating Unit for Police Matters, The Norwegian Supreme Court, the
Norwegian Prime Minister, the Norwegian Ministry of Justice, AO; 1
page.
IN RE:
Let’s make it perfectly plain already now;
“Before kicking off the from A to Z daffy and lawless terror-campaign against
me in Oslo, Ms Aase Svendsen Roland and her deranged partners in crime
collusively obtained operational permission from e.g the Norwegian Parliament,
Government, Supreme Court and King‘s Council.....!‖
(cf FOCO, p 30)
―Ms Harlem Brundtland and her mafiosi in turn presented the disastrous
complot for the Norwegian monarch, Mr Harald HEADLESS, who spitefully
approved the insanities in the usually hebdomadal Council of State.‖
(cf FOCO, p 31)
―In 1992 Mr Harald HEADLESS (cf p 31) willingly sanctioned the stark illegal
and doubtlessly cracked conspiracy against me, and since then he and his
nearest
family ‘ve exhibited particular and — to me — wholly undesirable interest for
my personal undertakings.
The criminal inclination, unfairness, grave disrespect for the human rights and
3
general ignominy persistently displayed by the official royal family of Norway in
this case, clearly excludes friendly and even diplomatic relations with them (cf
Aphorisms ##135, 136 and 137 etc). It should also be called attention to the
disgraceful fact Harald Headless‘ father, King Olav V, had one of his faithful
employees incarcerated and maltreated at a state controlled bedlam exclusively
because he championed the human rights of other and unseemly hounded/ex-
ploited courtiers.....‖
(cf FOCO, pp 68–69)
―In any event King Harald V the Headless most flagrantly has violated the oaths
laid down in Article 9 and Article 44 of the Norwegian Constitution — he has
repetitively and mala fide sanctioned and awarded the most serious and dishono-
rable examples of state supported rottenness and premeditated human rights vio-
lations ever seen in modern Norway (cf pp 31, 68–69 and 126 etc), and his regal
malversation are intensely disgraceful and totally condemnable indeed.‖
(cf FOCO, p 170)
4
―The Kingdom of Norway have intentionally, profusely and extendedly acted in a
manner extremely deleterious and discreditable for the IHF and its various
members — particularly if the obnoxious crimes and premeditated violations of
contractual provisions are accepted without adequate execution of sentence.‖
(cf INDO, p 67)
Studying above excerpts it should be entirely evident the Norwegian King and his
corrupted council are thoroughly incompetent when it comes to adjudging
anything at all in this case, and that’s about — quoad hoc — precisely the
conclusion arrived at in FOCO, pp 8–9:
5
56), and he’s not subordinate to any government department per se — though, as
the Council of State largely is composed of ministers acting in their capacity as
political supremos of their respective government ministries, many of his
decisions ex officio are explicitly marked by departemental influence.
Directly beneath the Director General of Public Prosecutions, we find the
regional public prosecutors superintending the activities of their respective
police districts in Norway.....and it should be emphasized that Mr Busch — and
most public prosecutors — has a past as regular police officer(-s).....and, as for
the Norwegian police force, quite a few and highly apposite remarks has
beforehand been put on paper:
―The police schemed provocations — which far and away may be more
comprehensive, enduring and truculent than actually described above —
may nevertheless be constructed, timed and intensified suchwise as to
bring about other and more pernicious outcomes than unjustified
psychiatric internment and stigmatizing alone.....and — in this connection
— the most attractive of the alternative end results is to carry on and
worsen the methodical terrorism until the victim attacks and hopefully
kills an innocent person in pure desperation.
Other frequently sought "payoffs" includes suiciding (the police may v.g
surreptitiously and specifically manipulate the regular broadcasting
reception playing songs/melodies on the victim's radio and/or television
units exacerbating sadness and praising self-destruction), physical
handicapping (may be induced e.g through intoxication, covert radiation
and various accident setups), or simply — assassination.”
(cf FOCO, pp 114–115)
―By and large brimming over with decayed sickees and back-alley
jimcrowists, the Norwegian state apparatus just about plenary may go to
truly astonishing lengths to actively support and safeguard against public
exposure serious criminality committed by their police officers and
6
assorted socii criminis, and various mass media — private as well as state
owned — are very likely to reflect this inglorious fact!‖
(cf FOCO, p 115)
7
private homes while tentatively exploring techniques inflicting various
degrees of disability.‖
(cf INDO, p 85)
―As for Norwegian police officers, you‘ll get a tolerably accurate picture of
their mentality etc by studying the various documents above — item My
aphorisms.
