Impeachment

IMPEACHMENT FORMAL NOTIFICATION OF STATE SUPPORTED CRIMINALITY DATE: May 01, 2008

SUBJECT:  Formal complaint against the Norwegian Director General of Public Prosecutions,  criminal proceedings against members of the Norwegian Council of State, the Norwegian Supreme Court, the Norwegian Parliament, AO.

FROM: Mr Wilh. Werner WINTHER, NO-6270 Brattvåg, Norway.

TO: The Norwegian King in Council of State, NO-Oslo, Norway.

THROUGH: 1

The Sheriff Office, NO-6270 Brattvåg, Norway.

REMARKS: Nearby notification is an integral part of the official United Nations petition FORMAL COMPLAINT VS THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY by Mr Wilh. Werner WINTHER, and may consequently encompass comments and information otherwise natural to omit in this kind of legal documents. Whereas there’s an imminent danger of new and potentially mortiferous attacks carried out or underhandedly planned by representatives of Norwegian authorities, judicial examination of the appellant in casu are acceptable insofar as — and only if — the interrogation whereabouts are duly approved and supervised by armed/neutral guards conscientiously appointed and directed by the appropriate authorities of significantly healthier and more upright nations than Norway. Norwegian authorities should address all correspondence to counsellor Johs. A. ASPEHAUG, P.O Box 837, 6001 Ålesund. Representatives of foreign governments, human rights organizations, international tribunals — etc — should apply couriers satisfyingly identifying themselves as authentic messengers. No letters should be forwarded through the official postal services of Norway or DHL. Representatives of Norwegian authorities are personae non gratae in Åsen 4, NO-Brattvåg.

REFERENCES: a) FORMAL COMPLAINT VS THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY* (*hereafter referred to as ―FOCO‖) by Mr Wilh. Werner WINTHER; pp 1–217, b) INTERNET DOCUMENTS* (*hereafter referred to as ―INDO‖) by Mr Wilh. Werner WINTHER; pp 1–173,

2

c) letter 108/08-63/ROS004 dated Jan 29 HA from the Norwegian Director General of Public Prosecutions, Mr Tor-Aksel BUSCH (NO-Oslo); 1 page, d) letter 070630/200700587 dated Feb 02 HA from the Special Investigating Unit for Police Matters (NO-Hamar); 1 page, e) e-mail of Oct 28, 2007, from Mr Wilh. Werner WINTHER to the Special Investigating Unit for Police Matters, The Norwegian Supreme Court, the Norwegian Prime Minister, the Norwegian Ministry of Justice, AO; 1 page.

IN RE: Let’s make it perfectly plain already now; The addressee of this legal notification — the Norwegian King and his Council of State — are among the absolute main culprits in the criminal case incident to the various atrocities and human rights violations &c described in FOCO/INDO....: “Before kicking off the from A to Z daffy and lawless terror-campaign against me in Oslo, Ms Aase Svendsen Roland and her deranged partners in crime collusively obtained operational permission from e.g the Norwegian Parliament, Government, Supreme Court and King‘s Council.....!‖ (cf FOCO, p 30) ―Ms Harlem Brundtland and her mafiosi in turn presented the disastrous complot for the Norwegian monarch, Mr Harald HEADLESS, who spitefully approved the insanities in the usually hebdomadal Council of State.‖ (cf FOCO, p 31) ―In 1992 Mr Harald HEADLESS (cf p 31) willingly sanctioned the stark illegal and doubtlessly cracked conspiracy against me, and since then he and his nearest family ‘ve exhibited particular and — to me — wholly undesirable interest for my personal undertakings. The criminal inclination, unfairness, grave disrespect for the human rights and 3

general ignominy persistently displayed by the official royal family of Norway in this case, clearly excludes friendly and even diplomatic relations with them (cf Aphorisms ##135, 136 and 137 etc). It should also be called attention to the disgraceful fact Harald Headless‘ father, King Olav V, had one of his faithful employees incarcerated and maltreated at a state controlled bedlam exclusively because he championed the human rights of other and unseemly hounded/exploited courtiers.....‖ (cf FOCO, pp 68–69) ―Actively sustained by and largely including governmental authorities and flyblown principals of major state institutes, the innate corruption and wormy diabolism pervades all executive and official branches of the infected nation which — befittingly — 've been nicknamed ‗The Kingdom of Satan‘!‖ (cf FOCO, p 122) ―Studying Article 1 of the Norwegian Constitution, we learn that Norway is a limited and hereditary monarchy. The present monarch — King Harald V the Headless (cf pp 31 and 68–69), was born the 21th of February 1937, and formally swore the oath specified in Article 44 of the Norwegian Constitution Feb 21, 1958. Mr Headless, upon the death of his father, took office as Norwegian head of state January 17th 1991, and officially swore the oath laid down in Article 9 of the Norwegian Constitution four days later. To those acquainted with the innate corruptibility, judgmental maladroitness and psychopathological temperament prevalent amongst Norwegian senior civil servants and officials (cf pp 122–124 above), it should be no surprise to find essential parts of the Norwegian Constitution going on the rocks right from the start…..‖ (cf FOCO, p 169) ―In any event King Harald V the Headless most flagrantly has violated the oaths laid down in Article 9 and Article 44 of the Norwegian Constitution — he has repetitively and mala fide sanctioned and awarded the most serious and dishonorable examples of state supported rottenness and premeditated human rights violations ever seen in modern Norway (cf pp 31, 68–69 and 126 etc), and his regal malversation are intensely disgraceful and totally condemnable indeed.‖ (cf FOCO, p 170) ―The downright corruption and hell-destined iniquity abidingly displayed by Norwegian magistracy in juxtaposed facts of nearby case, are unparalleled in modern monarchic history of law, and execrable diabolism and gangrenous ghoulishness interosculates their exceedingly opprobrious criminality.‖

(cf INDO, pp 1–2)

4

―The Kingdom of Norway have intentionally, profusely and extendedly acted in a manner extremely deleterious and discreditable for the IHF and its various members — particularly if the obnoxious crimes and premeditated violations of contractual provisions are accepted without adequate execution of sentence.‖ (cf INDO, p 67)

Studying above excerpts it should be entirely evident the Norwegian King and his corrupted council are thoroughly incompetent when it comes to adjudging anything at all in this case, and that’s about — quoad hoc — precisely the conclusion arrived at in FOCO, pp 8–9: ―On account of preceding observations, it‘s evident all instances/persons mentioned beneath the heading “Accused” in nearby complaint are entirely disqualified from exercising any degree of judicial authority in this case.....; they‘re those legally reported/charged, and should be treated as suspects. However — Norwegian authorities may correctly apply Article 93 in their Constitution (sic): ‗In order to safeguard international peace and security or to promote the international rule of law and cooperation between nations, the Storting may, by a three-fourths majority, consent that an international organization to which Norway adheres or will adhere shall have the right, within objectively defined fields, to exercise powers which in accordance with this Constitution are normally vested in the Norwegian authorities, although not the power to alter this Constitution. For the Storting to grant such consent, at least two thirds of the Members of the Storting shall be present, as required for proceedings for amending the Constitution. The provisions of this Article do not apply in cases of membership in an international organization, whose decisions only have application for Norway purely under international law.‘ Norwegian authorities are hereby encouraged to fulfill their juridical obligations as stated above and entrust impartial representatives from the United Nations with the formal responsibility for investigating, prosecuting and adjudicating etc the various crimes wherewith the Kingdom of Norway are charged in this legal case unique in Norwegian history of law.‖ As regards the Norwegian Director General of Public Prosecutions, Mr TorAksel BUSCH (b Mar 17, 1950), he’s formally and directly subject to the Norwegian King in Council of State. Mr Busch is the head of the Norwegian Prosecuting Authority* (*cf the Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act sec’s 55 and 5

