The politics of bigotry and hate.....
Marvel at the dirty tricks of Norway's judicial bigots Judge Agnar Arthur Nilsen Jr and Oslo Public Prosecutor Anne Grøstad.
The case of Norway's notorious criminal delinquent Heidi Schøne - reported in the following Norwegian newspapers - all the way up to fellow countryman Judge Sverre Erik Jebens sitting at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The Honourable Norwegian
Norwegian newspaper articles on this case 1995 - 2011
Conversations with Ingunn Røren and Hans Odde at Drammens Tidende
Heidi Schøne - two lovers at once
Heidi Schøne and the Muslim man
Policewoman Torill Sorte (now Chief Inspector)
Torill Sorte transcripts
Karsten Gjone - Lawyer
Per Danielsen - Lawyer
Elden & Elden - Law Firm
Helge Wesenberg - Lawyer
Vegard Aaløkken - Lawyer
Tony Samstag - Journalist
The Norwegian Police
Judge Agnar A. Nilsen Jnr
Sickest emails imaginable
Merete Underwood - prison convict
The Scandal of the moment in Scandinavia involves a Norwegian woman whose past reads like every fiction writers wildest dream.
The Norwegian woman, Heidi Schøne, had been an au-pair in Hertfordshire, England in 1981 where she went to recover from her second abortion to the same Norwegian man at the age of 18. The prospective father had on each occasion threatened to leave the girl if she did not abort the child. She duely obliged yet the so called boyfriend left her anyway. Even her stepmother called her a 'whore' after her second abortion.
On returning to Norway in 1982 after her six month stay in England, she took a Mediterranean holiday in Rhodes where she had sex with two different men on the beach.
In 1983 she met a Norwegian man in Bergen (Gudmund Johannessen) where she lived and in 1984 she became pregnant with twins. She miscarried the twins when she discovered that her new man had been sleeping with her best friend. A suicide attempt followed.
In 1985 the Norwegian woman resumed sleeping with Gudmund Johannessen and at the same time with another Norwegian man Bjørn-Morten having unprotected sex with both. She fell pregnant again and gave birth to a boy in 1986. The child's father was in fact Gudmund Johannessen who she claimed had been injecting heroin: a situation which the Norwegian girl was well aware of at the time of the drug abuse. Hence Gudmund Johannessen and her each having two aids test after the birth of their son. Johannessen had by this time served a custodial sentence in a military prison in Norway.
In 1988 the father again rejected the girl who inspite of having a two year old son, again attempted suicide. She then left Bergen to live in Drammen where she immediately entered the psychiatric unit in Lier.
In the 1980's Heidi Schøne reported a Bergen shopkeeper to the police for allegedly raping her. The police did nothing. She also reported another man for allegedly attempting to rape her. Again the police did nothing. Further she accused Greek men of trying to rape her at knifepoint when on holiday in Greece.
In 1990 Gudmund Johannessen beat up Heidi Schøne who reported him to the police. Johannessen later married another Bergen woman but they are now divorced. Heidi Schøne claimed that she had been exorcised from demons and insisted that she was a born again Christian. She married Runar Schøne in 1994 who claims to speak in tongues.
In 1995 Heidi Schøne started a chain of events that have resulted in her being prosecuted in the Norwegian courts.
In 2001 she was divorced from Runar Schøne and she resumed psychiatric treatment at the B.S.S. Clinic in Lier due to the stress of Court proceedings, having been caught out for her perverted behaviour.
Fears have been voiced that Heidi Schøne suffers from a form of Munchausen's syndrome. Once the first lie is told the next one will follow and it is going to become bigger and better.
Heidi Schøne - Abnormal Mental Life.
Antisocial personality disorder
During her trial at the Drammen City Court from 15th to 18th January 2002, the defendant, Heidi Schøne, allowed her psychiatrist, Dr. Petter Broch of the B.S.S. Psychiatric Hospital in Lier, to give the following evidence on her behalf:-
- Heidi Schøne's stepmother had abused her mentally making Heidi Schøne very 'compliant'.
- Heidi Schøne's stepmother's father had sexually abused her.
- Heidi Schøne had a tendency towards sexualised behaviour.
- Heidi Schøne had problems functioning sexually when in a proper relationship.
- Heidi Schøne did not in the past get far with her psychiatric treatment with Dr. Broch because of her identification with him as a man, as men were her main problem.
- Heidi Schøne's stepmother had reported Heidi Schøne to the Child Protection Unit "on false grounds".
- Heidi Schøne had faced subtle forms of punishment from her two older sisters.