Nevertheless — the striking attempts Norwegian police officers has made to
infiltrate vg humanitarian/charitable, political and health related
organizations etc in order to further professional influence, should be
emphasized. Unfortunately members of such coalitions may be easily duped,
as many of them are naturally caritative, idealistic and unbiased —
characteristics the police officers, wholly undeservingly, wish to be
professionally associated with.....‖
(cf INDO, p 97)
―Lend the Norwegian police a willing hand: dig your own grave, pay the
undertaker, set fire to the cross, curse justice violently, praise the Habeas
Corpus Act of 1679 and administer the poison yourself listening
to the national anthem!‖
(cf Aphorisms &c, #45)
―It‘s written in Luke 4:5–7 that the kingdoms of the world belongs to the
Devil — and sure enough:
8
ample experience ‘ve confirmed that the Kingdom of Norway indeed is
ruled by Satan.....that the Norwegian authorities vanguarded by the
national police force are his loyal disciples worshipping evildoing,
deceiving the general population and terrorizing those righteous (cf
Matthew 15:8–9 and Isaiah 29:13)!‖
(cf Aphorisms &c, #48)
―Norwegian police officers will normally take great pains to get all relevant
facts of the corruption case against them on the table — before throwing the
entire stuff to the dogs, assassinating the chef-à-cuisine, falsely accusing the
butler and closing down the whole restaurant for purported ‗health
care reasons‘!‖
(cf Aphorisms &c, #67)
―It‘s not entirely proper to say the Norwegian Police ‗Security Service‘
lacks responsibility, care, generosity and culture.....whereas they‘re
positively responsible for villainously assassinating dozens of guiltless
persons, and empirically shows marked care while generously spreading
their pernicious bacteria cultures in your private house and car (Cf
Aphorism #45 etc)!‖
(cf Aphorisms &c, #110)
―Supporting the psychotic complot against me from the onset, the office of
the Director General of Public Prosecutions was headed by Mr Georg
Fr. RIEBER-MOHN and Mr Tor-Aksel BUSCH.‖
9
As evident from Document #8123 (cf INDO, pp 157–158), FOCO constitute an
essential part of — and is enclosed with — corresponding report dated and duly
handed over to the sheriff office in NO-Brattvåg Aug 13 last year.
In his letter of Jan 29th HA (cf ref ―c‖) Mr Busch symptomatically evades
references to said report of Aug 13, while — tellingly — calling attention to my
letter of Sep 12 and formal notification of Nov 06, 2007 (cf INDO, pp 159–160
and 167–172, respectively). Indicated negligence is not casual, of course, and it
should be underscored that FOCO is unambiguously mentioned in both
documents referred to by Mr Busch (cf INDO, pp 159 and 168, respectively).
Mr Busch has certainly been fully aware FOCO as well as INDO was part and
parcel of and — as clearly indicated — enclosed with the legal reports in
question.....so, in effect — there’s no doubt about it; the Norwegian Director
General of Public Prosecutions, Mr Tor-Aksel Busch, has mala fide and ex
officio acted manifestly contrary to the formal disqualification rules he’s
professionally bound to obey.
Examining Mr Busch’s reasons for breaking the law in the present case, we
should pay close attention to the fact two of the persons he attempts to acquit —
Mr Jens STOLTENBERG and Mr Knut STORBERGET — both are members
of the King’s Council*:
10
Services, and more or less subordinate to these ministries we find a
conglomerate of directorates and different administrative organs.‖
(cf FOCO, p 170)
Now, in the first instance, let’s take a further look at my formal notification of
Nov 06, 2007* (*cf INDO, pp 167–172).
The notification is addressed to the sheriff office in NO-Brattvåg, and
introductorily runs as follows:
11
November 06, 2007
―Above notification was properly handed over to the sheriff office in No-
Brattvåg the 7th inst, and a few hours after it had been written down on my
PC the 6th inst my Internet connection suddenly and permanently broke
down (phone #: [+47] 92078613, IP address: 89.8.158.77, Internet
provider: the Norwegian company ―NetCom‖)...!
In this connection it may be highly appropriate to call attention to the fact
I — the 5th inst — visited web sites like:
12
UNDP Anti-Corruption Practitioners Network,
http://anticorruption.undp.sk (at 20:20 CET),
Transparency International,
http://transparency.org/ (at 20:24 CET),
13
It sticks out a mile that Mr Busch — wholly on purpose — endeavours to
obscure the facts of the case by establishing a fictive/operational and
demonstrably nonsensical link between reported crimes and aforementioned
triad, and his fraudulence becomes even more manifest on account of the fact
Mr Stoltenberg and Mr Storberget — still referring to my formal notification of
Nov 06 last year — both are unmistakably mentioned in conjunction with a
demand for criminal proceedings against them AO submitted before commented
offences actually took place:
*The actual letter to counselor Aspehaug (cf INDO, pp 159–160) runs suchwise:
14
―Sep 12, 2007
Dear Mr Aspehaug:
Mr Karoliussen are very well aware rotten officers from the police station
in NO-Ålesund, in cooperation with depraved employees/executives at the
head post office in the same town, has stolen several letters from e.g
human rights organizations addressed to your office — cf Incomplete
FORMAL COMPLAINT vs the Kingdom of Norway pp 1, 10 and 179,
item Doc #3611 &c.