56), and he’s not subordinate to any government department per se — though, as the Council of State largely is composed of ministers acting in their capacity as political supremos of their respective government ministries, many of his decisions ex officio are explicitly marked by departemental influence. Directly beneath the Director General of Public Prosecutions, we find the regional public prosecutors superintending the activities of their respective police districts in Norway.....and it should be emphasized that Mr Busch — and most public prosecutors — has a past as regular police officer(-s).....and, as for the Norwegian police force, quite a few and highly apposite remarks has beforehand been put on paper: ―While 90% of regular Norwegian police officers has clearly marked, psychopathic personality traits, the actual prevalence of explicit psychopathy/sadism are 100% amongst the Norwegian Police ‗Security‘ Service officers.‖ (cf FOCO, p 10) ―The seemingly irresistible urge to compensate for assorted shortcomings through stark falsehood and extensive nefariousness, soon turned out as one of the foremost hallmarks of these fundamentally vicious ruffians....‖ (about officers from Majorstua Police Station in NO-Oslo, cf FOCO p 16) ―The police schemed provocations — which far and away may be more comprehensive, enduring and truculent than actually described above — may nevertheless be constructed, timed and intensified suchwise as to bring about other and more pernicious outcomes than unjustified psychiatric internment and stigmatizing alone.....and — in this connection — the most attractive of the alternative end results is to carry on and worsen the methodical terrorism until the victim attacks and hopefully kills an innocent person in pure desperation. Other frequently sought "payoffs" includes suiciding (the police may v.g surreptitiously and specifically manipulate the regular broadcasting reception playing songs/melodies on the victim's radio and/or television units exacerbating sadness and praising self-destruction), physical handicapping (may be induced e.g through intoxication, covert radiation and various accident setups), or simply — assassination.” (cf FOCO, pp 114–115) ―By and large brimming over with decayed sickees and back-alley jimcrowists, the Norwegian state apparatus just about plenary may go to truly astonishing lengths to actively support and safeguard against public exposure serious criminality committed by their police officers and

6

assorted socii criminis, and various mass media — private as well as state owned — are very likely to reflect this inglorious fact!‖ (cf FOCO, p 115) ―It is certainly in the cards the Norwegian police almost exclusively attracts notorious badasses and psychopaths wholly unfit to assume any sizable degree of responsibility (cf pp 104–121), and — as a matter of fact and course; 2000 of the worst policemen/-women in active service should be locked up straightaway (the overall treatment of these prisoners should be extraordinary harsh indeed), and another 3000 of these chronic malfeasants summarily fired (hard-core criminals who can be sentenced and enjailed somewhat later without seriously endangering the noncriminal population should, due to overcrowded nuthouses and penitentiaries etc, be assigned to this category) — remaining personnel, chiefly minor lawbreakers and incurable sociopaths, should be very closely superintended and permanently excluded from the national police force whenever practically feasible to supplant them with morally and otherwise competent persons!‖ (cf FOCO, pp 155–156) ―Since 1998 the statesmen-approved and intentional abuse of audiovisual spy-tech in Norway ‘ve exploded, and vice-ridden police officers are now picklocking private living quarters all over this condemned kingdom to lecherously spy upon persons they find sexually attractive, or to terrorize human rights activists and intellectuals blaming official corruption. The moral crap constituting the general body of Norwegian Government officials and the national police force, quickly realized that the combination of piccolo microphones and cobweb-optics was a valuable ally when it came to evade legal actions against themselves. Hence and consequently: — virtually always and wheresoever in this country respectable people prepare for criminal persecution of rotten politicians, chiefs of police, judges, district recorders or public prosecutors &c, foul police sergeants are called out to audiovisually supervise the complainants, to audio-/videotape all essential conversations/happenings, and to copy/photograph/steal/hamper/falsify/annihilate every item of evidence plus the sum of documents relating to the case — cf Article 25:1 in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms!” (cf INDO, p 61) ―Norwegian police has for years actively collected information about the pathogenic effects of bodily/mental stress and torture, and they‘ve villainously surveilled and persecuted real psychiatric patients in their

7

private homes while tentatively exploring techniques inflicting various degrees of disability.‖ (cf INDO, p 85) ―As for Norwegian police officers, you‘ll get a tolerably accurate picture of their mentality etc by studying the various documents above — item My aphorisms. Nevertheless — the striking attempts Norwegian police officers has made to infiltrate vg humanitarian/charitable, political and health related organizations etc in order to further professional influence, should be emphasized. Unfortunately members of such coalitions may be easily duped, as many of them are naturally caritative, idealistic and unbiased — characteristics the police officers, wholly undeservingly, wish to be professionally associated with.....‖ (cf INDO, p 97) ―Ad nauseam we‘ve witnessed how Norwegian police officers expediently perpetrates and provokes grave criminality exclusively to ride high on the confusion and fear thereby produced. Besides, aposematically liberticidal bureaucrats opportunistically championing gross injustice steadfastly goosesteps towards the totalitarian, Norwegian police state.....and in major respects the democratic government system has proven ruefully deficient.‖ (cf INDO, p 102) ―Deposit your money in a savings bank, and receive interests; save negative criticism of the Norwegian police, and get your due profit in hell!‖ (cf Aphorisms &c, #26) ―No disaster so grave — no circumstances so terrifying, that interference from Norwegian police not will aggravate the situation considerably!‖ (cf Aphorisms &c, #28) ―Lend the Norwegian police a willing hand: dig your own grave, pay the undertaker, set fire to the cross, curse justice violently, praise the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 and administer the poison yourself listening to the national anthem!‖ (cf Aphorisms &c, #45) ―It‘s written in Luke 4:5–7 that the kingdoms of the world belongs to the Devil — and sure enough:

8

ample experience ‘ve confirmed that the Kingdom of Norway indeed is ruled by Satan.....that the Norwegian authorities vanguarded by the national police force are his loyal disciples worshipping evildoing, deceiving the general population and terrorizing those righteous (cf Matthew 15:8–9 and Isaiah 29:13)!‖ (cf Aphorisms &c, #48) ―Wherever in Norway there‘s a police station you‘ll find a satanic temple and diabolic stronghold!‖ (cf Aphorisms &c, #51) ―Norwegian police officers will normally take great pains to get all relevant facts of the corruption case against them on the table — before throwing the entire stuff to the dogs, assassinating the chef-à-cuisine, falsely accusing the butler and closing down the whole restaurant for purported ‗health care reasons‘!‖ (cf Aphorisms &c, #67) ―Law-abiding Norwegians should forthright join forces — fully prepared to protect themselves and suffering fellowmen against the rampageous criminality of Norwegian police officers!‖ (cf Aphorisms &c, #98) ―It‘s not entirely proper to say the Norwegian Police ‗Security Service‘ lacks responsibility, care, generosity and culture.....whereas they‘re positively responsible for villainously assassinating dozens of guiltless persons, and empirically shows marked care while generously spreading their pernicious bacteria cultures in your private house and car (Cf Aphorism #45 etc)!‖ (cf Aphorisms &c, #110)

Referring to FOCO, the Norwegian Director General of Public Prosecutions is categorically listed amongst those accused in this case (cf p 2), and Mr TorAksel Busch is — moreover — explicitly named on p 34: ―Supporting the psychotic complot against me from the onset, the office of the Director General of Public Prosecutions was headed by Mr Georg Fr. RIEBER-MOHN and Mr Tor-Aksel BUSCH.‖

9

As evident from Document #8123 (cf INDO, pp 157–158), FOCO constitute an essential part of — and is enclosed with — corresponding report dated and duly handed over to the sheriff office in NO-Brattvåg Aug 13 last year. In his letter of Jan 29th HA (cf ref ―c‖) Mr Busch symptomatically evades references to said report of Aug 13, while — tellingly — calling attention to my letter of Sep 12 and formal notification of Nov 06, 2007 (cf INDO, pp 159–160 and 167–172, respectively). Indicated negligence is not casual, of course, and it should be underscored that FOCO is unambiguously mentioned in both documents referred to by Mr Busch (cf INDO, pp 159 and 168, respectively). Mr Busch has certainly been fully aware FOCO as well as INDO was part and parcel of and — as clearly indicated — enclosed with the legal reports in question.....so, in effect — there’s no doubt about it; the Norwegian Director General of Public Prosecutions, Mr Tor-Aksel Busch, has mala fide and ex officio acted manifestly contrary to the formal disqualification rules he’s professionally bound to obey. Examining Mr Busch’s reasons for breaking the law in the present case, we should pay close attention to the fact two of the persons he attempts to acquit — Mr Jens STOLTENBERG and Mr Knut STORBERGET — both are members of the King’s Council*: *―The Council of State (cf Article 12 of the Norwegian Constitution) — or ‗King's Council‘ (cf pp 30–31 above) — normally consist of the Norwegian King en personne, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Local Government and Regional Development, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Petroleum and Energy, the Minister of International Development, the Minister of Trade and Industry, the Minister of Transport and Communications, the Minister of Education and Research, the Minister of Labour and Social Inclusion, the Minister of Justice and the Police, the Minister of Children and Equality, the Minister of Culture and Church Affairs, the Minister of Health and Care Services, the Minister of Government Administration and Reform, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, the Minister of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, and the administrative head of the Office of the Prime Minister functioning as the Council's secretary. The various members of the Council of State represents the political core of the Norwegian Government, and the nation's highest administrative authority are correspondingly vested in the King's Council (cf Article 3 of the Norwegian Constitution). Said minister councillors acts in their capacity as political supremos of their respective government ministries — e.g the Ministry of Justice and the Police or the Ministry of Health and Care

