I wrote to Advokat Per Danielsen a brief letter. I then spoke to him over
the phone and I told him Tor Erling Staff didn't have the time to act for
me and that Gjone didn't do anything in eight months, to which Danielsen replied:
"Well perhaps you didn't pay him enough". I replied I'd given him
£100 with my first letter, but he'd turned down my suggestion for another
sum on account (presumably on the understanding he'd be paid when he'd finished
his investigations). To prove I was not mean, I told Danielsen that Tor Staff
had asked me for £1,000 on account. So now in turn Danielsen asked for
the same, which I sent him, together with copies of all the newspaper articles
and other relevant documents and correspondence, i.e. I sent him all he needed,
with my covering letter of 6th October 1998:-
Dear Mr. Danielsen,
Heidi Schøne
Further to our telephone conversation this morning, I left a message with
Gjone's secretary asking for the file to be sent to you, but I suspect I'll
have some problems with him sending it on to you. Tor Erling Staff did today
already put in the post to me the papers I sent him. So to save time, I have
today photocopied the whole of my file and enclose:-
1. Copies of four newspaper articles from 1995 and 1998
2. A summary of events entitled "Heidi Schøne" and "Press
Release" which please read through first to get an overview of the case
3. Copies of letters I managed to find (thank God!) from 1982-1985 from Heidi
Schøne (now Schøne) to me.
4. All the correspondence in this case from 1990 - 1998
No matter what, I want this girl and the newspapers in Court. The girl must
be shown to be a liar.
The newspapers did not name me but at least two Norwegians knew it was about
me and that in law is sufficient to sue the newspapers.
Enclosed is your cheque. I'll be in touch.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx
I had already explained that morning on the phone to Per Danielsen that I was out of time to sue for the three 1995 articles but wanted to sue over the 14th July 1998 Drammens Tidende article.
I had phoned Karsten Gjone's secretary with the request that she send my
file on to Per Danielsen.
After he'd had all my papers for a week, I phoned Danielsen to see how things
were going and he specifically told me to phone him a fortnight hence - 30th
October, so I could discuss his review of my papers. On the 30th I phoned
but he was too busy to speak to me.
He was not too busy on the same day, however, to dictate a letter as follows:-
Dear Mr. xxx,
Heidi Schøne
We have just received a letter from your former lawyer, Mr. Karsten Gjone.
Enclosed was a big pile of documents.
In order to get to the bottom of this, I am afraid we will have to ask you
for more money up front, before we can get back to you.
We would therefore appreciate if you could pay an additional NOK 10.000 -
as soon as possible.
We look forward to hearing from you again.
Sincerely yours,
Per Danielsen
Attorney at law
I wrote back to him on 2nd November by fax:-
Dear Mr. Danielsen,
Heidi Schøne
Thank you for your letter of 30th October. I also wrote to you on 30th October
so you should receive that letter soon.
Please ignore the file you received from Karsten Gjone. You already have a
duplicate set of papers sent with my letter of 6th October. Keep Gjone's file
safe. He did not write to me once in eight months and refused my request to
send him more money.
In order for you to get to the bottom of this quickly, all that is necessary
for you to do is, from my file, read the 9 page typed report "Heidi Schøne",
my 10 page fax letter to Gjone dated 24th July 1998 and the typed up "Press
Release". Also read Heidi's letters to me, as well as, of course, the
newspapers. You will then have an excellent idea of my case. The other letters
are incidental.
I have already supplied you with a cheque for £1,000 - which you have
cashed. It seems to me that you have not managed to make a start on my papers.
However, I must make it clear to you that, as I have pointed out to you in
my letter of 30th October, you must send Heidi Schøne a "By Hand"
(not posted) letter informing her that you have instructions to take civil
proceedings against her for lying and trying to pervert the course of justice.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx
He wrote back on November 5th saying:-
Dear Mr. xxx,
HEIDI Schøne
Referring to your letters dated October 30 and November 2, please let me establish
some ground rules:-
I am not willing to threaten a person I do not know with a lawsuit without
have considered whether you have grounds for doing this or not.
Likewise I cannot start lawsuits against newspapers before having studied
your case more carefully.
In order to complete our preliminary work, we must, therefore insist on you
paying an additional NOK 10.000, -, before we can get back to you with our
advice.
We look forward to hearing from you again.
Sincerely yours,
Per Danielsen
Attorney-at-law
Considering I sent him the relevant papers on October 6th, he had had the best part of four weeks to establish easily that Heidi was lying and in my opinion could have written a letter putting her on notice of a possible claim. As far as suing the newspapers was concerned, I had not asked him to issue a Writ forthwith. Deep down I felt Danielsen was not going to help me either and I was not in the mood to give him the benefit of the doubt. I had lost all patience. So I wrote to him by fax on 9th November as follows:-
Dear Mr. Danielsen,
Heidi Schøne
Thanks for your letter of 5th November. I feel a degree of hostility in your
letters and I think it will be best if you return all my papers and money
(save for your administrative expenses).
I sent you all the necessary papers a month ago and it was you who specifically
set a date about two weeks ago for a telephone chat, an appointment you could
not keep. I had assumed that with £1,000 already in the bank and four
weeks or so with the papers, this would be enough time to see that I have
a prima facie case against Heidi Schøne. A letter to her simply stating
that your client was 'considering' taking a case against her is surely appropriate
now.
For you to come back to me on October 30th with the letter that you need another
NOK 10.000 as you have received more papers from Gjone told me that you did
not read properly my letter of 6th October. You already had all the necessary
papers: Gjone's file was a duplicate.
Tor Erling Staff had required £1,000 only, but returned the papers because
he didn't have the time to take on the case. All he had asked for was £1,000
and by even British legal fee charging rates, this is enough to be getting
on with.
After Wesenberg's pathetic performance and Gjone's when he refused me sending
him more money, I will not start paying out huge sums of money until I have
the knowledge that the lawyer can overcome the police cover up.
Everyone is going out of their way to protect Heidi Schøne and so if I
ask you to speak to [xxxxxxxxxx], then there is a good reason. If you can't
form an initial opinion on £1,000 then I get suspicious.
So I will find another lawyer and will not now send all these papers to him.
I will write a two-page letter asking for the proof to back up the allegations
that have been printed in the newspapers against me. The new lawyer can then
ask the police for the proof and issue a writ against Heidi to force her to
answer for her lies.
You see, in spite of my own great efforts to obtain evidence and proof from
the police, it has not been forthcoming. And this makes me feel that the evidence
against me doesn't exist: well I know it doesn't exist as I didn't do the
things that have been printed. But getting the police to confirm this is very
difficult. Heidi Schøne is suffering terribly because of the great
success I have had in telling the Norwegian people my side of the story. The
police want to protect her from a civil court case and will make it their
job to influence any lawyer to lay off her. So until I see some real action
£1,000 is all I'm prepared to pay.
Please then return the papers.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx.
I later phoned Danielsen and confirmed my request. He said he'd send back
my papers and wanted to end the conversation and say goodbye. But I said "Hold
on. Have you spoken to Karsten Gjone?" "Yes, I have", he replied,
and on my further enquiry promised that he did now allow himself to be unduly
influenced by what Gjone had said. "No", I thought suspiciously,
"of course not. Only ask me for another 10,000 Kroner for the preliminary
work and refuse to talk to me on the phone for our scheduled telephone conversation!"
