On the 3rd May 2003 I complained by fax to the Norwegian Bar Association on the conduct of Heidi Schøne’s lawyer Vegard Aaløkken:-

Dear Sirs,

Complaint against Advokat Vegard Aaløkken of Ellen Holager Andenaes of CJ Hambros plass 5, 0164 Oslo

I am engaged in libel proceedings against Heidi Schøne for whom Vegard Aaløkken acts. We are due to appear in the Court of Appeal in October in Drammen.

Since January 2002 I have been trying to obtain certain evidence which Aaløkken is obliged to give me.

1. Part of the evidence I want is referred to in two court witness statements from police sergeant Torill Sorte dated 21/01/97 and 23/04/97 which Aaløkken himself submitted to the court. Within these statements mention is made of “a statement” signed by Runar Schøne which Heidi Schøne “considers her own”. It is this statement from Runar Schøne that I want. Vegard Aaløkken and the Drammen Police are working hand in hand on this case. Police Sergeant Torill Sorte is however under investigation by the Riksadvokaten in relation to perjury and an attempt to pervert the course of justice so neither she nor her police department will co-operate in giving me the evidence. SEFO have ignored my requests for this evidence. Aaløkken has passed the buck by asking me to contact the police for this evidence, knowing full well that nothing will be done by the police to help me. Aaløkken is avoiding his own responsibility, because he does not want to disclose as he put it “evidence prejudicial to my client’s case”. Aaløkken has easy access to all the police evidence and must be forced to co-operate and supply me with the evidence which is directly within his power to procure, if he hasn’t got it already on file.

2. Further I also want from Aaløkken, Heidi Schøne’s statement taken by Torill Sorte that I allegedly raped Heidi Schøne "by holding her down". I have been waiting 5 years for this statement. As Aaløkken himself called me "a rapist" in court and Drammens Tidende in 2001 printed the same allegation, so I am entitled as of right to see Heidi Schøne’s statement to this effect.
For the record Heidi Schøne in 1986 told the Bergen Police I had attempted to rape her in 1985. She confirmed her allegation of attempted rape in 1995 to journalist Ingunn Røren of Drammens Tidende. In 1998 after I insisted the (false) allegation of attempted rape be investigated by Torill Sorte, Heidi Schøne then changed her story to allege I had actually raped her by holding her down. Heidi Schøne admitted in Court she has made a similar allegation against a Bergen shopkeeper "but didn’t want to talk about it".

3. I require Aaløkken to have the professional courtesy to answer my supplemental appeal in order to clarify the arguments to be discussed in court, by eliminating now, points of issue that can be agreed in order to save time at the trial.

4. Finally Aaløkken should not call me "a rapist" and "mentally ill" in court when there is no evidence at all for this. What independent psychiatric evidence was offered to the court to support Aaløkken’s opinion that I am mentally ill? None. As for being an alleged rapist Aaløkken should in the least supply me with Schøne’s statement to the police. How ironic it all is when Heidi Schøne herself is in fact a psychiatric patient on a 100% disability pension who brings her psychiatrist in to Court to allege that almost all her family have abused her.

Yours faithfully,
Frederick xxx

The Bar Association wrote back on 6th May saying their decision process would take about 6 months, which would make a decision unlikely until after my Court of Appeal case. Would I still like to file a complaint? On 8th May I faxed them in the affirmative. On 9th May the Bar Association wrote to Aaløkken enclosing a copy of my complaint. Aaløkken wrote back to the Bar Association on the 26th May, in Norwegian. After their initial refusal, the Bar Association decided it would be proper for them to translate Aaløkken’s letter into English, so I could know what was said, in case I wanted to appeal against the Disciplinary Committee’s eventual decision. On 10th September 2003 the translation was sent to me:-

ADVOKATENE VED TINGHUSET
ADVOKAT ELLEN HOLAGER ANDENÆS

The Disciplinary Committee of the
Norwegian Bar Association
Oslo Chapter
Oslo, 26 May 2003

Case no. 93/2003, Ref. no. 7363V1 -
Reply to complaint submitted by Frederick xxx

Opening remarks

Reference is made to the Disciplinary Committee’s letter dated 9 May 2003, received at this office on 12 May 2003 enclosing the complaint made against me by Frederick xxx.