10

Services, and more or less subordinate to these ministries we find a conglomerate of directorates and different administrative organs.‖ (cf FOCO, p 170)

As it appears from FOCO, p 02, leading members of the Norwegian Council of State as well as principal representatives of corresponding royal house are amongst those explicitly culpable/accused in this case…..so, in consequence: Mr Tor-Aksel Busch is Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg’s and Minister of Justice Knut Storberget’s particeps criminis* (*cf p 182 above). This fact naturally sheds light on Mr Busch’s lawbreaking…..: he’s quite simply — wholly on his own initiative or on orders from political executives — backing up his partners in crime! Of intrinsic interest and juridal importance, certain aspects of Mr Busch’s modus operandi in this case should be elucidated somewhat further: Referring to my letters of Sep 12 and Nov 06 last year, Mr Busch launches an altogether ludicrous attack on the actual facts of the case — he writes (translated from Norwegian, cf ref ―c‖): ―…..it appears that the alleged and criminal offence is attributable to Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, Minister of Justice Knut Storberget, and chief of police Arne S. Karoliussen (Sunnmøre police district).‖ Now, in the first instance, let’s take a further look at my formal notification of Nov 06, 2007* (*cf INDO, pp 167–172). The notification is addressed to the sheriff office in NO-Brattvåg, and introductorily runs as follows:

“SUBSEQUENT CRIMES ARE FORMALLY REPORTED: Oct 27, 2007: At 20:49 PM representatives of Norwegian authorities attempted to infect my PC with a particularly nocuous variant of the virus ‗Downloader‘. The attack was forcibly quenched, and the virus is now safely quarantined.

11

November 06, 2007

Oct 28, 2007: In the afternoon representatives of Norwegian authorities launched an aggressive attack aimed at ruining my PC. The attack is discovered immediately and effectively quashed.

Nov 01, 2007: Between 09:00 and 10:15 PM — while (utilizing my PC in Åsen 4, NOBrattvåg) editing and printing out 4 private photos sent my family by relatives in the USA, representatives of Norwegian authorities downloaded and stole ELINT-copies of said pics. The US citizens photographically depicted in this case may all, empirically, be exposed to illegal persecution/surveillance and potentially fatal attacks carried out by depraved representatives of Norwegian authorities.

Nov 03, 2007: Between 10:00 and 11:00 AM — while I visited the shop ‗RS Elektronikk AS‘ in NO-Brattvåg, a debauched representative of Norwegian authorities (a middle-aged man) annoyed me with aggressive exclamations and impolite behavior. Between 04:00 and 05:20 PM representatives of Norwegian authorities actively obstructed my Internet access (phone # +4792078613), and repeatedly sabotaged official human rights documents opened off-line in the program „Microsoft Word‘.”

Indicated notification of Nov 06 ends suchwise: ―Above notification was properly handed over to the sheriff office in NoBrattvåg the 7th inst, and a few hours after it had been written down on my PC the 6th inst my Internet connection suddenly and permanently broke down (phone #: [+47] 92078613, IP address: 89.8.158.77, Internet provider: the Norwegian company ―NetCom‖)...! In this connection it may be highly appropriate to call attention to the fact I — the 5th inst — visited web sites like:

12

 UNDP Anti-Corruption Practitioners Network, http://anticorruption.undp.sk (at 20:20 CET),  Transparency International, http://transparency.org/ (at 20:24 CET),  Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO), http://coe.int/t/dgt/Greco/Default_en.asp (at 20:25 CET),  Anti Corruption Gateway for Europe and Eurasia, http://65.246.131.134/en.default.asp (at 20:27 and 20:34 CET),  WJIN Guide World Justice Information Network, http://www.wjin.net (at 20:38 CET),  A Global Forum Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity, http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/econ/integrity/homepage.htm (at 20:42 CET). I did also, Nov 5th ha, add more than 10 UN-/COE-addresses to my private Yahoo! Mail contacts ([email protected]).....and, in view of the stark illegal and massive trouble Norwegian authorities has taken to obstruct and corrupt all legal contact with e.g human rights organizations earlier in this case, it‘s quite likely the mere appearance of said addresses has scared the sinful daylights out of the explicitly mischief-happy cops surveilling my Internet activities and thus triggered a new offense.... like — sabotaging my Internet connection!‖

To begin with one call attention to the irrefutable fact Mr Stoltenberg, Mr Storberget, and Mr Karoliussen has been described as the actual perpetrators of the crimes chronologically referred to in my notification of Nov 06 precisely nowhere — said document contains nothing whatsoever pointing to a direct/performatory connection between indicated/reported crimes and this loathsome troika! Moreover; studying the nature of corresponding crimes we immediately notes that these — with a single exception — are directly and explicitly linked with PC usage and Internet related undertakings, and the only persons expressively coupled with and more or less forthrightly accused of sabotaging these activities are “....the explicitly mischief-happy cops surveilling my Internet activities....” (cf foregoing section, item INDO p 172)!

13

It sticks out a mile that Mr Busch — wholly on purpose — endeavours to obscure the facts of the case by establishing a fictive/operational and demonstrably nonsensical link between reported crimes and aforementioned triad, and his fraudulence becomes even more manifest on account of the fact Mr Stoltenberg and Mr Storberget — still referring to my formal notification of Nov 06 last year — both are unmistakably mentioned in conjunction with a demand for criminal proceedings against them AO submitted before commented offences actually took place: ―It's especially discreditable — but not at all surprising — the hereinabove reported crimes took place after I last month officially demanded the Norwegian Prime Minister Jens STOLTENBERG, the Norwegian Minister of Justice and the Police Knut STORBERGET, and several members of the Norwegian Supreme Court (inter alios) duly summoned before a competent Court of Impeachment....cf the Norwegian Constitution Articles 86 and 87*:‖ (cf INDO, p 169)

The fact quoted paragraph is appended to the notification in question as a mere postscript scarcely makes Mr Busch’s obvious efforts to confuse the facts of this case less conspicuous...! If examining the other of my documents referred to by Mr Busch — the formal complaint of Sep 12 previous year, one finds that corresponding text is straightforward and very difficult to misunderstand (translated from Norwegian): ―Hereby all criminal acts mentioned in enclosed letter dated DD and addressed to counselor Johs. A ASPEHAUG, Ålesund, are formally reported to the police — cf the Criminal Procedure Act sec‘s 223–226.* Those guilty should be charged/sentenced/punished.‖

*The actual letter to counselor Aspehaug (cf INDO, pp 159–160) runs suchwise:

14

―Sep 12, 2007 Dear Mr Aspehaug: As telephonically stated, a number of Norwegian (senior) civil servants were quite busy here in NO-Brattvåg today as well as the 6th inst; in a couple hours these accursed swine amongst swine provoked acute power failure in Åsen 4 13–14 times…! Similar terror attacks has been formally reported earlier — cf Doc's ##7084 and 7090. As regards my comprehensive report of the 13th previous month (cf Doc #8123), this as well as enclosed documents has been forwarded the thoroughly corrupted chief of police Mr Arne Sverre KAROLIUSSEN, NO-Ålesund. Mr Karoliussen — together with the Norwegian Minister of Justice and the Police Mr Knut STORBERGET — are, of course, amongst the numerous malefactors actual to imprison for the full term and period of their remaining and natural life in this unparalleled case. Mr Karoliussen are very well aware rotten officers from the police station in NO-Ålesund, in cooperation with depraved employees/executives at the head post office in the same town, has stolen several letters from e.g human rights organizations addressed to your office — cf Incomplete FORMAL COMPLAINT vs the Kingdom of Norway pp 1, 10 and 179, item Doc #3611 &c. Closing nearby letter at 07:06 post meridiem, those guilty of described criminality immediately sabotaged my PC deleting all text usw…!‖