- That 'reports' and letters on Heidi Schøne's life contained a "core of truth". [The 'reports' Dr. Broch refers to were those circulating in many parts of Norway and mentioned in newspaper articles in Verdens Gang, Bergens Tidende and Drammens Tidende].
It is always a sad day for justice when a police officer lies on oath but this is exactly what policewoman Torill Sorte of the Drammen police - giving 'evidence' in the Heidi Schøne trial - did on Thursday 17th January 2002 at the Drammen City Court.The Norwegian Police Complaints Authority (SEFO) under the direction of an Oslo judge "investigated" this Police Officer, but decided not to prosecute her for her blatant attempt to pervert the course of justice. The plaintiff appealed to the Public Prosecutor. The decision came in the summer of 2003: no prosecution for Torill Sorte. Neither the State Prosecutor nor the Public Prosecutor it seems even contacted Torill Sorte of Hermanbakken 14, 3050 Mjøndalen. What exactly did Torill Sorte do? In 1995 one Norwegian newspaper writing on behalf of Heidi Schøne (now a registered mental patient on a 100% disability pension and a psychiatric patient at BSS Clinic near Drammen as far back as 1988) said, "Heidi Schøne knows the man's [the plaintiff] mother wanted to put him in a mental hospital". The plaintiff on the 22nd April 1996 recorded a telephone converstation between himself and his mother and Torill Sorte. The plaintiff's mother confirmed to Torill Sorte over the phone that Heidi Schøne's 1995 newspaper "mental hospital" comments were a complete fabrication. Almost seven years later, at the January 2002 civil prosecution of Heidi Schøne, for the first time ever, the plaintiff on the penultimate day of the trial saw Torill Sorte's witness statement from January 1997. In this statement Torill Sorte said the plaintiff's "elderly mother" ("elderly" ?? - she was only 62) had told her on the phone that she had "put" the plaintiff in a mental hospital. Sorte repeated this on oath. On hearing this in court the plaintiff shouted "Liar !" to Torill Sorte and Stig Lunde, the plaintiff's lawyer said, "We have a transcript here of a telephone conversation of 22nd April 1996 saying the exact opposite". Oh dear Torill Sorte! She did not know her conversations were being recorded. Sorte could not explain herself but Judge Stilloff brought the proceedings to a close that day telling Sorte the tape recording itself would be played the next day and that she might be called again. In the evening the plaintiff's lawyer asked Torill Sorte to explain herself. Having had time to think Sorte said (surprise, surprise) that there was a second phone call between herself and the plaintiff's mother in which the plaintiff's mother had made a complete u-turn to say that she had put her son in a mental hospital ! Torill Sorte was not called to court the next day despite the plaintiff's insistence that she should be called. The tape was played in court the next morning.
In the subsequent police complaints enquiry the plaintiff insisted that the investigating judge, John-Morten Svendgard, ask Torill Sorte who made this alleged second phone call to who and on which date the phone call took place. The plaintiff's mother told the judge that no second phone call ever took place and that Torill Sorte was a complete liar. The judge it appears made no contact with Sorte and decided not to prosecute her, with minimal explanation to the plaintiff. On appeal to the Public Prosecutor (Riksadvokaten) the plaintiff again insisted that Torill Sorte be asked who made the second phone call to who and on what date. Torill Sorte also swore on oath in the court proceedings of January 2002 that the plaintiff had made numerous harrassing and annoying phone calls to her. The Public Prosecutor was given the transcripts of the telephone conversations between the plaintiff and Torill Sorte, to indicate that none of the conversations were annoying or harrassing. The plaintiff's reason for these phone calls was to discuss Heidi Schøne and her perverted behaviour. Sorte was unaware that her phone conversations were being recorded by the plaintiff from 1996 to 1998 when the conversations stopped. The Public Prosecutor - Anne Grøstad - was given a letter from the plaintiff's family doctor in which the doctor stated categorically that the plaintiff had never been a patient in a mental hospital. In the summer of 2003 the Public Prosecutor as we have said, turned down the plaintiff's appeal and refused to prosecute Torill Sorte. Again, it seems Torill Sorte was not contacted by the Public Prosecutor for her comments. The Public Prosecutor's decision letter made no reference whatsoever to the plaintiff's family doctor's letter or to the numerous transcribed conversations between Sorte and the plaintiff. In other words there was a complete cover up and Anne Grøstad's only comments in reply to the plaintiff's disgust was that the decision not to prosecute had "already been made". The plaintiff, months before, had pleaded with Anne Grøstad that she initiate an open investigation. The glass ceiling had been reached, yet again.