The Committee requests that my reply be written in English. I am unable to accede to this request. This reply requires a degree of linguistic accuracy that I would be unable
to achieve in the English language.

About the case

Concerning the individual points in the complaint, I hold that the complaint cannot be
dealt with by the Committee as these questions have already been dealt with by the court, alternatively that the case must be dismissed as my assignment has been to take care of the interests of my own client, cf. Section 2, 3rd and 4th subsections of the Procedural Rules for the Disciplinary Committees.

Initially, it will be appropriate to submit a brief outline of the factual and legal aspects
of the case.

Frederick xxx met Heidi Schøne while Schøne was an au-pair in England in 1982. They had a friendly relationship to start with and exchanged letters and visits.

This changed in the mid-eighties. Heidi Schøne has been exposed to unwanted and extremely troublesome attention on the part of Frederick xxx. She has been subjected to the worst type of harassment.

xxx has telephoned her and sent innumerable letters of an offensive nature to
Heidi Schøne. There has been less of this slanderous behaviour in recent years,
probably due to the fact that the plaintiff has been unable to make contact with Schøne.

xxx has also persecuted Schøne by repeatedly telephoning and writing letters to
numerous persons (family, friends, acquaintances, neighbours, companies, institutions, etc.) in which he has made different insulting allegations concerning the defendant. This behaviour continues. Among other things, Heidi Schøne has been held to ridicule on an address on the internet and it is assumed that xxx is behind this. I enclose the material aimed in particular against Heidi Schøne on the address www.norway-shockers.com. The attached 'article' will be found in both Norwegian and English versions under 'Pretty Face'.

Exhibit 1: Print-out from the Internet.

By judgement passed by Eiker, Modum and Sigdal District Court on 2 November 2001, Frederick xxx was found guilty of acting in a harassing manner towards Heidi Schøne.

Exhibit 2: Judgement passed by Eiker, Modum and Sigdal District Court on 2 November 2001.

From the above, it can be seen that this harassment comprised among other things contacting Heidi Schøne’s circle in different ways and spreading private information
about her. As a countermove, Heidi Schøne found that it was necessary for her to go to the press with her story. The theme in the articles that appeared in Drammens Tidende/Buskerud Blad and VG in 1995 and 1998 was that Heidi Schøne had been exposed to sex harassment by an insane man, namely xxx.

On 10 August 1999 xxx filed a writ claiming NOK 50,000 in damages from Heidi Schøne on the grounds of defamation. The claim for damages was based on a newspaper article in Drammens Tidende/Buskerud Blad on 14 July 1998.

On 11 February 2002 Drammen District Court passed judgement in favour of Heidi Schøne and awarded legal costs.

Exhibit 3: Judgement passed by Drammen District Court on 11 February 2002.

This judgement has been appealed and the appeal is to be brought before Borgarting Court of Appeal in the week commencing 13 October 2003.

The individual points in the complaint

Concerning the documents requested in items 1 and 2, I must advise you that xxx has also requested the Court of Appeal to order me to submit these documents. Reference is made to the attached letter dated 15 February 2003 from xxx to the Court of Appeal and the reply from the Court dated 24 February 2003 in which it is stated that the Court “has no basis for ordering the Respondent to submit the document you require”. I therefore hold that this issue has already been dealt with by the Court and cannot therefore be processed by the Disciplinary Committee.

Exhibit 4: Letter dated 15 February 2003 from Frederick xxx.

Exhibit 5: Letter dated 24 February 2003 from Borgarting Court of Appeal.

It may appear that a refusal to send this document is due to a lack of willingness.
However, I must state that during a telephone conversation with xxx on 11 February 2003 he told me that he intended to use the documents “to discredit Heidi Schøne”. As this is the opposing party’s intention, I am of the opinion that by refusing to send the document to xxx, I am doing no more than looking after my client’s interests in a normal manner. This item in the complaint could therefore no doubt be dismissed for this reason.