As one sees, the corrupted chief of police Mr A S Karoliussen and the Norwegian Minister of Justice (and the Police) Mr K Storberget are specifically mentioned in a distinct section of the letter where they — unequivocally and exclusively — are linked with my report of Aug 13, 2007, and the thereto enclosed documents* (*i.e: ―Incomplete FORMAL COMPLAINT vs the Kingdom of Norway‖ pp 1–195, and ―Internet Documents‖ pp 1–156). Before winding up our modest expatiation on Mr Busch’s deliberate attempts to corrupt essential facts of this grievous case, one call attention to the fact he has mentioned my report of Sep 25 last year absolutely nowhere in his inculpating letter of Jan 29, HA. 15

Said report was correctly handed over to Haram Sheriff Office (NO-Brattvåg) the 25th of Sep 2007, and described sabotage of and theft from one of my rental cars. Decisively attributable to Norwegian police officers, we may — rather reasonably — imagine that Mr Busch found it tactically convenient to pass over indicated crimes in ―suggestive silence‖....! It’s altogether unnecessary to provide additional proofs testifying to Mr Busch’s premeditated and definitely illegal obfuscation of facts in this case, whereas the documentary evidence hitherto presented comfortably enables us to draw the following and peremptorily justifiable

CONCLUSION: Mr Tor-Aksel BUSCH, born March 17 1950, has in his capacity as Norwegian Director General of Public Prosecutions premeditatedly and in explicitly aggravating manner obstructed lawfull execution of justice by intentionally corrupting essential facts of the present case and mala fide suppressing information he positively knew was all important as regards e.g unbiased criminal investigation of corresponding offences. In light of established facts and manifest implications it’s beyond all question Mr Busch in order to evade legal prosecution of himself and his accomplices entirely willfully has committed a number of procedural errors aimed at (v.g); falsifying the genuine cause of action, impeding impartial securing/submission/examination of evidence, and — generally — covering up a most offensive array serious crimes directly ascribable to Norwegian politicians and (senior) civil servants. Mr Busch’s obnoxious malversation ex officio is certainly not limited to this specific case, and it behooves absolutely to carry out a meticulous and wholly unbiased expert examination of every single case he has dealt with in an official capacity from 1981 to 2008 included. Particular attention should be paid to Mr Busch’s highly conspicuous interaction with the Norwegian Police ―Security‖ Service* (*cf FOCO, pp 104–121 &c) after 1984 and down to this very day, and his professional relations with Mr Lars FRØNSDAL* (*cf FOCO, pp 73–74) has — by the way — been rather ―offbeat‖ most of the time...! With reference to this matter one should bear in mind that Assistant Director General of Public Prosecutions, Mr Hans-Petter JAHRE, in May 2001 was formally reported to the Norwegian King in Council of State — ipsissima verba:

16

―Hans-Petter Jahre, Esq, was appointed accessary Director General of Public Prosecutions by the King‘s Council on Jan 09th 1998, and has ex officio recidivistic and arrogantly disgraced his office by extensive and intentional malversation — particularly in civil proceedings and formal complaint connections where the suspected party and accused persons were police employees, senior state officials or, otherwise, public servants. Mr Jahre‘s absolutely unacceptable irresponsibility and loathsome corruption are clearly manifested in his letter/decision of the 04 th prev m (cf enc‘s A, N, O, P, R & S) where he — without criminal investigation — drops notifications encompassing v.g;



premeditated homicides, attempted murder and complicity to manslaughter/-slaying (cf enc‘s B, C, D & Q),



gross vandalism, burglary, illicit search/seizure and aggravated thefts (cf enc‘s C, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, N, O & P),



comprehensive/systematic corruption, forgery, misdemeanor/felony and extensive dereliction of duty (cf enc‘s B, C, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R & S),



false accusations, illegal deprivation of liberty and unlawful detention in custody (cf enc‘s F, G & H),



torture/molestation, illegitimate monitoring/surveillance, defamations, assaults and breach of precedents item duty of secrecy (cf enc‘s B, C, E, F, H, I, L, Q & R).

I refer to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Articles 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 & 19 and demand Hans-Petter Jahre, Esq, immediately suspended/dismissed from his present office in accordance with the Civil Service Act sec‘s 15, 16 and 17 — cf sec 6 ib item the Constitution sec 22 and the Criminal Procedure Act sec 56 etc.

17

Mr Jahre should, without delay, be subjected to independent criminal investigation/proceedings and charged/sentenced in agreement with Norwegian law.‖ (cf INDO, pp 4–7)

Mr Jahre is a notorious police aficionado, and in INDO p 104 we find this passage: ―It should be underscored that the recent chief of the Norwegian ‗Security Service‘ Police, Mr Jørn HOLME, is Mr Dørum‘s former secretary. Mr Holme has also worked as a senior public prosecutor for the National Authority for Investigation and Prosecution of Economic and Environmental Crime in Norway — ‗Økokrim‘, and thus is a former colleague of vg Mr Hans-Petter JAHRE (cf Doc #115 above) and Mr Anstein Birger GJENGEDAL (cf Doc #377 above — entry of Oct 26, 2000).‖ Returning to Mr Tor-Aksel Busch and the criminal proceedings against him, it’s perfectly clear his professional corruption are punishable in accordance with a good many sections of the Norwegian Penal Code. There are a number of aggravating circumstances to be considered, and Mr Busch’s putrid decision of Jan 29 HA (cf ref ―c‖) is most certainly invalid — cf the Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act sec’s 60, 314, 342, 343, 384, 385 and 390–392, the Norwegian Public Administration Act sec’s 1, 2, 6 and 41, item the Norwegian Courts of Justice Act sec’s 106–121 etc. As regards Mr Busch’s disqualification and criminality ex officio, the Norwegian King in Council of State are — according to the Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act sec 64 — supposed to handle these matters, and Article 22 of the Norwegian Constitution reads: “The Prime Minister and the other Members of the Council of State, together with the State Secretaries, may be dismissed by the King without any prior court judgment, after he has heard the opinion of the Council of State on the subject. The same applies to senior officials employed in government offices or in the diplomatic or consular service, to the highestranking civil and ecclesiastical officials, commanders of regiments and other military formations, commandants of forts and officers commanding warships. Whether pensions should be granted to senior officials thus dismissed shall be deter18

mined by the next Storting. In the interval they shall receive two thirds of their previous pay. Other senior officials may only be suspended by the King, and must then without delay be charged before the Courts, but they may not, except by court judgment, be dismissed nor, against their will, transferred. All senior officials may, without a prior court judgment, be discharged from office upon attaining the statutory age limit.” Cf the Norwegian Civil Service Act sec’s 15 and 21 (cf FOCO, pp 166–168):

SECTION 15 A senior civil servant or civil servant may be summarily discharged when he: has shown gross negligence in the service or is guilty of a gross breach of official duties or despite a written warning or reprimand has repeatedly breached his official duties, by improper behaviour in or outside the service proves himself unworthy of his post or damages the respect or confidence that is essential to the post. The provision in this section shall not restrict the right to punish a senior civil servant or civil servant by depriving him of his post pursuant to the rules of penal legislation. SECTION 21 If a senior civil servant or civil servant is subjected to disciplinary measures or summary discharge for a criminal offence, this shall not preclude normal criminal prosecution, but assessment of the sentence shall take the disciplinary measures or summary discharge into consideration. Anyhow — seeing that an independent and impartial tribunal is sine qua non in respect of a fair trial, lodging an appeal to the Norwegian King in Council of State scarcely stands to reason at all in this case….whereas the very conspiracy against me was enthusiastically approved by indicated monarch in person as well as his vicious councillors (cf FOCO, pp 31 and 68–69 etc)! All decisions drawn up by the Norwegian King in Council of State should be recorded in accordance with regulations, and telling comments on the plot against 19

me has been found in a special protocol reserved for matters which the King’s Council has decided to keep secret — cf the Norwegian Constitution Articles 30 and 31 (cf FOCO, pp 163–164): ARTICLE 30 All the proceedings of the Council of State shall be entered in its records. Diplomatic matters which the Council of State decides to keep secret shall be entered in a special record. The same applies to military command matters which the Council of State decides to keep secret. Everyone who has a seat in the Council of State has the duty to frankly express his opinion, to which the King is bound to listen. But it rests with the King to make a decision according to his own judgment. If any Member of the Council of State is of the opinion that the King's decision conflicts with the form of government or the laws of the Realm, or is clearly prejudicial to the Realm, it is his duty to make strong remonstrances against it, as well as to have his opinion entered in the records. A Member who has not thus protested is deemed to have been in agreement with the King, and shall be answerable in such manner as may be subsequently decided, and may be impeached by the Odelsting before the Court of Impeachment. ARTICLE 31 All decisions drawn up by the King shall, in order to become valid, be countersigned. The decisions relating to military command are countersigned by the person who has presented the matter, while other decisions are countersigned by the Prime Minister or, if he has not been present, by the highest-ranking Member of the Council of State present.