15
Said report was correctly handed over to Haram Sheriff Office (NO-Brattvåg)
the 25th of Sep 2007, and described sabotage of and theft from one of my rental
cars. Decisively attributable to Norwegian police officers, we may — rather
reasonably — imagine that Mr Busch found it tactically convenient to pass over
indicated crimes in ―suggestive silence‖....!
CONCLUSION:
16
―Hans-Petter Jahre, Esq, was appointed accessary Director General of
Public Prosecutions by the King‘s Council on Jan 09th 1998, and has ex
officio recidivistic and arrogantly disgraced his office by extensive and
intentional malversation — particularly in civil proceedings and formal
complaint connections where the suspected party and accused persons
were police employees, senior state officials or, otherwise, public
servants.
17
Mr Jahre should, without delay, be subjected to independent criminal
investigation/proceedings and charged/sentenced in agreement with
Norwegian law.‖
(cf INDO, pp 4–7)
―It should be underscored that the recent chief of the Norwegian ‗Security
Service‘ Police, Mr Jørn HOLME, is Mr Dørum‘s former secretary. Mr
Holme has also worked as a senior public prosecutor for the National
Authority for Investigation and Prosecution of Economic and
Environmental Crime in Norway — ‗Økokrim‘, and thus is a former
colleague of vg Mr Hans-Petter JAHRE (cf Doc #115 above) and Mr
Anstein Birger GJENGEDAL (cf Doc #377 above — entry of Oct 26,
2000).‖
Returning to Mr Tor-Aksel Busch and the criminal proceedings against him, it’s
perfectly clear his professional corruption are punishable in accordance with a
good many sections of the Norwegian Penal Code. There are a number of
aggravating circumstances to be considered, and Mr Busch’s putrid decision
of Jan 29 HA (cf ref ―c‖) is most certainly invalid — cf the Norwegian Criminal
Procedure Act sec’s 60, 314, 342, 343, 384, 385 and 390–392, the Norwegian
Public Administration Act sec’s 1, 2, 6 and 41, item the Norwegian Courts of
Justice Act sec’s 106–121 etc.
As regards Mr Busch’s disqualification and criminality ex officio, the
Norwegian King in Council of State are — according to the Norwegian Criminal
Procedure Act sec 64 — supposed to handle these matters, and Article 22 of the
Norwegian Constitution reads:
18
mined by the next Storting. In the interval they shall receive
two thirds of their previous pay.
Other senior officials may only be suspended by the King,
and must then without delay be charged before the Courts,
but they may not, except by court judgment, be dismissed nor,
against their will, transferred.
All senior officials may, without a prior court judgment,
be discharged from office upon attaining the
statutory age limit.”
Cf the Norwegian Civil Service Act sec’s 15 and 21 (cf FOCO, pp 166–168):
SECTION 15
A senior civil servant or civil servant may be summarily
discharged when he:
has shown gross negligence in the service or is guilty of a
gross breach of official duties or despite a written warning
or reprimand has repeatedly breached his official duties,
by improper behaviour in or outside the service proves
himself unworthy of his post or damages the respect or
confidence that is essential to the post.
The provision in this section shall not restrict the right to
punish a senior civil servant or civil servant by depriving
him of his post pursuant to the rules of penal legislation.
SECTION 21
If a senior civil servant or civil servant is subjected to
disciplinary measures or summary discharge for a criminal
offence, this shall not preclude normal criminal prosecution,
but assessment of the sentence shall take the disciplinary
measures or summary discharge into consideration.
Anyhow — seeing that an independent and impartial tribunal is sine qua non in
respect of a fair trial, lodging an appeal to the Norwegian King in Council of State
scarcely stands to reason at all in this case….whereas the very conspiracy against
me was enthusiastically approved by indicated monarch in person as well as his
vicious councillors (cf FOCO, pp 31 and 68–69 etc)!
All decisions drawn up by the Norwegian King in Council of State should be
recorded in accordance with regulations, and telling comments on the plot against
19
me has been found in a special protocol reserved for matters which the King’s
Council has decided to keep secret — cf the Norwegian Constitution Articles 30
and 31 (cf FOCO, pp 163–164):
ARTICLE 30
All the proceedings of the Council of State shall be entered in
its records. Diplomatic matters which the Council of State
decides to keep secret shall be entered in a special record. The
same applies to military command matters which the Council
of State decides to keep secret.