I feel I just might have made a mistake in telling Gjone of the new lawyer,
Danielsen. In case my hunch was right, the next lawyers I instructed, Elden
& Elden of Oslo, I sent absolutely no copy correspondence from the 1990's
but only the newspaper articles, copies of Heidi's letters and the story in
English I'd sent the newspapers in 1995, together with a covering letter with
specific questions to obtain answers from Heidi Schøne.
I had sent a complaint to Gjone's insurance company, Vesta, over his failure
to observe the time limits to sue the newspapers. Vesta were waiting on the
outcome of my complaint against him to the Disciplinary Tribunal. On 1st December
1998, Danielsen wrote to me :-
Dear Mr. xxx,
HEIDI Schøne ETC.
In accordance with your telefax dated November 9, 1998, we have now closed
your file.
Because you only have sent me duplicates, I see no reason for returning the
papers we have received.
In any case we would like to keep a full set of copies, for file reasons.
If you still want something returned, please let us know. We will then have
to charge you copying expenses.
I am sorry you stopped our assignment in the middle of the process. I am also
sorry you don't appreciate us not taking too many initiatives before we feel
we have our feet on the ground.
Our asking for an additional up front payment has nothing to do with being
more expensive than other lawyers in Oslo. It simply has to do with the fact
that having to study approximately one kilo of documents requires more man
hours than your £1,000 would cover for.
Before you stopped our work, I'm sorry to say that we reached the preliminary
conclusion that you do not have a case against any newspaper. We could however
be wrong, but then we would have to go through more careful studies, and we
did not get to that.
Enclosed please find our invoice. Please advise what we should do with the
rest of your money.
Sincerely Yours,
Per Danielsen
Attorney at Law
On December 7th I phoned him up recording the conversation:-
PD. Danielsen.
F. Yeah, hi Mr. Danielsen. It's Frederick xxx here. Morning to you. I got
your letter.
PD. Yes.
F. Thanks, but it's Mr. Gjone's file that I'd like to have back. You can keep
what I sent you [on 6th October 1998] but it's his file that I really must
have back 'cos I want to see what he's done on it. There's obviously no reason
at all for you to keep that.
PD. I'll think about it, OK [said in a tone of voice that did not make me
feel optimistic at getting Gjone's file back. And as it's my absolute right
to have my files back, what was there to think about!].
F. Well it's something that I won't stand for you keeping at all. Not for
a minute longer, because as you know full well there's a complaint against
Mr. Gjone and in law I understand there's no reason whatsoever to justify
you keeping it, you see.
PD. I'll just copy it then.
F. Well, there's no reason for you to copy it. [Because he had his own full
set of papers sent with my letter of 6th October 1998. And he still implied
he'll charge me for the copying. Further, when I no longer wanted him to act
for me, why would I want such a man to keep sensitive and personal records
on me for ever, so right then I thought I should have the lot back and said:]
Why do you want to keep anything then? [What were his "file reasons"?]
PD. I don't have time to argue with you on the phone [Read:- I don't have
time to even discuss this with you or let you test my knowledge of what I've
said I've done].
F. I'm paying for the call.
PD. You want to pay for my time as well? [What, on top of his 8,500 Kroner
bill?]
F. I don't think I have to pay for your time in law [to discuss his professional
conduct or lack of it]. You see I'm a lawyer, I know what goes on. I see your
invoice hasn't got one word of what you've done for me.
PD. OK.
F. You're supposed to put a list of how you justify the 8,500 Kroner.
PD. We've done that.
F. No, you haven't really explained what you've done for … …
PD. We have.
F. Well in the covering letter you've just said you've read through it but
that's not sufficient. I know what I'm saying because I've been a lawyer for
ten years.
PD. Ah huh.
F. The thing is you didn't explain to me why you have to read through "a
kilo" of documents when I told you to ignore Gjone's file. You never
took my call on that or explained that. That obviously leads me to think something
funny's going on … … You understand!
Then astonishingly a full 8 second silence in which Per Danielsen ignored
me, followed by:-
F. Are you still there?
PD. No, not really
F. Well what's the matter, why aren't you talking? Is there a problem?
PD. I'm busy [i.e. I Frederick xxx don't matter a damn].
F. Huh?
PD. I'm busy. If you want questions answered, just write us a letter or a
fax. ["No thank you", I thought, "just like my other letters
and faxes were 'answered'"].
F. I don't want to write. I've been writing enough. I was told by the Complaints
Bureau you must send Gjone's file to me and I will be putting in a complaint
about you immediately if I don't get that file back. There's no way you can
justify what you've done. It's ludicrous. I will be putting in a complaint.
PD. Pardon?
F. I will be putting in a complaint about you.
PD. You can do whatever you like.
F. Yeah, I will. Goodbye.
PD. Bye-bye.
And followed this by a letter faxed the same day - 7th December 1998:-
Dear Mr. Danielsen,
Heidi Schøne
I refer to your letter of December 1st 1998 and our subsequent telephone conversation
this morning.
I am writing formally to request that you immediately make available for collection
Gjone's file. This will be picked up by Arild B. Pedersen, who is associated
with his bxxxer's law firm in Moss (Tlf:- (69) 27330).
I have spoken to Rune Jensen this morning, the lawyer handling my complaint
against Gjone. He has confirmed that I am entitled to have my papers back.
You have two sets of papers - Gjone's and your own. Keep the papers I sent
you with my letter of 6th October, but I must have back Gjone's file. This
will show me what he's done and is something you will not be allowed to deprive
me of. Your second and third paragraphs of your letter of 1st December make
no sense at all.
Regarding stopping your assignment "in the middle of the process",
I rather had the impression from your secretary, and from your refusal to
talk to me on 30th October (a date after all, which you yourself asked me
to call you on), that you hadn't had time to make much, if any, of a start
on the papers. I gather you were still busy in Court. So you must have got
a lot of reading in after that.
Regarding your refusal to take "too many initiatives" (your fourth
paragraph), there was only one initiative I wanted you to take and that was
communicated to you in my letter of 30th October, i.e. to ensure a letter
was delivered to Heidi Schøne "informing her that I have instructed
lawyers to consider taking civil action against her for lying/attempting to
pervert the course of justice". The scale of her deception must have
been obvious to you if you charge me NKR 8,500 for work done up to the time
I terminated my instructions on 9th November (yet on November 5th you indicated
in your letter you had not had the time to consider basically whether Heidi
was liable to face proceedings).
I find it strange that in eight months Gjone cannot get off one single letter
to Heidi Schøne and neither yourself, after taking £650 sterling
[his 8,500 Kroner bill] of my money, a simple letter to Heidi was refused.
Remember she lied - not me. A fact supported by policeman Svein Jensen as
long ago as 1995. Heidi Schøne and the newspapers brought on themselves
the firm response I initiated.
In your penultimate paragraph you say your preliminary conclusion was that
I don't "seem to have a case against any newspaper. We could be wrong."
But what are your reasons for this preliminary conclusion?
I already told you - twice - the first time being in my first letter to you
of 6th October that two Norwegians who knew me, read the newspapers of 1995
and knew it was me the articles referred to. I already know that the time
limit for suing the newspapers for the May '95 articles is passed. Hence my
complaint against Gjone. That leaves the July 1998 article only, so in all
I don't need much of your time to consider the case against the newspapers.
I knew I had a prima facie case against the newspapers up until May 1998.
But I wanted the journalists of the newspapers and their editors to be subpoenaed
to the trial of Heidi Schøne. You spoke to Gjone. I asked you to speak
to [xxxxxxxxxx], who knew my case well enough - why didn't you?