Not only has the Norwegian King Harald V sanctioned the illegal conspiracy against me with his personal signature, but he is — in all likelihood — entirely unentitled to occupy the Norwegian Throne as well (cf FOCO, pp 169–170)…! And….moreover; whereas the Norwegian King is possessed of a full-scale Stanford-Binet IQ ominously below the absolute minimum requirement for judges/experts (cf FOCO pp 9, 85 and 145–152), his judicial authority should be firmly rejected on that score too (with a general Stanford-Binet IQ of 137, also the Norwegian PM Mr Jens Stoltenberg fails to meet the recommended and 20

corresponding noometric minimum score of 140 — cf the Norwegian Constitution Articles 12, 13 and 31 etc). At all events Norwegian authorities — the King’s Council included — are obliged to comply with the following Articles of the  Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,  Universal Declaration of Human Rights,  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:*

CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

Article 13: Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

Article 14: The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

Article 17: Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.

21

Article 18: The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.

THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-selfgoverning or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8: Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. 22

Article 10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 28: Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29 (3): These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

Article 2 (1): Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

23

Article 2 (3): Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity; (b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

Article 3: The State Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.

Article 5 (1): Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

Article 5 (2): There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.

24

Article 14 (1): All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The Press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.

Article 16: Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 26: All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

*(In section 2 of the Norwegian ―Human Rights Act‖ of May 21, 1999, it is explicitly laid down that the Council of Europe‘s ―Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms‖ [the ―European Convention on Human Rights‖], the ―Universal Declaration of Human Rights‖ as well as the United Nations‘ ―International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights‖ are fully applicable as Norwegian law, and in sec 3 ib it‘s brought home that provisions confirmed through conventions and protocols mentioned in sec 2 in case of controversy are prior to other legislation.)

25

In this connection one call particular attention to the Norwegian Constitution Article 110 c: “It is the responsibility of the authorities of the State to respect and ensure human rights. Specific provisions for the implementation of treaties hereof shall be determined by law (cf, vg, the Norwegian Human Rights Act of May 21, 1999 — sec‟s 2 and 3).”

Cf FOCO, pp 3–8 etc.

Studying above excerpts from various human rights conventions, it becomes even clearer the Norwegian Council of State totally lacks the judicial power and authority to hear and determine any thing whatever in this case (cf pp 176–178 above etc)....; corresponding councillors should most determinedly be seated in the dock — they’re in all respects the malefactors, and by no means the adjudicators! It appears from the Norwegian Constitution Article 30 that members of the King’s Council may be impeached by the Odelsting before the Court of Impeachment (cf p 193 above), and in this connection it should be appropriate to take a look at Articles 49, 71, 73–81 and 86–87 ib:

Article 49 The people exercises the Legislative Power through the Storting, which consists of two departments, the Lagting and the Odelsting.

Article 71 The members of the Storting function as such for four successive years.

Article 73 The Storting nominates from among its members one fourth to constitute the Lagting, the remaining three fourths to constitute the Odelsting. This nomination shall take place at the first session of the Storting that assembles after a new General Election, whereafter the Lagting shall remain unchanged at all sessions of the Storting assembled after the same election, except insofar 26

as any vacancy which may occur among its members has to be filled by special nomination. Each Ting holds its meetings separately and nominates its own President and Secretary. Neither Ting may hold a meeting unless at least half of its Members are present. However, Bills concerning amendments to the Constitution may not be dealt with unless at least two thirds of the Members of the Storting are present.

Article 74 As soon as the Storting is constituted, the King, or whoever he appoints for the purpose, shall open its proceedings with a Speech, in which he shall inform it of the state of the Realm and of the issues to which he particularly desires to call the attention of the Storting. No deliberations may take place in the presence of the King. When the proceedings of the Storting have been opened, the Prime Minister and the Members of the Council of State have the right to attend the Storting, as well as both departments of the Storting, and, like its Members, although without voting, to take part in any proceedings conducted in open session, while in matters discussed in closed sessions only insofar as permitted by the Ting concerned.

Article 75 It devolves upon the Storting: a) to enact and repeal laws; to impose taxes, dues, customs and other public charges, which shall not, however, remain operative beyond 31 December of the succeeding year, unless they are expressly renewed by a new Storting; b) to raise loans in the name of the Realm; c) to supervise the monetary affairs of the Realm; d) to appropriate the moneys necessary to meet government expenditure; e) to decide how much shall be paid annually to the King for the Royal Household, and to determine the Royal Family‟s appanage which may not, however, consist of real property; f) to have submitted to it the records of the Council of State, and all public reports and documents; g) to have communicated to it the conventions and treaties which the King, on behalf of the State, has concluded with foreign powers; h) to have the right to require anyone, the King and the Royal Family excepted, to appear before it on matters of State; the exception does not, however, apply to the Royal Princes if they hold any public office; 27

i) to review the provisional lists of salaries and pensions and to make therein such alterations as it deems necessary; j) (repealed) k) to appoint five auditors, who shall annually examine the State Accounts and publish extracts of the same print, for which purpose the Accounts shall be submitted to the auditors within six months of the end of the year for which the appropriations of the Storting have been made, and to adopt provisions concerning the procedure for authorizing the accounts of government accounting officials; l) to appoint a person, not a member of the Storting, in a manner prescribed by law, to supervise the public administration and all who work in its service, to assure that no injustice is done against the individual citizen; m) to naturalize aliens.

Article 76 Every Bill shall first be proposed in the Odelsting, either by one of its own Members, or by the government through a Member of the Council of State. If the Bill is passed, it is sent to the Lagting, which either approves or rejects it, and in the latter case returns it with appended comments. These are taken into consideration by the Odelsting, which either shelves the bill or again sends it to the Lagting, with or without alteration. When a Bill from the Odelsting has twice been presented to the Lagting and has been returned a second time as rejected, the Storting shall meet in plenary session, and the bill is then decided by a majority of two thirds of its votes. Between each such deliberation there shall be an interval of at least three days.

Article 77 When a Bill passed by the Odelsting has been approved by the Lagting or by the Storting in plenary session, it is sent to the King, with a request that it may receive the Royal Assent.

Article 78 If the King assents to the Bill, he appends his signature, whereby it becomes law. If he does not assent to it, he returns it to the Odelsting with a statement 28

that he does not for the time being find it expedient to sanction it. In that case the Bill must not again be submitted to the King by the Storting then assembled.

Article 79 If a Bill has been passed unaltered by two sessions of the Storting, constituted after two separate successive elections and separated from each other by at least two intervening sessions of the Storting, without a divergent Bill having been passed by any Storting in the period between the first and last adoption, and it is then submitted to the King with a petition that His Majesty shall not refuse his assent to a beneficial, it shall become law even if the Royal Assent is not accorded before the Storting goes into recess.

Article 80 The Storting shall remain in session as long as it deems it necessary and shall terminate its proceedings when it has concluded its business. In accordance with the rules of procedure adopted by the Storting, the proceedings may be resumed, but they shall terminate not later than the last Sunday in the month of September. Within this time the King shall communicate his decision with regard to the Bills that have not already been decided (cf Articles 77 to 79), by either confirming or rejecting them. All those which he does not expressly accept are deemed to have been rejected by him.