I would add that the documents were obtained from the police prior to the main hearing in Drammen District Court. xxx would no doubt be given access to the documents in the case by applying to the police in the same manner. We are dealing with a finalised criminal case in which the condition concerning legal interest is fulfilled and xxx is therefore entitled to access, cf. Section 4-2, 3rd subsection of the instructions to the prosecuting authority.

In item 3 it is stated that I must reply to the questions raised in “my supplemental appeal”. I attach the supplemental appeal for your information. This question has also been dealt with by the Court of Appeal and must therefore be dismissed by the Disciplinary Committee. In item 1 in the letter dated 7 January 2003 to the Court of Appeal, xxx demanded that I should reply to these questions. In the letter from the Court of Appeal dated 9 January 2003 it is stated that xxx “cannot expect replies to the questions raised”.

Exhibit 6: Supplemental appeal dated 12 July 2002.
Exhibit 7: Letter dated 7 January 2003 from Frederick xxx.
Exhibit 8: Letter dated 9 January 2003 from Borgarting Court of Appeal.

In item 4 it is stated that I must discontinue using the words “rapist” and “mentally ill” about xxx.

In Exhibit 3 there is a summary of my arguments before Drammen District Court.
These were based on Heidi Schøne’s statement and other evidence in the case.

In order to present clear and convincing proof that Heidi Schøne had been exposed to harassment of a sexual nature, it was appropriate to refer to the episode in which Heidi Schøne was subjected to a sexual attack by xxx. In this connection I referred to the statement made to the police concerning a rape, or at least an attempted rape in Bergen at Easter 1985. Reference is made to Exhibit 3, page 15.

With regard to xxx’s mental condition, I held that Heidi Schøne had been victimised for years by a mentally ill/insane/psychologically disturbed man. On my part it was not held that xxx had received any professional diagnosis and it was stated that the words were used in the more popular sense. Reference is made to Exhibit 3, page 14.

In Exhibit 3 it is shown that the Court fully supported Heidi Schøne’s arguments. My description of xxx was made in conjunction with my normal duty to take care of my client’s interests in the case. This item in the complaint must therefore also be dismissed.

I find no reason to comment on certain points in xxx’s letter as in my opinion they are either self-contradictory or without relevance to the case. It is possible that I have overlooked questions that should have been answered due to my inadequate command of the English language. Should this be the case, I request that the Disciplinary Committee bring this to my attention.

Yours faithfully,
Vegard Aaløkken

I responded in full on 17th September 2003 by fax:-

Jostein Moen
Den Norske Advokatforening

Dear Mr Moen,

CASE NO. 93/2003-VEGARD AALØKKEN

Thank you for your letter of 10th September 2003 enclosing the English translation of Mr Aaløkken’s letter dated 26th May 2003.

I respond as follows:-

a) In relation to points 1 and 2 of my letter of the 3rd May 2003 my lawyer Stig Lunde has recently informed me that Mr Aaløkken, a few days ago, told him that he believes the 2 documents I need were sent to Stig Lunde before the January 2002 trial. Mr Aaløkken has asked Stig Lunde to search his ample records for these two documents. Why can’t Mr Aaløkken just send these two documents again to Stig Lunde? The principle has been established that Aaløkken admits having the documents and admits that he believes he has already sent them long ago to Stig Lunde. These documents, to remind you, are a witness statement from Heidi Schøne to Torill Sorte in 1998 alleging violent rape against me and a statement made by Runar Schøne which Heidi Schøne "adopted as her own". These documents are already referred to in a 1997 witness statement of Torill Sorte who is working on the same side as Mr Aaløkken and his client Heidi Schøne. Full and frank disclosure of documents, that Aaløkken now tells us are in his possession, should be made and it is irrelevant if the documents prejudice his client’s case. It is his professional duty not to withhold sight of documents from me that he has access to, has informed me exist and has in his possession. Mr Aaløkken, in now saying that he believes he has sent those documents to my lawyer, should render irrelevant what he has said to you in his letter of 26th May 2003 on withholding the material.

