On 28th January 1999, Elden & Elden wrote to me:-

Dear Mr. xxx,
HEIDI Schøne
In reference to your letter dated 10 November.
We have contacted both Bergen and Drammen police districts (including Nedre Eiker police station) and requested that the case files be forwarded. When I have received the files, I will examine them thoroughly.
In libel-cases the police seldom seems to be of much help to the defendant [Elden & Elden meant 'plaintiff'], and we must therefore be prepared to take the necessary measures ourselves.
Until I have received the police files, I will not be able to comment any further on the possible false statements given to the police by Heidi Schøne. On this basis, I recommend that any further action be delayed until the files have been examined. Neither Ms. Schøne nor any other involved parties have any obligations towards me as to enlighten the case.
I am also obliged to point out that our legal fee in cases as this one, at this time is NOK 1000, - per hour. I urge you to consider the costs versus the possible gain in conjunction with the case closely, as I must also point out that most of your up-front payment has been used. To conduct further work on the case, I therefore will require further payment made to my account no. 1607.40.23024 in the Union Bank of Norway.
Finally, may I also refer to Norwegian libel-law; possible criminal punishment and damages payable by the defendant may be waived by the court in the case of self-infliction through conduct that may be criticised in the first place, or through reversed libel or physical retortion. On this basis, we may be met by accusations that the possible libel from Ms. Schøne was "nullified" by reversed libel.
It is, however, much too early to make any predictions as to the result of a legal process before the Norwegian courts. Even true statements can be considered libel in Norwegian law, should the statements have been made without reasonable cause or based on the way in which the statements were made.
In case you should doubt Ms. Schøne's mental state, I must also point out that Norwegian law does not accept the conviction of people considered legally insane, and this state may also free the accused of paying any damages. The court may, however, declare the statements made nullified.
Kind regards,
For John Christian Elden advokat

John Christian Elden was the son of John Elden Senior who I initially spoke to.
I replied on 2nd February 1999:-

Dear Mr. Elden,
Heidi Schøne
Many thanks for your letter of 28th January. I am grateful for your comments. I will arrange for another payment of NKR 5,000 to be made to your account.
I am painfully aware of the costs implications in this case. Maybe however we won't have to go to court if Heidi Schøne can be properly exposed and dealt with beforehand. My confidence comes from the direct evidence I have from policeman Svein Jensen that he doesn't really believe Heidi and they only have her word on what she's alleging.
First of all I'm looking forward to you writing to her once you've read the police papers. If you are concerned about the costs implications as I am, then the much avoided letter to Heidi Schøne is really an obvious and minimal requirement. Is she so out of reach, so untouchable? I have corroborating taped evidence from her best friend at the time about the event of the Bergen shopkeeper raping or attempting to rape Heidi.
I know the Bergen police papers well enough. But why in 1990 did they not tell me about the allegation of attempted rape from 1986 or the allegation of threats in writing to kill her son?
The failure of the newspapers to follow their own rules and give voice to my side of the story will surely be in my favour. How can the "libels" possibly cancel each other out when what I wrote is all true but what she wrote must to any normal person be seen for what it is - trash and lies.
As for Heidi Schøne's mental state: yes she was in the B.S.S. Psychiatric Clinic in Lier; she has, she says, been "exorcised" and her husband did speak to me "in tongues". She is clearly very disturbed indeed but still clever enough, with criminal intent, to know exactly how to play things with the newspapers and police in order to give me maximum damage. But Svein Jensen didn't fall for her lies. The only pity is that Torill Sorte took over the case from him. A case, may I remind you, that didn't start to be investigated until April 17th 1996 at my own behest.
I am a lawyer. You are a lawyer. Put yourself in my position. How would you like it? I might well have been in much more trouble that I was and I will not forgive her motives in trying to ruin me. It's not my fault I didn't discover her allegation of attempted rape until nine years later - after all my London lawyers should have been told in 1990 and the statute of limitations ran out at the end of 1992. Besides, twelve years on she is saying that it's actual rape - for the first time, when it was me who constantly pressed Torill Sorte to investigate the circumstances of the allegation of attempted rape (as well as the Bergen shopkeeper event).
I don't mind a battle of words in court. I'm confident I can win.
And what of the PFU? Have they contacted you? Don't let them off the hook. I want their participation now. It is high time.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx

On 3rd February 1999, Elden & Elden wrote to me:-

Dear Mr. xxx,
HEIDI Schøne
In reference to your letter dated 21 January 1999.
I have today received the PFU files. PFU have in it's meeting on 17. September 1998 decided not to make exemptions from the time limit regarding your complaint. This decision is unfortunately final, or in other words inappealable.
I must also point out that your up-front payment now has been consumed. To conduct further work on the case, I therefore will require further payment made to my account no. 1607.40.23025 in the Union Bank of Norway with NOK 6,000 this time.
Kind regards,
For John Christian Elden advokat

This matter had in fact been passed over to another lawyer in the firm, Eric Lindset. He hadn't read the PFU papers properly. The date of "17th September 1998" was an Elden & Elden error. On 17th September 1996 the PFU rejected my 1996 complaint (refer to the letter from the PFU printed earlier in this book dated 2nd October 1996). So on 6th February 1999 I wrote back to Eric Lindset:-

Dear Mr. Lindset,
Heidi Schøne
Further to our telephone conversation yesterday, I enclose as you requested a copy of my letter to the PFU dated 19th July 1998 and their reply dated 29th July 1998. You will see that my complaint is in time in relation to the article of 14th July 1998 in Drammens Tidende. Please deal with the PFU and tell them to stop being a pain in the arse and investigate my complaint.
I also enclose a list of questions I gave to Karsten Gjone to be asked of Heidi Schøne. I want the answers, no matter what, and therefore once you have read the police papers please issue a writ against Heidi Schøne (and her husband if necessary). I must have your assurance, once you have read the police papers that a letter and then a writ will be issued.
You will find in the Bergen police papers an allegation of attempted rape from December 1986. This allegation is now actual rape (since 1998) as you will see on Drammen police papers. Don't blame me for telling everyone about Heidi's life if (a) false allegations of attempted rape and now rape are made against me as well as an allegation of rape by Heidi against a Bergen shopkeeper in the l980's and (b) the newspapers disregarded their own rules in allowing my story to be printed to deny me the right to refute allegations that I threatened to kill her son, neighbours, friends etc.
This is a big case in Norway and I will not have things hushed up and kept quiet to save the newspapers, police and Heidi Schøne further embarrassment. She had her public say in the newspapers. Let me now get the answers to my questions. If she is legally insane, then the Court can declare this. Until they do on we go.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx

I also wrote on 8th February 1999:-

Dear Mr. Elden,
Heidi Schøne
I am in receipt of your [firm's] letter of 3rd February this morning. Your colleague Eric Lindset will be in receipt soon of a letter of mine dated 6th February.
I telephoned the PFU this morning and Kjell Børringbo answered the phone. He told me that nothing has been decided yet on my complaint dated 19th July 1998 over the 14th July 1998 Drammens Tidende article. Børringbo wrote to Karsten Gjone on 19th July 1998 enclosing a copy of that letter to me also of 19th July 1998. I am clearly within the time limits and the PFU expect you to progress the matter. I expect nothing less than a full enquiry of Drammens Tidende.
May I please hear from you immediately that you have cleared up the confusion and that the PFU will look into my complaint of 19th July 1998. For ease of reference I enclose all the 1998 correspondence with the PFU.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx
P.S. Regarding my up-front payment, this of course has been spent reading the papers but what you have you to conclude so far? What of Anne-Kristin Horvei and Vesta? I see what you have written in your letter to me of 28th January but as Heidi Schøne's statements are outrageous lies, and my statements are true, then the burden of proof being on her to prove her newspaper allegations, the only way forward is for a writ to be issued asking her to prove her allegations. There are two aspects here:- Heidi Schøne in court for her lies; the newspapers disobeying their self-regulatory rules; - your comments please, and Vesta dealing with the libel matter after Gjone's involvement. No matter what Norwegian laws are, I am in no doubt that I am entitled to get answers to my questions regarding Heidi's lies and she must prove what she said. Svein Jensen doesn't believe her; - your comments please. As for Gjone, apart from his name being published in the legal journals for his failure to get answers to my questions, what else can be done to punish him?

And I wrote again on 14th February 1999:-

Dear Mr. Lindset,
Heidi Schøne
I write further to our conversation last Friday. I expect the NKR 6,000 will arrive in your account in the next two or three days.
Now that you have the Bergen police papers and will soon have the Drammen police papers, please get answers to these questions:-
1. For the Bergen papers, please give me a list with dates of all the papers they have. Any letters of mine, please copy and send me. Please obtain an exact translation of Heidi Schøne's statement alleging attempted rape. I have correspondence between Føyen & Bell and Krogvold from 1990 but my lawyers were not happy with Krogvold at all and this time I want to sort things out once and for all.
2. Please ask Krogvold why he didn't inform Føyen & Bell in 1990 of the allegation of attempted rape.
3. Please ask Krogvold to supply evidence of Heidi Schøne's complaint of rape by a Bergen shopkeeper in the l980's. Heidi told me herself and also told Ann-Kristin Horvei who told me too.
4. Heidi told Torill Sorte that a letter was given by Gudmund Johannessen's parents in 1988 to the Bergen police wherein I was alleged to have threatened to kill Heidi's two year old son. The Bergen police do not recall ever having received such a letter, which is obviously not on the police file. How come such vital "evidence" is lost? Answer:- because it never existed in the first place. And the fact that the Bergen police didn't report this to my lawyer in 1990 confirms this.
5. On the Drammen police papers, please obtain the statement from Heidi saying that in fact she alleged I raped her. I want to compare statements of "attempted rape" to "rape". Why change her story?
6. Please ask Policeman Svein Jensen why he didn't believe Heidi. He must have based his opinion on something, i.e. her statements. What papers did he look at and what was it exactly that made Svein Jensen think Heidi is lying? Remember it was quite a few months from Svein Jensen seeing Heidi and/or her statements to the time that Torill Sorte interviewed Heidi. I feel that the police had already made their minds up that Heidi was a liar. It was me who kept insisting for Heidi to be interviewed again. She kept avoiding the police until April 1996. Did Svein Jensen ever interview Heidi? After Svein Jensen there was another policeman handling the case: he did nothing, Torill Sorte told me, and then left. Next it was Torill Sorte's turn.
7. Please obtain confirmation and details from the Drammen/Mjøndalen police of Heidi Schøne's complaint in Christmas 1990 to the police of the assault on her by Gudmund Johannessen. I want to know Johannessen's reasons for beating Heidi to the ground. It was this assault that I believe made Heidi want to get revenge on me and which she proceeded to do in February 1990 when I was arrested. I believe Johannessen was angry with Heidi for her telling me about Johannessen's heroin abuse.
N.B. Heidi has admitted to Torill Sorte that she asked me and my best friend over to Norway in 1998 to deal with Gudmund Johannessen prior to Heidi's second suicide attempt
8. Please enquire of the newspapers why they failed to observe their own rules with regard to consulting me and printing my side of the story. Also did they pay Heidi money for her "story"?
Please in future send me copies of all correspondence you have with others on my behalf.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx

On 18th February 1999 I received the following fax from Elden & Elden.

Dear Mr. xxx,
HEIDI Schøne
In reference to your letters and copies, telephone calls and telefaxes,
I have been in touch with Mr. Børringbo at PFU, and he has also informed me that your last complaint is received within the correct time limit. In a letter dated 12. of February, the PFU has also informed me that they were uncertain as to whether you will try the case before the Courts. If so, the PFU rules implies that it may not rule on the complaint until the court action is finished.
I do not recommend legal action against Mr. Gjone. I have noted that you have issued both the PFU as well as "Drammens Tidende" (the newspaper) with copies of the Bar Association's decision against Mr. Gjone.
As you know from our telephone conversations, I have received the documents from Bergen police district. The case is too old for you to press charges, but I must let you know that the case files contain several letters from you. [Some] letters contain what is here considered to be harassment, regardless of whether the contents is true or not. Norwegian law prohibits me from making you copies or translations of the police files without the police's written consent. The police does not normally consent in cases such as this one. You are however free to read the documents yourself in my office or at a police station.
I'm still waiting for the documents from Drammen police district. Until I have received these, I still cannot comment any further the case. I recommend that any further action be delayed until the files have been examined.
Furthermore, I must strongly emphasize that I must recommend against you contacting the other parties directly while we are handling the cases.
For your information, I enclose copies of all correspondence in the case this far.
Once more, I am also obliged to ask you to consider the costs versus the possible gain in conjunction with the case closely, as all the time we use on the case is being billed at 15 minute-increments. At present, we have used a total of 10,5 hours. Provided that you have recently made a payment of NOK 6,000, I must ask for another NOK 10,000 in advance based on the fact that this case seem to become work-intensive. Further work on the case requires such payment as mentioned.
Kind regards,
John Christina Elden lawyer
Enclosures: 5 documents

Concerning the PFU rules, I was puzzled to be told on the telephone by Eric Lindset that the PFU required me first to promise not to sue the newspaper, Drammens Tidende, over their 14th July 1998 article, if the PFU were to proceed to investigate my complaint.
I replied on 18th February 1999 by two letters:-

Dear Mr. Elden,
Heidi Schøne
I refer to your letter dated (mistakenly) 28th January faxed to me today by Eric Lindset. I await the hard copy plus 5 enclosures.
The NKR 6,000 should be in your account today or tomorrow. It has already been sent by my bank.
I note all you say. I have spoken to Eric Lindset this morning. I confirm that I will not be suing Drammens Tidende for the July 1998 article. They did not name me and I will not be able, I think, to find someone who recognised me from the article.[I was forgetting of course that my previous lawyer Karsten Gjone had recognised me]. However, the 1995 articles and Vesta/Gjone missing the time limits and Ann-Kristin Horvei recognising me must be carefully looked into.
Please therefore ask the PFU to look into my complaint.
Please also send me the lawyers journal with Gjone's name and negligence report. [I was yet to discover disciplined lawyers were never named].
With regard to Bergen police dept. papers, I see that it seems a girl can do whatever she wants and in fact cannot be told off. I guess the fact that she later tried to take her life, again, over Gudmund Johannessen is, perversely, irrelevant. That I am far away in England, and was subjected to the behaviour of a disturbed woman seems to be of no concern to the police (who later told me that Heidi was sick). Also in 1988 I sent her many nice letters but they weren't given to the Bergen police.
Eric Lindset also told me that Heidi Schøne did not in 1986 made any sort of full statement concerning the allegation of attempted rape. She just mentioned the allegation. A pity because I would like to have compared statements from 1986 to 1998 when she told Torill Sorte that I raped her "by holding her down". Still, Heidi told the journalist at Drammens Tidende that I had "attempted" to rape her. Drammens Tidende did not print this. I told Drammens Tidende Heidi is now saying rape.
I appreciate your concern at my writing to the third parties. I did this to save my costs with you and to make these parties realise they must get on with helping you. But I won't write to them again.
As far as the Drammen police papers are concerned, there is nothing in them for you to worry about. The police only investigated the case because I asked them to and because of my information campaign against Heidi and the newspapers.
As Eric told me today, my claim against Heidi Schøne is for false accusations she made in 1995. As she will not voluntarily help me, then a writ to force her to prove the accusations is surely the only way forward.
I myself know more or less everything from the Drammen police papers. I was spending hundreds and hundreds of pounds phoning the Drammen police/Bergen police/newspapers/lawyers etc. I don't want you to spend much time looking at the Drammen papers. Save that I want to know exactly what papers Svein Jensen based his opinion on, that he did not believe Heidi. Did he see her? As for my information campaign, the newspapers are to blame. They did not follow their own rules to let my point of view be made public.
So if I had my way, I would say try not to penalise me in costs for information I mostly know of the Drammen police papers. Particularly as you feel you cannot even write to Heidi Schøne, the untouchable, for unproven false allegations in the press. I do realise that as you have not seen the Drammen papers, you cannot commit yourselves to acting against her, but you will soon see there will be nothing stopping you issuing a writ.
I will send more money but only once you have given me your word that a writ and letter will be given in person to Heidi Schøne over false allegations, on the basis that there will be nothing new for me in the Drammen police papers. You can wait until you receive the papers for a brief look and perhaps a telephone call to the investigating officer to cut down reading time.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx

Dear Mr. Elden,
Heidi Schøne
I refer to the Bergen police papers and the letters of mine they have. I remember well my time in the Bergen police station in 1990 in February. The police certified that none of my letters contained threats. These letters I read with my police interpreter, who told me she though Heidi was "sick". Yet the fact she's been sleeping with someone injecting with heroin - no comment by the police. Don't expect me to keep quiet or write nothing. I'm not in Norway. I have to write. And if I repeat my questions to her don't blame me - if she doesn't answer then I keep writing. When I went to Norway I was arrested on false accusations. Even the shit of a journalist with Verdens Gang told me the police had supplied him with "facts" for his story - the Bergen police. I asked the Bergen police in writing for an explanation, which I was told they were obliged to reply to. They never replied. So I had to pressure Heidi Schøne to overcome the cover-up. Are you telling me that the only way to get answers is to pay you to basically then tell me how so awfully much it will cost me, with the charge that I am wasting my money? Well, in other words, justice and answers are inaccessible in Norway. It won't work on me. I hold the Bergen police in complete contempt as I also do the newspapers and Karsten Gjone. They think just because I'm over here, and I'm not Norwegian, then they can say and write utter rubbish. Besides, it's racist and anti-Muslim crap that was printed. I've never hit Heidi or touched her, ever. But the pig she slept with - Johannessen - did abuse her and assault her. But he's "OK". No mention of him in the newspapers.
So why should I not resume my campaign against the newspapers? It is the duty of the newspapers to print my story. They disobeyed their own rules. They are in great difficulty because they know that if they don't print my story, then my campaign will resume in due course.
The Bergen police - Krogvold, did not tell me of the allegation of attempted rape in 1990 - ask him why. Confront the man. He even said in theory I could face a prison sentence, when the diplomat Vidar Kleiven said I was free to travel to Norway. So after that, do you think I'm just going to keep quiet?
I have every right to get Heidi Schøne to prove her allegations and she'll have to do just that. She won't be able to prove them and I will win. That is reward enough against an arrogant "do-whatever-I-want" bitch along with the perverted press of Norway. The press was exactly like the Nazi press and more recently Serb press. And they cannot get away with it.
Frederick xxx

On 19th February 1999 I wrote to Elden & Elden enclosing some of the 1990 correspondence between my London lawyers and the Bergen police, which indicated the brick wall we'd come up against at that time. I remarked how odd it was that the PFU were now looking into my case, now that I had another Norwegian lawyer, whereas they refused, wrongly, to deal with me directly once Advoket Karsten Gjone had given up.
Slowly I was building up a fuller picture for Elden & Elden.

On 23rd February, 1999 I wrote to Elden & Elden:-

Dear Mr. Elden,
Heidi Schøne
I have once again spoken to Ann-Kristin Horvei, who recognised me from the Verdens Gang article of May 1995. She knew me well - since December 1984 - but knew none of the "facts" quoted by Verdens Gang and my reputation was damaged in her eyes. She had been a close friend of Heidi Schøne (now Schøne) until 1987 since when they have not spoken. She also told me that another chap who we both know, recognised me from the newspapers - he is Bjorn- Morten (I don't know his surname).
Ann-Kristin Horvei told me she is willing to give a statement to you. Please write to her at:
Laeirvåg, 5153 Fonnas. (Tlf (56) 16 86 24).
You will then be able to proceed with Vesta and my claim against Karsten Gjone, for missing the three year time limit in suing the newspaper V.G.
I was assured by Tor Staff that such a statement (from Ann-Kristin) may well form the basis for a successful claim against the newspapers.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx

The correspondence continued on 24.2.1999:-

Dear Mr. xxx,
HEIDI Schøne
In reference to your most recent letters and copies, telephone calls and telefaxes.
I understand by your letter dated 19th February that you will handle the PFU-case without further assistance from me from now on.
I'm still waiting for the documents from Drammen police district. Until I have received these, I still cannot comment any further on the case. A new letter has been issued to Drammen police district. Once again, I recommend that any further action be delayed until the files have been examined.
Your case against Bergen police district/Krogvold is precluded because of the legal time limits, and I therefore recommend no further action on this aspect of the case.
I find from time to time your handwriting complex to read, particularly in telefaxes.
At present, we have used a total of 13,75 hours. We have recently received a payment of NOK 6,000, and I must ask for another NOK 10,000 in advance based on the fact that this case seem to become very work intensive. Further work on the case requires such payment as mentioned.
Kind regards,
For John Christian Elden lawyer

Letter dated 28.2.1999:-

Dear Mr. Elden,
Heidi Schøne
By the time this letter reaches you, I trust some more money will have entered your account. I also hope the Drammen police papers will soon be with you.
Please send me a copy of your letter to the PFU telling them to investigate my complaint. Now that you are handling my case with the PFU, please continue with them. The point I had been trying to make was that when I told the PFU last year to deal with me [directly], as Gjone had done nothing, they refused. That is just not on, as in fact it doesn't really need a lawyer to progress the matter. But as the PFU don't respect me at all and only get down to business by pressure from a Norwegian lawyer, then please yourself, help me out. [I had in fact never told Eric Lindset I would handle the PFU case on my own "from now on". He misread my wishes completely. The opposite was the case. The PFU's hostility towards me meant a Norwegian lawyer's involvement was indispensable]
I am not satisfied with continued silence from the Bergen police. I enclose their letter to my lawyers dated April 19th 1990. Their words in the fifth paragraph:- "present suspicion of serious crimes" may be thrown back in my face at any trial I attend in Norway. I have to know the substance of these allegations for once. The passage of time should not deflect you from the injustice I have suffered in the 1980's and 1990. It is a fact that when I was in the police station in 1990 the police interpreter certified that none of my letters contained threats. I resent the implication that strong letters to a sick woman - a crafty, manipulative, scheming, sick woman - are wrong in principle and are interpreted to be threatening. When none of my letters in 1990 were declared threatening, what wording did I use in the letter or letters that later turned up?
I will have to look at your file in your office myself, so please hold on to it. Given that the Drammen police have told me and the press that I will be arrested on entry to Norway, I will have to risk an overland trip from Sweden, rather than the possibility of arrest at Oslo airport.
Sooner or later, I expect you to write to Krogvold at Bergen and ask him the questions I want asking. Particularly as to why I wasn't told of the attempted rape allegation and also what comment they have to make on Heidi's statement that a letter I wrote containing threats to kill her son was handed in to the Bergen police by Gudmund Johannessen's parents. Torill Sorte told me that the Bergen police do not ever recall having received such a letter.
Also a girl who's slept with a man whom she knows to be taking heroin was not commented on by the Bergen police. That's the reason I went over there in February 1990:- to confront Heidi over her sick behaviour. After all she didn't write with an explanation. So much for my trying to combat drug abuse. The spirit of my actions was completely ignored by the Bergen police.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx

Letter dated 2.3.1999:-

Dear Mr. Elden,
Heidi Schøne
Thank you for your letter of 24th February which I have received this morning.
You will have received my letter of 28th February and a further 6,000 kroner, which I trust is enough to be getting on with for now. You will see my comments on the PFU; please yourselves, push them into action and ask if they can reply to you in English; they are quite capable of this. The PFU investigation may take a long time. Is there a chance of a quick answer from the newspapers as to why they didn't follow their rules over my right to reply?
As far as I can see, they will never print my story. Any apology will be a small paragraph which few readers will notice - and although this may be a symbolic victory for me, it won't be enough and the newspapers know what I will do if I don't get a full front page apology with my story printed. So the newspapers are in a dilemma.
Can you not also ask the newspaper - D.T. for evidence of the 300 letters "written to Heidi in the last year" by me. They are lying, so at least this will help you to have more confidence in what I am saying. They will have faxes; letters in the form of my "reports" - many of those, yes, but only about five or so letters to Heidi and if you read them they are self-explanatory.
[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] to Heidi in 1986 was quite natural and understandable - [probably] a reaction to the girl sleeping with Johannessen, a man injecting heroin. This was a dreadful risk which indeed may have had disastrous consequences for me, and indeed Bjorn-Morten of Bergen who also slept with Heidi several times in 1985 without knowing of Johannessen's drug abuse. Bjorn-Morten is well known to Ann-Kristin Horvei and she will confirm Bjorn-Morten's relationship with Heidi. It is a fact that Heidi and Johannessen had two AIDS tests each after Daniel Schøne was born.

So the letter[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]- is being used by Heidi as a platform for a long list of lies, i.e. threats to kill her son, her neighbours, herself; hundreds of obscene phone calls, hundreds of obscene letters, sexual harassment. There is no proof for any of this so surely prosecuting Heidi for these lies will be successful. I will stand firm and take my chances in court. But I don't want to wait until a court hearing to get a response to a writ. Surely when a writ is given to Heidi she is obliged to provide answers, i.e. proof of her allegations, straight away? And if she can't do this: she will definitely fail I promise you, then going to court will be a formality just to pronounce her guilty.
Regarding the Bergen police, I do not want to sue them. I just want answers to my questions. There aren't many questions. A one page letter to Krogvold will do. After all Torill Sorte asked the Bergen police questions last year as to this fictitious letter threatening to kill Heidi's son that Heidi insisted was given to the Bergen police in 1988. What an evil allegation! Pure evil.
I am sorry you could not read my faxes, so here are the originals: two for 18th February and one for 23rd February.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx

On 13th March 1999, Eric Lindset wrote to the Press Complaints Bureau (PFU). The translation is as follows:-

PFU (Press Professional Committee)
Postboks 46 Sentrum
0101 OSLO

Dear Sirs
I refer to your letter of 8th inst. and also earlier correspondence.
N.N. wishes Law Firm Elden DA to represent him in relation to yourself in the present case, and we have taken on the assignment.
It is not opportune at present for N.N. to bring to court his case against Drammens Tidende·Buskerud Blad. N.N. therefore requests that his complaint of 19 July 1998 should now be subjected to your consideration of the facts.
N.N. has filed a suit [complaint] against Drammens Tidende·Buskerud Blad on the basis of the newspaper's notice concerning him on Tuesday 14th July 1998, on pages 1 and 5. A copy of the article was enclosed with the complaint.
N.N. asserts that the abovementioned article constitutes a breach of good press practice. N.N.'s allegations can be seen from both the complaint itself and his fax and other letters, as well as telephone calls to yourself and the summonsed party. I will mention below his main points, however.
N.N. got to know several people among the readership of Drammens Tidende·Buskerud Blad during his stay in Norway and contact with the woman interviewed in the article. The latter recognized/identified N.N. as the person spoken about.
N.N. finds it offensive to be given the description mentally disturbed, and points out that the statement is completely without foundation.
In addition, N.N. emphasizes that the other allegations about him in the article are also false and, at the same time, liable to offend both his self-esteem and his reputation. Even if it is beyond PFU's competence to give an opinion on what is true or not, N.N. thinks that the very serious allegations made demand adequate treatment of the newspaper. The press must show concern to present correct, factual information, particularly when it is a matter of material that can discredit the good name and reputation of people. In this case, it looks as if the newspaper did not take into consideration that N.N. may be innocent of the allegations. This kind of thing is usually not established until after the final verdict. In any case, the criticism could be made that Drammens Tidende·Buskerud Blad uses a verificatory form in the notice and does not make clear to the readers whether it is a matter only of private allegations or a police statement or charge. According to N.N., this reflects a lack of quality of reporting. A minimum would have been to allow N.N. to put his version of the case. According to N.N., this omission must certainly provide a basis for criticism on the grounds of press ethics. In other words, the gathering of information was one-sided, since N.N. did not have any opportunity to make objections or remonstrations. N.N. alleges that Drammens Tidende·Buskerud Blad did not take into consideration the possibility that the interviewed woman used the newspaper as a means of smearing him without reason worthy of any attention. In penal action the press should presumably be careful about repeating statements from the alleged offended person and hence a potential witness.
Furthermore, N.N. deems it inadmissible, irrelevant and offensive for him and other Muslims that his religious persuasion should be given prominence in the notice.
In conclusion, I would like to ask whether it is possible to obtain PFU's decision in English translation.
With kind regards,
Eric Lindset

Eric Lindset wisely left it open for me to sue Drammens Tidende after the PFU had dealt with the matter. In his eighth paragraph Eric Lindset refers to the fact that the PFU has no power to look into the truth or falsehood of a newspaper allegation. Lindset should have told me this. For a long time I was unaware of this crucial point as his letter of 13th March 1999 was not translated into English until many months later.The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) in England on the other hand, do look into the accuracy of press statements depending on the context in which they are used and the degree of insult /damage/loss of reputation caused. The PCC can order the newspaper to make an apology.

All Elden & Elden were doing now was sending me copies of the correspondence
(in Norwegian) they had been entering into with the Bergen and Drammen police and the PFU. They were not providing a translation of even the shortest letters (often just two or three sentences) to save costs, so I had to ring them up for an update from time to time. It was tedious work having to go over the same ground - often repeatedly - with the new lawyers. Some of the "advice" given to me by Eric Lindset over the phone was of a very uncertain general nature. That's why I wanted advice put in writing. As far as the Drammen police were concerned, Elden & Elden wrote to them in January, February and March asking for the police papers to be sent to them, but with no success. So on 19th April, they threatened the police with a Court application to force them to produce the papers. On 27th April, the police wrote to my lawyers saying that after 14th May my lawyers could visit the police station to look at the police files, once the police had got everything together.
Drammens Tidende then made it clear they did not want to deal with the Press Complaints Bureau (PFU) if I still intended taking the newspaper to Court. On 17th May, I had been told by Elden & Elden that, once more, the newspaper wanted to wait until after I had sued them before they dealt with the PFU. With no immediate prospect of a writ being issued, I reminded Elden & Elden of my instructions of 18th February: that I would not sue Drammens Tidende - and this was confirmed by Elden & Elden to the PFU on the 24th May. At all times, it was my intention to prosecute Heidi Schøne and Drammens Tidende in getting them to prove what they said was true as advised to me orally by Tor Staff. I wrote on 21st May 1999 to Eric Lindset at Elden & Elden with a full list of the statements made in the four newspaper articles that I wanted the three newspapers and Heidi Schøne to prove were true in Court. Unfortunately, I was labouring under a misapprehension. I thought wrongly that Norwegian law allowed two separate causes of action; one where the defendant had to prove what was printed was true, even if no one recognised the unnamed plaintiff from the offending article and the other the usual complete libel action, which involved a recognition of the unnamed plaintiff by a reader or readers, plus the requirement of the defendant proving what was written was true. I thought that the former cause of action would just give a lower form of compensation than the latter. Hence my letter to Elden and Elden dated 18th February 1999 promising not to sue Drammens Tidende (which I meant but didn't specify was) for a full libel action. Hence the value of proper written legal advice, which I had never received from anyone up to now. There was, of course, in reality only one legal cause of action which was the full libel action - finding someone who recognised me and asking the defendant to prove the truth of what was written. I was later to discover also that the newspaper could be sued under the criminal law for negligence.
Nothing came back from Elden & Elden to contradict my belief that I could take Heidi and the newspaper to Court to prove what they were saying was true. On 7th June, my lawyer wrote to me saying that they still hadn't managed to get to the Drammen police station to see the papers. As far as I was concerned, this hurdle was all that was preventing a writ being issued. On 24th May, 30th May and 7th June Elden & Elden sent copies of the latest correspondence on the case, each letter in Norwegian consisting of just two sentences. They couldn't be bothered to tell me in English what was written.
On 10th June, Elden & Elden wrote back to me enclosing a copy of a three page letter from Drammens Tidende to the Press Complaints Bureau dated 7th June 1999.
On 20th June 1999, my lawyers, Elden & Elden, sent me copies of 8 of my letters from 1986 to 1989 that the Bergen police had on file since March 1990. On 6 of those copy letters, I could see the sender's fax reference: "From Drammen Politkammer 03 8 31212 [being the fax number of the Drammen police] 90.02.18 [being the 18th February 1990 - the date I was in the cells in Bergen police station] pages 1 to 15." There were six letters that the Bergen police interpreter had read through and certified as not containing a single reference to any threats. Four of the letters, dated 4th August 1989, 7th October 1989, 11th October 1989 and 17th December 1989 were addressed to Heidi's sister, Elizabeth. Only two were addressed to Heidi, dated 2nd August 1989 and 16th December 1989. They were letters containing very personal and private details on Heidi's family and her related problems and I remember telling the police in Bergen in February 1990 (after Heidi's sister Elizabeth gave the letters to the Drammen police to fax them to the Bergen police) something like "Elizabeth could see for herself that these letters contained no threats at all and that they were so private in nature that surely she wouldn't want you [the police] of all people to see the family's dirty washing".