A few minutes on the phone to discuss these matters was denied me by you -
why? And why not a word of advice on Heidi's lies? Your silence on her false
accusations is a serious omission. Indeed, it follows on from Gjone's ten
months silence on the specifics of Heidi's deception.
I must say it is not just Heidi Schøne and the newspapers I am up against
is it? Please provide me with a detailed summary of the work you have done
to justify your charge of NKR 8,500.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx
Cc. Rune Jensen (tlf (33) 46 22 22) Disciplinary Bureau
The next day I put in a complaint against Per Danielsen to the Norwegian
lawyers Disciplinary Tribunal enclosing a copy of the taped conversation.
My correspondence with Danielsen continued.
Letter dated December 8th 1998 to me:-
Dear Mr. xxx,
Heidi Schøne
Referring to your letter dated December 7, we have now copied the documents
you want, in accordance with your instructions. The pile can be picked up
in our office as you wish.
Your letter is full of incorrect allegations, but I see no point in pursuing
this because we have already closed the file.
The work done is in accordance with hours spent. Because you ordered us to
stop in the middle of the process and refused to pay additional funds as requested,
I see no point in going into more details than simply stating that you certainly
would have had problems winning cases against the newspapers and Heidi Schøne.
That would at least require more work and money than you were willing to invest.
I hope this answers your questions.
Best regards,
Per Danielsen
Attorney at law
My reply dated December 12th 1998:-
Dear Mr. Danielsen,
Heidi Schøne
I am in receipt of your letter of December 8th. Your letter does not answer
any of my questions. Moreover how am I to place much reliance on what you
tell me in view of the manner of your last telephone conversation with me?
Your conduct fell way, way below that expected of a professional man.
The allegations I have made in my previous correspondence, if you have nothing
to hide, must be answered by you. Are you trying to tell me that an explanation
will not be forthcoming just because you have "closed the file".
A file that it seems you are extremely anxious to hold on to? Why, when I
have told you I no longer wish you to act for me?
A complaint by me against you has been received by Rune Jensen and he is passing
it on to the correct Complaints Bureau for your area.
For your information, in the Spring of 1996 the policeman Svein Jensen of
Mjøndalen told me he did not believe Schøne's story when she was
at the police and nor did Mr. Jensen trust her. Further the journalist Ingunn
Røren had told me in the Spring 1996 that she did not know whether
or not to believe Heidi's story about her allegation of my threatening to
kill her son and specifically told me that she is not saying I did make the
threat, but that is what Heidi said I did.
This evidence, which I have on tape, is sufficient to give me a good chance
in the courts. If you had allowed me to speak to you - something I always
insisted on - you would have allowed yourself the chance to hear me tell you
this. It is in the papers you have been given by me anyway. I told you that
we must have a telephone conversation to get to the bottom of the matter quickly.
But no! You would not speak to your client, over a matter that after all had
made huge headlines in Norway. A matter that took Karsten Gjone eight months
to do God knows what! After all the time I have had to wait, still you would
not to speak to me, a fellow lawyer, in spite of having cashed my cheque for
£1,000.
It is the detail that is important in this case - you are just being evasive
and this leads me to believe you are hiding much. You are frightened to let
me test your knowledge of what you say you have done. I want conclusive proof
from you.
You had the newspapers and you had a two page statement "Press Release"
telling of my discoveries after 1995. I had to do a huge amount of research
and investigation myself, but I'd condensed it into two pages. You had a résumé
on one page of Heidi's past in Norwegian. That would not take long to read
through. Yet you give me no comments on it? What do you think of Heidi's past
- of her being in a psychiatric unit? Of her sleeping with a man she knows
to be taking heroin? Why don't you tell me?
I want all my money back. Your past correspondence, your last phone call,
your complete refusal to answer my questions, discuss the case over the phone
etc. etc. justifies me telling you that "your service" has been
a complete disservice. I got more advice over the phone from two other Oslo
lawyers - at no charge whatsoever - than I did from you. These other lawyers
were unfortunately too busy to take on my case, but they gave me great hope.
I also want all the documents, papers etc. back that I gave you on 6th October,
PLUS Gjone's whole file. I don't want you to keep anything, in fact. If the
Complaints Bureau decides you are entitled to keep copies of what I sent you
on October 6th then so be it, but no more.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx
cc Norwegian Complaints Bureau
On 15th January 1999 Per Danielsen wrote to the Lawyers Disciplinary Tribunal:-
Dear Sirs,
SAK NR. 129/98: xxx - ADVOKAT PER DANIELSEN
Referring to the Disciplinary Committee's letter dated January 12, 1999, I
have the following comments:
He informed me that he was not satisfied with work done by his former lawyer,
Mr. Gjone in Drammen.
As I understood he wanted a "second opinion" and assistance with
regard to initiating libel suits against several newspapers and a special
lawsuit against a woman named Heidi Schøne.
Our office asked for £1,000 to be payed in advance, which Mr. xxx actually
paid.
Having received a large pile of documents from Mr. Gjone, I started working
with the different cases.
After having done substantial work, I found that more man hours than Mr. xxx's
up front fee would cover for, would be needed. We therefore asked for an additional
sum of money, but Mr. xxx never paid this.
Instead Mr xxx starting acting irrationally.
He instructed me to warn Ms. Heidi Schøne that I was considering starting
a law-suit against her.
I refused to do so, without being sure that he had grounds for pursual.
Mr. xxx did not like this, and started to send a number of telefaxes and in
addition called me a number of times.
In accordance with Mr. xxx's instructions, I stopped working in the middle
of the process.
I have billed him for a total of NOK 8.500.-. corresponding with the number
of man hours spent.
Mr. xxx then wanted his documents, which have been made available for him.
He has stated in a telefax that the documents would be picked up, but we have
not heard from anybody.
I refer to my relevant letters to Mr. xxx, already enclosed with the complaint,
to substantiate what I write.
As to the particulars of his complaint, please let me state the following:
xxx's letter dated December 7, 1998
It is not clear to me what Mr. xxx is complaining about, but it seems to have
something to do with the returning of his file.
We have acted in accordance with Mr. xxx's instructions and wishes. Please
read my letter dated December 8, 1998.
We have not charged anything, although we certainly are entitled to charge
for copying.
Mr. xxx has forbidden us to mail him his file in the post, and that's okay
with us. His associate has however not picked up the file yet.
xxx's letter dated December 8, 1998
Mr. xxx in this letter asks if a lawyer can charge NOK 8.500, - with, in effect,
nothing but his word that he has done anything.
It is difficult to interpret what Mr. xxx means by this. If he really is asking
whether we have charged him too much or not, it is clear that we have charged
him for man hours spent, as explained in letters to him. In the mentioned
letters we also have explained what work has been done.
Mr. xxx further refers to the fact that he has instructed me to ignore Mr.
Gjone's file - in writing. Then he asks if I am entitled to ignore the request,
then charge him for reading the file.
Here Mr. xxx clearly misunderstands.
First I must remind Mr. xxx that he wanted me to go through Mr. Gjone's file
in the first place. This was of course necessary in order to evaluate whether
he had cases or not.
Then, suddenly, when we asked for more money, he later instructed me not to
do the work I had already done. Of course Mr. xxx is entitled to instruct
his lawyer, but then the lawyer in return is entitled to refuse carrying out
the instructions by cancelling the assignment. It did not come to this. However,
I certainly do not want to work for Mr. xxx. Among other things because he
gives confusing instructions.
Mr. xxx's letter also contains allegations against the undersigned personally.
I do not find it necessary to comment on this.