b) Besides which, I repeat that I have been trying for five years to get Heidi Schøne’s statement from the police and in the last year from SEFO (also Runar Schøne’s statement) but I have been ignored. The police will not co-operate with me or my lawyer at all. They are fighting hard to save their reputations as one of their officers, Torill Sorte has been investigated for perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice. Also the police in Norway used Interpol to prosecute me for my campaign against the newspaper stories. I am not going to read in the newspapers that I am a potential child killer (solely on the word of Heidi Schøne) and do nothing about it. By my spreading her past about, I wanted to inform Norwegian people just what kind of a person Heidi Schøne is. I was convicted in absentia under section 390(a) of the criminal code for the strict liability offence of telling the public about Heidi Schøne’s background. Does anyone seriously think that after all that, the police will readily give me the documents I need? In theory they should, but in practice I will never get them. I ask Aaløkken simply to send me these two documents.

c) Mr Aaløkken knows very well that his client got pregnant again in 1985 to Gudmund Johannessen who previously got her pregnant with twins, slept with her best friend making her lose the twins causing her to make an attempt on her own life. When getting Heidi Schøne pregnant again Johannessen was a drug taker, a convicted criminal and in 1988 left Heidi Schøne and their son, causing Heidi Schøne to try to take her life again in September 1988. In Christmas 1990 Mr Johannessen beat up Heidi Schøne on her doorstep and she reported him to the Drammen police. I suspect Heidi Schøne concealed future addresses, if at all, so as to prevent Mr Johannessen from contacting her. I reprimanded Heidi Schøne in the summer of 1985 for getting pregnant again to such an abuser as Gudmund Johannessen and I also warned Heidi Schøne’s father that Heidi’s life was a complete mess. My fears proved real but were ignored at the time.

Mr Aaløkken knows too that (i) Heidi Schøne asked me and a friend to help her out against Mr Johannessen in August 1988 just prior to her second suicide attempt and (ii) Heidi Schøne sent me Christian literature in October 1990 after her so-called exorcism and attempt to become a born again Christian. Hardly the behaviour of a women to a man who years later accused me of 13 years of sex terror beginning in 1982. All of Heidi Schøne’s evidence prior to 1995 is only on her word. This the word of a registered mental patient on a 100% disability pension, under the care of Dr. P. Broch at the BSS Clinic in Leir. She was first an in-patient at the clinic in 1988. So Aaløkken is not telling the full picture.

d) You have seen the contents of my appeal and if Aaløkken thought his client had a good case then why doesn’t he reply to my numerous points in my appeal? Answer: because his client has a very poor case and he should advise her to plead guilty. What seems to count in her favour is that she is Norwegian and I am not and I am Muslim (which by Bergens Tidende in May 1995 calling me the ‘Muslim man’ 19 times, obviously counts against me). It is self evident that Judge Stilloff has made many mistakes in his judgment and we have an appeal case in October. I reply to every point made by my opponents as soon as time permits. Mr Aaløkken says nothing in response to my appeal because his client’s position is indefensible.

e) As for Mr Aaløkken saying my behaviour has been slanderous – what nonsense is this? In Judge Stilloff’s own verdict he specifically states that Dr. P. Broch says that my comments on Heidi Schøne’s past life contain “a core of truth” and Stilloff himself has said in his judgment that my comments on Heidi Schøne’s past are “more or less correct”. So I have not been slanderous at all. I have been very careful to accurately describe Heidi Schøne’s past and the court has vindicated me.

f) Further, contrary to Mr Aaløkken’s claim I have on the whole always been able to make contact with Heidi Schøne. She has been living at the same address for the past 10 years. The only time I couldn’t is when she was hiding from her abuser Gudmund Johannessen.

g) I told the newspapers as far back as 1996 that if I don’t get an apology I will institute a commercial campaign to put my side of the story to contradict their racist motivated nonsense. My campaign was so successful that the police, unable to cope with public enquiries instituted a malicious prosecution against me under section 390(a) of the penal code and I was convicted in absentia. The website www.norway-shockers.com only took off on 18th October 2000, five years after the newspapers first printed stories on me. I have a right of reply under the European Convention of Human Rights and that is what the website achieves. Besides, I think the public in Norway should know that Heidi Schøne kills her own unborn children (two abortions) when she falsely accuses me in the press (Drammens Tidende May 1995) of threatening to kill her son. The burden of proving this [threatening to kill her son] is on Heidi Schøne and she has failed to do this.