Everyone who has a seat in the Council of State has the duty
to frankly express his opinion, to which the King is bound
to listen. But it rests with the King to make a decision ac-
cording to his own judgment.
If any Member of the Council of State is of the opinion
that the King's decision conflicts with the form of govern-
ment or the laws of the Realm, or is clearly prejudicial to
the Realm, it is his duty to make strong remonstrances
against it, as well as to have his opinion entered in the
records. A Member who has not thus protested is deemed
to have been in agreement with the King, and shall be
answerable in such manner as may be subsequently de-
cided, and may be impeached by the Odelsting before
the Court of Impeachment.
ARTICLE 31
All decisions drawn up by the King shall, in order to be-
come valid, be countersigned. The decisions relating to
military command are countersigned by the person who
has presented the matter, while other decisions are counter-
signed by the Prime Minister or, if he has not been present,
by the highest-ranking Member of the Council of State present.
Not only has the Norwegian King Harald V sanctioned the illegal conspiracy
against me with his personal signature, but he is — in all likelihood — entirely
unentitled to occupy the Norwegian Throne as well (cf FOCO, pp 169–170)…!
And….moreover; whereas the Norwegian King is possessed of a full-scale
Stanford-Binet IQ ominously below the absolute minimum requirement for
judges/experts (cf FOCO pp 9, 85 and 145–152), his judicial authority should be
firmly rejected on that score too (with a general Stanford-Binet IQ of 137, also the
Norwegian PM Mr Jens Stoltenberg fails to meet the recommended and
20
corresponding noometric minimum score of 140 — cf the Norwegian Constitution
Articles 12, 13 and 31 etc).
At all events Norwegian authorities — the King’s Council included — are obliged
to comply with the following Articles of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Free-
doms,
Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:*
Article 13:
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are
violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority
notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an
official capacity.
Article 14:
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be
secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
association with a national minority, property, birth or
other status.
Article 17:
21
Article 18:
The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and
freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they
have been prescribed.
Article 2:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Decla-
ration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or
other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the
political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or terri-
tory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-
governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 6:
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7:
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to
equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any
discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to
such discrimination.
Article 8:
22
Article 10:
Article 28:
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and
freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29 (3):
Article 30:
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT
ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
Article 2 (1):
Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure
to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights
recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth or other status.
23
Article 2 (3):
Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
Article 3:
The State Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right
of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in
the present Covenant.
Article 5 (1):
Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State,
group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed
at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at
their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present
Covenant.
Article 5 (2):
24
Article 14 (1):
All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the deter-
mination of any criminal charge against him, or 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. The Press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a
trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security
in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the
parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the
court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the in-
terests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at
law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons
otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the
guardianship of children.
Article 16:
Article 26:
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any
discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall
prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective
protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or so-
cial origin, property, birth or other status.
*(In section 2 of the Norwegian ―Human Rights Act‖ of May 21, 1999, it is explicitly
laid down that the Council of Europe‘s ―Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms‖ [the ―European Convention on Human Rights‖],
the ―Universal Declaration of Human Rights‖ as well as the United Nations‘
―International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights‖ are fully applicable as
Norwegian law, and in sec 3 ib it‘s brought home that provisions confirmed through
conventions and protocols mentioned in sec 2 in case of controversy are prior to other
legislation.)
25
In this connection one call particular attention to the Norwegian Constitution
Article 110 c:
Article 49
The people exercises the Legislative Power through the Storting, which
consists of two departments, the Lagting and the Odelsting.
Article 71
The members of the Storting function as such for four successive years.
Article 73
The Storting nominates from among its members one fourth to constitute the
Lagting, the remaining three fourths to constitute the Odelsting. This
nomination shall take place at the first session of the Storting that assembles
after a new General Election, whereafter the Lagting shall remain unchanged
at all sessions of the Storting assembled after the same election, except insofar
26
as any vacancy which may occur among its members has to be filled by special
nomination. Each Ting holds its meetings separately and nominates its own
President and Secretary. Neither Ting may hold a meeting unless at least half
of its Members are present. However, Bills concerning amendments to the
Constitution may not be dealt with unless at least two thirds of the Members of
the Storting are present.
Article 74
As soon as the Storting is constituted, the King, or whoever he appoints for the
purpose, shall open its proceedings with a Speech, in which he shall inform it
of the state of the Realm and of the issues to which he particularly desires to
call the attention of the Storting. No deliberations may take place in the
presence of the King.
When the proceedings of the Storting have been opened, the Prime Minister
and the Members of the Council of State have the right to attend the Storting,
as well as both departments of the Storting, and, like its Members, although
without voting, to take part in any proceedings conducted in open session,
while in matters discussed in closed sessions only insofar as permitted by the
Ting concerned.