Mr. xxx's letter dated December 13, 1998
Here Mr. xxx says he wants a refund of "all my money". I cannot
agree, because Mr. xxx is obliged to pay for the hours spent, before he stopped
the assignment for unnecessary reasons.
Mr. xxx also states that "he denied me any talks". This eventually
came to be true. I do not want to spend more time on this busybody who seems
to be creating problems not only for myself, but also for several of my colleagues.
General Comments
Mr. xxx's letters and complaints are not clear. I therefore urge him to explain
if I have understood his complaints correctly or if I have missed any.
Closing arguments
Mr. xxx has asked me to consider law suits against several newspapers and
a girl he knew many years ago, named Heidi Schøne.
I have told him he does not seem have grounds for the law suit against the
woman Schøne. This however does not imply that we are not entitled to
be paid for the advice given. The same goes for the cases against the newspapers,
a work we were not allowed to finish.
To say it bluntly, Mr. xxx seems to want to harass a girl in Norway. As a
professional lawyer I am not willing to do this, even though Mr. xxx complains
(on the surface about other things, really he is just frustrated, in my opinion).
Best regards,
Per Danielsen
Attorney at law
I replied directly to Danielsen on 22nd January 1999:-
Dear Mr. Danielsen,
Complaint against you ref:- SAKN129/88
I received a copy of your letter of 15th January 1999 addressed to the Disciplinaerutvelget
for Oslo etc. I will reply to them in full shortly but in the meantime enclose
for your information the result of my complaint against Karsten Gjone, who
you spoke to. My complaint against him has been upheld and I certainly hope
my complaint against you will also be upheld..
I see what you really think of me: that all I want to do is "harass"
Heidi Schøne and that I am a "busybody" creating problems for
you and your colleagues, i.e. Gjone and Wesenberg. Well, Gjone has been found
unprofessional. I submit that you have also been very unprofessional and will
try and convince the adjudicators of this.
Rune Jensen, the [Disciplinary Committee] lawyer of Sandefjord, was very helpful
to me on the phone. He told me more about the newspapers self-regulation rules
than you ever did. His attitude was right. Your attitude is all wrong. I smelt
a rat early on and I feel justified in all I've done, said and will say about
you. I got more advice in "free" phone calls from Tor Erling staff
and Steiner Sorvik than I did from you for NKR8,500. You ripped me off.
Your letter of 15th January is evasive and empty of substance. You have added
great insult to my substantial injuries inflicted by the lies of the newspapers
and from things other people in their ignorance and prejudice may, I suspect,
have told you.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx
On 23rd January 1999 I wrote again to the Lawyers Disciplinary Tribunal. I
knew that it was essential that the Tribunal have sight of the whole picture
in detail. As the saying goes, "The Devil lies in the detail".
Dear Madam,
Case No. 129/98 Frederick xxx vs Per Danielsen
Thank you for your letter of 19th January 1999 with enclosure from Per Danielsen.
I have no particular wish to overburden the Tribunal with too many papers
on this matter but I'm afraid this will be somewhat inevitable if you are
to fully appreciate my position. Background information is necessary. I therefore
enclose one set of the following (all of which Per Danielsen has already):-
1. A copy of each of the four newspaper articles; three from 1995 being V.G.,
Bergens Tidende and Drammens Tidende, and one - Drammens Tidende from 1998.
2. To be read in the light of Heidi Schøne's actual life translated
into Norwegian, a copy of which I enclose:- it is 100% true and verifiable.
3. Two letters from Heidi Schøne:- one post-dated 22.8.84, the other
a card post-dated 9.4.1985, which thank God I happened to have kept. These
obviously refute the newspaper allegation "13 years of sex-terror"
from 1995. I suspect Heidi thought I would never have retained letters from
so long ago. But I did!
4. My full report from 1995 sent to all the newspapers entitled "Heidi
Schøne" x 2.
5. My own findings from 1996 after painstaking investigation by myself headed
"Press Release" x 2.
6. A full set of correspondence with Per Danielsen x 2.
I immediately want to refute Per Danielsen's attempt to denigrate my character
by saying I have been "creating problems" for himself and "several
of his colleagues" (who could only be Karsten Gjone of Drammen and Helge
Wesenberg of Bergen, lawyers over whom I have also complained). I always felt
total justification for my complaints and so far with Karsten Gjone I have
been vindicated. Gjone has been found guilty of failing to uphold the standards
required from a lawyer and I enclose a copy of that report dated 13th January
1999 x 2, sent by Rune Jensen to me last week.
I had asked Gjone to enquire of certain vital omissions of Wesenberg's work
for me in 1995 over Heidi Schøne. Gjone spoke to Wesenberg but repeatedly
failed to ask Wesenberg the questions I wanted asking. After I dropped Gjone
and complained about him Per Danielsen spoke to Gjone, but Danielsen refused
to tell me what was said between them. Gjone would naturally have little good
to say about me to Danielsen as he, Gjone, was under investigation. Wesenberg
also would have nothing good to say about me, either, to Gjone. But I have
been proved right over Gjone as you can see.
Rune Jensen, I am most pleased with. He told me last week what Wesenberg,
Gjone, Danielsen, the PFU or anyone else has failed to tell me since May 1995.
That the newspapers "rules" require them to consult "a victim"
BEFORE they go to print, to obtain the "victim's" opinion. The newspapers
- all 3 of them - failed to consult me and easily they could have found me.
Further, that once a story HAS been printed the newspapers are obliged to
print my response. Again all three papers failed in their duty. Rune Jensen
sympathised with me for my telling him that I had been forced to generate
my own form of "newspaper", in my massive campaign by fax and letter
to random members of the Norwegian public. I was not going to let the newspapers
totally deceive their public and make them believe that Muslims are so, so
bad. Would Bergens Tidende have mentioned the "Jewish man" 16 times?
I don't think so and nor does Rune Jensen. But it's OK for Bergens Tidende
to say "Muslim man" 16 times.
The trouble was that my campaign against the newspapers was so widespread
and so successful that the police were getting hundreds of enquiries from
members of the public and as a result had to cocoon Heidi from the publicity
by stopping all correspondence from any source anywhere. As a result, I can't
even get a lawyer's letter to Heidi. Moreover, Drammens Tidende said last
July that "in the last year" I have written over 300 letters to
Heidi. A big lie. I wrote 5 or so letters telling her I would do all I could
to get her into Court for her lies. Besides which I knew none of the letters
got to her anyway (they ended up at the police station). I just wanted the
police to know that I was still on her case as Gjone refused to write to her
once (or me - his own client!). No proof exists about "300 letters to
Heidi in the last year". They don't exist.
The Drammen police decided to try and extradite me to Norway two years ago.
They consulted British police who told them that British laws are different
and I was a free man. The police objected to me telling the public my side
of the story on the grounds I was violating Heidi's private life. BUT she
had named herself in the newspapers and allowed herself to be photographed.
Only after that did I begin an en masse information campaign, using her public
name and her public photo.
After the newspapers had failed to observe their rules. Hence the sympathy
of Advokat Rune Jensen.
Heidi Schøne - the girl from the Lier B.S.S. Psychiatric Unit. The
girl who alleged I attempted to rape her in 1986 (as well as alleging a Bergen
shopkeeper raped her, as well as Greek youths attempted to, on her holiday)
but who changed her story in 1998 to actual rape by me. All the allegations
against me are false. Yes, Heidi - the best form of defence is attack! Even
if it means telling filthy ruinous lies. Say the story was picked up by the
English papers? 'The Sun' did in fact do a story on an English "Casanova"
in Bergen a couple of years ago (not me).