For the whole of June 1999 I was in fact abroad in Paris, so none of the correspondence sent to me that month was looked at until July.
However, on 18th June from Paris I telephoned Eric Lindset in Oslo for a progress report and he told me he'd received a response from Drammens Tidende [dated 7th June 1999] addressed to the Press Complaints Bureau (PFU). I asked him what it said and he told me it was a long letter but it didn't say anything new. He did say, however, that he would delay replying to it until I'd had a chance to read it on my return at the beginning of July. I told him on the phone that as he'd told me there was "nothing new", then he might as well respond as he saw fit and refer again to his original submissions to the PFU.
The next day, I'd changed my mind and wrote to Eric Lindset telling him to wait until I got home so I could consider the Drammens Tidende letter. On 21st June, from Paris I wrote to my lawyer again:-

Dear Mr. Lindset,
Heidi Schøne
I write further to my letter of 19th June. As I told you in that letter, I'll wait until I get home now to consider the Drammens Tidende letter and get back to you.
However, I only want you to reply to the D-T letter once you have gone to the Drammen police station. You can then yourself confirm that there is no evidence for the several serious allegations Heidi made to the press. This will be of much weight to the PFU.
I hope D-T will comment, or have commented, on the taped conversations I had with Ingunn Røren and Svein Jensen. I hope D-T have commented on their refusal to consult me before they went to print and their refusal to print my side of the story. I expect, still, my side of the story to be printed with the admissions Svein Jensen and Ingunn Røren made to me.
Also I would like you to telephone Svein Jensen or call on him to ask him on what he based his comments on not really believing Heidi . Did he interview her himself? Did he read the newspapers?
Further, do D-T accept that what Heidi did:- make false allegations of attempted rape in 1986 and of actual rape in 1998, along with her other behaviour over the years, -resulted in my campaign against her?
Do D-T believe the résumé of Heidi's past life written in Norwegian? Do D-T accept that what was written by all three newspapers in 1995 most of which was anti-Muslim and utter rubbish, meant that I would continue a big campaign against her?
I do not want there to be a cover-up by the PFU and Drammens Tidende, neither of whom like me at all.
I very much hope that by the time I get back to England at the end of this month, you would have had the time to have visited the Drammen police station. Then the question of the writ and Vesta/Gjone can be addressed.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx

When I got home from Paris on 30th June, I found that Eric Lindset had written to me on the 24th June:-

Dear Mr. xxx,
Heidi Schøne
In reference to Your letters of 18 and 24.06.99
For Your Information, I enclose copy of my letter to PFU of today.
Kind regards,
For John Christian Elden Lawyer

Well I hadn't written to him on either the 18th or the 24th June but on the 19th and 21st June, which were my two letters from Paris. He must have made a simple mistake. His letter of 24th June to the PFU read:-

PFU (press professional committee)
Postboks 46 Sentrum
0101 OSLO

Dear Sirs,
I refer to your letter of the 9th inst. and also earlier correspondence.
On behalf of N.N. I wish to make clear that the newspaper's reply does not give rise to further additions from here and that which was stated earlier is adhered to.
With kind regards,
Eric Lindset

The PFU replied on 25th June:-
Adv. Eric Lindset
Adv. -firma Elden og Elden
Prinsens gt. 21,

Dear Sirs,


We have received your communication to the effect that there is nothing to be added in the abovementioned complaint case.

This completes the round of replies and the complaint will be dealt with at PFU's meeting on 24.08.99. The Committee's opinion will then be sent to the parties.

With kind regards,

Kjell M. Børringbo
Organization Secretary

Copy: Drammens Tidende/Buskerud Blad, per ansv. Red. Hans Arne Odde PB. 7033.3007 DRAMMEN

On 30th June, Eric Lindset wrote to me:-

Dear Mr. xxx,
HEIDI Schøne
In reference to your letters of 18. and 30.06.99.
For Your information, I enclose copy of new letter from PFU dated 25.06.1999.
I have now examined your letters, telefaxes and postcards to Heidi Schøne and others in the Drammen police archive. It is my opinion that the phrases used in them, is a hindrance for you to gain a judicial victory against Schøne at Norwegian tribunals.
Kind regards,
Eric Lindset
For John Christian Elden lawyer

On the 3rd July 1999, I drove up to the Norwegian church in xxxerhithe, East London, and asked the assistant in the Church to translate verbally the letter from Drammens Tidende dated 7th June 1999 (which much later was professionally translated in writing), which went:-
Postboks 46, Sentrum 0101

Dear Sirs,
With reference to the report from PFU of 31.5, and to lawyer Elden's letter to PFU on 24.5, I take it as the basis that PFU is dealing with the practical aspects of the complaint against the newspaper.
In connection with the proceedings, I ask PFU to consider the case as a whole - from the first article in 1995 and to the provisional final news report on 14th July 1998.
1. Background
DT-BB mentioned the case for the first time on 27 May 1995 enclosure 1) following an article in VG which showed that Heidi Schøne had moved to N. Eiker. Our journalist Ingunn Røren contacted Schøne, who agreed to be interviewed. Her reason for appearing in the newspaper was to give people an explanation for all of the "reports" on her that had been sent to very many people - to neighbours, colleagues and occasionally firms. She produced examples of such letters which had caused her a great deal of trouble. Both Heidi Schøne and her husband Runar Schøne gave an impression of being nice and believable. The newspaper's staff also saw a pile of letters that she had received from the Englishman, as well as several extreme books and newspapers dealing with AIDS and abortions. The Schøne family had reported harassment to the Nedre Eiker police office.
The journalist cannot remember whether she tried to contact the Englishman, but shortly after the first article was printed he rang her at the newspaper. He was calm during the first few minutes of the call and expressed himself well. Gradually he became more and more excited and shouted out a number of allegations against Heidi Schøne. Most of them were to the effect that she was a "sex criminal". The man said that he had a number of letters which could prove what he said about Heidi and offered to send them to the newspaper together with replies to Heidi's statements.
The journalist received a pile of papers from him a few days later. The papers were copies of cards which Heidi Schøne had sent to him and also a letter on two A4 sheets that were clearly replies to her statements. The letter (Enclosure 2) had obviously been written by a confused person and contained serious allegations against Heidi Schøne, assertions that Norway is the country in the world which kills most foster children ["foster" is the Norwegian word for "foetal" and was mistranslated by the Norwegian interpreter. What was meant here was that Norway performs the world's highest percentage of abortions], a "conversation" between a foster child and a mother, exorcising of demons and a footnote which says that the letter is dedicated to the memory of all crushed Bosnian Muslims. Following discussions in the editorial office, we agreed that neither the letter nor any other of the man's statements could be used, because he had to be protected against himself and because it was impossible to reproduce any of the statements in print. The letter confirmed the impression Heidi Schøne had given of the Englishman as a mentally disturbed person.
Later on, the journalist received a number of telephone calls from the Englishman, who was in a rage because the newspaper had not printed his letter. He mentioned several statements that he wanted to have in print, but these were very serious personal attacks upon Heidi Schøne, the journalist and editor-in-chief. The Englishman also telephoned the editor-in-chief, who refused to print the man's two-page letter. The man also contacted the journalist privately and abused her live-in boyfriend because they were living in sin. The many conversations with the man strengthened the journalist's impression that it was right to protect him against himself. On one occasion, he said that he would sue DT-BB, Bergens Tidende and VG in order to get money for a court case against Heidi Schøne. He rang back later and said that it was only DT-BB that he would sue, because the people involved in the other newspapers were men. The journalist had offended against the Koran as a woman by speaking in public. The man's frequent telephone calls diminished after a while, but when the newspaper discussed the Schøne case again in July 1998, he rang repeatedly.
The background to resumed discussion for the case was that several firms, private individuals, schools, institutions and Drammen Municipality had already had reports sent to them by post or fax concerning Heidi Schøne. Several of the recipients contacted DT-BB, because the reports were formulated as if they were replies to enquiries from the newspaper concerning Heidi Schøne.
The man rang several times but was too excited and off-balance for anything reasonable to be got out of him. He denied having sent letters to Schøne, but stated at the same time that he would send 200 new letters within a week. Shortly afterwards, we received a number of new communications from people who had received letters concerning Schøne. We discussed the matter again in the editorial office and concluded that nothing the man had said could be published.
2. The complaint to PFU
On the factual points in this case:
a) The complaint: "NN has been recognized/identified by DT-BB readers"
NN's name is never printed in DT-BB, nor other particulars that can assist identification. He is mentioned as "the Englishman". When he nevertheless claims that he has been recognized, this is due only to the fact that he himself hunted for Heidi Schøne, gradually, as she had to move, and the readers of DT-BB whom he had contacted had understood that he must be the Englishman whom the newspaper spoke about. Constantly, from the newspaper's side, it has been emphasized that he should not be identified or be made identifiable in the articles - in order to protect him, among other reasons.
b) "mentally disturbed"
The description "mentally disturbed" has been used. In addition, that he is suffering from "erotic paranoia". The documentation in the case confirms that proof of the assertion exists and that relevant information can be provided for the readers to have full understanding of the case. Without this information, the readers would be left with fundamental questions regarding both the man's behaviour, Heidi Schøne's sufferings for 16 years and the lack of opportunity for the investigators to intervene and stop the harassment by the man.
c) "false allegations"
According to the complaint, NN maintains that "the other allegations about him in the article are also false …"
DT-BB has not printed false allegations and we are prepared to document all assertions if PFU finds this expedient for trial of the case. It is not actually stated in the complaint, either, which allegations have been made and are said to be false.
d) "smears him for no reason worthy of attention"
The newspaper is accused of smearing NN for no worthy reason. This assertion fails on its own unreasonableness. Seldom, if ever, has anyone experienced more pointless, schematic harassment as that which NN has been responsible for in relation to Heidi Schøne. The newspaper has discussed the harassment because NN spread hundreds or thousands of false, malevolent "reports" about her and gave the impression that the reports were commissioned by the newspaper. The discussion has provided local people with the explanation for the horrible reports and the sender has been protected by the use of non-identifiable descriptions of him.
e) "his religious persuasion is given prominence …"
The complainant considers it inadmissible, irrelevant and offensive for him and other Muslims that his religious persuasion is given prominence.
It is relevant for the case and the readers' understanding of it to reveal that NN is a Muslim. This has also been an important point for him in the information and the conversations he has had with the newspaper staff and in the reports which he had made and distributed.
3. Finding
The complainant complains that he was not contacted before the newspaper printed the article on 14 July 1998 and that his written and verbal statements have not been put into print.
The newspaper had several good reasons for not contacting him or printing his statements, for example:
a) On several occasions, the newspaper staff tried to interview NN, but his statements were such that they could not be printed.
b) The newspaper considered printing all or parts of the written information that NN sent, especially the letter he sent after the first article appeared in print in 1995. The contents showed that nothing could be printed.
c) NN was not identified and no information was provided that can help the readers to identify him.
d) Internally within the newspaper the question was discussed several times as to how we could pass on the man's views, but the outcome each time was that the man had to be protected against himself. In future, the newspaper can be criticized for not having made clear to the readers that this was the reason why his statement was not printed.
When NN brought DT-BB before PFU via a lawyer, we in the newspaper hoped that the lawyer would be able to help the man's views be submitted in a form such that it could be printed. The complainant rejected the offer of space.
With kind regards,
Hans Arne Odde
Editor in Chief
Enclosure 1: Article in DT-BB 27 May 1995
Enclosure 2: NN's "reply" to the article.

I went straight back home from the Church and wrote two letters - one to the PFU and one to Eric Lindset.

Letter dated 3rd July 1999:-

Dear Mr. Lindset
Heidi Schøne
Thank you for your letters of 30th May, 7th, 10th, 12th, 20th, 24th and 30th June 1999.
I, today, have had roughly translated the Drammens Tidende letter of 7th June 1999 to the PFU. I enclose a copy of my reply to the PFU dated 3rd July. Suffice it to say it is total crap from the newspaper and in particular, as the tape recordings will prove, I did not tell off Ingunn Røren's partner for "living in sin", neither did I tell Ingunn Røren that I would only sue D-T and not the other two newspapers, because she is a woman who spoke publicly (which she says I told her is against Koranic principles). What a liar she is. And how she hates Islam.
I have read the copy letters I wrote to Heidi Schøne in the 1980's.
You say in your letter of 30th June that my letters and postcards are a "hindrance" regarding victory in court. Well it's up to me to decide if I want to take the risk of going to court. I want to go to court against Heidi Schøne.
However, I will wait for your FULL REPORT on the evidence you have found in the Drammen police station. You have seen the facts that I want Heidi Schøne to prove, with my letter to you of 21st May 1999. I expect that you have found no evidence to enable Heidi Schøne to prove her lies. Particularly, that I have not written 300 letters or even a fraction of that amount to Heidi Schøne in 1998. If Svein Jensen doesn't believe her and Ingunn Røren is "not sure" whether to believe her, this should be enough to give me the right to say to you:- I want you to issue a writ. After all it is for Heidi Schøne to prove what she told the newspapers was true.
After reading the trash from D-T of 7th June I am more determined than ever to get Heidi Schøne into court. But let me have a written report from you on the evidence or lack of it that exists at the police station which supports Heidi Schøne's statements to the press.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx
PS Ask the PFU to accept and consider the tape recordings PLUS transcript of my conversations with Røren, Odde, and Nils Rettersdøl. I don't want another cover-up.