h) As for Exhibit 2 submitted by Mr Aaløkken he was not present himself at the trial. What happened was that for one hour my criminal defence lawyer was trying to change the charges from section 390(a) to section 390 which latter section gave me a defence of justified comment. But unfortunately the judge that day could not understand the legal arguments presented to her so wrongly proceeded under section 390(a). I was not present but was convicted in absentia having been given a mere 3 weeks notice of the hearing date. Hardly time enough to prepare when I was in the middle of preparing my own civil and criminal prosecutions of Heidi Schøne. The police used dirty tactics as of course did the newspapers. Mr Aaløkken presents a false picture himself which again is unprofessional and worthy of censure.

i) The reason the newspapers in 1995 called me "insane", "mentally ill" etc is because they thought that only a madman could attribute to Heidi Schøne the past I described her as having. They now know different: Judge Stilloff has said that my description of her past is “more or less correct”. I know obviously the hatred that exists for Muslims in Norway is a major factor for the press to link the words “mentally ill”and “erotic paranoia” with the words “the Muslim man”. I note also similar labels have been used by Norwegians against the children of German soldiers and Norwegian women during the occupation. For the whole story in the Independent newspaper article from earlier this year click on Norway Uncovered Part 2 on the www.norway-shockers.com website.

j) The judgement of Drammen District Court found Heidi Schøne “not guilty”. What Mr Aaløkken has ommitted to say is that Judge Stilloff alluded to the fact that the newspaper journalists lied and that Runar Schøne lied but as they were not on trial they could not be dealt with. Also as Mr Aaløkken will readily admit, Heidi Schøne said in court that she was given all six newspaper articles before they were printed and adopted the contents fully failing to correct anything. She herself thus adopted the lies in the newspapers and this aspect is one of the cornerstones of my appeal.

k) Mr Aaløkken refers to Heidi Schøne’s statement to the police “concerning a rape or at least an attempted rape”. What misleading nonsense is this? Aaløkken knows perfectly well that in December 1986 Heidi Schøne went to the Bergen police (20 months after I stayed with her but 2 weeks after I warned her father she was a complete mess) to make an allegation against me of attempted rape. She maintained the allegation of attempted rape in 1995 to journalist Ingunn Roren (insisting “attempted” ). All of a sudden in 1998 Heidi Schøne ‘revises’ her allegation to one of violent rape to policewoman Torill Sorte. This is the statement I had been asking for ever since. It must be stated that in court Heidi Schøne admitted to being allegedly raped by a Bergen shopkeeper in the early 1980s. She also claimed to me that she has been threatened with rape at knife point by Greek men when on holiday and that her cousin was raped and killed. Also, in court, her psychiatrist stated that she was sexually abused by her stepmother’s father and mentally abused by members of her own family. Her list of abusers is very long.

l) Mr Aaløkken specifically said in court that my information campaign consisting of fact sheets etc to put my side of the story was “a continuing symptom” of my “mental illness”. He repeated in his summing up that I am "mentally ill and a rapist." The mental illness allegation was not used in the "popular sense" as Aaløkken states. Aaløkken made a determined effort, as did many of his fellow countrymen, to convince people that I am clinically mentally ill. As for being a rapist Mr Aaløkken himself has it seems backtracked by alleging that “at least” I am an attempted rapist.

m) Mr Aaløkken comments at the end of his letter that certain points of mine are either “self contradictory or without relevance”. But he does not say why or which points. This is very condescending. I am a lawyer just like he is and I know bullshit when I read it.