I asked Advocat Helge Wesenberg last year to explain the [attempted rape/rape]
discrepancy - no reply. I asked Danielsen to investigate - no comment. It
was the attempted rape allegation that so infuriated me which began the troubles
again in 1995, together with my misgivings over treatment meted out to me
in 1990 in Norway. I only knew of the attempted rape allegation (from 1986)
in 1995. Now it is rape.
So am I not entitled to have this investigated by Danielsen? Does he believe
I really - IN WRITING - threatened to kill a two year old boy - Heidi's son
Daniel - who I dearly loved when I met him. And he made known his fondness
for me.
Does Danielsen believe I threatened to kill Heidi's neighbours? Even when
there is no evidence whatsoever?
Does Danielsen believe that the 400 obscene letters I am alleged to have written
and have all been destroyed by Heidi, were really written at all, by me, a
practising solicitor whose career is most certainly finished if it were proven
true?
Does Danielsen believe I made hundreds of obscene phone calls - when I could
lay myself open to being taped - yet none were made and no single record of
any such conversation exists? When Heidi had no phone from 1988 to 1993? Need
I go on?
1. Per Danielsen in his wisdom having "done substantial work" (see
the 7th paragraph on the first page of his letter to you on 15.1.99) makes
NO COMMENT on any of Heidi's lies. What, pray, does the "substantial
work" consist of? Tell me please.
2. I know the newspapers didn't name me - clever weren't they! But I knew
the position in English law - a copy of which I enclose, and which Tor Erling
Staff told me over the phone was the position also in Norwegian law. Staff
charged me nothing for this phone advice and returned my £1,000 cheque
as he was too busy to take on my case. So why no comment on this simple point
by Per Danielsen - the so-called expert. If he had bothered to talk to me
properly he'd have been told that Ann-Kristin Horvei of Bergen had told me
long ago that from Verdens Gang she recognised me as being the one to whom
the articles referred. She had no idea of the allegations that were made in
the press and asked me if they were true. Until I told her they were all false,
her doubts made her feel they might be true and I had to explain for ages
the whole damn story. The point is I have a prima facie case against the newspapers
on this particular point, so why no explanation from the "expert"
Danielsen. The reasons please! Ann-Kristin Horvei has not spoken to Heidi
Schøne for 10 years!
3. You will see from the correspondence a call was arranged for 30th October
1998. This was essential to me. I did not want Per Danielsen to read through
pages of unnecessary correspondence. Why in particular should I be penalised
financially for the proven incompetence of Gjone? I had to tell Danielsen
this and guide him through the copious correspondence. Yet despite his being,
I was told, "too busy" (maybe in fact he had no desire to speak
to me because I was "a busybody" who "harasses" Heidi
Schøne - and how was that conclusion reached?) Danielsen still had
time to write to me the same day asking for more money as he now had a "big
pile of documents" from Gjone. A quick look at the "big pile"
would reveal it is correspondence and documentation that Danielsen already
has. So why the need for more money? To read duplicates?
Before addressing my point on duplication, which in fact was never addressed,
I'm asked to provide more money. So I smelt a rat. I felt £1,000 was
down the drain already. Another 10,000 NKR would also go straight down the
drain. There is a strong smell of unprofessionalism here. Many people are
unjustly accused of murder and other atrocities and it is a client's right
to have a lawyer defend impartially the accused. Danielsen was no such defender,
even of me in my circumstances.
Per Danielsen's last paragraph of his letter to you of 15.1.99 betrays his
true feelings. I was right to smell a rat. My instincts, as with Gjone, were
soundly based. I have been a lawyer since 1987 in both private practice and
as an in-house lawyer for a major public British organisation. I know bad
practice and evasion when I see it.
Again, on December 1st 1998, Per Danielsen refused to address my comments
on duplication. I had to speak to him. NO REASON was given for his "preliminary
conclusion" as to why I cannot sue the newspaper (as Tor Staff indicated
I may be able to do). What great advice - to give no reasons- for "substantial
work" and no comments on obvious FILTH from Heidi Schøne. Not
a word of sympathy. Not a word of legal reasoning. Not a single quotation
from a legal statute. Nothing! It seems to me there was never any intention
to provide helpful advice.
Specfically P.D. cannot charge me photocopy expenses. Rune Jensen told me
this explicitly, but why photocopy at all? There were already duplicates!
Why no breakdown of what I was charged for? Hourly rate. Degree of difficulty.
Number of hours spent. Analysis of my case, legally and morally. Why? Why
nothing at all?
So I don't have a case against Heidi or the newspapers at all, eh? Well read
the copy letter sent to Gjone's insurers, Hans-Arnt Skjølberg of Vesta.
Rune Jensen has, I believe, listened to the tape. The letter is dated 11th
December 1998.
Per Danielsen's comments on his second page of his latest letter (15.1.99)
about my letter of December 7th are deliberately deceptive. He knows full
well what my complaint is all about. In his letter of December 1st to me,
he is refusing to send me back either of my two files. It is irrelevant if
the papers are duplicates. My letter of December 7th was written immediately
after the telephone conversation we had, which I taped, which tape you already
have and which, after his secretary confirmed on December 7th that Per Danielsen
had still not returned Gjone's file (despite repeated requests), goes as follows:-
[The telephone conversation of December 7th referred to above was handwritten
here. The Tribunal had already received a copy of the tape recording but told
me that they would only listen to it if I wrote out the words first]
So it was very clear to Per Danielsen what I was complaining about. So the
same day, having had quite enough, I wrote to P.D. copying in Rune Jensen.
I wrote separately on 7th December to Rune Jensen initiating my complaint
over Per Danielsen's general conduct, having already consulted Rune Jensen.
Yet from Per Danielsen's comments in his letter of 15.1.99 he conveys the
impression that he's acted reasonably.
Next day - 8.12.98, a no doubt chastened Per Danielsen wrote to me having
overnight photocopied all the documents, "I want". He has duplicates
already. Why photocopy Gjone's file when he has two sets to begin with?
Again he refuses to answer my questions on the false grounds that he has already
"closed the file". I am being played with and wound up.
Per Danielsen gave me the distinct impression that (by his letter of 30.10.98)
he would do no work on Gjone's file (nonsensical as he already had all he
needed) or the other file until he had got another 10,000 NKR. What on earth
does he mean by saying I tell him not to do work he has "already done"
by ignoring Gjone's file?
If there is confusion for Danielsen (which I reject) then why no phone call
to clear things up? Per Danielsen would not speak to me on the case ONCE until
December 7th and you see how that went. There is no truth in Per Danielsen's
statement in response to my being "denied any talks" when he says
this "eventually came to be true". Nonsense. There is no "eventually"
about it. The correspondence and my comments herein indicate that any meaningful
talks were denied me throughout, i.e. nothing was ever granted.
All I can say is that Rune Jensen was a gentleman and gave me great advice
- more than Danielsen ever did. Tor Staff was great. So was Steinar Sorvik.
What a shame the last two were too busy.
In this last page to you - 2nd paragraph - Per Danielsen says he does "not
find it necessary to comment on the personal allegations" I have made
against him. A complaint by its very nature is personal. My allegations go
to the heart of his competence to give proper client care.
Per Danielsen's silences, omissions and failure to give reasoning, his rudeness
and evasion are clear for all to see. He only adds insult to the gross injuries
and real distress inflicted on me by the newspapers. I don't need this again
after a year of "nothing doing" from Gjone.