In England a conviction for perjury, especially by a police officer, usually results in a term of imprisonment. Judge Stilloff did not refer to the police officer's perjury in his judgement. He further brings into disrepute the already tarnished image of Norwegian 'justice', by his perverse verdict. He did however vindicate the plaintiff in one respect by declaring that the Report circulated by the plaintiff on Heidi Schøne's life was "more or less correct". Drammens Tidende on the 14th July 1998 stated that the Report "had no basis in reality". This followed similar denials in Verdens Gang, Bergens Tidende and Drammens Tidende in May 1995. These newspapers now stand condemned.
This case went to the Court of Appeal in October 2003 as numerous issues remained unresolved (see below).
Judge Stilloff's fellow countrymen have also proved themselves incapable of protecting the rights of the outsider. Take the Drammen lawyer Karsten Gjone declared in breach of proper professional conduct on two counts by the Norwegian Bar Association on issues linked to this case. Similarly the Oslo lawyer, Per Danielsen, declared in breach of proper professional conduct on one count. Danielsen further distinguished himself by exhibiting grossly offensive manners - caught out by a recorded telephone conversation - the tape lodged at the Norwegian Bar Association's headquarters. The Oslo law firm of Elden & Elden deliberately sabotaged the plaintiff's attempts to obtain justice by refusing to issue a writ against Ms. Heidi Schøne in 1999. Early in January 2000 new lawyer Stig Lunde finally issued the long overdue writ. See also the complaint against Bergen lawyer Helge Wesenberg.
Mr Vegard Aaløkken, the lawyer acting for the defendant, Heidi Schøne, only succeeded in helping her further down the road of mental illness. On behalf of his client, Aaløkken declined the judge's request at the very first hearing (August 25th 2000) to settle the matter. Keen to fight the Norwegian corner against the detested foreigner, Aaløkken no doubt hoped to show the world what a hot-shot advocate he was. The result of his tenure: Heidi Schøne lost her marriage, her hair (she now wears a wig) and her mind (she is on a 100% disability pension). Aaløkken also presided over the perjury of Police Sergeant Torill Sorte with whom he worked hand in glove in trying to frame the plaintiff.
The European Court of Human Rights is on the horizon for a case the Norwegians have, so far, not had the integrity, still less the ability to handle. But we should not be suprised by all this. As far back as 1990 the journalist Tony Samstag wrote in the Times newspaper of Norway's hatred of the foreigner.
Click here for Tony Samstag's article.
The Norwegian Establishment is fighting very hard to prevent the depravity of Heidi Schøne being publicised. This from the nation that practically invented promiscuity. But we don't give a damn about the Norwegian cover up. We thank ' The Sun ' Newspaper for their frank articles reviewing the perverse sexual conduct of certain individuals. Perhaps in Norway Judge Stilloff would accuse the editor of ' The Sun' of having a pathological interest in erotica. We thank all the British newspapers for their contributions to freedom of speech. Judge Stilloff would do well to heed the advice given by British newspaper opinion to help him overcome his attatchment to non-judgementalism:
Click here for 'The British Teenager'
Click here for 'Return of the Family'
Click here for 'Tragic cost of the Sexual Revolution'
Our only regret is that we feel extremely sorry for Ms. Schøne's eldest son.
What did he do to deserve a mother like this?
Heidi Schøne: Pictured shortly before her exposure as 'a manipulator of the worst kind'.
Heidi Schøne:- The Norwegian Police saw through her lies.
(Def): 'Among the traditional signs of "dark spirits" are the following: first, that they say the opposite of the truth; second, that they deny their own faults and attribute them to others, preferably to someone who is completely innocent; third, that they continually change their position in an argument, the purpose of argument being only to subvert, to turn aside from truth and goodness; fourth, that they exaggerate the evil of what is good, and the good of what is evil, that is, they define good as evil because of a shadow of imperfection, and evil as good because of a reflection of perfection; they glorify a secondary quality in order to deny an essential one, or to disguise a fundamental flaw; in short, they completely falsify true proportions and invert normal relations .'
(Quoted from Cyril Glassé, author, in his definition of Iblis - "the slanderer").
Heidi Schøne:- "Good sex was all I had in common with Gudmund Johannessen".
"Deep down I knew I might catch Aids" ; Heidi Schøne on her relationship with the I.V heroin user, Gudmund Johannessen.
Heidi Schøne with her ex-husband, a crank, who speaks in tongues. He admitted in Court to "babbling".