Letter dated 3rd July 1999:-

Dear Mr. Børringbo,
Heidi Schøne, Drammens Tidende SAK119/98
I have spent the whole month of June abroad and have only today had roughly translated Drammens Tidende's letter to you of 7th June 1999. I am writing to you direct to save time.
First of all, many thanks to Drammens Tidende for not providing me with a translation to English. Secondly, and of utmost importance, is the complete rubbish they - D-T and Ingunn Røren speak.
I have recorded on tape the entire conversations I have had with Ingunn Røren (and the editor Hans Odde, as well as the journalists and editors of B-T and VG).
1. It is a wicked lie to say I would only sue D-T because Ingunn Røren is a woman who has done something against the teachings of the Koran because women should not speak publicly. I NEVER SAID THIS. I have a record of the conversation on tape which will be sent to you shortly. Ingunn Røren is a wretched liar.
2. I NEVER SPOKE ANGRILY to Ingunn Røren's partner telling him he is living in sin with her. This is a total lie. Again, she is making this up. She is sick-minded and hateful.
3. The public have a right to know Heidi Schøne/Schøne's past which is comprised in the reports I have sent. They are true accounts of her past.
4. Heidi Schøne has accused me (and another Bergen man) of attempted rape in 1986. In 1998 she changed her story to say I in fact raped her. A LIE. This and H-S's other behaviour started the trouble.
5. Heidi Schøne has told total crap to the newspaper. Svein Jensen, the policeman is ON TAPE ADMITTING TO ME HE DOES NOT BELIEVE Heidi Schøne. Ingunn Røren is on tape admitting she does not know if Heidi is telling the truth.
6. The Psychiatrist, Nils Rettersdøl, was told nothing of Heidi Schøne's past life:- and very little of mine. He is on tape too. He was tricked by VG It is total crap to say D-T wanted to protect me against myself. They didn't want to print my name because it would have made it easy to sue them. They didn't print my response because it would make the newspaper look like liars and deceivers.
7. I have told the PFU in 1996 of the false accusations made by the three newspapers in 1995 which were repeated in 1998 by D-T. I told D-T long ago exactly what was false in their story.
8. D-T have never tried to interview me and you will clearly see this from the tape recordings. Ingunn Røren knows very well she never tried to contact me once.
9. I have not sent 300 letters to Heidi Schøne in 1998. Why the silence from D-T? Where is their response to my denial?
10. What of Gudmund Johannessen?
11. It is beyond doubt that Ingunn Røren and her editor Hans Odde who allowed the story to be printed have very little integrity and should not be allowed to get away with their deceit. The tape recordings prove this.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx
Copy of this letter to: Eric Lindset of Elden & Elden.

On 4th July I sent to Mr. Børringbo at the PFU the tape recording of Ingunn Røren and her partner (who answered the phone to me) dated 25th March 1996 (printed above) and the two recordings (printed above) with the psychiatrist Nils Rottersdøl, policeman Svein Jensen and the various other conversations (printed above) with other journalists.
Again on 4th July, I wrote to Eric Lindset asking him to proceed to issue a Writ against Heidi Schøne, using the list of newspaper (and other) allegations supplied to him on 21st May by me. Once again, I had to ask him to provide me with a full report on his findings in the Drammen police station. His one sentence report was obviously not enough. Again on 12th July I wrote a full résumé to him of my requirements.
However, I still had another phone call to make to Ingunn Røren, the liar and journalist with Drammens Tidende over her allegations made in her editor's letter to the PFU dated 7th June. On 13th July 1999 I telephoned her at her office in Bergen - she had left Drammens Tidende to work for Bergens Tidende. As you will see, God was smiling on me that day for Ingunn Røren walked right into my trap:-

Answer: Bergens Tidende.
F. Hello, Good morning, can I speak to Ingunn Røren please?
IR. Yeah, Ingunn.
F. Yes, hello Ingunn Røren, it's Frederick xxx here in London.
IR. Yes.
F. Hi there, I just wanted to have a chat to you to ask you why you find it necessary to lie to the PFU about me saying that you and your partner are living in sin and that I won't be suing your newspaper [whereas I meant and continued] I will be suing your newspaper because women mustn't speak publicly and it's against the Koran. I mean, why do you have to lie. You know I didn't say that. In your heart you know I didn't say that, and I think it proves to you the lengths you want to go to, er, I don't know, to falsify things. You know I didn't say that. You've no proof. You've no nothing. I didn't say it. So why did you …
IR. I've told the PFU what you've told me … … and I told you also that I won't speak to you about this matter anymore.
F. Yes, but why do you lie?
IR. So you have to take this case to the PFU and they're taking their actions.
F. I want to speak to your partner because I never told him this. When did I tell him this?[i.e. that he was living in sin with Ingunn Røren]
IR. When you phoned my apartment.
F. I phoned your house once.
IR. Yes you did.
F. And are you telling me in that one phone call I told your partner … …
IR. Yes you did.
F. Well, you're lying because I didn't say that and your partner … um … I spoke to your partner for two or three seconds and I said to him "Can I speak to Ingunn Røren please… I presume that's your wife". That's all I said to him and he went to get you.
IR. As I told you, I won't discuss this matter with you. You have to speak to the Chief Editor.
F. It's nothing to do with him. It's personal between you and me.
IR. No, it's not personal.
F. It is. It is personal because it's your word and your editor doesn't know whether you tell him the truth or not. He can't prove it. But your partner, where is he? Is he still in Drammen? Is he with you here? Is he with you in Bergen?
IR. He's none of your business.
F. He's left you hasn't he?
IR. He's none of your business.
F. I think he's left you and not surprisingly. But the thing is … I have to find him. I will find him because I never said anything of the sort.
IR. Then you have to find him. It's none of your business.
F. Well, then, can you at least give me his name?
IR. No. He's none of your business.
F. He is, because you … …
IR. It's part of the PFU case … … I'll await what the PFU has to say about this. I've told you before, I'm not gonna talk to you anymore about it.
F. You're scared. You're scared. You've got something to hide.
IR. I'm not scared.
F. That's why you don't want to talk to me.
IR. You're the one that should be scared.
F. I'm not scared in the slightest. Why should I be scared? You know I'm not scared. I couldn't give a damn about any of you stupid idiots 'cos you're a liar. You make up stories and you know it. In your heart … …
IR. I don't care what you think about me. I really don't care. I couldn't care less actually.
F. I think you could or else you wouldn't lie. And you're all very upset because of the huge amount of publicity. All the phone calls to your office and the police and the newspapers about the truth about Heidi Schøne. I know you're all terribly upset.
IR. Why should we be terribly upset?
F. Because of the lies …[her frustration causes her to say and print]
IR. Why should you hold the truth about anything. Who told you that you have the truth …
F. I know what I've done is all true. All I've said … …
IR. Why's Heidi Schøne your matter at all?
F. Well she's a … …
IR. She doesn't matter to you at all.
F. Well she's a liar and so are you. You're enormous liars.
IR. She doesn't care about you. She doesn't want to speak to you.
F. She's a sick woman. Been in a psychiatric …
IR. Why should you care? She lives in another country.
F. Because she's a liar.
IR. Who do you care. She doesn't speak to anyone that you know. I don't think she's a liar.
F. The point is … well you're just as sick as her if that's what you think. But the thing is you have started telling lies. So you categorically tell me that I told your partner he's living in sin.
IR. Yes, you did
F. OK, well … …
IR. I told you and I'll tell you once more I'm not gonna speak to you about this matter anymore because you're just making out all these accusations without any proof
F. What accusations?
IR. I told you …
F. Which accusations?
IR. I've told you. I don't wanna speak to you.
F. See, 'cos you're a liar.
IR. Speak to the Chief Editor.
F. No, no, no. He's just as bad as you. He wants to close up and say nothing.
IR. Maybe you should think about it. Why doesn't anyone want to talk to you?
F. Because you're a bunch of arseholes all of you. You're liars.
IR. So why should you care?
F. Well you do care. I don't know. You're probably twisted. You hate Moslems for a start. And where on earth does it say in the Koran that women shouldn't speak publicly? That's all rubbish.
IR. I don't know.
F. You made that up.
IR. I don't know.
F. The Koran says women can, must and [they] do speak publicly. And should speak publicly.
IR. Yeah, but I told you if you have anything else to say you should call the Chief Editor because he's the one who's handling this.
F. No, no, it's personal.
IR. I don't want to talk to you, I told you.
F. This is personal and I don't think it's anything to do with your Chief Editor. You're just covering up and lying.
IR. You still have to talk to him 'cos I'm not gonna talk to you.
F. Well, I have to find your partner or your ex-partner. I think he's dumped you because you're on the other side [of the country]; he's probably working in Drammen and you're here, you know. But … …
IR. I'm not going to tell you anything.
F. If I do find him, I'm sure he'll say that I didn't say that.
IR. Then talk to him if you can find him 'cos I'm not gonna tell you anything about him.
F. The thing is Ingunn, I taped that whole conversation [of 25.3.96, which proved I did not tell off Ingunn Røren's partner for living in sin] at the time, OK. I've got it.
IR. Yeah you probably did.
F. OK.
IR. It's illegal but you have … …
F. Well it doesn't matter … But the thing is it proves … …
IR. It's illegal so you can't use it in Court in Norway … 'cos it's illegal to tape records.
F. Well it's direct evidence that proves you're a liar. 'Cos you've lied to me again just now. And this business about erotic paranoia - I spoke to the psychiatrist, Nils Rettersdøl, and he told me that whoever phoned him up from the newspapers told him nothing about Heidi Schøne - nothing - and told him very little about me. You twisted it. You gave a hypothetical situation and that's another dreadful thing you've done yourself. The point is you're so full of shit, I'm surprised … …
IR. It wasn't me who call him [being Nils Rettersdøl] [Her article still said I was suffering from an "extreme case of erotic paranoia".]
F. I'm surprised you can live with yourself for being such an awful liar. Why don't you just give up and re-educate yourself in proper manners?
IR. Why don't you just give up? The Heidi Schøne … …
F. Because, you're the one … …
IR. She doesn't want to talk to you.
F. Well, I'm not interested in the stupid idiot for Christ's sake.
IR. Leave her alone.
F. Well, you started lying. She started making completely false allegations. OK.
IR. I told you I'm not going to listen to you anymore. So you have to call the Chief Editor.
F. I will call the Chief Editor but I think you know exactly what kind of a real liar you are and …
IR. I'm not gonna listen to this.
F. Well, you don't have to … bye bye. Bye.

On the 14th July, I sent a copy of the two damning taped conversations with the liar Ingunn Røren of 25th March 1996 and 13th July 1999 to my lawyer, the PFU and finally Ingunn Røren's new editor, Hans Nyberg at Bergens Tidende, telling him "I expect you to sack her. After all, who wants to employ an obvious liar".
Once again, I had direct evidence of the fundamental hatred that the Norwegian media had for Islam. Ingunn Røren had been living with the man I presumed to be her husband. They were not married and in common parlance were "living in sin". But this was not a comment I levelled at either one of them. Most young couples in Scandinavia do not marry until they are into their late 20's, if that. It is a popular form of relationship and has no stigma attached to it at all any more, which is also true for having children born out of wedlock. Ingunn Røren tried to put me into the unpopular minority, Muslim "fanatic" corner by attributing to me that I had angrily told her partner he was living in sin. Further, her comments regarding my alleged views on women speaking in public being forbidden by the Quran was a calculated attempt to bury both me and the religion of Islam. You have seen 'The Times' leader article from 1996 printed above evidencing how the founding values of Islam give women equal rights to men. My own personal support for women's rights can be found in the letter I wrote to Paddy Ashdown, leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, shortly after the May 1997 General Election. I had met and became well acquainted with Aina Khan, a Muslim women, who stood as the unsuccessful Liberal Democrat candidate in Ilford South, an East London constituency. She was also a practising solicitor. I quote extracts from my letter of 21st May 1997 to the Rt. Hon. Paddy Ashdown M.P.:-

Dear Mr. Ashdown,
Aina is a very well balanced Muslim with views that I would class as entirely compatible with the idea of Islam. I was greatly impressed by Aina's speech at her adoption meeting in Ilford. The way she spoke and the things she spoke about convinced me that she would make an excellent Member of Parliament for all her constituents, not just Muslims and other ethnic minorities. I believe that she would as a Muslim have more success as an M.P. than a man in her position. There are many shades of opinion amongst the Muslim voices in Britain and some of these opinions unfortunately can be very harmful. But Aina's opinions I feel would be acceptable and understood by supporters of traditional Christian values in this country. I myself went to a Church of England school and I feel I know what I am talking about. Aina is a very confident public speaker and I have little doubt that if she did ever become an M.P., she will not let anyone down. Please, if you can, give her every chance to try again for Parliament.
I would also like to thank you most profusely for your fantastic support for the Muslims of Bosnia. May God bless you for that ……
Yours sincerely,

On the 11th June 1997, Paddy Ashdown replied, saying in his third paragraph "I share your view that Aina Khan was a first class Parliamentary candidate. I have copied your letter to Nick Harvey M.P. in his capacity as Chairman on the Joint States Candidates Committee for his information".

Auberon Waugh spoke the truth in an article in the Sunday Telegraph of October 10th 1999 when trying to explain as he put it, "the West's terror of Islam".

"It is said that certain Muslim states have persecuted and continue to persecute Christians. No doubt this is true, but it is not a major truth. The main truth is that practically nobody in the West gives a fig for Christianity, and this is the explanation for everything. After the collapse of socialism, the crumbling of Christianity leaves the West with nothing to believe in, apart from some vapid ideal of "progress".
As Christians prepare for the new millennium with hymn books that feature soccer chants and topical references, we are acutely aware that Islam is the only creed left that believes in itself. That is what terrifies us all".

On the 20th July 1999 at 11.10 a.m. I telephoned Eric Lindset, my lawyer and spoke to him for nearly an hour. He told me he was extremely unhappy with the comments he had seen at the Drammen police station included in my information campaign against Heidi, but sternly refused to specify exactly which of my comments troubled him. I knew what I'd written so why couldn't he explain himself so I knew where he was coming from? I have already described all the contents of my campaign earlier in this book. Indeed, all these contents were already on show for policeman Svein Jensen when he spoke to me in March 1996, save for maybe the article entitled "Heidi Schøne-Abnormal Mental Life". Eric Lindset told me now that he didn't want to issue proceedings against Heidi, having "less sympathy" for my case. However, he said he would have to consult his boss, John Christian Elden, to see what his opinion was as to whether they could carry on and draw up a writ for me. He would then get back to me. I asked Eric Lindset if there was a cheaper format in Norway than for a full blown court procedure and without specifying the name of it, he told me there was such a system consisting of a panel of professional laymen in more informal proceedings than the Court.
Put off by Eric Lindset's pessimism, just after 1 p.m. I phoned the Oslo Courthouse that Eric Lindset said would be the jurisdiction to issue my writ, but they told me to call again tomorrow. After four short calls to the Oslo Courthouse on 21st July, I was told that the correct jurisdiction to issue a Writ was the Courthouse covering the district wherein the main defendant resided, i.e. Drammen. So just before 1 p.m. I phoned the Drammen City Court (called the Drammen Byrett) and was, to my amazement, put straight through to a judge. He spoke excellent English and for five minutes explained the procedure for issuing a writ after I explained my predicament. Five minutes of free advice, none of the specifics which in my 7 months of using them Elden & Elden advised me on. The judge told me it would cost 2,650 Norwegian Kroner (£215.00) to issue a writ against Heidi and the newspapers, which seemed cheap enough to me; and that I could act for myself and, significantly, so long as my writ "looked like a writ" they would accept it. The writ, however, would naturally have to be submitted in the Norwegian language.
Using the checklist I'd sent to Elden & Elden on 21st May, I hand-wrote a 15 page writ in my own words and sent it off to be translated into Norwegian by translators in London. It needed in fact to be sent over to Norway where the legal expertise for the translation could readily be found. I paid my £442.39 translation fee in advance, which included typing up the English version for me.