Yours faithfully,
Frederick xxx
P.S. Apologies again for the length of this letter. But I trust you will understand.
P.P.S. One thing I forgot to emphasise is that Mr. Danielsen's "substantial
work" if indeed this was performed, must BE SEEN TO BE DONE by a client.
I refer to my letter of 7th December faxed to Mr. Danielsen. I have not been
convinced in the slightest that "substantial work" has been done.
So as I terminated instructions on 9th November, I see that days 6th, 7th
and 8th were left to do "substantial work". It's all so hard to
believe him on what I've been told, bearing in mind all that's gone on. It
just does not ring true at all.
Danielsen to his horror would now know he'd been taped as the above letter
would be sent to him by the Norwegian Disciplinary Tribunal.
On 18th February 1999 Per Danielsen replied to the Disciplinary Tribunal:-
Dear Sirs,
SAK NR. 129/98: xxx - ADVOKAT PER DANIELSEN
Referring to Mr. xxx's last letter dated January 23, 1999, please allow me
to present the following comments:
If Mr. xxx had not stopped the assignment in the middle of the process without
any rational reason, all of his questions would have been answered at length.
Based on the work we had done, it proved necessary to consider whether the
allegations against Mr. xxx were true or not. We would have had to go through
this in detail, after having confronted Mr. xxx with a great number of questions.
(Please see the complex allegations in e.g. Verdens Gang's article).
It however never came to this, because of his irrational behaviour.
Mr. xxx's irrational thinking is clearly demonstrated in his comments following
the transcript from the taped conversation with me.
I also refer to his statements "So I smelt a rat" and "There
is a strong smell of unprofessionalism here".
On the time I worked with the assignment, I was loyal to Mr. xxx. I felt obliged
to present possible problems to him. My statement about "busybodyness"
is of a retrospective nature. Looking back on his reactions, I certainly feel
annoyed because he, which he now proves, has behaved extremely irrationally.
Mr. xxx said he was a professional lawyer and I treated him as such.
I refuse to believe that Mr. Tor Erling Staff has advised Mr. xxx to say he
would have been able to sue the newspapers, without having studied the harassment
allegations from Heidi Schøne, it would similarly not have been possible
to evaluate whether he had a case against her or not.
I am sorry I on one occasion was too busy to talk to Mr. xxx and see now that
this particular incident has led to Mr. xxx believing smelling a "rat".
If he would have been more patient, I would have given him valuable advice.
I found it fair to ask for money up front, because Mr. xxx was living abroad.
I have never said Mr. xxx "can not" sue the newspapers. Here again
Mr. xxx misunderstands.
Mr. xxx, in addition, however, may have had problems with the time limit,
depending on when the contents of the newspaper articles came to his knowledge,
because the three year time limit does not start to run before he was actually
read the articles.
To repeat myself: We have not charged Mr. xxx for photocopying expenses. The
amount of NOK 8,500, - represents 7,5 hours with an hourly rate of NOK 1.200,
given a small discount.
In my last letter I urged Mr. xxx to comment on whether I had understood all
of his complaining points or not. Mr. xxx does not comment on this. I again
urge him to explain whether I have understood everything completely or not.
Best regards,
Per Danielsen
Attorney at law
I replied on 3rd March 1999:-
Dear Madam,
Per Danielsen
Thank you for your letter of 1.3.99 enclosing a copy of Per Danielsen's letter
to you dated 18th Feb 1999.
Mr. Danielsen now urges me again to explain whether he has understood everything
completely. It is beyond me to explain any more than I did in my large submission
of 23rd January 1999. I note that few of my points have been answered by Per
Danielsen.
Tor Erling Staff advised me on the phone on the basis of my representations
to him that the newspaper allegations were false. I refer to my copy letter
(submitted to you on 23.1.99) dated 11th December 1998 to Hans-Arnt Skjølberg
of Vesta, wherein policeman Svein Jensen did not believe Heidi Schøne
and the Drammens Tidende journalist admits she went to print without knowing
whether what Heidi said was true or not.
Tor Staff asked me if I had any friends or others in Norway who recognised
me from the newspaper articles - as I was not named. I told him "Yes,
at least two people". And he told me of the legal position in Norway
which is similar to that in England on libelling unnamed people. There was
a prima facie case for me. But then Tor Staff asked me when the articles were
written. 1995-May, I told him, so he replied that I had missed the time limits.
I spoke to Staff in September 1998.
On the question of suing Heidi Schøne personally for lying/attempting
to pervert the course of justice, Tor Staff told me Heidi Schøne must
herself prove her allegations that she made via the newspapers.
For your information I was in possession of all the Norwegian articles - three
of them - within about ten days of their publication in May 24, 25 and 27,
1995. Anyway, it's all too late now to sue the newspapers for 1995 articles
and I must rely on my negligence claim against Karsten Gjone's insurers.
I maintain that Mr. Danielsen's conduct was irrational, not mine. I've set
out my case already. I certainly wasn't treated like a fellow lawyer. Mr.
Danielsen says on one occasion he didn't have time to talk to me - 30th October
1998 - but he had time to write to me that day asking for more money. He had
my phone number at work and could have phoned me up. He hadn't used the money
up I'd already sent him, before asking for more. I want a report on the basics
for the £1,000 I'd sent him which included a phone call conversation
- after all Tor Staff and Steinar Sørvik spoke to me giving advice
- for free.
To make hostile statements such as I'm "a busybody causing problems for
his colleagues" and I'm just out to "harass Heidi Schøne"
because "really he is just frustrated" are the kind of comments
which give support to my gut reaction of smelling a rat after being asked
for another NKR 10,000 for looking at a duplicate file.
My present lawyers have been paid NKR 5,000 and then they reported to me;
then NKR 6,000 and they reported to me. They let me speak to them on the phone
for as long as I want. They have obtained the Bergen police papers and have
asked for the Drammen police papers. They have told me at last, after my 3½
years of trying, that Heidi Schøne has not made a full statement to
the police in Bergen on her false allegation of attempted rape. She merely
said I'd "attempted to rape" her. There is no other information
from 1986 on this. In 1998 she says now that I've raped her. It took her 12
years to change her mind. She also alleged a Bergen shopkeeper had raped her
in the 1980's. But in 1995 she told Ingunn Røren at Drammens Tidende
that I'd attempted to rape her. Ingunn Røren told me this but they
chose not to print that allegation. I have all this on tape in case you are
wondering.
My new Oslo lawyers have corresponded with the PFU and told them to get on
with investigating my complaint over the 1998 D-T article. These lawyers have
told me Heidi Schøne is not obliged to help enquiries unless a writ
is issued. I have given instructions that I want a writ issued. I have had
much, much better value for money.
It is clear Mr. Danielsen made a mistake in earlier correspondence claiming
he would charge me photocopying expenses. Why not just admit it? Only now
do I see his hourly rate and basic advice on the three year time limit for
suing the newspapers.
I got more advice in two free calls to Sørvik and Staff than I did
from Danielsen at NKR 8,500. The phone was an essential medium for me.
You are welcome to phone Tor Staff to confirm that what I have reported is
true. He is on (22) 20 31 60. Steinar Sørvik told me the psychiatrist,
Nils Rettersdøl, talking about erotic paranoia, is a well-known contributor
to the newspapers. He is paid for it - and Rettersdøl told me he only
based his comments on what the newspapers told him. He knew nothing much about
me, in fact and nothing about Heidi's past, e.g. being in the B.S.S. Psychiatric
Unit, after two suicide attempts. So clearly being a Muslim is akin to being
like filth for the Norwegian press. I won't have it. I will be bringing to
Court two white Norwegian citizens who will bravely give evidence that in
their opinion Norwegians are brought up to despise anyone who isn't Christian.