Article 75
27
i) to review the provisional lists of salaries and pensions and to make
therein such alterations as it deems necessary;
j) (repealed)
k) to appoint five auditors, who shall annually examine the State Accounts
and publish extracts of the same print, for which purpose the Accounts
shall be submitted to the auditors within six months of the end of the
year for which the appropriations of the Storting have been made, and
to adopt provisions concerning the procedure for authorizing the
accounts of government accounting officials;
l) to appoint a person, not a member of the Storting, in a manner
prescribed by law, to supervise the public administration and all who
work in its service, to assure that no injustice is done against the
individual citizen;
m) to naturalize aliens.
Article 76
Every Bill shall first be proposed in the Odelsting, either by one of its own
Members, or by the government through a Member of the Council of State.
If the Bill is passed, it is sent to the Lagting, which either approves or rejects
it, and in the latter case returns it with appended comments. These are taken
into consideration by the Odelsting, which either shelves the bill or again
sends it to the Lagting, with or without alteration.
When a Bill from the Odelsting has twice been presented to the Lagting and
has been returned a second time as rejected, the Storting shall meet in plenary
session, and the bill is then decided by a majority of two thirds of its votes.
Between each such deliberation there shall be an interval of at least three
days.
Article 77
When a Bill passed by the Odelsting has been approved by the Lagting or by
the Storting in plenary session, it is sent to the King, with a request that it may
receive the Royal Assent.
Article 78
If the King assents to the Bill, he appends his signature, whereby it becomes
law. If he does not assent to it, he returns it to the Odelsting with a statement
28
that he does not for the time being find it expedient to sanction it. In that case
the Bill must not again be submitted to the King by the Storting then
assembled.
Article 79
If a Bill has been passed unaltered by two sessions of the Storting, constituted
after two separate successive elections and separated from each other by at
least two intervening sessions of the Storting, without a divergent Bill having
been passed by any Storting in the period between the first and last adoption,
and it is then submitted to the King with a petition that His Majesty shall not
refuse his assent to a beneficial, it shall become law even if the Royal Assent is
not accorded before the Storting goes into recess.
Article 80
The Storting shall remain in session as long as it deems it necessary and shall
terminate its proceedings when it has concluded its business.
In accordance with the rules of procedure adopted by the Storting, the
proceedings may be resumed, but they shall terminate not later than the last
Sunday in the month of September.
Within this time the King shall communicate his decision with regard to the
Bills that have not already been decided (cf Articles 77 to 79), by either
confirming or rejecting them. All those which he does not expressly accept are
deemed to have been rejected by him.
Article 81
All Acts (with the exception of those mentioned in Article 79) are drawn up in
the name of the King, under the seal of the Realm of Norway, and in the
following terms; “We, X, make it publicly known: that the decision of the
Storting of the date stated has been laid before Us: (here follows the decision).
In consequence whereof We have assented to and confirmed, as We hereby do
assent to and confirm the same as Law under Our Hand and the Seal of the
Realm.”
29
Article 86
Article 87
30
When the case comes up for judgment, as many judges of the Court of
Impeachment shall retire following the drawing of lots that
the Court due to render judgment is left with fifteen Members, of
whom at most ten are Members of the Lagting and five Justices of
the Supreme Court.
The President of the Court of Impeachment and the President of
the Supreme Court shall in no case retire following the drawing
of lots.
If the Court of Impeachment cannot be composed of as many Mem-
bers of the Lagting or of the Supreme Court as prescribed above,
the case may nevertheless be tried and judgment rendered, provided
that the Court numbers at least ten judges.
Specific provisions as to the procedure to be followed in the compos-
ition of the Court of Impeachment shall be laid down by law.