Heidi Schøne and her ex-husband. Their downfall revealed a hitherto undiscovered perversion in Norway's establishment. They were divorced in 2001 and she is back under psychiatric care due to the stress of being caught out.
The Court of Appeal case took place on 13th to the 16th October 2003. However on the day before Heidi Schøne was due to be cross-examined by the Appellant, her psychiatrist Dr. Petter Broch wrote a letter to the Court to say that his patient, Heidi Schøne, was unfit to face the cross-examination. Dr Broch further stated that his patient had had a "pathological relationship" with her parents. The Court, consisting of three judges, decided that they themselves would ask Heidi Schøne 'the questions'. Of the three judges, only one spoke English and he decided to ask 10 minutes worth of 'questions' in cross-examination of Heidi. This effectively ruined the whole purpose of the Appellant's case: several hours were needed to question Heidi after 9 years of deliberate silence from her. This woman, described by her psychiatrist, Dr. Broch, as having a "disturbed personality" was yet again able to issue her diatribe against the Appellant, completely unchallenged. After the civil trial finished the Norwegian Police arrested and held the Appellant for the next 30 hours at Drammen Police Station. Before the Appellant was allowed to leave Norway he had to promise, under duress, to remove this website from the internet, on his return to England. Such a condition is surely illegal under the European Convention of Human Rights. The defendent had in late October 2003 been given the name 'Heidi Munchausen' throughout this website, but on 10th January 2004 we have reverted to her correct name of Heidi Schøne as that is the name printed in her own country's newpapers and no concessions will be made to placate perverse Norwegian sensitivities.
The Norwegian authorities on the 28th October 2003 indicated that if this website is not closed they will take further action:-
'If a court order is necessary ØKOKRIM will start the process of contacting the UK Government on this matter'.
We welcome UK Government involvement in this matter. Clearly the Norwegians have not yet learnt to control their racist and xenophobic hatred. They use the law in their own country to cover-up their race hatred. Blessed be the British system of natural justice. The Norwegians will acheive nothing over here.
The Plaintiff's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 14th November 2003. An appeal to the Supreme Court was submitted on February 11th 2004. On March 17th 2004 three judges of the Supreme Court refused to give leave for the appeal to proceed, giving no reasons. The case then went to the European Court of Human Rights under Application number 33144/04.The one thing we do not expect, of course, is for the Norwegian judge Mr Sverre Erik Jebens, appointed in November 2004 to the European Court of Human Rights, to sit on the case. What are the chances of that happening we wonder? Pretty high if past experience is anything to go by. As it turned out Mr Jebens was one of three judges that looked at the Application - and on 2nd June 2006 rejected it. The other judges were two ladies, one a Croatian Mrs Nina Vajic and other an Austrian, Mrs Elizabeth Steiner. To reject an Application the three judges on the Committee have to give a unanimous decision, which of course happened in this case. Nothing wrong at all with the administration of justice in your country is there Judge Sverre Erik Jebens? Of course not ! Not in Norway - whose legal system you have grown up with. You tolerate and condone your country's bigotry and thus perpetuate it. You betray your integrity as a judge at the European Court of Human Rights. When your tenure at Strasbourg finishes visit England and study its system of natural justice. You might learn something. The European Court of Human Rights - where for 2007 there are over 83,000 pending applications.The rejection rate is currently 95%. Careful consideration of each application is, surely, hardly therefore possible.
How is it that the Norwegian newspapers are allowed to do ten front page articles - several of which as at October 2005 were still on the newspapers' own websites - yet the plantiff is prosecuted under the Norwegian Penal Code for responding by publicising his side of the story? Why is no right of reply allowed? Particularly when the source of the information printed in the newspapers has waived her right to anonymity by consenting to her name and photographs being printed in the newspapers. Although the plaintiff was not named, the subject matter was vile in the extreme. A firm response from the plaintiff was inevitable but by naming the very person her own newspapers had named and photographed, the plaintiff had committed a criminal offence. The Norwegians think they are clever but in fact their purpose is just to promote extreme hatred against those whose religion, background or nationality is different. The fact is, the Norwegian newspapers by their self-regulatory rules are obliged to contact 'the victim' before publication for his opinion and if they proceed to publish they are obliged to contact 'the victim' and print his response. But in this particular case out of the 20 occasions when the newspapers should have made contact, no contact was made at all. The plaintiff was easily accessible. Significantly, for the three court hearings in the plaintiff's civil prosecution from 2000 to 2003 not a single journalist turned up to report on the proceedings. The Norwegian Justice minister, Odd Einar Dørum committed himself to the controversy by giving an interview to the Aftenposten newspaper on 15th April 2002 (see below). The plaintiff only learnt about the article at the October 2003 Court of Appeal trial. After the litigation finished in Norway the plaintiff, in May 2004 wrote to Odd Einar Dørum demanding that the cover up over policewoman Torill Sørte's perjury be investigated and asking also exactly why this website contravened the principles of freedom of speech. The plaintiff got a reply in the weeks after the 2005 General election in Norway, when Odd Einar Dørum's party lost the election and Dørum lost his job as minister. The reply was merely to acknowledge the plaintiff's opinion and state that no more inquiries would be answered. The buck stops with the Minister of Justice, who in keeping with Norwegian practice didn't have the courage to admit to the cover up.