Thanks to the Holocaust, Jews are no longer denigrated in the press in Europe.
Maybe now after Serb atrocities, Muslims will in due course not be denigrated,
merely for being Muslim. Still it didn't stop the fucked-up (words I chose
carefully and mean) - fucked up Norwegian press printing total crap when the
big story was the mental case Heidi Schøne. A true story about her
past which the press could have looked into.
I have had enough of Norway and its press and lawyers and police (save for
good men like Jensen).
It is time for me to get some long overdue justice and Heidi Schøne
will be pursued to Court. The campaign against her will continue unless the
newspapers - all three of them - print FRONT PAGE apologies in bold print.
The newspapers don't want that so there is a dilemma for them.
On top of anti-Muslim detestable insults and flagrant filthy lies I have to
spend hundreds of hours fruitlessly trying just to get simple things done
AND I have to pay for it. Well, Heidi Schøne can expect no favours
from me. She is worn out and paying the price for lies calculated to ruin
me:- the man who in 1990 she would have married had her attempt to convert
me to Christianity succeeded. She has admitted to me - it is on tape, that
she wanted to "witness me", i.e. convert me in 1990 and I have the
book she sent me in her attempts at conversion.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx
On 1st March 1999 the Secretariat to the Disciplinary Tribunal put the papers
in to the Disciplinary Committee consisting of three lawyers.
On 25th June 1999, Per Danielsen sent me back Karsten Gjone's papers.
On the 13th November 2000 the Committee made their decision and their seven
page report was forwarded to me on the 21st November. The report concluded:-
1. That Per Danielsen, Attorney at Law, was not in breach of the rules of
proper professional conduct in refusing to write to NN [they did not name
Heidi Schøne but gave her anonymity of the reference "NN"]
to inform her that he had been retained by Frederick xxx to consider legal
action or to bring legal action against her.
2. That Per Danielsen, Attorney at Law, was in breach of the rules on proper
professional conduct on 1st December 1998 in refusing to release the case
documents received by him to the Complainant.
3. That Per Danielsen's fee was reasonable in relation to the assignment and
the work to be performed.
Well, point 1 was no great surprise to me. Point 2 obviously was in my favour,
but point 3, I was not happy with. So I appealed as follows:-
Sekretaer
Den Norske Advokatforenings sekretariat
Kristian Augusts gate 9, 0164 OSLO
Norway. Telefax: 22 11 53 25
FAO: Gro Grasbekk
Letter dated: 23rd November 2000
Dear Ms. Grasbekk,
Case Number: 129/98 - Per Danielsen
Thank you for your letter of the 21st November enclosing the decision of the DNA dated the 13th November 2000.
I write (in duplicate) to inform you that I wish to appeal against the findings of points 1 and 3 in the Chairman's conclusion.
I will write again shortly when I have had more time to reconsider the ample documentation in my possession. Suffice to say that I do not believe at all that Per Danielsen did seven and a half hours work for me as this work should have been reflected in a proper report as opposed to the completely unsubstantiated assertion that he had done a lot of work for me costing 8,500.00 kroner. I myself am an experienced solicitor in England and would never get away with what Per Danielsen has done in justifying this fee to a client without explaining precisely what he has done and the conclusions reached after seven and a half hours of work. Per Danielsen's true attitude is shown by the fact that later he thought I was suffering from "frustration". What exactly does he mean by this - "sexual"(?) frustration as the newspapers indicated whilst at the same time making repeated references to me as "the Muslim man" (16 times in Bergens Tidende in 1995). It is quite apparent now by the Drammen Byrett's decision of September this year in allowing me to proceed to a full trial that I do have a case. It is quite apparent also to my new lawyer that enormous lies have been told about me and none of this was mentioned in Mr. Danielsen's so called report to me. In England lawyers must give a full breakdown of exactly what work they have done and what conclusions they have come to on the amount of work they have so far done. Although I cannot prove for certain that Mr. Danielsen is lying, until I see proper evidence for the amount of work he has done I suspect he is not telling me the truth. In England we require a solicitor to furnish a client with a remuneration certificate if the client is not satisfied with the legal charges incurred whereby the solicitor must detail fully how he can justify time spent on work. Danielsen must be seen to justify his work and fees to me, not just say so.
Moreover, the Committee have failed to comment on the disgusting manners shown by Mr. Danielsen in the taped conversation. To say that he had the manners of a pig is no overstatement. For these manners alone a full refund is justified, and I expect the judge on this appeal to be given the tape to listen to.
The fact is, that for £1,000.00 Mr. Danielsen did not even comment on the basic law of the case, i.e. what a plaintiff has to prove in such a case which information incidentally was supplied free of charge to me by the Drammen Byrett in the summer of 1999 whereafter I proceeded to issue the writ in person. This proved successful whereafter an amended writ was issued by my present attorney who has told me that he cannot understand at all the newspapers comments in the light of N N's letters to me. Letters which Mr. Danielsen had copies of which blatantly proved NN and the newspapers were liars. If my present lawyer can tell me this then why in seven and a half hours of work can Mr. Danielsen not do the same? No! Danielsen's conduct was totally unacceptable.
I note that the Committee have found Per Danielsen to be in breach of the rules of proper professional conduct in relation to point number 2 of their conclusion which obviously I am pleased with.
With regard to point 1 in view of what Mr. Danielsen later on said about my "frustration" I think that he would never have written to NN in any event. I repeat, it would have been quite clear from even a cursory glance at NN's letters to me compared to the comments in the newspapers that NN was a terrible liar and an initial letter could easily have gone out especially after seven and a half hours work. I therefore wish to appeal on point 1 as well, of the Committee's conclusion.
The fact of the matter is that I have Mr. Danielsen's shockingly impolite conversation on tape and his conduct speaks for itself and certainly brings the Norwegian legal profession into disrepute especially as he was dealing with a fellow professional.
Would you please acknowledge receipt of this letter.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx
Followed by another letter:-
Letter dated: 27th November 2000
Sekretaer
Den Norske Advokatforenings secretariat
Kristian Augusts gate 9, 0164 OSLO
Norway
Telefax: 0047 22 11 53 25
FAO: Gro Grasbekk
Dear Ms. Grasbekk,
Case Number: 129/98 - Per Danielsen
Further to my letter of the 23rd November I have now been able to review
my papers properly and now write again in duplicate.
I would like the judge considering this appeal to report on the following
matters with the object of returning not only my £1,000.00 up front
payment but also ordering further compensation as he sees fit for the time,
stress and inconvenience incurred by me in making this complaint.
1. Per Danielsen's letter to me of December 1st 1998
In this letter Per Danielsen says he reached a "preliminary conclusion"
that I "do not seem to have a case against the newspaper". For Per
Danielsen's alleged seven and a half hours work at 8,500.00 kroner I deserved
to know the reasons for Per Danielsen's preliminary conclusion. Where is the
substantive legal advice? I should have been given a precise statement on
the legal principles governing my case e.g. standard of proof, burden of proof,
time limits etc. without having to request such basic information. I should
have been told exactly what Per Danielsen's proposed "more careful studies" involved and were designed to reveal, as to me, seven and a half hours of
work is easily sufficient to discover what the basic bones of the case are
all about. In effect I am being fobbed off with hollow excuses that give the
appearance of a lawyer who hasn't done his job or at least part of a job for
which he charged 8,500.00 kroner. When Per Danielsen says that I stopped the
assignment, I only stopped it because he forced me to stop it owing to his
previous misunderstanding which he could not bring himself to correct.