31
KJOS, Kari K (Fremskrittspartiet)
KNUTSEN, Tove Karoline (Arbeiderpartiet)
KONGSHAUG, Leif Helge (Venstre)
KRISTOFFERSEN, Gerd Janne (Arbeiderpartiet)
LANGELAND, Hallgeir H (Sosialistisk Venstreparti)
LARSEN, Anne Margrethe (Venstre)
LYDVO, Hilde M (Arbeiderpartiet)
LØNNING, Inge (Høyre)
LÅNKE, Ola T (Kristelig Folkeparti)
MANDT-BARTHOLSEN, Sonja (Arbeiderpartiet)
MARTHINSEN, Marianne (Arbeiderpartiet)
MOE, Ola B (Senterpartiet)
NAVARSETE, Liv Signe (Senterpartiet)
NIELSEN, Eva M (Arbeiderpartiet)
NISTAD, Thore A (Fremskrittspartiet)
PETERSEN, Jan (Høyre)
REIKVAM, Rolf (Sosialistisk Venstreparti)
RYTMAN, Jørund (Fremskrittspartiet)
SAMUELSEN, Alf Ivar (Senterpartiet)
SCHMIDT, Åse M (Fremskrittspartiet)
SOLHOLM, Lodve (Fremskrittspartiet)
STRØM, Tor-Arne (Arbeiderpartiet)
SUND, Eirin Kristin (Arbeiderpartiet)
VAKSDAL, Øyvind (Fremskrittspartiet)
VALLERSNES, Finn Martin (Høyre)
WIDTH, Per Ove (Fremskrittspartiet)
AASLAND, Terje (Arbeiderpartiet)
32
MATNINGSDAL, Magnus (Justice, born 1951)
BRUZELIUS, Karin Maria (Justice, born 1941)
SKOGHØY, Jens Edvin A (Justice, born 1955)
UTGÅRD, Karl Arne (Justice, born 1951)
STABEL, Ingse (Justice, born 1946)
STØLE, Ole Bjørn (Justice, born 1950)
ØIE, Toril Marie (Justice, born 1960)
TØNDER, Bård (Justice, born 1948)
ENDRESEN, Clement (Justice, born 1949)
INDREBERG, Hilde (Justice, born 1957)
SVERDRUP, Tone (Justice ad hoc, born 1951)
BERGBY, Gunnar (Secretary General, born 1947)
As for the provisions regulating e.g the composition and exact procedure of the
Court of Impeachment, these was originally laid down in the Norwegian Act of
5 February 1932 relating to Punishment for Offences Indicted before the
Court of Impeachment....and this Act has in all probability been subject to a
number of tactical amendments triggered by distinct fear of nearby Complaint*
(*cf the Norwegian Act of 30 March 2007 no. 13)!
In any case the Norwegian Courts of Justice Act — which still applies to the
composition etc of the Court of Impeachment — provides that:
As is meet and proper the individual security under the law has been given a
prominent position in globally accepted human rights conventions (cf pp 194–
199 above), and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights positively lays down that:
“All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the deter-
mination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and
obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and
33
public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal
established by law.”
―Since 1992 it has been a main objective for Norwegian authorities to maim
my general health, ruin my social relationships, isolate me, deny my juri-
dical rights, subdue/quench legal complaints to international fora, mar my
reputation, intimidate me, induce pecuniary destitution, provoke harmful
tribulations, obstruct globally lifesaving work, minimize my standard of
living and — if possible — incite criminality and unethical behavior (cf Doc
#4588 etc).
The pernicious misconduct of Norwegian authorities in this case are pre-
cisely described in the Bible, Isaiah 59:5–8 (corresponding statements are
wholly valid independent of your religious faith and theological opinions —
cf Doc #2037, ‗Norwegian Vice Spreading‘):
‘They hatch the eggs of vipers and spin a spider’s web. Whoever
eats their eggs will die, and when one is broken, an adder is hatched.
Their cobwebs are useless for clothing; they cannot cover themselves
with what they make. Their deeds are evil deeds, and acts of violence
are in their hands. Their feet rush into sin; they are swift to shed
innocent blood. Their thoughts are evil thoughts; ruin and
destruction mark their ways. The way of peace they do not know;
there is no justice in their paths. They have turned them into
crooked roads; no-one who walks in them will know peace.’
34
In many respects Mr Ivar Oftedahl and Ms Harlem Brundtland represents
the archetype of my Norwegian foes; frailty, ignoble/plebeian, crabby,
evil/base, corrupted/criminal, unstable/dishonest, lunatic/schizophrenic,
hypocritical/ pharisaic, malevolent/envious, arrogant/aggressive and sickly
self-assertive miscreants attempting to compensate for their shortcomings,
inferiority complex and psychopathology through ascribing their nasty
defects, wickedness, mental derangement and systematic lawbreaking to
others (cf Doc‘s ##633 [‗Norwegian Police and Statesman Malignant
Syndrome‘] and 2037 [‗Official Norwegian Hypocrisy and Malevolence‘]).
Though human status correctly may be granted my Norwegian enemies, they
surely belongs to a particularly noxious subgroup bipeds strongly guided
and impressed by stark diabolism, madness, injustice and general low-
mindedness — the presence and influence of these infernally vile terrorists
are of course absolutely detrimental to any civilized society respecting the
human rights, guarding righteousness, and fostering ethicality, personal
magnanimity, intellectual/scientific eminence and artistic dexterity usw.‖
(cf FOCO, pp 72–73)
35
disorders — particularly psychopathy — and various perversions are
predominant conditions.
The pathologically distorted thought and behavior patterns normally
typifying Norwegian public officials and senior civil servants may however
— viewed as an endemic phenomenon — partially rupture the commonly
accepted boundaries imposed by international norms of disease
classification. A genetically rooted and markedly offbeat syndrome
symptomatically approaching classical psychopathy and frequently
comprising atypical variants of the structural pathology conventionally
associated with organic brain diseases, it's hardly unbecoming to introduce
the acronym ‗NPSMS‘* — *‗Norwegian Police and Statesman Malignant
Syndrome‘ (if more convenient, you may think of NPSMS simply as
‗Norwegian psychopathy‘ or ‗Norwegian folie‘, of course)...!