I then received a letter dated 20th July 1999 from Elden & Elden:-

Dear Mr. xxx,
HEIDI Schøne
In reference to your letters of 3, 12 and 14 July 1999 plus today's telephone conversation.
I hereby confirm in writing that you now has ended the engagement of our firm. For your use I enclose an address list for the Norwegian Courts of Conciliation (FORLIKSRÅD). The standard court fee is NOK 530,-, and had to be paid in advance/together with the application for conciliation proceedings/writ (FORLIKSKLAGE).
I have as formerly mentioned examined your letters, telefaxes and postcards to Heidi Schøne and others in the Drammen police archive. At your request I can verify that there was lesser than 400 of them. Besides, neither of them contained threats of killing Heidi Schøne or others. It is my opinion that the phrases used in them, nevertheless is a hindrance for you to gain a judicial victory against her at Norwegian tribunals.
Kind regards,
Eric Lindset
John Christian Elden Lawyer

I replied on 28th July 1999:-

Dear Mr. Lindset,
Heidi Schøne
Thank you for your letter of 20th July.
However, your sentence "I hereby confirm in writing that you now has ended the engagement of our firm", is obviously completely incorrect. From previous correspondence and our conversations I never at any time myself ended my engagement with your firm. Besides which the PFU are still in correspondence with you and you have still failed to write a full written report on your findings at the Drammen police station. I waited around 6 months for that "report".
You state in your 3rd paragraph that "there was lesser than 400 of them". What is this? The newspapers mentioned "300 letters in the last year". Where does "400" come from? You must have counted how many letters "in the last year" I sent to her. I estimated 5-10 at most. What is the figure, in fact? Please put it in writing. I need written evidence please!!
You also know that I have been after details of Heidi Schøne's statement of her allegation of rape. I know there are details, as Torill Sorte told me, there was a record. I await your report.
You know the police will not write to me directly. So I use you to obtain things I cannot get. But it must be a proper lawyer's report. Also a short letter to the Drammen police asking for copies of my letters and postcards, doesn't take much to do. Even asking them at the station to do this?
The fact is, the newspapers and Mr & Mrs. Schøne have to prove what was said in the newspapers was true. And they can't. If they wanted to appear so good and so wronged by the Muslim man, then they shouldn't have lied. Their lies will hang them. I suspect they never imagined I would see the newspapers.
I am using the Drammen Byrett and the writ is being translated now. The Judge I spoke to was very helpful and told me that I can force the journalists to come to Court as well.
I note for the record you have failed to deal with the law regarding being recognised by the likes of Ann-Kristin Horvei in the Vesta claim.
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if the 1986 allegation of attempted rape was only discovered by me in 1995. The police could have told me in 1990 in Bergen when my lawyers wrote to them. It's not my fault. There are quite a few things I haven't been able to do because it is "too late". Besides, as I told you, the bitch is alleging, now, rape and still I note nothing has been confirmed about her allegation of rape against the Bergen shopkeeper.
I now realise how extremely easy it is for me to handle the Court case myself. I should have done it months ago. I have drafted a full writ and I thank God that at long, long last the Schønes and the journalists will be put "on the spot".
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx
P.S. As I recall, you were going to ask John Christian Elden for his opinion as to whether your firm were going to carry on and issue a writ for me. You were of the opinion my case would be "hindered" by my correspondence to Heidi Schøne. So in fact I had not ended my engagement of your firm at all and for you write this because you "felt" I wanted to proceed with a writ personally is surely wrong in fact. As it turns out in phoning the Drammen Court and speaking to the Judge after I spoke last to you, I discovered it would take me no time at all to do the Court case myself. But I didn't know this until after we last spoke. Enormous effort has been put in by many people to ensure Heidi Schøne is not brought to Court. I will now ensure she is brought to Court, if she has the courage to appear. We'll see what happens.

On 10th August 1999, I sent ten copies of my Writ to the Drammen Byrett, by International Datapost at a cost of £48.95. I had already got permission from [xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] to use his brother's law firm as my address for service of documentation in Norway. [xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] said his brother's firm did not do libel work. But as he knew me from previous advice I had sought from him over the last three years and it was he that had recommended Karsten Gjone to me, he obligingly persuaded his brother to allow me to use their office address as the address for service, without which I could not issue a writ.

The cause of action I had included in my Writ stated as follows:-

"By the laws of Norway the Defendants are required and are asked to provide material and other proof of the truth to the unsubstantiated and other allegations printed in the newspapers including those allegations listed below".
I was the plaintiff and there were eight defendants: Heidi, her husband, Ingunn Røren (plus her newspaper Drammens Tidende), Haakon Schrøder (plus his newspaper Bergens Tidende) and Harald Vikøyr (and his newspaper Verdens Gang).
I attached copies of the four newspaper articles. I asked for more witnesses to be subpoenaed, including the editors of the three newspapers, the psychiatrist Nils Rettersdøl, and policeman Svein Jensen.
In English law, the defendant must satisfy the Court that the statement (which the defendant claims is justified) is true in substance and in fact. In a civil action, the standard of proof is proof on a balance of probabilities, although the more serious the newspaper allegation, the higher the degree of probability required.
In my writ I asked for each and every one of the listed newspaper allegations to be proven and included the relevant quotes from my taped conversations with Ingunn Røren of 25.3.96 and policeman Svein Jensen of March 1996. I had included the allegations made in the 1995 articles and 1998 article. At this stage, I was still under the wrong impression that I could sue for the 1995 articles on the grounds that the defendants had to prove what they said was true. The question of a time limit had not even entered my head for this specific cause of action.
I also included my translation of Heidi's past into Norwegian in the Writ, explaining why I used it in my "nationwide information campaign". I also put in my nine page Summer 1995 response to the newspapers, plus copies of the three most vital letters from Heidi to me, one undated from 1984, the others dated 22.8.84 and 9.4.85. Importantly, I included a photocopy of the front cover of the book 'I Dared To Call Him Father', plus the relevant paragraphs on pages 42 and 43 (quoted earlier in this book).
I requested general damages for pain and suffering and also for the three newspapers to print apologies. I had asked too for terms of imprisonment and fines for the three journalists and their editors.

On the 13th August 1999, Elden & Elden wrote to me again:-

Dear Mr. xxx,
HEIDI Schøne
In reference to your telephone call and letter of respectively 22 and 28 July 1999.
I don't agree that the my sentence ("I hereby confirm in writing that you now has ended the engagement of our firm") repeated by you, "is obviously completely incorrect". It's caused by your sayings during our telephone conversation of 20 July 1999. Furthermore, I was at the same time informed that you will personally write and send in a application for conciliation proceedings yourself, and now also have directly taken charge of the case and correspondence with PFU. In the telephone call to me of 22 July 1999 you even affirmed this discontinuance. Besides, you are not abreast of the up-front fees/payments we called for. This terminates a task by itself. Finally I find it infeasible to continue relations with clients which would not follow my advises.
It's unknown to me that I was obliged to give a full (proper) written (lawyer's) report on the findings at the Drammen police station. I recommend just that (considering doing) further action (application for conciliation proceedings) was delayed until these files has been examined by me.
The number of 400 is your own and comes from letters dated 21 May 1999 and 10 November 1998.
My advice in our telephone conversation 4 March 1999 was to not proceed with a claim against Vesta. You assured me at the same time of that this was both understood and accepted.
Kind regards
Eric Lindset
John Christian Elden

I replied on 16th August 1999:-

Dear Mr. Lindset,
Heidi Schøne
Thank you for your letter of 13th August which I received this morning.
Regarding the "400" letters, you have misread the position. In my letter to you of 21st May I sent an extra list of press statements. You yourself make reference to Drammens Tidende's May '95 [allegation that] 400 OBSCENE LETTERS WERE WRITTEN. This is not what I am referring to. I am referring to [the allegation] in Drammens Tidende's July 1998 article:- "300 letters sent to her in the last year", i.e. the year 1997-98. The newspapers have already said that none of the alleged 400 obscene letters exist as Heidi has destroyed them all. Why would I use "400" when none of them exist and according to the liar, Heidi, have all been destroyed? Clearly you have failed to understand the position.
Regarding ending the engagement of your firm, I can only refer to my "P.S." comment in my letter to you of 28th July 1999.
I have sent a writ in Norwegian to the Drammen Byrett - the judge has accepted it and it will now be issued to the defendants: Heidi Schøne, Runar Schøne, and the three journalists. I have subpoenaed 15 witnesses and asked for prison sentences to be considered for seven people:- Mrs Schøne and the three journalists and also the three editors. One of the Judges at the Court gave me excellent advice. At 2650 NKR to issue the writ, this is good value for money and the Byrett is most appropriate for a case of this magnitude. Conciliation proceedings would be a very poor substitute indeed.
In England, lawyers do not terminate a client's retainer without first telling the client the position and reason. Not being up-front with fees and payments you called for was not how we operated:- I paid you what I could, regularly, and you accepted this way of dealing. But if you want to use this as a reason now, you must first write and tell me. In myself writing to the PFU I was saving you the job as clearly it was necessary to write quickly to them. You were on holiday and I doubt you could have coped with the detailed explanation that had to be given to them.
As far as "not following your advices" which is another reason for not continuing "relations" as you put it, what advice was that exactly?
It must have been obvious to you that I would want to know the details of the Drammen police papers, e.g. details of the 1998 rape allegation, details of how many letters were written in the last year, i.e. 1997-98. I asked in writing on several occasions for these questions to be answered.
Regarding Vesta, your "advice" was not put in writing. Indeed, you put very little in writing. I don't remember your advice being given [that I agreed not to pursue Vesta Insurance Company over the lawyer Karsten Gjone's failure to issue a writ against the 3 newspapers for missing the time limits] on 4th March and certainly this is something that must be confirmed in writing with reasons. After all, lawyers deal with the written word. At no time would I have "understood and accepted" this as you allege. I relied on advice given to me by Tor Staff on this point and intend to pursue it with Vesta.
You saw the complaint I put in against Gjone had succeeded because of his failure to put anything in writing. You should have known from this that I expect a clear understanding of events and correct advice put in writing. In particular a full report on what was discovered at the Drammen police station. Svein Jensen had all the evidence before him at the police station in 1996 and he didn't believe Heidi Schøne or "trust her so much". The press statements will have to be proven in court as true in fact. I know this can't be done by the Schøne's or the press and they will have to spend the next six months worrying about the trial and being found to be liars. Clearly, the tape of Ingunn Røren exposes her as a liar.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx
P.S. I'll have to insist on a full police report and receipt from the police in Drammen of copies of all my letters and postcards. I refer to previous correspondence.

On 31st August the private detective's law firm wrote to me enclosing a copy of a letter the Judge had written them. It had transpired in fact that questions regarding the Court's jurisdiction had arisen, as well as time limits and the Judge wanted sections from the relevant Norwegian statutes to be quoted in my Writ. Stig Lunde, one of the partners in the law firm was willing to help me, even though he was not a libel lawyer.
When I phoned Stig Lunde, whose firm already had a copy of my Writ, he told me briefly that he had to check out the right Court jurisdiction as three of the defendants, Heidi, her husband and Drammens Tidende, were based in Drammen, whilst the other two newspapers were based in Oslo and Bergen. Regarding the question of time limits, I was surprised to hear this was a problem as no one had mentioned it to me before. I knew there was a three year time limit to sue for libel, but I wasn't proceeding under that cause of action. I was suing on the related but seperate ground of requiring the defendants to prove what they said was true (or so I thought).. Stig Lunde said he hadn't looked at my Writ yet, but would try and find the time to do so and get back to me.

On 1st September 1999, Elden & Elden wrote to me again:-

Dear Mr. xxx,
HEIDI Schøne
I will hereby confirm that your letter of 16 August 1999 is received by us.
What is written in our letter of 13 August 1999, we uphold.
Anyway, we have recently received a letter for you from PFU dated 25 August 1999, which is enclosed in original.
Kind regards,
Eric Lindset
John Christian Elden

I was furious. Just one sentence in answer to my many questions. The eight page letter from the PFU dated 25th August 1999 was their report on my complaint against Drammens Tidende. It was all in Norwegian. The PFU had obviously not bothered to provide me with a translation in spite of being asked to long ago.
On 2nd and 3rd September 1999, I wrote to Stig Lunde giving him some background information.
On 4th September, I made the 2½ hour round trip to the Norwegian Church to get an oral translation of the PFU report.
My complaint to the PFU had been rejected. None of my direct evidence had been mentioned in their report at all. I went straight back home and faxed the following letter to Elden and Elden, as well as sending a copy to the PFU.

Dear Mr. Elden,
I am in receipt of your [firm's] letter of 1st September. I see that the hostile PFU have not given you an English translation which you requested of them. Nevertheless I got the main points translated briefly for me today. D-T have not been found to be in breach of good press reporting. A cover-up. The PFU report was dishonest and ignored all my evidence - the tape recordings of Svein Jensen, Ingunn Røren and Nils Rettersdøl. The police in Drammen as you told me had only five or so letters from me to Heidi "in the last year" not 300 as D-T reported.
What use are the PFU if they don't investigate the truth?
You should have reported yourself to them more adequately. They ignored all the evidence I painstakingly collected and supplied to them.
If the police are recorded on tape saying they don't believe Heidi this should be referred to in the PFU report as should Ingunn Røren's taped conversations and Nils Rettersdøl's. The fact of Ingunn Røren being a proven liar should also have been in the PFU report. Total exoneration for dishonest Norwegians!
The PFU are a dishonest organisation and I contest and appeal against their decision. They will be subpoenaed to the Court case due next year to explain their deceit.
Yours sincerely,
Fredrick xxx

Copy to PFU OSLO - SaK110/98 on 0047224050 55

I then faxed immediately afterwards a second letter just for Eric Lindset of Elden & Elden:-

Dear Mr. Lindset,
You have let me down over the PFU case.You should have made sure my own written evidence and tapes - vital, vital evidence - would be taken into consideration by the PFU. No mention is made of my tapes and findings at all. The PFU are quite hopeless anyway but you should have made sure my evidence would be considered.
Also you refuse to answer basic questions requested many times in correspondence. Get John C. Elden to read my letters. He must see that you cannot be understanding what I have asked of you.
I will have to report you to the Norwegian Bar Association for a poor standard of work. It will take you hours to deal with the paperwork and I expect to win. You had many chances to comply and had Gjone's example to learn by.
When I want a report - a full report - on your findings at the police station in Drammen, it has to be in writing. You told me little I didn't know already. I shall be asking for all my money back.
Frederick xxx

I was sick with frustration. I wanted answers to my questions now and phoned the Norwegian Bar Association to enlist their help.