On 20th December 2005 Dagbladet.no did a story on the 'Muslim man'. On 21st December 2005 Dagbladet published a fuller version in their daily newspaper. Many of the sickest emails imaginable were then sent to this website's email address. However a big thank you is due to one particular Norwegian gentleman for his very helpful email. Morten Øverbye, the author of the Dagbladet articles, quotes the Englishman as having been a patient in a mental hospital for 2 years in Great Britain. This is completely untrue as even the slightest investigation by Morten Øverbye would have established. As can be seen from the Englishman's conversation with Morten Øverbye on the 12th May 2007, Mr Øverbye has confirmed that Police Officer Torill Sorte was the source of his (false) information causing him to print that the Englishman had been in a mental hospital for two years. Listen to the words. The Norwegian Courts have a letter from the Englishman's family doctor stating categorically that the man has never been a patient in a mental hospital. Indeed this website has confirmed this fact elsewhere. To speak in the sexualised language that Dagbladet would understand, we can safely say that Morten Øverbye prostitutes his profession by his sexualised trash. The only paper that Morten Øverbye should be involved with is toilet paper as he is so full of shit. It is worth confirming again that Heidi Schøne herself has been a long term mental patient thanks to abuse by Norwegians. In comparison see how the English courts deal with the likes of Heidi Schøne: the case of Merete Underwood, Norwegian lady. The policewoman Torill Sorte also prostitutes her profession by her outrageous lies regarding the Englishman. She is a cheat and has no place in the Police service in Norway. The judge, Agnar A. Nilsen Jnr., at the Court of Appeal in October 2003 deliberately protected policewoman Torill Sorte, thus tarnishing further the reputation of the already xenophobic judiciary.
Judge Agnar Arthur Nilsen Jnr. of Dueveien 10, 3080 Holmestrand, Norway undoubtedly ranks as one of the most bigoted jurists on today's legal scene. An enemy to the principles of natural justice.
A complaint was made on the 20th December 2005 by the Englishman to Justice Minister Mr Knut Storberget arising from the hate crime commited by Dagbladet (with the assistance of Chief Inspector Torill Sorte). In February 2006 the matter was given a Ministerial reference number of 13113. Several reminders were sent by the Englishman to the Minister throughout the year and logged at the Ministry's documentation centre. Yet by the autumn of 2006 Terje Pedersen, State Secretary to Knut Storberget, told the Englishman that he had no idea at all that a complaint had been lodged. No doubt thanks to his civil servants keeping him in the dark. Terje Pedersen's response since being informed? Silence. One whole year of silence since the complaint was submitted. And what did Aftenposten newspaper report on the 5th September 2006? They quoted a defiant Knut Storberget speaking about 'hate crimes', as follows:
Norway's top legal official wants to usher in tougher penalties for those convicted of what he calls "hate crimes".......... Justice Minister Storberget is promising more funding to battle hate crimes and a change in the law that he hopes would also tackle the problem.
Storberget proposes a so-called "hate paragraph" in Norway's criminal code that would allow judges to hand out tougher punishment to people convicted of "crimes that are grounded in others' religious beliefs, skin colour, nationality or ethnic origins......"
"It's extremely important that we fight this kind of crime," he told newspaper Aftenposten. "Some types of crime are on the wane in Norway, but this is still hanging around and I fear it will occur more often and get more brutal."
So Mr Storberget, the Englishman looks forward to hearing from you in the not too distant future....