Article 81 All Acts (with the exception of those mentioned in Article 79) are drawn up in the name of the King, under the seal of the Realm of Norway, and in the following terms; “We, X, make it publicly known: that the decision of the Storting of the date stated has been laid before Us: (here follows the decision). In consequence whereof We have assented to and confirmed, as We hereby do assent to and confirm the same as Law under Our Hand and the Seal of the Realm.”

29

Article 86 The Court of Impeachment pronounces judgment in the first and last instance in such proceedings as are brought by the Odelsting against Members of the Council of State, or of the Supreme Court or of the Storting, for criminal offences which they may have committed in their official capacity. The specific rules concerning indictment by the Odelsting in accordance with this Article shall be determined by law. However, the limitation period for the institution of indictment proceedings before the Court of Impeachment may not be set at less than 15 years. The permanent Members of the Lagting and the permanently appointed Members of the Supreme Court are judges of the Court of Impeachment. The provisions contained in Article 87 shall apply to the composition of the Court of Impeachment in the particular case. In the Court of Impeachment the President of the Lagting shall preside. Any person sitting in the Court of Impeachment as a Member of the Lagting shall not resign from the Court if the period for which he is elected as a representative to the Storting expires before the Court of Impeachment has concluded the trial of the case. If he ceases, for any other reason, to be a Member of the Storting, he shall resign as a judge of the Court of Impeachment. The same applies if a Justice of the Supreme Court, who is a Member of the Court of Impeachment, retires as a Member of the Supreme Court.

Article 87 The accused and the person acting on behalf of the Odelsting in the proceedings have the right to challenge as many Members of the Lagting and of the Supreme Court as will leave remaining fourteen Members of the Lagting and seven Members of the Supreme Court as judges in the Court of Impeachment. Each party in the proceedings may challenge an equal number of the Members of the Lagting, although the accused has the preferential right to challenge one more, if the number to be challenged is not divisible by two. The same shall apply to the challenging of the Members of the Supreme Court. If there are several accused in such proceedings, they exercise the right of challenge collectively in accordance with rules prescribed by law. If the right of challenge is not exercised to the extent permitted, as many Members of the Lagting and of the Supreme Court as are in excess of fourteen and seven respectively retire following the drawing of lots. 30

When the case comes up for judgment, as many judges of the Court of Impeachment shall retire following the drawing of lots that the Court due to render judgment is left with fifteen Members, of whom at most ten are Members of the Lagting and five Justices of the Supreme Court. The President of the Court of Impeachment and the President of the Supreme Court shall in no case retire following the drawing of lots. If the Court of Impeachment cannot be composed of as many Members of the Lagting or of the Supreme Court as prescribed above, the case may nevertheless be tried and judgment rendered, provided that the Court numbers at least ten judges. Specific provisions as to the procedure to be followed in the composition of the Court of Impeachment shall be laid down by law.

According to the Norwegian Constitution Article 86 the permanent members of the Lagting and the permanently appointed members of the Supreme Court should be judges of the Court of Impeachment — thus a pro forma survey of indicated members follows:

Members of the Norwegian Lagting AD 2008                

ASPHJELL, Jorodd (Arbeiderpartiet) BERGO, Magnar L (Sosialistisk Venstreparti) BJØRNSTAD, Vidar (Arbeiderpartiet) BREDVOLD, Per Roar (Fremskrittspartiet) ENG, Sigrun (Arbeiderpartiet) ENGER. Inger S (Senterpartiet) GRIMSTAD, May-Helen M (Kristelig Folkeparti) GUNDERSEN, Gunnar (Høyre) HALLERAKER, Øyvind (Høyre) HJEMDAL, Line Henriette H (Kristelig Folkeparti) HOKSRUD, Bård (Fremskrittspartiet) HOLMBERG, Kari Lise (Høyre) JACOBSEN, Bjørn (Sosialistisk Venstreparti) JAGLAND, Thorbjørn (Arbeiderpartiet) JOHANSEN, Irene (Arbeiderpartiet) JOHNSEN, Espen (Arbeiderpartiet) 31

                          

KJOS, Kari K (Fremskrittspartiet) KNUTSEN, Tove Karoline (Arbeiderpartiet) KONGSHAUG, Leif Helge (Venstre) KRISTOFFERSEN, Gerd Janne (Arbeiderpartiet) LANGELAND, Hallgeir H (Sosialistisk Venstreparti) LARSEN, Anne Margrethe (Venstre) LYDVO, Hilde M (Arbeiderpartiet) LØNNING, Inge (Høyre) LÅNKE, Ola T (Kristelig Folkeparti) MANDT-BARTHOLSEN, Sonja (Arbeiderpartiet) MARTHINSEN, Marianne (Arbeiderpartiet) MOE, Ola B (Senterpartiet) NAVARSETE, Liv Signe (Senterpartiet) NIELSEN, Eva M (Arbeiderpartiet) NISTAD, Thore A (Fremskrittspartiet) PETERSEN, Jan (Høyre) REIKVAM, Rolf (Sosialistisk Venstreparti) RYTMAN, Jørund (Fremskrittspartiet) SAMUELSEN, Alf Ivar (Senterpartiet) SCHMIDT, Åse M (Fremskrittspartiet) SOLHOLM, Lodve (Fremskrittspartiet) STRØM, Tor-Arne (Arbeiderpartiet) SUND, Eirin Kristin (Arbeiderpartiet) VAKSDAL, Øyvind (Fremskrittspartiet) VALLERSNES, Finn Martin (Høyre) WIDTH, Per Ove (Fremskrittspartiet) AASLAND, Terje (Arbeiderpartiet)

Members of the Norwegian Supreme Court AD 2008         

SCHEI, Tore (Chief Justice, born 1946) GJØLSTAD, Liv (Justice, born 1945) LUND, Ketil (Justice, born 1939) GUSSGARD, Karenanne (Justice, born 1940) TJOMSLAND, Steinar (Justice, born 1948) COWARD, Kirsti (Justice, born 1940) STANG LUND, Eilert (Justice, born 1939) BROCH OFTEDAL, Lars (Justice, born 1939) FLOCK, Hans (Justice, born 1940) 32

           

MATNINGSDAL, Magnus (Justice, born 1951) BRUZELIUS, Karin Maria (Justice, born 1941) SKOGHØY, Jens Edvin A (Justice, born 1955) UTGÅRD, Karl Arne (Justice, born 1951) STABEL, Ingse (Justice, born 1946) STØLE, Ole Bjørn (Justice, born 1950) ØIE, Toril Marie (Justice, born 1960) TØNDER, Bård (Justice, born 1948) ENDRESEN, Clement (Justice, born 1949) INDREBERG, Hilde (Justice, born 1957) SVERDRUP, Tone (Justice ad hoc, born 1951) BERGBY, Gunnar (Secretary General, born 1947)

As for the provisions regulating e.g the composition and exact procedure of the Court of Impeachment, these was originally laid down in the Norwegian Act of 5 February 1932 relating to Punishment for Offences Indicted before the Court of Impeachment....and this Act has in all probability been subject to a number of tactical amendments triggered by distinct fear of nearby Complaint* (*cf the Norwegian Act of 30 March 2007 no. 13)! In any case the Norwegian Courts of Justice Act — which still applies to the composition etc of the Court of Impeachment — provides that: 1. All judges (except lay-judges and assessors) must sign a binding assurance obliging them to exert their office conscientiously (sec 60 – cf sec 52 ib item the Norwegian Constitution Article 21 &c); 2. Only persons markedly competent as co-judges and members of the jury through their righteousness, skills and independence should be elected (sec 76 – cf sec’s 52, 53 and 65 &c ib); 3. Nobody can operate as a judge or juror when particular circumstances potentially diminishing his impartiality eventuates (sec 108 — cf sec’s 52, 106, 107, 109 and 111 &c ib).