I got a reply from Elden & Elden dated 6th September:-

Dear Mr. xxx,
HEIDI Schøne
I will hereby confirm your telefaxes of 6 September 1999 is received by us.
Furthermore your contact (Wenche Siewers) in the Norwegian Bar Association called me today.
What is written in our earlier letters, we uphold.
I have as formerly mention examined your letters, telefaxes and postcards to Heidi Schøne and others in the Drammen police archive. At your request I can again verify that there was lesser than 400(/300) of them. Besides, neither of them contained threats of killing Heidi Schøne or others. In the end I have to point out that your request of a full (proper) written report on the findings at the Drammen police station arrived here after my visit there.
Kind regards,
Eric Lindset
John Christian Elden

Now the man was being idiotic. I replied immediately on 9th September:-

Dear Mr. Lindset,
Heidi Schøne
Thank you for your letter of 6th September. It is obvious to me that still you have not managed to understand the facts.
1. Drammens Tidende have said in their article of 14th July 1998 that I have "written 300 letters to Heidi Schøne in the last year". These 300 letters are purely that - letters to her. Even you told me on the phone that there were only a handful, i.e. 5-10 in the last year. So how can you report in writing "lesser than 400/300"? I know I wrote only 5-10 letters in 1997-98 to Heidi. This fact should have been confirmed by you to the PFU. But I need this confirmed, myself, in writing from you.
2. Drammens Tidende said in their article of 27th May 1995 that I had written "400 obscene letters to her all of which she destroyed to burn the episode out of her mind", i.e. none of them are in existence. I didn't write any obscene letters to her - she lied. You'd have thought she'd have kept some at least as evidence.
I have pointed out to you in the clearest of terms in previous correspondence that you have misunderstood the position. You are confusing points 1 and 2 above and each time you reply to me you make it worse for yourself. That is why I asked you to refer the matter to John Christian Elden for a second opinion.
I made it clear to you on 6th February 1999 in my letter by enclosing a list of questions put to Karsten Gjone, that I wanted "details of the date, time of day, manner of the attempted/actual rape" Heidi alleges against me. Plus the details of the same allegation she made against a Bergen shopkeeper.
In my letter to you of 14th February point 5) I have specifically asked you to obtain details of the rape allegation in the Drammen police papers. In point 6) I asked you to ask Svein Jensen exactly why he didn't believe Heidi's story. In point 7) I wanted details of Gudmund Johannessen's assault (reported to the Drammen police) on Heidi. None of these details are supplied by you.
I also made my concerns clear to John Elden on 18th February 1999 in a letter.
So it is entirely wrong of you to say in your letter that my request for a full report arrived at your office after you went to the Drammen police station. The basics - the details of the rape allegation (made 12 years later by Heidi), Svein Jensen's opinion and the crap about 300 letters in the last year were core elements in the report I wanted, known to you in advance.
I spend all that money on you and get nothing, in effect, of what I asked for, put in writing.
I'm afraid there's no way your conduct can be accepted. And believe me you'd never get away with it in England, where the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors have effective powers to punish solicitors, whereas in Norway the DNA are almost a waste of time complaining to. They have no powers worth speaking about.
Furthermore, how can you stay silent on the total crap printed by the PFU in their report of 24th August? Where's the English translation you requested of them? Why is there no reference made to the fact of my cast-iron proof that Ingunn Røren's had lied to the PFU? Where is the reference to Svein Jensen's and Ingunn Røren's taped conversations? Did you follow up my letters and tapes to the PFU with a request that they consider and include my evidence? No, you didn't did you? Now the PFU are going to reprint their crap in two journals and put it on the internet. All my evidence was ignored. No wonder I have to campaign myself !
There is more, as you have seen in my previous correspondence with you. Even a simple letter to the Drammen police asking for them to photocopy the letters and postcards you cannot manage. It's all been a total waste of time because of your poor service. You really don't care at all.
I will not tolerate it anymore and this letter together with the copy correspondence listed below will be sent to the Norwegian Bar Association to form the basis of my complaint. You must deal with the outstanding points.
Does it not occur to you that a single sentence is just not enough to form the full extent of your report on your findings at the police station in Drammen - after all the questions I have previously put to you?
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx
Copy to Wenche Siewers of the Norwegian Bar.

This letter formed the basis of my complaint to the Norwegian Bar Association whom I wrote to on the 9th September as well.
On 16th September I was requested and sent a cheque for £1,500 to my new lawyer Stig Lunde - how many had I used now? - on account of costs.

On 1st September Elden & Elden wrote to me:-

Dear Mr. xxx,
HEIDI Schøne
I will hereby confirm that your letter of 9 September 1999 is received by us.
Anyway, we have recent received a letter for you from Drammen police district dated 9 September 1999, which is enclosed in original.
Kind regards,
Eric Lindset
For John Christian Elden Lawyer

The Drammen police had refused to send me any copies of my own postcards and letters addressed to Heidi. The letter from the Drammen police consisted of three sentences in Norwegian which Elden & Elden didn't even bother to translate. As luck would have it, I met a Norwegian girl from Oslo working as a sales assistant in a jeans shop at the Lakeside Shopping Centre in Essex and she gave me the 'good news' of the Drammen Police's refusal to send me copies of my postcards and letters.
On 23rd September, I sent a 3 page fax to my new lawyer giving him the further background information he had requested. On 21st September the Norwegian Lawyers Association wrote to me:-

Dear Mr. xxx,
With reference to your letter the 9th September 1999, I do have to ask for the complaint to be addressed to the Ethics Committee (Disiplinærutvalget). This is necessary for the complaint to be taken into consideration.
The complaint should contain: short facts, the relevant incidents and the dates of the incidents complained upon. Try to be specific and short. This is to ensure a quick and correct evaluation of the lawyer's work which both parties will benefit from.
Bundles received from you will be useful as evidence/documentation and is not wasted. The bundles will be stored safely until we hear from you again.
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact the writer.
Phone+47 22 03 51 06
Yours sincerely,
Jørn A. Nyborg
Legal Secretary

I sent a holding letter of 23rd September to them. I decided I would need a couple of days at home to formulate a concise easily understood complaint against Elden & Elden, including photocopies of all the relevant correspondence.

On 24th September, I wrote to the Chief of the PFU, Per Edgar Kokkvold:-

Dear Mr. Kokkvold,
Heidi Schøne and Drammens Tidende
I refer to our recent telephone conversations and look forward to hearing from you with the English translation of the PFU Report 24th August 1999.
Earlier this week, I received [back] from the PFU the three tapes, recording various conversations I made in past years. These tapes were for the PFU to keep for your records, that proved the deceit of the newspapers. They are copies of the original tapes which I keep here.
In returning these tapes to me, there is no covering letter and obviously no mention is made of whether you listened to the tapes. Did you or Mr. Børringbo listen to them?
What I can't see in the PFU Report [by just looking at the Norwegian version] is any reference to my evidence provided to you:-
1. The taped conversation by Policeman Svein Jensen saying he did not believe Heidi Schøne's story.
2. The taped conversations with Ingunn Røren relating that she did not know whether Heidi was telling the truth in relation to alleged threats by me, reported in 1995, to kill Heidi's son when he was two. This was reported as a fact in the newspaper.
Also the fact that clearly Ingunn Røren has lied regarding her statement that I told her partner he was "living in sin", has not been referred to in your report. I said nothing of the sort to her partner and did not tell Ingunn Røren either that "I would only sue her because she is a woman - who shouldn't speak publicly". She is talking total crap and I caught her out as you would have found out by listening to the short tape. Her lies render all her evidence suspect. She is worthless. She used these lies to justify printing the fact that I was a Muslim and to portray to readers that Muslims are bad people - linking me to erotic paranoia and sex-terror. She's a fucking piece of shit - good words for this evil woman.
3. The tape recording of Psychiatrist Nils Rettersdøl clearly indicating he was used and tricked by the newspapers is not referred to in your report.
4. Long ago, I sent you copies of Heidi's love letters from 1984 and 1985 which clearly contradict the newspaper story "16 years of sex-terror". No mention of my evidence is in your report.
5. Elden & Elden told me there was no evidence that I wrote "300 letters to Heidi in the last year". I wrote her 5 or so letters telling her I'd see her in Court. Did you ask the newspaper for evidence of 300 letters in the last year to Heidi?
Clearly my evidence should be reported in your final report. The fact that Heidi Schøne has been in a psychiatric unit should also be explained to readers of your report - as it [the PFU report] is going on the internet and three other publications.
So this is what I am going to do. I will create a Home Page on the Internet with my "report" in Norwegian (you have it) plus the report "Heidi Schøne - Abnormal Mental Life" plus using the scanner to transmit the newspaper photos of Heidi Schøne and her husband.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx

On 29th September, Kokkvold sent me just a one page translation of the 8 page PFU report of August 25th. It went like this:-

The complaint concerns a report published in Drammens Tidende - Buskeruds Blad, in which the newspaper related the story of a woman who asserts that she has been stalked by a mentally disturbed Englishmen for some 16 years. The man submitted a complaint through a Norwegian lawyer that the newspaper had given a partisan account of the woman's version without giving him the opportunity refute what he refers to as "unsubstantiated, fallacious allegations". The complainant regards it as defamatory that the paper unquestioningly characterises him as mentally disturbed, and claims moreover that he has been identified as a result of the report. Furthermore, the complainant considers it irrelevant and offensive that his religious beliefs as a Muslim are pointed out.

Drammens Tidende - Buskeruds Blad considers that it has solid evidence that the woman's version is correct and regards it as manifest that the complainant is mentally disturbed. As far as the paper is concerned, there was no reason to obtain the complainant's side of the case in view of the telephone calls and letters received by the editors after an earlier report on the woman's situation. The paper deemed that it would be protecting the complainant from himself by refraining from putting his statements in to print. The editors now acknowledge that it should have informed the readers of this consideration. The newspaper denies having carried any information about the complainant that would serve to identify him, but regards it as relevant to inform its readers that the complainant is a Muslim.

As a general point, the Press Complaints Commission wishes to refer to the Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press, paragraph 4.14, which states that "Persons who are the object of serious allegations should as far as possible have the benefit of corresponding attention to the facts as they exist".

Notwithstanding, in the present case, the Commission does accept the editors' decision not to obtain the complainant's comments. However, the Commission duly notes that the newspaper subsequently considered that it would have been correct to inform the readers of the reason why the complainant was not given the opportunity to provide his version at the same time.

It is the opinion of the Commission that the disputed report should be regarded as a plea for help from the woman in question. The Commission finds it evident that the woman has for many years had a great deal to endure. The newspaper's new report on the case, giving an account of the complainant's behaviour, was aimed at the woman's neighbours and others and as such was intended to ease the woman's situation.

The Commission wishes on this point to refer to The Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press, paragraph 1.5, which states that "It is the duty of the press to protect individuals and groups against infringements or acts of negligence perpetrated by public authorities and institutions, private enterprises or others".

The Commission is likewise satisfied that the complainant was given full anonymity by the newspaper.

Drammens Tidende - Buskeruds Blad is found not to be in breach of best ethical practices established for the Norwegian Press

Oslo 24 August 1999

Sven Egil Omdal,
Odd Isungset, Catharine Jacobsen, Thor Woje
Helen Bjørnøy, Grete Faremo, Jan Vincents Johannessen

I replied to Kokkvold on 1st October:-

Dear Mr. Kokkvold,
Drammens Tidende Case No. 119/98
Thank you for sending me your letter post dated 29th September enclosing the translation into English of the Press Complains Commission's Report of 24th August 1999.
I refer to my fax and post letter to you of 24th September 1999 and add the following.
The "solid evidence" mentioned by D-T in the second paragraph is their own self-serving unsubstantiated assertion, which "evidence" the PFU have, I presume, not seen. In contrast, the PFU have seen my evidence; again:- namely that the policeman Svein Jensen did not believe Heidi; Ingunn Røren has admitted she didn't know whether to believe Heidi and Ingunn Røren has been found -on taped evidence- to be a fabricator of evidence regarding her contention that it is important to tell readers that I am a Muslim. We all know D-T wanted to promote the association of the word "Muslim" with their belief that Islam is a religion for weirdos and is not a religion for "us".
Heidi Schøne is a woman with a proven psychiatric background and her troubles are either self-inflicted or caused by the likes of Gudmund Johannessen. I only reacted to her lies and the newspapers lies.
The Commission Report is a complete cover up. They have ignored completely fully substantiated evidence from me: in tapes; in Heidi's letters to me and, therefore, the Report can hardly be taken seriously.
My objections must be considered by the PFU. Although the matter is going to court, a trial will be several months away provided of course there is no vast financial impediment put in my way.
The fact that the police did not believe Heidi should be mentioned in the PFU report and should have been reported by all the newspapers. The fact of her love letters to me clearly contradict the rubbish printed. Only the blind cannot see and the deaf of heart cannot hear. It is not as if I am trying to trick you or defend an indefensible position.
Perversely, the July 14th 1998 article in D-T has saved my skin:- without it, I would have been outside the time limits to sue Heidi Schøne and D-T. The VG and Bergens Tidende journalists will be subpoenaed as witnesses only.
I await your response and perhaps if it isn't satisfactory, I will try and subpoena some of the Commission to Court so a proper cross-examination of the decision making process can be investigated by the Judge. I feel that the Internet will be my quickest remedy in any event, as previously explained. Kindly acknowledge receipt of this letter.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick xxx
PS. I enclose copies of three letters from Heidi Schøne to me for the Commission to read; clear evidence that the bitch lied.

On the 2nd October, I spoke to Stig Lunde, my newest lawyer. The judge had given him two weeks to sort out what needed amending in my own Writ. I was told now that I was out of time to sue the three newspapers for their 1995 articles, even on the sole basis of getting them to prove what they printed was true. We had to proceed only against Heidi Schøne, Ingunn Røren and her newspaper, Drammens Tidende on the basis of the 14th July 1998 article. We were within the 3 year time limit. However, in the amended writ we were going to leave in the 1995 articles so as to explain and support my later campaign against the newspapers and Heidi, which directly resulted in the July 1998 article. I was too late to ask for any of the defendants to be imprisoned, even for the 1998 article. The position was that if the police themselves do not prosecute Heidi or the journalist(s) involved for attempting to pervert the course of justice which I was advised they would certainly not bother to do, then I myself had three months in which to bring my own private prosecution, and the time limit of three months started on July 14th 1998. So I was out of time as at October 13th 1998!
On 15th October 1999, my lawyer faxed the judge a letter requesting a further extension of time in which to amend my Writ. He kindly faxed me a copy of that letter (in Norwegian) as a gesture of good faith. The judge gave us as long as we reasonably needed to do what was necessary.
On 27th October, I faxed Mr. Kokkvold at the PFU the following letter:-
I refer to my letters to you of 24th September and 1st October. Would you please acknowledge receipt of these letters and yourself provide me with a proper response to the questions asked.
I feel it is appropriate to instruct English lawyers to phone you and get those answers if you can't deal with me. I will give you a week to respond.
Frederick xxx

He replied next day, 28th October:-

Dear Sir,
I refer to your letters of September 24 and October 1, and your fax of October 27.
Your letters were submitted to the PFU on October 26 1999. The Commission did not find your letters to contain any relevant new information, and saw no reason to reopen the case. The case is now closed as far as the PFU is concerned.
Yours sincerely,
Per Edgar Kokkvold
Secretary General

I replied in turn:-

I am in receipt of your letter of 28th October 1999.
It really is unworthy of the PFU to deliberately ignore the questions posed in my letters of 24th September and 1st October 1999. Why the continued cover-up, as in 1996?
The PFU letter of 25th August 1999 to my lawyer Eric Lindset of Elden & Elden consisted of 8 pages. Your translation to me was only 1 page.
How can you live with yourself over the deceit occasioned by the PFU conclusions in the 25.8.99 report? You had the chance to put the record straight and you failed miserably - how cowardly. Certainly your organisation and the press you are meant to control and admonish are Serb-like: lying to the public and suppressing the truth. In due course my 'usual' campaign will re-start. It would be appropriate for a personal hearing to be granted me now, but I expect you'll turn me down.
Frederick xxx

The full translation of the PFU Report of August 25th was obtained by my paying London translators in May 2001 and which repeated the sequence of events as earlier reported to me, but in greater detail.
On 11th November, I sent a full 14 page complaint about Eric Lindset of Elden & Elden to the Norwegian Bar Association, enclosing all the relevant correspondence, newspaper articles and full résumé of the case so far. I sent the Bar Association a copy of my own Writ and its case number proving that it was legally possible to get the Writ up and running. It went off by International Datapost to the Norwegian Bar Association in duplicate at a cost of £44.25. It guaranteed delivery in two days.
When I spoke to my lawyer, Stig Lunde, he told me what I had never heard from any of the lawyers I'd contacted; that he couldn't recognise what the newspapers were talking about having read Heidi's letters to me (three of which he had, as contained in my Writ). Lunde was so astonished he went on to suggest that he could ask a handwriting expert to certify for the Court that Heidi's letters had been written in fact by her and had not been forged by me. But I told him, even she would never attempt to deny she wrote them. "I have the originals with me", I reassured him.
Still my lawyer was a very busy man and things were going slowly. So, on 22nd November, as he had not been previously made aware, I sent by recorded delivery to Hans Odde, Chief Editor of Drammens Tidende, a tape of the recording of Ingunn Røren's conversation as incontrovertible evidence that she was a liar, in response to Odde's filthy letter of 7th June to the PFU.
On 13th December 1999, Stig Lunde, at midnight, tried to send me a 10 page fax in Norwegian on the matters he wanted to discuss with me over the phone. For some reason, the fax couldn't get through. I mention this only to show the total commitment of the man to my cause in trying to send me a fax when he got back to his office after a full days meetings in another town. It was a token of his utter good faith to try and fax me 10 pages of his internal memorandum in a language I couldn't understand. Next morning, at 9.52 a.m. the fax came through and I spent 3½ hours on the phone to him in the afternoon going through his letter as he explained each point in turn to me.
We were trying hard to give Heidi Schøne, Ingunn Røren and Drammens Tidende a Christmas present of service of the Amended Writ. But we had too much to do and the Christmas 'present' would have to wait until the New Year. However, Stig Lunde had by now listened to the tape recording of policeman Svein Jensen from March 1996 and those two Ingunn Røren conversations and told me he quite understood my "frustrations" with that journalist.
I had already anticipated that an Amended Writ might not be served on Heidi in time for the Christmas and New Year festivities, so I sent a copy of my original Writ to Heidi's sister, Elizabeth, in Drammen on which I had written the words "A taste of things to come". I was not prepared to carry on waiting after 4½ years for yet more time to pass without communicating my serious intentions to Heidi. I sent it to her sister of course, as Heidi's mail, I suspected, would still be intercepted by the police. I doubted whether Elizabeth would be able to keep the contents of the Writ to herself for long. Hopefully it would spoil the family's Christmas.
Given that nothing would now be done until January 2000, I sent Stig Lunde extra background information consisting of the PFU report of 25th August and other papers to enable him to have the clearest possible understanding of the last 5 years activities. I asked him to put in a full complaint to the PFU over their refusal to answer properly my letters, and also to deal with Karsten Gjone's insurance company, Vesta, as clearly it needed a Norwegian lawyer to handle the reticent insurance giant.