The Englishman, after much persistence, managed at long last to speak to Terje Pedersen on 1st March 2007, when Mr Pedersen said that this type of complaint - hate crime - does not come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice. But that it is dealt with by the Attorney General, Mr Tor-Aksel Busch. So it took 14 months for the Ministry to tell the Englishman that. Plenty of goodwill there then! We know the Norwegian central government offices had looked at this website on a number of occasions. Yet Mr Pedersen offers no apology or explanation for his Ministry's delay in dealing with the matter. Everything is so secretive with these Norwegian officials. So many of them fuck around from year to year...... no, from decade to decade...... explaining nothing and doing nothing. As for Police Inspector Torill Sorte, she was now on secondment to the Police union at Oslo Police headquarters. Olso Police received the Englishman's call on 12th February 2007 followed by a call to Torill Sorte herself.
On 2nd March 2007 the Englishman faxed the Attorney General, Tor-Aksel Busch the papers. What to expect from Tor-Aksel Busch? We shall see. In the meantime a special thank you to another Norwegian gentleman for his email.
On 19th June 2007 Johan Martin Welhaven, the Deputy Director of the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs (Spesialenheten For Politisaker) sent his report on the investigation into the matter to the Englishman, saying, inter alia:-
In the complaint submitted by [the Englishman] to the Public Prosecution Authority on 2 March 2007, he reports Police Inspector Torill Sorte for giving false information to the media, and the media for its coverage of him. The Public Prosecution Authority passed on the complaint to the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs on 22 March 2007. The Public Prosecution Authority has concluded that pursuant to the third subsection of Section 34-9 of the Norwegian prosecution guidelines, the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs should also consider the complaint against Dagbladet and Eiker Bladet.
[The Englishman] accuses Dagbladet and Eiker Bladet of promoting religious hatred. He refers to an article published on Dagbladet.no on 20 December 2005 and to articles in Dagbladet on 21 December 2005 and Eiker Bladet on 11 January 2006. The articles are enclosed with the complaint.
Police Inspector Torill Sorte is accused of giving false information to the press. The articles state that [the Englishman] was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution in 1992. In the article in Eiker Bladet, Police Inspector Sorte is quoted as saying that she considers [the Englishman] to be mentally unstable.
The complaint also contains a declaration by a doctor that [the Englishman] has never been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution.
[The Englishman] has previously reported Police Inspector Torill Sorte to the Bureau for perjury at Drammen District Court in 2002. The case was dropped due to insufficient evidence. [The Englishman] appealed, but the Public Prosecution Authority upheld the decision. The Public Prosecution Authority has sent us its verdict in the case.
The complaint against the newspapers
The articles on Dagbladet.no and in the paper version of Dagbladet are mainly about Heidi Schøne's description of being sexually harassed and stalked by [the Englishman] for 23 years. The article in Eiker Bladet is about [the Englishman's] harassment of Police Inspector Torill Sorte, and also mentions that [the Englishman] has been bothering Heidi Schøne and her family since 1982.
There is no doubt that the articles contain defamatory remarks, including the claim that [the Englishman] is a sex maniac. This and other assertions, in so far as they are unlawful, may be covered by Sections 246 and 247 of the Norwegian Penal Code, both with regards to the person who has made the claim and the person who publishes it (abetment). The Bureau has not found it necessary to consider the individual claims of the articles with respect to their lawfulness and the question of freedom of speech, as the facts of the case suggest that it would be possible to provide sufficient justification for the assertions for them not to be punishable; cf. Section 249 no. 1 of the Norwegian Penal Code. We here refer to the information that came out at Drammen District Court in 2002, to Eiker, Modum and Sigdal's verdict of 17 October 2003, and to the information on [the Englishman's] website www.norway-shockers.com. It is therefore the view of the Bureau that there is no relevant information to suggest that the newspapers have been guilty of any punishable offences in publishing the abovementioned articles.
With respect to the ethical aspects of the articles, this is a matter for the Norwegian Press Complaints Commission. We assume that [the Englishman] is familiar with this organisation as it is mentioned on www.norway-shockers.com.
The Bureau has noted that the articles which have been reported to the police, can also be read by anyone on [the Englishman's] website www.norway-shockers.com.
The complaint against Police Inspector Torill Sorte
The information that [the Englishman's] mother helped to have him committed to a psychiatric institution was previously made public at Drammen District Court. In conjunction with that case, the Public Prosecution Authority did not find any reason to prosecute Police Inspector Sorte for perjury. The statements of Police Inspector Sorte were also investigated by the Special Police Investigation Commission (SEFO), who found it proven that no offence had taken place pursuant to Section 121 and sub-section 1 of Section 325 of the Norwegian Penal Code. We therefore cannot find any reason to reopen the case in relation to breach of confidentiality. The only question that remains is thus whether the contents of the articles in Dagbladet and Eiker Bladet are grounds to suspect Police Inspector Sorte of gross negligence in the performance of her duties.