Yours sincerely,

FREDERICK xxx

Regarding my complaint against Vegard Aaløkken the Bar Association wrote to me on the 12th March 2004 enclosing a copy of their English translation of its' decision of the 4th March 2004:-

Disiplinaerutvalget for Oslo krets av Den Norske Advokatforening

Has on 04-03-2004

Resolved complaint nr. 93/2003

Plaintiff: Frederick xxx

Defendant: Advokat Ellen Holager Andenaes
v/ advokat Vegard Aaløkken

Responsible for the matter has been: Terje Aakvaag, Halldis Winje and Terje Løyning

By his letter dated the 3rd May 2003 Frederick xxx has filed a complaint against advokat Ellen Holager Andenaes by advokat Vegard Aaløkken, holding that the Defendant has conducted his affairs in violation of applicable regulations regarding professional ethics. By his letter dated May 8th 2003, the Plaintiff has reiterated his complaint. The Defendant has responded to the complaint in his letter dated May 26th 2003.

The merits of the matter would appear to be as follows:

The Plaintiff filed a suit against a client of the Defendant to the Drammen City Court. The Drammen Court resolved the the matter on February 11th 2002 in favour of the client of the Defendant’s.

The Plaintiff has appealed against the award of the Drammen Court and the appeal hearing is scheduled for week 42 in 2003.

The complaint relates predominantly to certain documents which the Plaintiff believes is in the possession of the Defendant and which the Plaintiff believes are relevant to the dispute before the appeal court. The purpose of the complaint appears to be that the disciplinary body should instruct the Defendant to surrender the said documents. The complaint further relates to certain statements which the Plaintiff believes have been made by the Defendant’s client.

The Plaintiff holds that the Defendant has the relevant documents available and that they should be produced in evidence in the dispute before the appeal court. The Defendant should have a responsibility to ensure that all relevant factual circumstances are available to the appeal court in order that the court be given a correct and balanced bases for its’ decision.

The Defendant holds that the complaint should be dismissed as the matter relates to issues that have been or will be decided upon by the appeal court. In any event the Defendant holds that the substance of the complaint relates exclusively to matters in which he has acted in the best interests of his client.

The Disciplinary Body holds:

The matters brought forward in the complaint are exclusively of a nature that will be -or have been – addressed and decided by the appeal court in due course. It consequently follows that the complaint falls out side the competence of the Disciplinary Body, cf. Article 2, section 3 of the regulations regarding the organisation of the Disciplinary Body. Additionally, it follows quite clearly from the presentation in the complaint from the Plaintiff, that the complaint relates only to matters in which the Defendant has acted within his brief from his client. Consequently, the matter must be dismissed.

Conclusion:

Following this discussion, the Disciplinary Body has arrived at the following

DECISION:

The complaint is dismissed.

Terje Aakvaag
Subcommittee 5

I appealed on 15th March 2004 to the Disciplinary Council.The Court of Appeal case had taken place now and I had appealed to the Supreme Court. I asked the Disciplinary Council now to ask Vegard Aaløkken to supply Heidi Schøne’s police witness statement alleging “attempted rape” and police witness statement alleging “rape by holding her down”, adding that the Court of Appeal had not dealt with these matters. That the Court of Appeal only dealt with the evidence that was before them.

I had resumed corresponding with Svein Erik Krogvold of the Bergen police in a determined effort to obtain the “attempted rape” witness statement made by Heidi. On the 15th March 2004 I asked Krogvold to send me what I had assumed was the missing page or pages from Heidi’s 1st December 1986 witness statement. The correspondence went as follows:-

Letter dated 17th March from Assistant Chief Constable Svein Erik Krogvold:-

I am in receipt of your telefax of March 14.

The document you refer to has not more than one page.

The police have previously responded to communication from three different law firms, claiming to represent you. In 1990 from the law firm of Foyen & Bell in London, in 1995 from the law firm of Roll, Komnaes & Wesenberg in Bergen and in 1999 from the law firm Elden & Elden in Oslo.

I can see no reason to responding any further to communication from you or your representatives, in this case which has been closed for over 12 years now.

Yours sincerely,
Svein Erik Krogvold
Assist. Chief Constable

My fax of 20th March 2004 in reply to Mr. Krogvold:-

I am in receipt of your letter of 17th March. I know “the case” has been closed for 12 years. And that’s 12 years of silence has to exactly what Heidi Schøne’s allegation of “attempted rape” involves. Plus 6 more years of silence before the case was closed, i.e. 1986 to 1992.