In early February, my previous lawyers, who I had complained against, Elden & Elden, put in a full reply to my complaint which at my request the Norwegian Bar Association had translated into English at their own expense. This letter is dated 31st January 2000:-

The Disciplinary Committee of the Oslo Chapter
Of the Norwegian Bar Association
C/o the Secretariat of the Norwegian Bar Association
Kristian Augusts gate 9
0164 OSLO


We refer to your undated communication containing a complaint by Mr. Frederick xxx dated 11 November 1999.

Mr. xxx approached our office on 10 November 1998 requesting assistance. The case concerned a woman who had allegedly reported him to Bergen Police District for (attempted) rape in 1986. In 1995, this same woman also reported Mr. xxx to Nedre Eiker Rural Constabulary Office for violating her right to privacy over the last 13-14 years. Moreover the woman agreed to be interviewed about Mr. xxx by several Norwegian newspapers in 1995 and 1998. The newspapers wrote articles on this subject. Mr. xxx was not mentioned by name, but was described as inter alia an English, half Arab, Muslim. Mr. xxx initially wished to bring a legal action against the woman so that she would account for/prove her accusations.
Mr. xxx had also reported the newspaper articles to the Press Complaints Commission and also requested that we represent him in the future proceedings before that body.
Mr. xxx was also of the view that he had a claim for damages against a former legal counsel (the insurance company of said legal counsel) in this matter. This was based on an alleged failure to comply with time limits for bringing legal action against the aforestated newspapers on the grounds of the newspaper articles in 1995.
I have been responsible for this case on behalf of this firm (John Christian Elden, Attorney at Law). However, most of our contact with Mr. xxx has been through our Eric Lindset, Attorney at Law. Our dealings with this client have involved a not inconsiderable number of telephone conversations, telefaxes and letters.
Mr. xxx has lodged nine complaints against my handling of this case(s) which he contends has been contrary to proper professional conduct. I have the following comments on these complaints:
Our firm gave advice on the matter of the issuing of an originating writ. This advice was offered both by telephone and in letters. With regard to the latter, I refer to the following letters from our firm to Mr. xxx [copies of the 5 letters were enclosed as exhibits].
Admittedly six months passed from the time our involvement with this case commenced until our advice not to proceed with this action (against the aforementioned woman) was first given in a letter (Exhibit 4) dated 30 June 1999. Our precondition for giving final advice was that the evidence in the case (seizures made by Drammen and Bergen police districts) had been reviewed, cf. letters (Exhibit 1, 2 and 3) dated 28 January 1999, 16 February 1999 and 24 February 1999. The main cause of the delay was that it took time to elicit a response from the police. Please find enclosed for your information the following inquiries and reminders to both Drammen and Bergen police districts:
" Request (Exhibit 6) dated 24 January 1999 to Bergen Police District to inspect documents.
" Request (Exhibit 7) dated 24 January 1999 to Drammen Police District to inspect documents.
" Reminder (Exhibit 8) dated 24 February 1999 to Drammen Police District concerning the request to inspect the documents.
" Reminder (Exhibit 9) dated 13 March 1999 to Drammen Police District concerning the request to inspect the documents.
" Reminder (Exhibit 10) dated 19 April 1999 to Drammen Police District concerning the request to inspect the documents.
Bergen Police District promptly responded to the request in their communication (Exhibit 11) dated 9 February 1999. Drammen Police District, on the other hand, did not respond to our approach until their letter (Exhibit 12) dated 27 April 1999. The original case documents were attached to the letter. The Police District also noted that any examination of seizures would have to take place at the police station.
In a telephone conversation on 6 May 1999 Mr. xxx and Eric Lindset agreed that the latter would travel to Drammen to review the material. The two also discussed whether Eric Lindset should travel to Drammen immediately expressly for this purpose or whether he should seek to combine this with some other business visit to Drammen. In the event of the latter alternative Mr. xxx would not be charged for travel or per diem expenses or for fees for work performed outside the office. Mr. xxx preferred this latter approach to an immediate visit, and Eric Lindset reviewed the documents on 30 June 1999. In my letters (Exhibits 4 and 5) of 30 June and 20 July 1999 and in a number of telephone conversations with Eric Lindset, Mr. xxx was advised not to bring a legal action against the above stated woman.
Mr. xxx has been notified of our/my assessments of his various tape recordings and the letters written to him by the woman in question. This took place in the many telephone conversations between Mr. xxx and Eric Lindset.
It should be noted that during its review of this matter the PCC had the audio cassette in question to hand. Moreover the PCC had been informed of Mr. xxx's wishes/requests as regards various comments and responses.
In a letter (Exhibit 13) dated 13 March 1999 to Bergen Police District we requested permission to provide Mr. xxx with copies of the Police District's documents in the criminal case against him. In a letter (Exhibit 14) dated 13 April to ourselves Bergen Police District requested (further) grounds for the request. We responded in a letter (Exhibit 15) from this office dated 19 April 1999. In a letter (Exhibit 16) dated 24 April 1999 Bergen Police District rejected the request p.t. with the exception of seized letters written by Mr. xxx himself, which was the essential point. Following a letter (Exhibit 17) from this office dated 30 May 1999, these letters were received in a communication (Exhibit 18) dated 14 June 1999. The material was forwarded in its entirety to Mr. xxx in a communication (Exhibit 19) dated 20 June 1999.
As regards the items seized by Drammen Police District I/we have by no means undertaken to transcribe and/or translate the material in question.
This could in fact entail a breach of §16-3 of the Prosecution Instructions. Moreover, given the scope of the seizure this would be a time-consuming and costly task. However, Drammen Police District was explicitly asked for copies for Mr. xxx in a letter (Exhibit 20) dated 22 July 1999. This request was refused by Drammen Police District in a letter (Exhibit 21) dated 9 September 1999.
In my letter (Exhibit 2) dated 16 February and in a telephone conversation (cf Exhibit 22, letter dated 13th August 1999, final paragraph) with Eric Lindset on 4 March, Mr. xxx was advised not to proceed with or expend resources on a claim against his former legal counsel/said counsel's insurance company. The reasons given by this office related solely to my assessment of the tenability of the claim. In the aforesaid telephone conversation Mr. xxx expressed that he both understood and accepted our advice.
The question of translation of the correspondence was discussed by Mr. xxx and Eric Lindset on the telephone. On the grounds that he could secure translations at a lower cost than us, Mr. xxx asked for the written material to be forwarded in an untranslated form. Nevertheless Eric Lindset regularly informed him of the contents of the various written documents by telephone. This is clear inter alia from my letter (Exhibit 23) of 9 May 1999 to Mr. xxx.
In a telephone conversation on 20 July Mr. xxx informed Eric Lindset that he no longer wished to retain our services. Written confirmation (Exhibit 5) to this effect was sent to Mr. xxx on that same day. In a subsequent telephone conversation on 22 July 1999 between Mr. xxx and Eric Lindset the former reiterated his termination of our assignment. Mr. xxx has subsequently totally or partially changed his mind on this point. In any event, we decided to terminate the client-attorney relationship with Mr. xxx and he was informed of this in a letter dated 13 August 1999. Our reason was that Mr. xxx made direct contact with the opposing party despite our instructions to the contrary (cf. Telephone conversations and Exhibit 2, third paragraph from the end). Furthermore he was not prepared to follow our advice not to take legal action against the aforementioned woman and his former legal counsel/said counsel's insurance company. Finally Mr. xxx had fallen behind in (advance) payments.
It is not the case that we have not confirmed to Mr. xxx that the letters and postcards seized by Drammen Police District numbered less than 300/400 items. Admittedly, Eric Lindset has not performed a precise count, but there were many. Mr. xxx was therefore informed by telephone that the difference was unlikely to have any effect on the outcome of the case since some imprecision is generally accepted under Norwegian libel law. Furthermore we could not be entirely certain that the seizure covered anything that was in fact received at the address of the woman in question.
Initially our unambiguous advice to Mr. xxx was to wait further measures until we had received the police documents against him (cf. Exhibit 1, fifth paragraph from the end, Exhibit 2, fourth paragraph from the end and Exhibit 3, fourth paragraph from the end). Having done this our advice, as noted earlier, was that he should not proceed with legal action against the woman in question.
Accordingly I refute that I directly or through the person who assisted me in respect of Mr. xxx (Eric Lindset, Attorney at Law) acted in contravention of proper professional conduct.
Yours faithfully,
Eric Lindset (signed)
Attorney at Law
For John Christian Elden, Attorney at law.

My response was dated 11th February 2000:-

Gro Grasbekk
Den Norske Advokatfug
Oslo, Norway

Dear Madam,

Case No:- 4/2000 - Eric Lindset and Elden & Elden

Thank you for your letters of the 4th and 9th of February 2000 with enclosures. I much appreciate the translation into English of Elden & Elden's letter of 31st January.
I reply as follows:-

My new lawyers in Norway (whose name shall remain confidential) issued the (enclosed) Amended Writ dated 13th January 2000 which was served by the Drammen Byrett on 19th January 2000 (see copy of their letter enclosed) on Drammens Tidende, its editor Hans Odde, its journalist Ingunn Røren and Heidi Schøne:- 4 defendants.
My original writ which you have, had to be amended, as my new lawyers told me I was also out of time to sue the 3 newspapers over their 1995 articles for the cause of action in asking the newspapers to prove the truth of their allegations (copy Original Writ enclosed for Elden).
My new lawyer has agreed to deal with Vesta Insurance Company over Karsten Gjone's negligence in missing the time limits to sue for libel asking the newspapers to prove what they said was true: the burden of proof is on VG; B-T and D-T and Heidi Schøne.
I also enclose a copy of my lawyer's internal notes to indicate the correct level of advice that should have been considered by Elden & Elden and communicated to me.
I must insist that my original Writ of 20th August 1999, the Amended Writ of 13th January 2000 and my lawyers internal notes of 14th December 1999 are not disclosed or talked about to anyone whatsoever, by Elden & Elden, except in connection with this complaint being handled by the DNA.
Elden & Elden's "firm advice" as they put it can be seen as wholly inadequate.
I was not informed at all on the telephone of Elden & Elden's assessments of my tape recordings or Heidi Schøne's letters to me. You will see that my subsequent correspondence bears this out. Besides, lawyers should always follow up oral advice by written advice. We lawyers deal in the written word for obvious reasons. Elden & Elden knew the risks inherent in not putting advice in writing, from Karsten Gjone's example.
Elden & Elden gave up with the PFU at the vital time which can be seen from the correspondence with you.
I therefore have continued to take the matter up personally with the PFU (see my enclosed copy letter of the 30th January 2000 to them) with instructions to my lawyer to deal with the PFU's cover up.
My questions raised in my letter of 11.11.99 to Elden & Elden have not been answered by Elden & Elden.
The PFU's report of 25.8.99 was a cover up and referred to none of my vital evidence as my letter of 30.1.2000 will reveal.
I was pleased to receive copies of my old letters held at the Bergen police station, which was one good result obtained for me by Elden & Elden.
However the complaint put in my letter of 11.11.99 has not been answered properly. If I put a question I mean it to be answered. I only wanted it confirmed in writing that Eric Lindset saw the police papers in Bergen indicating an (untrue) allegation of attempted rape in 1986; an (untrue) allegation of actual rape (no longer attempted) made by Heidi Schøne in 1998 to the Nedre Eiker police. I also wanted a report on Heidi Schøne's allegation of rape to the Bergen police by a Bergen shopkeeper in the early 1980's (for which I have taped corroborating evidence of Heidi Schøne telling her best friend at the time that the incident allegedly took place).
Regarding my request for a full report from Eric Lindset on his visit to the Drammen police station he implied in his correspondence to me that he could have done a full report had he known he should have done one for me. He knew long before his visit what I wanted, but is he now telling me it is against the rules to give a full report? Why not tell me that in the first place? His one line report was a complete waste of time.