For there to be gross negligence in the performance of her duties, a specific investigation must uncover "established, culpable behaviour which results in a severe reprimand for lack of due care". This has been specified by the Supreme Court through several verdicts, including Rt. 1986 page 670 and Rt. 1995 page 1195.
It is not clear from the articles in Dagbladet and on Dagbladet.no that, in connection with the writing of the articles, Police Inspector Torill Sorte made any comment about the involuntary committal of [the Englishman], or about who may have played a part in having him committed. In the article of 20 December 2005, Police Inspector Sorte is only mentioned in a postscript to the article. The whole of the article appears to be based on the comments of Heidi Schøne, who we also assume to be familiar with Police Inspector Sorte's testimony to Drammen District Court. In the article of 21 December 2005, Police Inspector Sorte is quoted, but only in relation to [the Englishman's] harassment of her. It is therefore not considered likely that she repeated the contents of her testimony to Drammen District Court to Dagbladet. Regardless, it is unlikely that this in itself would constitute gross negligence.
With respect to the comment to Eiker Bladet that [the Englishman] is clearly mentally unstable, we consider it neither punishable as negligence nor defamatory. We here refer to the contents of [the Englishman's] website and the other facts of the case.
The Bureau has decided that on the basis of the above, there do not appear to be any grounds to investigate further whether Police Inspector Sorte has been guilty of any punishable offence in terms of her statements in the three articles referred to.
The case against Police Inspector Torill Sorte, Dagbladet and Eiker Bladet will be dropped, as there are no reasonable grounds for investigating whether any punishable offences have been committed; cf. the first subsection of Section 224 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
[The Englishman], Police Inspector Torill Sorte and the editors of Dagbladet, Dagbladet.no and Eiker Bladet will be informed of the decision.
A copy will be sent to the Chief of Police of Søndre Buskerud for his information.
This case has been decided under authority to prosecute delegated by the Chief of the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs, cf. subsection 2 of Section 34-3 of the prosecution guidlines; cf. subsection 1.
The Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs, Hamar, 19 June 2007
Johan Martin Welhaven
The Englishman replied on the 12 July 2007 as follows:
For the attention of Johan Martin Welhaven
2 PAGE FAX AND POST
Dear Mr Welhaven,
Dagbladet, Eiker Bladet and Torill Sorte
I received yesterday your letter dated 28th June 2007 and please accept this letter to you as my appeal against your decision on all counts.
I note that your department have purposely not returned my calls, in keeping with the usual cover up that precedes all your police investigations into my complaints.
I note also from your decision that you have not spoken to Morten Øverbye, the journalist with Dagbladet who wrote those stories on me on 20th and 21st December 2005 . If you had then he would have confirmed to you that Police Officer Torill Sorte was the source of the (false) information which led him to print that I had been in a mental hospital for 2 years. As this is clearly not the case, then Torill Sorte is an abject liar and has purposely given false information to the newspapers to help blacken my character. Morten Øverbye himself, as you will see from the transcribed telephone conversation I had with him on 12th May 2007, all of which can be read on my website, has told me that, presuming the fact that I have never been in a mental hospital to be correct, then Torill Sorte is a liar. The whole conversation is on tape ready to be sent to you. But speak with him first.
In particular you yourself are in dereliction of duty for not speaking to Morten Øverbye or Torill Sorte or indeed myself to obtain clarification and certainty as to the facts.
Your personal opinion that Eiker Bladet, quoting Torill Sorte, are correct to call me “clearly mentally unstable” is an indication of your complete bad faith and bigotry in this investigation. You say that my website and other facts in the case support the allegation that I am “clearly mentally unstable.” You do not mention which facts and what in particular in my website supports your belief. Reasons must be given. The fact is that if someone like me writes certain home truths about the Norwegian system that upsets Norwegians, then automatically the offender is “mentally ill”. This approach is an age old inbred Norwegian trick. And it is probably the reason why the British authorities have not co-operated with your police in any way over your ardent desire to have my website shut down. In England we call it freedom of speech. Your Police authority's dirty tricks to get me prosecuted and fined mean nothing to anyone over here. What you people have done to me is unforgivable and your people's perverted actions must continue to be exposed on the internet.