In Doc's ##633 and 2037 — pp 67 and 95, respectively, I've described a
number of NPSMS' more or less pathognomonic symptoms — viz:
36
likelihood triggering the mental derangement. When it comes to the NPSMS
it's usually hard to detect decisive, psychotogenic factors — as a matter of
fact one may feel slightly ill at ease attempting to discriminate readily
observable, morbid features from entirely self-willed and obviously
unreasonable evil-mindedness...! Ethically indefensible, evilness purely for
the sake of evilness may assuredly be a ponerologically acceptable and ipso
facto rational aim in itself (most religious dogmas omitted, of
course).....consequently — motive and means appearing practically identical
— unprovoked evilness may be seen both as a cardinal symptom and causa
sine qua non of the Norwegian Police and Statesman Malignant Syndrome.
As regards predisposing factors, genetic endowment and hereditary
metabolic, anatomical and physiological insufficiencies in prefrontal
cortices, the thalamencephalon, hypothalamus and limbic system may be
crucial for the actual onset and subsequent diagnosing of NPSMS. Various
somatosensory structures and convergence zones in the ventromedial
prefrontal sector of the brain may be visibly damaged, and dysfunctions of
the medial/lateral orbitofrontal circuit, nucleus accumbens, ventral striatum,
corpus Luysii and thalamic nuclei are common NPSMS features. Serotonin's
neuronal transmitter functions and capability to modulate v.g dopaminergic
neurons may be significantly reduced in NPSMS sufferers, and the
GABAergic output pathways of neostriatum and globus pallidus tends to be
impaired — monoamine based weaknesses and defective interconnections
between the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior subgenual cingulate
cortex and the ventral striatum may be NPSMS indicative.
Despite depicted brain abnormalities, many NPSMS-caitiffs are capable of
performing just about normally on standard neuropsychological tests —
working memory, concentration and the general intelligence seems to be
intact...‖
(cf FOCO, pp 122–124)
37
Anyhow, let's make it perfectly clear right now; the actual and radically
massive violations of quoted articles noways applies to the Norwegian public
‗health‘ service alone — corresponding malversation has continuously been
schemed and illicitly ratified v.g by diverse governmental bodies (cf pp 24–
25, 29–31, 68–74 and 83–88 usw), and does also — largely — include the
other officials and establishments referred to as ‗Accused‘ at page 2 of
nearby Complaint.
Cf Doc #4575, p 117 etc:
38
Norwegian population 1 out of 190 people are expected to achieve a
Stanford-Binet IQ of 140, and there are roughly 3 men for every woman
reaching specified score.
Howbeit —; comprehensive observations here in Norway bears witness to
the fact individuals with a Stanford-Binet IQ in the 130–155 range are
essentially unable to meet the dianoetic requirements necessary to acquire
even passable understanding of more intricate scientific, moral and purely
logical &c causata/implications/problems. Typically earning their university
and first-class degrees relatively hands down, these noometrically — and
oftentimes professionally — incompetent persons are likely to occupy central
community positions. In cases where the shortcomer has maintained his/her
moral and eunoic integrity, the psychometric inadequacy may be
accidentally fatal indeed — though — regularly and pragmatically
amendable, as the intellectually subpotent faultdoer will be genuinely eager
to admit, correct and avoid e.g professional mistakes induced by
noometrically overtaxing demands.
Inasmuch as the dianoetic deficiency and related/professional fall downs are
directly pertinent to NPSMS afflicted individuals/officials* (*cf pp 122–124)
— which conspicuously often is the case in Norway, we empirically knows
these severely disordered and thoroughly dikephobic wrongdoers will do
whatever practically feasible to cover up and belittle their
errors/unsuitability/corruption — frequently at the expense of wholly
guiltless persons facing false accusations and unwarranted castigation etc.
As for the latter case, special attention should be called to the average
Stanford-Binet IQ of Norwegian Parliament/Storting representatives at
127,5 (cf p 10) — which, not surprisingly, is 10–14 crucial points below
corresponding scores for national/federal assembly members in any Euro-
American country/state socioeconomically comparable with Norway.
Without validating the factual foundation of his suppositions etc, it may be
thematically justifiable though to refer to assistant professor of psychology
at Princeton University* (*New Jersey, USA) — Mr Carl C BRIGHAM*
(*creator of the well-known ‗Scholastic Aptitude Test‘) — who, in 1923,
published ‗A Study of American Intelligence‘ where he concluded that the
IQ of immigrants increased in proportion to the number of years of US
residence — a phenomenon he ascribed to a lower proportion of Nordic
blood over the years, rather than increased familiarization with cultural and
educational factors…!