The fact is that Elden & Elden didn't give me the advice that my present lawyer did. There is a valid claim now for Gjone's failure to issue a writ (in the form of the Amended Writ against Drammen Tidende) against VG., Bergens Tidende and Drammens Tidende for the 1995 articles.
I did not express my acceptance or understanding of Elden & Elden's advice; what real advice was that? As far as libel was concerned I think apart from Ann-Kristin Horvei, six or so others recognised me. [Although I only had concrete evidence of three witnesses having recognised me].
Exhibit 23 obviously I know about. But there were so many short 1-3 line/sentence letters in Norwegian that I was not going to and did not phone up Elden & Elden every time for a translation. Besides, Eric Lindset told me that they charged clients for phone calls in increments of 15 minutes or part thereof. Why not save me some of their time and my time and my money by doing the simple thing in the first place:- a quick translation; even the gist of the meaning would do.
I repeat that I was not asking for the longer letters to be translated.
I repeat that I did not inform Mr. Lindset that I no longer wanted him to act for me in a phone conversation of 20th July. He knows the truth of the matter as I wrote later, in my post-script (P.S.) to my letter to him of 28th July 1999.
Exhibit 5 is a self-serving misrepresentation: a complete untruth. It was only after I spoke to the judge at Drammen Court on 21st July 1999 (at 12.47 p.m. English time for 22 minutes and 25 seconds at a cost of £5.512 pence - as per my phone bill which is available on request) that I knew I could issue a writ myself. I had hitherto been of the firm impression that only the lawyers could issue a writ.
By the time of my next conversation with Eric Lindset on 22nd July at 11.36 a.m. for 8 minutes and 48 seconds, I then knew I could dispense with Eric Lindset's 'help' in drawing up a writ. I did not "re-iterate" my termination of Elden & Elden's assignment. For the first time, - that day - 22nd July - I told Eric Lindset I would issue the writ myself and Eric said he would pass on to me further correspondence he received. But I state again:- Eric Lindset said on 20th July that he would get back to me after his professional requirement to consult his boss John C. Elden over my request that his firm draw up a writ for me. Eric didn't want to draw up a writ (indeed his advice earlier indicated he was incapable of doing this) so I asked him to tell John Christian Elden that I insisted a writ be drawn up. So I waited for word from Eric as to what John C. Elden had decided. On the same day by letter I'm told that I have terminated my instructions. Very unprofessional.
Elden & Elden say in their letter of 13th August 1999 that their reason for terminating the client/attorney relationship was that I made "direct contact with the opposing party despite our instructions to the contrary" and they refer to Exhibit 2. Exhibit 2 is dated 16th February 1999 and I heeded that advice. However, my writing to this 3rd party - the PFU - was clearly explained in my letter of 11.11.99 to the DNA.:- It was an emergency because Eric Lindset was on holiday for two weeks and he would never have had the time to go into the matter as I myself could, as I had a much better understanding of the issues involved. Crucially I could not risk the PFU deciding that my vital, later evidence was inadmissible for being tendered out of time. Besides, I copied Eric Lindset in, on all my correspondence with the PFU. I had made sure the PFU knew exactly what they had to do and instead of Eric Lindset appreciating how much time and effort I'd saved him, I get condemnation for writing to a 3rd party.
The point is also that no mention was made in Elden & Elden's letter to me of 13th August 1999 of their objection to my contacting this 3rd party. This reason is only mentioned now - in their letter of 31.1.00.
Falling behind in advance payments is a false reason advanced by Elden & Elden. I have already dealt with this in my letter of 11.11.99 and of course no response is given in E & E's letter of 31.1.00. What is this:- Elden & Elden's right to silence being exercised??
8. "Over 300 letters" sent to Heidi Schøne in 1997-1998 as reported in Drammens Tidende on 14.7.98
Again what kind of response is this from Elden & Elden? Their reply is of no value at all. I did not write 300 letters "in the last year" (almost one a day) to Heidi Schøne. I wrote 5 or so telling her I am taking her to court.
Heidi Schøne could not bear to be confronted with answering my questions on her disgusting behaviour. So she side-stepped the matter by asking the post office to send all her mail from any source to the police for them to vet first. Also she would not want letters from other people asking her about my "information campaign", regarding her filthy lies to the press.
Would it not be easy then for Eric Lindset - he had been given 6 months notice of my requirements - to simply ask the police to see the 300 or so letters I allegedly wrote in 97-98 to Heidi Schøne?
I'm a bit confused also, as Eric told me on the phone that indeed I only wrote "5 or so letters in the last year". So I told him to confirm it in writing - see what ensued!
The fact is the police do not hold 300 or so letters for the period 97-98 - on that you can rest assured and for the newspaper D-T to print that in 1998 is a lie which I wanted to expose - BUT I NEEDED ERIC LINDSET TO CONFIRM IT IN WRITING FOR EVIDENTIAL PURPOSES
First class advice - I don't think:- that Elden & Elden's advice was that basically I don't have a case against Heidi Schøne. So, I've attempted to rape her, (allegedly): I've raped her (allegedly), I've threatened to kill her, her family, her two year old son (in writing). I've written 400 obscene letters (allegedly); I fantasise about Heidi Schøne who never had any feelings for me. My mother wanted to put me in a mental hospital (she, Heidi says). And more. And this from a girl who has been in a psychiatric unit; who's slept with a man knowing he was injecting heroin; who had two abortions before I ever met her and who twice tried to take her life.
Oh yes - good advice from Elden & Elden:- have they bothered to look at my evidence? Anyway sarcasm aside, the writ is issued and served, and on a very sound foundation.
Yours faithfully, Frederick xxx

To this Elden & Elden had no further comments and on the 22nd August the Disciplinary Committee found as follows:-

1. Neither John C. Elden, Attorney at Law, nor Eric Lindset, Attorney at Law, acted in contravention of proper professional conduct.
2. There are no grounds for reduction of payment of the defendant's fee.

The Disciplinary Committee continued:-

"By way of introduction the Committee notes that the task of the Disciplinary Committee is to assess the ethical aspects of the attorney-at-law's handling of the case, and not the quality of the legal advice that was offered.
The Disciplinary Committee notes that all the complaints presented by the complainant are generally based on the defendant's allegedly inadequate handling of the legal matters of the complainant. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that none of the matters are censurable on ethical grounds.
As regards the complainants allegation that the assignment/client relationship was unilaterally and unjustifiably terminated (point 7), this point is in a somewhat different position since termination of the client relationship is permissible only within the framework that follows from the section 3.1.6 of the ethical regulations. There seems to be some disagreement as to whether the assignment/client relationship was in fact terminated by the complainant or by the defendants …….. Notwithstanding this disagreement the assignment appears to have been terminated largely on the basis of disagreement about the way in which the case was being handled, and the Disciplinary Committee will not censure [Elden and Elden] in connection with the termination of the client relationship.
According to section 3.1.2 of the ethical regulations, the defendants are required to advise their client and to properly promote their clients' interests. If correct the complainant's complaints could provide grounds for censure of [Elden and Elden]. Nevertheless, the Disciplinary Committee find that on the subject of the complaints 1. [issue of Writ] and 9. [letter to Heidi Schøne], [Elden and Elden] insisted from the time at which they took on the assignment that they must be provided with an overview of the facts of the case before the measures specified therein would be taken.
"Having gained an overview of the facts in the case [Elden & Elden] explicitly advised the complainant against pursuing such measures" [being the issue of a Writ against the newspapers and Heidi Schøne and a letter to Heidi Schøne putting her on notice] "Accordingly the Disciplinary Committee cannot see that there are any grounds for censuring [Elden and Elden] on these points.
As regards point 3 [the Press Complaints Commission] evidence has been presented to show that [Elden & Elden] did contact the Press Complaints Commission and promoted the interests of the complainant in this respect. Moreover it is clear from the letter from [Elden & Elden] dated 24th February 1999 that the complainant notified [Elden and Elden] that he would personally handle the relationship with the Press Complaints Commission. Accordingly the Disciplinary Committee finds that there are no grounds for censuring Elden & Elden on this point.
As regards [taking action against Karsten Gjone's Insurance company Elden and Elden] advised against the implementation of the measures specified therein, their advice being that it was too late to pursue this course of action. Accordingly the Disciplinary Committee finds that there are no grounds for censuring [Elden and Elden] on this point.
As regards the other points in the complaints all of which concern Elden and Elden's attitude towards evidence in the cases in question and the reporting of this to the complainant, the Disciplinary Committee finds it particularly difficult to establish the facts in this matter …. Although [Elden and Elden] did not provide a full report on all the facts they reported their understanding of the main case against the woman in question based on the facts that they considered significant in the case. Here too the Disciplinary Committee concludes that there are no grounds for censuring Elden & Elden."

So I appealed on the finding by letter dated 4th September 2000 and to summarise, my points were:-
1. I enclose a copy of Stig Lunde's amended writ of 13th January 2000 as evidence that it was possible to issue a writ on clearly explained grounds.
2. Why did Elden & Elden offer no comment at all on the taped telephone conversations or Heidi's letters to me, which I said constituted the whole basis of my case.
3. That the Committee were wrong in concluding that I had notified Elden & Elden that I would personally handle the case with the Press Complaints Commission. I enclosed a copy of my letter of 28th February 1999 in which I specifically corrected Elden & Elden's mistaken impression and told them to continue on my behalf, which they did. But it was important for them to ensure that the PFU considered the evidence I'd given them. Elden & Elden did not do this and it led to a PFU cover up, particularly over the journalist Ingunn Røren's lies to the PFU.
4. That it was not too late to claim against Advokat Karsten Gjone's insurance company for his negligence in missing the time limits to issue a writ against the newspapers for the 1995 articles. So I enclosed a copy of Vesta Insurance Company's letter to me of November 24th 1999 in which they acknowledged receipt of my claim and which my present lawyer was dealing with.
5. I repeated my protest that I clearly deserved a full written report on the evidence at the Drammen police station which I'd been after for months.

On the 11th September 2000, I wrote to the Disciplinary Tribunal enclosing a copy of Judge Anders Stilloff's decision after the August 25th hearing in which I was allowed to proceed to full trial, having won all the points argued before the judge. Clearly, the Judge thought Heidi Schøne, the journalist and editor of Drammens Tidende had a prima facie case to answer.

Elden & Elden replied as follows on 6th September 2000:-

The Disciplinary Committee of the Norwegian Bar Association
Kr August gt 9
0164 Oslo.
I refer to your letter of the 5th of this month, and hereby confirm receipt.
We refer to documents already submitted by this side. Should the Committee require further comments we are at its disposal.
As regards the quality of the advice not to take out a writ against Heidi Schøne, I note that the Public Prosecutors in Oslo/Drammen Police Districts have imposed a fine on the Complainant pursuant to § 390a of the Criminal Code for privately taking out a writ against Schøne in an action before Drammen City Court.
Yours faithfully,
John Christian Elden (initialled)
Attorney at law

I replied on the 16th September 2000:-

Beate Sundstrøm
Den Norske Adv. OSLO

Dear Madam,

Thank you for your letter of 14th September 2000 with enclosures.
The Public Prosecutor in Drammen has asked for a fine to be imposed on me for my giving as evidence in my writ - the enclosed fact sheet of Heidi Schøne's (formerly Heidi Schøne) past life, x 2.
How am I supposed to predict; indeed how is my lawyer supposed to predict, that including this highly relevant piece of evidence in a civil action is going to lead to a fine under § 390a of the Criminal Code?
My lawyer has written to the Public Prosecutor justifying my action and his action, as a response to disgraceful newspaper allegations against me in 1995 and 1998. The Public Prosecutor has also been informed that Judge Stilloff accepted all my lawyer's arguments and has allowed my case to proceed to trial (you have the Judge's decision).
Further, at no time did Elden & Elden ever advise me about this specific point so they are now just being wise after the event.
I have informed the Public Prosecutor that this action against me is without foundation and malicious and an interference in the due process of law in my civil case. I have told him that I will not pay the fine. My lawyer and I await further developments on this matter with the Public Prosecutor.
The point is there are fundamental issues here at stake that must be tested in the Courts. I needed and I have at last found a lawyer who believes in furthering my legitimate interests. Once again, it is clear that in allowing me to proceed to trial, Judge Stilloff accepts also that I have a right to sue Heidi Schøne, Ingunn Røren (journalist), Hans Odde (Editor) and Drammens Tidende. Let us not forget that Ingunn Røren has been proven (as per the evidence) to have attempted to pervert the course of justice in her evidence to the PFU - something that escaped Elden & Elden's notice, despite my pointing it out to them. Further action by my lawyer will be taken against the PFU - an absolutely useless organisation when it came to serving my interests. Their involvement must be exposed for all to see for what they really are.
Yours faithfully,
Frederick xxx

On the 17th September Elden & Elden replied:-
The Disciplinary Committee of the Norwegian Bar Association
Kr. Augusts gt 9
0164 Oslo

I refer to your letter of 14 of this month with attachments.
The submitted documents do not provide grounds for changing our advice to the complainant not to issue an originating writ against Heidi Schøne.
We submit that the advice offered by an attorney at law should not be confined to whether it is possible in practice to issue an originating writ and for the writ to be heard by the Court - and to succeed in a legal action. It is the duty of an attorney at law to prevent unnecessary legal actions and, if possible, to prevent the unnecessary escalation of existing conflicts. The complainant, who states that he is "an experienced British solicitor", should be aware of this, as it also applies to British attorneys at law. The fact that the complainant secured a different opinion from Mr. Lunde does not mean that the initial advice was contrary to proper professional practice.
Yours faithfully,
John Christian Elden (signed)
Attorney at Law

This letter spoke volumes for me. Clearly, Elden & Elden had every intention of doing their best to ensure a writ would not be issued. A perverse attitude.

The Disciplinary Board gave their decision on 20th December 2000 which is produced below:-

Reviewed Complaint No. D89/00 Proper professional conduct/calculation fee
On 20 December 2000

Complainant: Frederick xxx
Defendants: Eric Lindset and John Chr. Elden, Attorneys at Law
The following persons
reviewed the case: District Court Judge Knut Glad
Ole A. Bachke, Attorney at Law
Trine Buttingsrud Mathiesen, Attorney at
Monica Vinje, Senior Consultant
Jan Fredrik Haraldsen, Assistant Director.

In a letter dated 11 November, Frederick xxx lodged a complaint against attorneys at law Eric Lindset and John Chr. Elden to the Disciplinary Committee of the Norwegian Bar Association. The attorneys assisted the complainant in three cases, all of which were based on the filing of an allegedly wrongful complaint to Bergen Police District for attempted rape in 1986. The complaint concerns the calculation of the attorneys' fees and breaches of proper professional conduct.

The Disciplinary Committee of the Oslo chapter of the Norwegian Bar Association reviewed the complaint and gave its decision as follows on 22 August 2000:

1. Neither John C. Elden, Attorney at Law, nor Erik Lindset, Attorney at Law, acted in contravention of proper professional conduct.
2. There are no grounds for reduction/repayment of the fee.

In a letter dated 30 August 2000, Frederick xxx appealed the decision of the Committee in due time to the Disciplinary Board. A letter dated 4 September 2000 expands upon the appeal. The complainant submits that the Committee failed to properly assess the matters raised by the complainant, and that where such matters were considered, the wrong decision was reached. It is not entirely clear whether the appeal also relates to the decision on the fee, but it is assumed that this is the case.

John Chr. Elden submitted a reply on 17 September 2000. He refers to earlier submissions.

As regards the facts in the case, nothing new of significance has been raised in this round of the appeal, and reference is made to the outline provided by the Committee.
The Disciplinary Board has reached the same conclusion as the Committee, and concurs with the grounds given in the Committee's decision.
According to Section 3.1.2 of the Rules on Proper Professional Conduct, an attorney at law is required to advise his/her client and to promote the interests of his/her client in a satisfactory manner. Nevertheless, the attorney at law must be given free reign in determining how he/she wishes to handle the client's case and in the professional advice he/she wishes to give. For an attorney at law's performance of an assignment to be viewed as a breach of the Rules on Proper Professional Conduct, he/she must have committed clear errors or have been negligent. In the view of the Disciplinary Committee, this is not the case in this instance.
Under Section 3.1.6 of the ethical rules, an attorney at law may withdraw from an assignment if the client does not follow the advice given by the attorney. The documents in this case suggest that the situation in this instance was such that the attorney against whom the complaint has been lodged was justified in unilaterally terminating the client/attorney relationship.
This decision is unanimous.
The decision of the Disciplinary Committee is upheld.
Knut Glad

Another whitewash.

In March, my lawyer informed me that Drammens Tidende, its editor Hans Odde and the journalist Ingunn Røren had asked the Court to dismiss my case because I had used the PFU. They were, it seems, arguing that I couldn't take them to Court if I'd used their Press Complaints Commission. My lawyer was also very apprehensive for my chances of getting anywhere as all the Defendants had asked the Court to give a ruling that I should put up a guarantee for their costs should I lose the case. They had asked the Court for NOK 300,000 bond from me, i.e. about £23,000, money which of course I did not have. My lawyer had asked me to look into how I could raise this money. Things looked as if they were on the verge of total collapse and I began to think again of starting another 'information campaign'. I asked Stig Lunde to research thoroughly the position as to costs guarantees and he said he would do so. Lunde was a commercial/company lawyer so he was chartering new territory in handling my case.
It was therefore an anxious call I made to him a week later. His further research had mercifully discovered that a Court would only require a costs guarantee against me if the merits of my case were poor and also if I had no other assets to pay costs if in due course I happened to lose the case.