Enclosed is exhibit 177 [Heidi Overaa’s 1.12.86 police witness statement] in the civil case documentation from the Borgarting Lagmannsrett. The letter of February 28th 1995 from Helge Wesenberg, you will see states in the 3rd paragraph, last line, “attempted rape”. This information was gathered from your police records as per Heidi Overaa’s witness statement. A statement that must be contained in the missing page(s) to the 1.12.86 statement. Where is Heidi Overaa’s signature?

Please send me Heidi Overaa’s statement containing her allegation of attempted rape. This civil case has gone to the Supreme Court. Heidi Schøne, as she later became, has made an allegation in 1998 and onwards that I raped her (no longer “attempted”), “by holding her down”. So I want the 1986 statement to compare the wording. I want the details for the purposes of [getting evidence to prove] her lying on oath - perjury - and for presentation to the Supreme Court/European Court of Human Rights.

You willingly helped Schøne’s lawyer, Vegard Aaløkken, by sending him all the evidence in this case, including Heidi’s signed statements on other occasions. But this one statement on “attempted rape” – read by Wesenberg – is missing.

Please send me the “attempted rape” statement from December 1986.

I also want to know who gave in a report to the Bergen police saying I threatened to kill Heidi’s son “in a letter”. Who brought the letter in? Where is the “death threat” letter?

This matter has made 12 front page stories in your country’s newspapers, so don’t imagine the matter will disappear. If I do not get your co-operation I will have to refer the matter to the Minister of Justice.

Letter dated 24th March 2004 from Mr. Krogvold:-

I refer to your telefax of March 20.

The document you refer to has only one page. I have now repeated it twice and intend not to do it anymore! Heidi Overaa’s signature is at the bottom of the page (below the text: “opplest og vedtatt”). I do not know where you got your copy, but it is not my problem if the signature is missing due to the fact that the document evidently has been placed a bit low in the photocopy machine.

I have no comments to what Mr. Wesenberg might have stated a letter to you, of his interpretation of what might be the content of the case documents he has had access to.

Yours sincerely
Svein Erik Krogvold
Assist. Chief Constable

I replied by fax dated 28th March 2004 to Mr. Krogvold:-

I refer to your letter of 24th March. You know perfectly well what I want: the document that Helge Wesenberg read from your office that allowed him to write to me “attempted rape”. I have sufficient grounds to suspect these words were on “missing page(s)” to the 1.12.86 statement. You tell me there is only one page with Heidi’s signature right at the bottom. Not good enough!

Heidi Overaa’s statement of 18-2-90 (two pages) has her signature at the bottom of the first page but there is a second page as well, with her signature at the bottom. Bearing in mind my lawyer Reg Whitttal at Foyen & Bell in London, wrote to you on June 19th 1990 – in the 8th paragraph – of your “unspecified and unsubstantiated reasons” for your threat to arrest me, I have every reason to question your good faith.

So please send me the document which Mr. Wesenberg based, in your words, “his interpretation” of my actions of “attempted rape”, and tell me who brought the alleged “death threat” letter to Daniel Overaa into the Bergen police. Not only has all evidence of this “death threat’ letter been withheld from me, so has evidence of the police record of the receipt of the letter. Who gave the letter in and which officer received it at the police station? Has it all gone missing?

I see what your Drammen police did to me – in particular police sergeant Torill Sorte of Nedre Eiker – as criminal in nature. And you have all been trying hard as hell to finish me off. Your Attorney-General, Tor Aksel Busch, is covering up police corruption. You know the whole story as it is on the internet.

So, Odd Einar Dørum [Norwegian Minister of Justice] will be contacted, in good time, to look into the Bergen and Drammen police actions and Tor Aksel Busch. Everything is related.