Anyhow; the US Immigration Restriction Act of 1924 favored immigration
from northern Europe, and restricted the entry of persons from other areas
referred to as ‗biologically inferior‘ ——
39
not imply said scores are absolutely and professionally adequate! What
indicated minimum levels does mark, however, are the highest IQ scores
practically attainable a number of circumstantial factors and conventional
requirements* realistically considered (*amongst the formal prerequisites, a
sufficient and high degree of moral integrity, impartiality/independence and
educational competency are indispensable).
While a general Stanford-Binet IQ of 140 typically will enable otherwise
competent members of the Norwegian courts of appeals to handle around
80% of the various lawsuits in a justifiable manner, a ditto IQ of 258 are
required to keenly perceive and adequately evaluate usw the intricate
nuances and multifarious facts relevant to the most complicated cases
brought before these appellate tribunals. Although the present courts of
appeals comprises a few judges with a Stanford-Binet IQ equalling or
slightly exceeding 140, 45–50% of nowadays judgments/sentences should be
overruled on account of regular corruption and the number/severity of
procedural errors…..and, finally; whereas corruption are exlex altogether
and portrayed degree of erroneousness legally unacceptable, it should be
formally correct to render null and void all verdicts and conclusions passed
on by these incompetent and obscenely pretentious kangaroo courts
whatsoever — cf Doc #627 item nearby Complaint pp 2–8 and 84–88 etc!
As for the widespread depravity amongst Norwegian judges, much of it is
reflected by ‗The Professional Code and Ethical Philosophy of Norwegian
Judges‘* (*cf Aphorisms &c 107–109):
40
square in Oslo where noble-minded adulators can bring their burnt
offerings and confer dignity upon our accomplished forensic
diabolism and — also — squareshootingly commemorate the many
illustrious adamites slain by our minister extolled vice.....AMEN!‟
‗These Norse invaders in 'Vinland,' as they named the country, treated the
native inhabitants (whom they named 'Skrellings,' or 'skinned people')
about the same way as they did in Europe — as subjects for pillage and
slave-raids. They raided as far as the 'Wonderstrand' (Cape Cod), and
they usually made themselves enemies wherever they went, in America
as in Europe.‘"
(cf FOCO, pp 151–152)
41
―The heinous array of crimes habitually indulged in by Norwegian
officials and senior civil servants the latter years, are largely and
manifestly ascribable to the tremendous prevalence of indigenous
sociopathy* characteristic of Norway (*cf pp 122–124 &c). Based on
continuous and exacting observations since 1992, it's perfectly evident
Norwegian ‗health‘ personnel and police officers directly executing and
criminally liable for the atrocities partially described in nearby Petition
and elsewhere has derived sexual excitement and significant satisfaction
from their systematic nefariousness and lawbreaking.
Combined with fixed and markedly paranoic personality traits, the deep-
rooted psychopathy and sadism by and large hallmarking Norwegian
senior state officials and public servants are practically incurable* (*cf
pp 122–127, 155–156 and 172 &c).
42
set antipathy toward these slimy and absolutely condemnable
representatives of mankind are significantly strengthened!
43
disqualified from the juror function on account of their intellectual insufficiency
— cf FOCO, pp 9 and 146)!
When it comes to the Norwegian Supreme Court, it’s sufficient — for the time
being — to refer to FOCO pp 30 and 68; several of corresponding judges —
among them Mr Tore SCHEI (the Chief Justice) — should be impeached (cf
FOCO pp 33 and 67–68, item pp 205–206 above).
―The members of the actual juries in this case will face a pack well-
educated and politically experienced liars who will do their very best to
manipulate and deceive them.....so, by reason of the intellectual
challenges represented by this and other facts of the case, none
possessing a general IQ as measured on the WAIS, Stanford-Binet or
PM 47 (―PM 48‖, Raven — 40 min deadline) test subordinate to,
respectively; 142, 145 or 143 should be accepted as (lay) judges or
experts in forthcoming trials.‖*
(FOCO, p 9)
*Cf FOCO pp 145–149 etc.
44
―Employing e.g TEMPEST-equipment, Norwegian authorities are
constantly downloading stuff appearing on my PC-screen — consequently
they‘ve kicked off a putrid charm campaign to surreptitiously influence
v.g the UN and various human rights organizations in this case!‖
(INDO, Doc #5007)
45
ENCLOSURES:
5) e-mail of Oct 28, 2007, from Mr Wilh. Werner WINTHER to the Special
Investigating Unit for Police Matters, The Norwegian Supreme Court, the
Norwegian Prime Minister, the Norwegian Ministry of Justice, AO; 1
page.
46