As is meet and proper the individual security under the law has been given a prominent position in globally accepted human rights conventions (cf pp 194– 199 above), and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights positively lays down that: “All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and 33

public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” However...; when it comes to the ―competence‖, ―independence‖ and ―impartiality‖ of Norwegian politicians and (senior) civil servants, it’s certainly in order to recall some passages found in FOCO: ―The reader should constantly keep in mind Norwegian authorities unscrupulously will exploit every adequate opportunity to erase, steal and falsify/alter to their advantage any piece of evidence communicated through nearby Complaint — empirically they‘re much prone to manipulate, espy, harass/intimidate, incarcerate, obstruct, weaken and explicitly harm/attack potential/actual witnesses in this and other cases where Norwegian officials are the factual culprits.....and the presentation of forthcoming matter are by and large accommodated these disquieting facts.‖ (cf FOCO, p 10) ―Since 1992 it has been a main objective for Norwegian authorities to maim my general health, ruin my social relationships, isolate me, deny my juridical rights, subdue/quench legal complaints to international fora, mar my reputation, intimidate me, induce pecuniary destitution, provoke harmful tribulations, obstruct globally lifesaving work, minimize my standard of living and — if possible — incite criminality and unethical behavior (cf Doc #4588 etc). The pernicious misconduct of Norwegian authorities in this case are precisely described in the Bible, Isaiah 59:5–8 (corresponding statements are wholly valid independent of your religious faith and theological opinions — cf Doc #2037, ‗Norwegian Vice Spreading‘): ‘They hatch the eggs of vipers and spin a spider’s web. Whoever eats their eggs will die, and when one is broken, an adder is hatched. Their cobwebs are useless for clothing; they cannot cover themselves with what they make. Their deeds are evil deeds, and acts of violence are in their hands. Their feet rush into sin; they are swift to shed innocent blood. Their thoughts are evil thoughts; ruin and destruction mark their ways. The way of peace they do not know; there is no justice in their paths. They have turned them into crooked roads; no-one who walks in them will know peace.’

34

In many respects Mr Ivar Oftedahl and Ms Harlem Brundtland represents the archetype of my Norwegian foes; frailty, ignoble/plebeian, crabby, evil/base, corrupted/criminal, unstable/dishonest, lunatic/schizophrenic, hypocritical/ pharisaic, malevolent/envious, arrogant/aggressive and sickly self-assertive miscreants attempting to compensate for their shortcomings, inferiority complex and psychopathology through ascribing their nasty defects, wickedness, mental derangement and systematic lawbreaking to others (cf Doc‘s ##633 [‗Norwegian Police and Statesman Malignant Syndrome‘] and 2037 [‗Official Norwegian Hypocrisy and Malevolence‘]). Though human status correctly may be granted my Norwegian enemies, they surely belongs to a particularly noxious subgroup bipeds strongly guided and impressed by stark diabolism, madness, injustice and general lowmindedness — the presence and influence of these infernally vile terrorists are of course absolutely detrimental to any civilized society respecting the human rights, guarding righteousness, and fostering ethicality, personal magnanimity, intellectual/scientific eminence and artistic dexterity usw.‖ (cf FOCO, pp 72–73) ―Studying nearby complaint and adjoining enclosures (cf p 2 — ‗Comments on disqualification‘), reasonable sane and sagacious readers pretty soon will launch an almost inevitable question: ‗Can the various crimes and atrocities described in this report possibly 've been perpetrated by mentally sound creatures...?‘ Based on unique, comprehensive and well-structured collections of data on documentable criminality committed by Norwegian officials since 1992, it's quite easy to give a clear-cut answer to that query: ‗Certainly not.....the ghastly admixture of psychopathies, criminalism, hypocrisy, parvanimity, theomachy, lewdness and fiendishness verily characterizing the cracked personality of most Norwegian officials are, far and away, the worst European and first world example of gross intrapopular depravity and collective insaneness procurable!‘ Actively sustained by and largely including governmental authorities and flyblown principals of major state institutes, the innate corruption and wormy diabolism pervades all executive and official branches of the infected nation which — befittingly — 've been nicknamed ‗The Kingdom of Satan‘! Although psychiatric ill-health and multifarious impairment of higher cerebral functions are alarmingly common amongst Norwegian officials, the greater part of them tends to be criminally responsible as personality

35

disorders — particularly psychopathy — and various perversions are predominant conditions. The pathologically distorted thought and behavior patterns normally typifying Norwegian public officials and senior civil servants may however — viewed as an endemic phenomenon — partially rupture the commonly accepted boundaries imposed by international norms of disease classification. A genetically rooted and markedly offbeat syndrome symptomatically approaching classical psychopathy and frequently comprising atypical variants of the structural pathology conventionally associated with organic brain diseases, it's hardly unbecoming to introduce the acronym ‗NPSMS‘* — *‗Norwegian Police and Statesman Malignant Syndrome‘ (if more convenient, you may think of NPSMS simply as ‗Norwegian psychopathy‘ or ‗Norwegian folie‘, of course)...! In Doc's ##633 and 2037 — pp 67 and 95, respectively, I've described a number of NPSMS' more or less pathognomonic symptoms — viz: Inadequate judgmental ability, imprudence, atelonoesis, rejoice in evildoing, ponerophilia, cruelty, sadism, dysempathy, superiority/inferiority complexes and complemental maladjustment/overcompensation, falsehood, charlatanism, hypocrisy, professional double-dealing, sickly self-assertiveness, arrogance, cantankerousness, megalomania, general lability, willful neglect and violation of ethical norms, criminalism, recidivism, dikephobia, corruptibility, deceitfulness, psychiatric conditions, delusional ideation, religious insecurity/confusion, theomachy, icono-/supericlasm, hamartiophilia, unwarranted suspiciousness/hostility, turncoat mentality, distrustful jingoism, impudence, prevaricated sociability, ergasiomimesis, feigned eunoia, refractoriness, spiteful envy, peevishness, aggression, irritability, anosognosia, gloominess, lecherousness and voyeurism.....etc. The above collection of personality traits and symptoms manifestly typical but not necessarily conclusive of NPSMS, clearly invites to differentiated diagnosing; while the moodiness and fluctuating self-image are amongst the distinguishing features of the borderline personality, the thoroughgoing reality distortion and oftentimes systematic misinterpretation of events exhibited by some NPSMS afflicted individuals are truly archtypical of regular psychoses. The severe, recurrent and wholly intentional misconduct and criminality fundamentally peculiar to NPSMS-villains are closest related to the antisocial personality disorder, however, but are more complex and frequently includes dangerous paranoia, religious delusions and sheer diabolism. In most psychiatric disorders it's relatively uncomplicated to identify some precipitating factors — i.e psychosocial and physical influence in all 36

likelihood triggering the mental derangement. When it comes to the NPSMS it's usually hard to detect decisive, psychotogenic factors — as a matter of fact one may feel slightly ill at ease attempting to discriminate readily observable, morbid features from entirely self-willed and obviously unreasonable evil-mindedness...! Ethically indefensible, evilness purely for the sake of evilness may assuredly be a ponerologically acceptable and ipso facto rational aim in itself (most religious dogmas omitted, of course).....consequently — motive and means appearing practically identical — unprovoked evilness may be seen both as a cardinal symptom and causa sine qua non of the Norwegian Police and Statesman Malignant Syndrome. As regards predisposing factors, genetic endowment and hereditary metabolic, anatomical and physiological insufficiencies in prefrontal cortices, the thalamencephalon, hypothalamus and limbic system may be crucial for the actual onset and subsequent diagnosing of NPSMS. Various somatosensory structures and convergence zones in the ventromedial prefrontal sector of the brain may be visibly damaged, and dysfunctions of the medial/lateral orbitofrontal circuit, nucleus accumbens, ventral striatum, corpus Luysii and thalamic nuclei are common NPSMS features. Serotonin's neuronal transmitter functions and capability to modulate v.g dopaminergic neurons may be significantly reduced in NPSMS sufferers, and the GABAergic output pathways of neostriatum and globus pallidus tends to be impaired — monoamine based weaknesses and defective interconnections between the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior subgenual cingulate cortex and the ventral striatum may be NPSMS indicative. Despite depicted brain abnormalities, many NPSMS-caitiffs are capable of performing just about normally on standard neuropsychological tests — working memory, concentration and the general intelligence seems to be intact...‖ (cf FOCO, pp 122–124) ―Whereas the Hippocratic oath lay emphasis on honesty, respectfulness and benevolence towards patients and impels physicians to champion international human rights and exercise their professional judgment uninfluenced by political pressure, physicians and other ‗health‘ personnel involved in this ill-omened case maliciously 've displayed the most inexpiable disregard inasmuch as dutiful compliance with ethical stipulations, the statutory rights of others and their vocational integrity otherwise are concerned.....honestly; it's stark impossible to find even the slightest trace of formally mitigating circumstances, respectability or professional adequacy in the uninterrupted orgy of lawless terrorism satanically indulged in by Norwegian medics AO since 1992!