On 14th July 2004 the Disciplinary Council of the Bar Association sent me the English translation of their decision on my appeal to them dated 29th June 2004:-

Translation from Norwegian

The Disciplinary Council rendered the following

DECISION:
On 3 May 2003 the Complainant filed a complaint with the Norwegian Bar Association alleging that the attorney-at-law who is the subject of the complaint had acted unprofessionally when appearing as counsel for the Complainant's female opponent in a legal action brought by the Complainant for damages for defamation. According to the judgment of the city court in the case in question, the Complainant had pursued and harassed the woman for several years, in amongst other ways by sending out a "report" on her to neighbours, friends and family. The harassment largely focused on the woman's sexual morals and relationships with other men. The "report" came to the attention of a newspaper in the area in which the woman lives, and as a countermove against the harassment she agreed to be interviewed by the newspaper. The Complainant's claim for damages for defamation is rooted in these interviews.
The complaint to the Disciplinary Committee of the Norwegian Bar Association concerns the attorney-at-law's failure to cooperate with the Complainant in acquiring police documents, allegedly containing false accusations made by the woman against the Complainant, the attorney's failure to counter the Complainant's submissions to the court and the fact that the attorney-at-law apparently described the Complainant as "a rapist" and "mentally ill" during the court proceedings.
The subject of the complaint refuted the complaint in a letter dated 26 May 2003. He submits that the complaint should be dismissed both because the circumstances raised by the Complainant have already been reviewed by the court, and because he acted only with a view to safeguarding the interests of his client in the case.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Norwegian Bar Association rendered its decision on 4 March 2004, concluding as follows:
The complaint is dismissed.
The dismissal was based on the submissions entered by the subject of the complaint.
In a letter dated 20 March 2004, the Complainant appealed the decision of the Disciplinary Committee to the Disciplinary Council within the due time. The subject of the complaint has not commented on the appeal of the Complainant. Accordingly, it is assumed that the subject of the complaint stands by his submissions to the Disciplinary Committee.
This case is primarily in the same position before the Disciplinary Council as when it was heard by the Disciplinary Committee, and reference is accordingly made to the Committee's outline of the facts in the case.
In a letter dated 29 March 2004 from the secretariat of the Disciplinary Council, the parties were notified that the case had been submitted to the chairman of the Disciplinary Council for an assessment of whether the merits of the case should be reviewed, cf. Section 5-5, first paragraph, of the Rules for Advocates.

According to this provision, the chairman of the Disciplinary Council has the authority to dismiss a complaint if it has not been filed within the due time, if it is patently unfounded, if the complainant has no legal interest in the complaint, or if the circumstances to which the complaint pertains have been brought before the courts.
The Disciplinary Council has reached the same conclusion as the Disciplinary Committee. In justifying its decision, the Disciplinary Council has concluded that it is sufficient to refer to the right and duty of an attorney-at-law to safeguard the interests of his or her clients within the applicable ethical guidelines.
The subject of the complaint represented the Complainant's opponent in a very unusual case, which was based on the prolonged and serious harassment of the attorney-at-law's client. No proof has been submitted to support the contention that the subject of the complaint's handling of the case on behalf of his client was blameworthy, and contravened the requirements as to professional and ethical conduct expected of an attorney-at-law in the performance of an assignment.
The Disciplinary Council notes that a party may often disagree with - and be dissatisfied with - the way in which the opposing party's attorney-at-law performs his or her duties. The adversarial system can of itself easily result in antagonisms of this nature. It may be difficult to appreciate that the attorney-at-law has an obligation to safeguard his client's interests in a conscientious and careful way within the framework of what constitutes professional and correct conduct. The complaint is dismissed as patently unfounded.
This decision was adopted by the chairman of the Disciplinary Council pursuant to Section 5-5, first paragraph, of the Rules for Advocates.
Conclusion:
The decision of the Disciplinary Committee is upheld.
Knut Glad Chairman

True translation certified

Robert Hans Lovering Government Authorised Translator

So the Disciplinary Council decided that my complaint was "patently unfounded".

I had made complaints against five lawyers now. My complaint against Karsten Gjone had been upheld. For the other four lawyers – Helge Wesenberg, Per Danielsen, Eric Lindset and Vegard Aaløkken – the same judge, Knut Glad sitting on the Disciplinary Council of the Bar Association heard my appeals. Each time he dismissed my complaint. A seperate judge should surely have sat on each appeal to avoid the appearance of bias.