Dagbladet, in their articles on me have specifically mentioned my religion and coupled this with slanderous allegations which resulted in those many emails denigrating me as a Muslim and the religion of Islam. Dagbladet have therefore clearly incited religious hatred and it is just another reflection on your inbred mentality that you cannot accept this. The British Police accept that those emails are in the nature of a hate crime and it is deceitful of Interpol Norway (composed of partisan Norwegians) to lie to Interpol London on this matter. That is why I have asked Interpol London to request Interpol Norway to reassess the matter with clarification and explanation.
Please also understand that as Torill Sorte is quite clearly a liar and perjurer then it is my absolute right to have the freedom of speech to say this on a website. It is not harassment of her. Just as I have the same right to express my side of the story on the mental patient Heidi Schøne. You will see in any case I have support for my views from others whose contributions are quoted on my website. You people establish a whole series of falsehoods and build on them to create a sick fantasy. The world deserves a website such as mine to see the scale of bigotry and hatred that exists in your country.
I look forward to hearing from you on this appeal.
On 18th July 2007 the Englishman sent by recorded delivery post to Johan Martin Welhaven a disc (see above) with the words of Morten Øverbye telling the Englishman that he had spoken to Torill Sorte and that she was the source of his information that the Englishman had allegedly been in a mental hospital for 2 years. With Øverbye admitting that if it was not true that the Englishman had been in a mental hospital then Torill Sorte was "lying".
The Norwegians were now in posession of cast-iron proof that Torill Sorte had herself directly given false information to Morten Øverbye at Dagbladet.
Johan Martin Welhaven replied by sending the Englishman a copy of a letter written to the Public Prosecutor on 17th August 2007, in Norwegian. He acknowledged receiving the cd-disc as can be seen. The Englishman then spoke to Mr Welhaven on the 28th August 2007 and was told by him that he had, in spite of the damning evidence on the cd, nevertheless recommended to the Public Prosecutor that Torill Sorte had committed no punishable offence! And that it was now up to the Public Prosecutor to decide what to do. Johan Martin Welhaven - pseudo-psychiatrist and another exponent of the ancient art of total fucking bullshit.
On 28th September 2007 we received two emails from Norway from the same sender who had bothered to research the facts properly. Well done!
On 5th November 2007 the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Oslo, on the Englishman's appeal decided that: "No grounds have been found for reversing the decision not to proceed with the case....." The Memorandum of Response was signed by Knut H.Kallerud - Chief Public Prosecutor and Anne Grøstad - Public Prosecutor.
When will the Norwegians be cured of their sickness? Never. Because Norwegiannaires' disease has no known cure. Tony Samstag of the Times newspaper of England was spot on in his December 1990 article on the Norwegians - they abhor the stranger in their midst. What use is their high profile diplomatic involvment in Sri Lanka and the Middle East, when at heart - on their own doorstep - they abuse a powerless individual just because he is not one of them?
Chief of Police exposed online
Politimester henges ut på nettet
oa.no 20th September 2011
Trakassering på nett
oa.no 21st September 2011
The new (2011) Police Chief in Vestoppland District in Norway, Johan Martin Welhaven, colluded with his local press to spout the usual Norwegian bullshit. Johan Martin Welhaven in 2007 condoned the sickest emails imaginable that were sent by Norwegians to the British lawyer. Emails that Interpol London sent to Interpol Norway who in turn passed them on to Police Complaints investigator Johan Martin Welhaven to examine. Welhaven expressed not one word of censure or regret. He was protecting Police Sergeant Torill Sorte whose comments to Dagbladet in 2005 were the catalyst for the Islamophobic hate emails. The 'General Hatred of Muslims' link had always been on the Norway Shockers website. The Islamophobic aspect is not a recent innovation as Welhaven claims. Welhaven was well aware that the British lawyer had never been a patient in a psychiatric unit. We are told by Oppland Arbeiderblad that the publicity engendered by this website has taken its toll on Johan Martin Welhaven. Perhaps it is a case now of "clearly mentally unWelhaven?" Torill Sorte and Johan Martin Welhaven are the sort of bigots that are typical of the Norwegian establishment. This ignominy will follow them both for the rest of their days.
Life outside is difficult, life within can be the way you want it to be, but life without justice is no life at all.
Foetus:- "Don't kill me mummy .............. I'll be a healthy child when I'm born. I want to live!"
Mummy:- "I only wanted a fuck, not a little fucker like you, so, CRUSH you to death, I will. CRUNCH, CRUNCH, CRUNCH and WHOOSH out you'll go into the dustbin. I want to live my own life first and besides, your father.......is just not interested. Bye, Bye..............."
Foetus:- "But mummy, mummy, I love you.................."