2. Exactly which papers did Per Danielsen read through in his seven and a
half hours of work and how can he fail to see the enormous difference between
NN's letters to me and my other evidence on the one hand and the newspaper
allegations on the other hand? Why no comment on the fact that in all the
newspaper articles I am being referred to as "the Muslim man"?
3. My letters of the 7th and 12th December 1998 to Per Danielsen are clear
enough and remain to this day substantially unanswered. Clearly the committee
looking into this complaint have ignored the comments made in these letters
and I trust the appeal judge will now consider these comments.
4. Per Danielsen's letter to me of December 8th 1998 refers to the fact that
I "would have problems in wining cases against the newspapers and NN".
Per Danielsen is therefore asserting that he knows of these problems and he
should therefore communicate the nature of these problems to me. He never
did this and should have done at the time.
5. Per Danielsen's letter of the 15th January 1999 to the Den Norske Advokatforening
referred to his belief that I had been "harassing" NN and that I
was a "busybody" and that I was "really just frustrated".
However no reasons were given for his claim. This is further evidence that
he cannot give impartial advice, leave alone proper advice. Such comments
together with the contents of my taped telephone conversation with Per Danielsen
on December 7th 1998 indicate to me that he had little grasp of the basics
of the case which remotely resembled seven and a half hours of work. There
wasn't that much to read anyway and an experienced lawyer like Per Danielsen
should know how to be selective in his perusal of the papers in front of him.
I had in any case, in correspondence, indicated exactly which papers he should
read through to help him form an opinion for the £1,000.00 I had paid
him.
6. In his letter to me of the 30th October 1998 the clear message from Per
Danielsen is that he needs another NKR 10,000 to read the extra documents
that he has just received from my previous lawyer. Documents that were in
fact just duplicates of what he already had. That was why I refused payment
of another 10,000 kroner as it was demanded on a mistaken assumption.
7. Connected to this is Per Danielsen's refusal to discuss the case on the
telephone with me (see my letter to him of 12th December 1998). My intention
was to guide him directly to the issues that mattered and to save his time
and to get telephone advice on the legal position on the basic principles.
He had, after all, requested me to phone him on the 30th October, an appointment
that I kept but which when I tried to speak to him I was told he was not available.
Instead I get a letter the same day asking me for more money.
8. It is quite obvious from the evidence, which anyone can see, that I am,
if nothing else, a victim of hatred for Muslims. To be referred to in Bergens
Tidende in 1995 at least 16 times as "the Muslim man" and also to
have similar references in Drammens Tidende and Verdens Gang to being "a
Muslim" speaks for itself. No Norwegian newspaper would put "the
Jew" or "the Christian" to such an extent. Moreover the association
of my religion with a speculative and degrading assessment of my character
will never be forgiven or forgotten by me. I wonder what the wider Muslim
public would think of this institutionalised attack on Muslims. I suspect
that the Norwegian newspapers still want revenge on the Muslim world for what
happened to Jan Nygaard, the Norwegian publisher of Salman Rushdie's book
"The Satanic Verses". Nygaard, a man who only last month went on
British terrestrial television to proclaim how happy he was to publish this
book, in effect saying that it was his moral and public duty to publish the
book. The former British Foreign Secretary, Lord Howe, in the same programme
described the book as being utterly perverse and offensive to Muslims. The
appeal judge on this case only needs to read the translated transcript of
my conversations with the Drammens Tidende journalist Ingunn Røren,
to see the lengths this journalist went to, to pervert the image of Islam.
Certainly Ingunn Røren's taped evidence deserves to go public - she
can sue me if she wants to.
9. Per Danielsen I suspect is lying and even if he isn't he gives the clear
appearance of having ripped me off. I repeat, that it is no exaggeration to
describe him as having the manners of a pig in his taped conversation with
me of 7th December 1998. I want the appeal judge on this case to give a specific
ruling on this conversation as to whether it is unworthy of a lawyer to react
like this. It certainly brings the Norwegian legal profession into disrepute.
Danielsen was trapped by his own arrogance on that occasion and must bitterly
regret being caught out.
10. Only a fool would be unable to see the full extent of NN's lies and the
newspapers' real agenda. Per Danielsen represents himself as a libel expert
yet his attitude and unsubstantiated legal comment are worse than useless.
I want all my money back, not just the outstanding fee. I also deserve on
top of this, further compensation as indicated above.
As things presently stand NN along with Drammens Tidende, Ingunn Røren
and Hans Odde will face trial next year, as declared by Judge Anders Stilloff
of the Drammen Byrett in September. So I have got in part what I set out to
achieve. However it should have been easy to get to this stage long ago. I
have paid a high price and I will make sure that those in Norway who have
so tried to ruin me and denigrate the founding values of Islam will never
be allowed to forget it.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx
Danielsen didn't reply at all to these comments and on 18th May 2001 the Appeal
Committee reached its decision:-
Report of 18th May 2001
By letter of 23 November 2000 Complainant, Frederick xxx, filed in appeal
with the Disciplinary Board against points 1 and 3 in the Disciplinary Committee's
conclusion. He also sent the Board a letter dated 27th November 2000 in which
he claims, inter alia, compensation for the time and unpleasantness the complaint
proceedings have caused him.
Per Danielsen has not entered a reply to the appeal. It is therefore accepted
that he adheres to his earlier statements in the matter.
The appeal to the Disciplinary Board has not brought forth any fresh information
and therefore the position with regard to the complaint is the same as in
the first instance.
With regard to the facts of the case, reference is made to the presentation
given by the Committee.
The Disciplinary Board has reached the same result as the Disciplinary Committee
and in essentials agrees with the reasoning given by that Committee. The Disciplinary
Board considers it obvious that a lawyer must be allowed an opportunity to
examine a matter and decide whether there is due cause for legal action before
notifying the other party that such action will be instituted. If in such
a case the client is unwilling to accept the lawyer's advice, the lawyer is
entitled to refuse the assignment. This similarly applies in a case where
the client does not pay a retainer or furnish security for the fee and costs
when so requested.
With regard to the complaint regarding the fee charged, the Disciplinary Board
agrees with the Committee. The total fee of NOK 8,500 - based on 7.5 hours
of work, is in reasonable proportion to the scope of the work, the nature
of the assignment and the circumstances otherwise, and it is considered that
the work performed by Per Danielsen was necessary for proper performance of
the assignment.
This decision is unanimous.
Conclusion:
The decision of the Disciplinary Committee is upheld.
Knut Glad
Chairman
As can be seen, the Disciplinary Board, in considering my Appeal mentioned
nothing whatsoever about the points I had raised in my letters of 23rd and
27th November 2000. When the Board referred to Per Danielsen's failure to
reply to those letters, I see it as his ducking the questions I had posed.
The Board also stated that I had not brought forth any "fresh information".
I was merely asking for answers to my original complaints to be addressed
by the Board in writing. This "fresh evidence" obstacle was the
same ploy imposed by the Press Complaints Commission to cover up the shortcomings
of the defendants. Again, this abysmal response would not happen in England.
Finally, the Danielsen saga was brought to an end when on 5th June 2001 I
asked the Norwegian Bar Association to ask Danielsen to reimburse me the balance
of monies due to me after deducting his fee. On 21st June I received a cheque
for £338.65 from Danielsen's correspondent bank, the Royal Bank of Scotland.