37

Anyhow, let's make it perfectly clear right now; the actual and radically massive violations of quoted articles noways applies to the Norwegian public ‗health‘ service alone — corresponding malversation has continuously been schemed and illicitly ratified v.g by diverse governmental bodies (cf pp 24– 25, 29–31, 68–74 and 83–88 usw), and does also — largely — include the other officials and establishments referred to as ‗Accused‘ at page 2 of nearby Complaint. Cf Doc #4575, p 117 etc: ‗All interference from Norwegian authorities in this case 've been unilaterally destructive, invidious, unwelcomed and largely criminal — clearly reflecting the mental illness, habitual double-dealing and emetic disregard for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of man indeed characterizing most of the malefactors.‘ The manifestly morbid preoccupation with supernormal intelligence and human genius constantly displayed by Norwegian physicians, psychologists, politicians, police officers et al has been touched upon earlier in this report (v p 118 — cf Doc #1536, p 85), and it should be timely to supply foregoing information with a few germane remarks. Studying the thousands of registered crimes and calamitous boo-boos wholly ascribable to Norwegian officials and local authorities the last decennium, we are struck not only by the unprovoked diabolism and radical unsoundness characterizing these misdeeds, but by the marked lack of foresight and stark fatuity as well. Inasmuch as essential parts of our noometric capability may be adequately evaluated through standardized and accurately scaled intelligence tests…..and given that we fairly correctly may equate corresponding IQ scores with our immanent/potential ability to acceptably handle diverse practical situations and precisely grasp more or less abstract/intricate problems/ideas professionally or otherwise encountered, we may assuredly ascribe much of said improvidence and bêtises ex officio to insufficient psychometric intelligence. At this point those of you familiar with the common classification of IQ scores may feel somewhat bewildered, as it previously 've been correctly stated several of the culprits actual to prosecute in this case possess' a general IQ equal or superior to 140 on the Stanford-Binet scale (cf pp 9–10). IQs corresponding to — or exceeding — indicated score are normally regarded as highly impressive, and many psychologists will set the intelligence quotient for ‗potential genius‘ at 140 or over. In the general 38

Norwegian population 1 out of 190 people are expected to achieve a Stanford-Binet IQ of 140, and there are roughly 3 men for every woman reaching specified score. Howbeit —; comprehensive observations here in Norway bears witness to the fact individuals with a Stanford-Binet IQ in the 130–155 range are essentially unable to meet the dianoetic requirements necessary to acquire even passable understanding of more intricate scientific, moral and purely logical &c causata/implications/problems. Typically earning their university and first-class degrees relatively hands down, these noometrically — and oftentimes professionally — incompetent persons are likely to occupy central community positions. In cases where the shortcomer has maintained his/her moral and eunoic integrity, the psychometric inadequacy may be accidentally fatal indeed — though — regularly and pragmatically amendable, as the intellectually subpotent faultdoer will be genuinely eager to admit, correct and avoid e.g professional mistakes induced by noometrically overtaxing demands. Inasmuch as the dianoetic deficiency and related/professional fall downs are directly pertinent to NPSMS afflicted individuals/officials* (*cf pp 122–124) — which conspicuously often is the case in Norway, we empirically knows these severely disordered and thoroughly dikephobic wrongdoers will do whatever practically feasible to cover up and belittle their errors/unsuitability/corruption — frequently at the expense of wholly guiltless persons facing false accusations and unwarranted castigation etc. As for the latter case, special attention should be called to the average Stanford-Binet IQ of Norwegian Parliament/Storting representatives at 127,5 (cf p 10) — which, not surprisingly, is 10–14 crucial points below corresponding scores for national/federal assembly members in any EuroAmerican country/state socioeconomically comparable with Norway. Without validating the factual foundation of his suppositions etc, it may be thematically justifiable though to refer to assistant professor of psychology at Princeton University* (*New Jersey, USA) — Mr Carl C BRIGHAM* (*creator of the well-known ‗Scholastic Aptitude Test‘) — who, in 1923, published ‗A Study of American Intelligence‘ where he concluded that the IQ of immigrants increased in proportion to the number of years of US residence — a phenomenon he ascribed to a lower proportion of Nordic blood over the years, rather than increased familiarization with cultural and educational factors…! Anyhow; the US Immigration Restriction Act of 1924 favored immigration from northern Europe, and restricted the entry of persons from other areas referred to as ‗biologically inferior‘ —— At the pages 9 and 85 I've fixed the lowest acceptable Stanford-Binet IQ of different judges/experts at 145 and 140, respectively — but indeed; this does 39

not imply said scores are absolutely and professionally adequate! What indicated minimum levels does mark, however, are the highest IQ scores practically attainable a number of circumstantial factors and conventional requirements* realistically considered (*amongst the formal prerequisites, a sufficient and high degree of moral integrity, impartiality/independence and educational competency are indispensable). While a general Stanford-Binet IQ of 140 typically will enable otherwise competent members of the Norwegian courts of appeals to handle around 80% of the various lawsuits in a justifiable manner, a ditto IQ of 258 are required to keenly perceive and adequately evaluate usw the intricate nuances and multifarious facts relevant to the most complicated cases brought before these appellate tribunals. Although the present courts of appeals comprises a few judges with a Stanford-Binet IQ equalling or slightly exceeding 140, 45–50% of nowadays judgments/sentences should be overruled on account of regular corruption and the number/severity of procedural errors…..and, finally; whereas corruption are exlex altogether and portrayed degree of erroneousness legally unacceptable, it should be formally correct to render null and void all verdicts and conclusions passed on by these incompetent and obscenely pretentious kangaroo courts whatsoever — cf Doc #627 item nearby Complaint pp 2–8 and 84–88 etc! As for the widespread depravity amongst Norwegian judges, much of it is reflected by ‗The Professional Code and Ethical Philosophy of Norwegian Judges‘* (*cf Aphorisms &c 107–109): „Yes indeed — we‟re chronic crooks, murderers, perjurers, maniacs, forgers, dopenicks, drunkards, corrupted lamebrains and moral lepers.....but; since we effectively ‟ve blocked criminal investigation of our iniquity, dexterously embezzled proofs against ourselves and successfully hampered a diversity of legal actions opposed to our inveterate transgressions and misfeasance, there exist no legally enforceable judgments against us.....and for that reason we are — at least in a profanely juridical sense — not guilty (cf the Courts of Justice Act sec 53, third per)! Moreover we strongly feel that the Norwegian society generally should bestow significantly more of their attention purely revering our allelopathic lawbreaking.....‟cause it‟s an established truism that our surreptitious foulness keep back the constitutional Ragnarok and scandalous imprisonment etc of Norwegian top politicians and Government officials unavoidably following unwarped trials and objective, judicial factfinding procedures! So.....treat us courteously, please, and immortalize our satanic statutory offenses and monumental corruption by placing a luciferous statue outside the Parliament Building, and a leviathan monument at the royal palace 40

square in Oslo where noble-minded adulators can bring their burnt offerings and confer dignity upon our accomplished forensic diabolism and — also — squareshootingly commemorate the many illustrious adamites slain by our minister extolled vice.....AMEN!‟ Verily; though stinking, a shitfilled sack will stand upright…!‖ (cf FOCO, pp 144–147) ―Behind the previously indicated and markedly pathological interest in paranormality and genius exhibited by Norwegian authorities, we find the deep-seated inferiority complex and narrow-minded egotism broadly explaining their preoccupation. From the very first these natural-born villains and mountebanks searched for esoteric and absurd ways to elevate their base intellect…; perhaps geniuses depended on some secret ingesta or regimen skyrocketing their creativity and IQs….?! Fatefully mixed with archtypical NPSMS symptoms* (*cf pp 122–124) as v.g psychiatric idiosyncrasies, pronounced criminalism and unjustifiable hostility, said selfishness has — in any case — triggered the most pernicious chain of wholly deliberate, systematical and decidedly illstarred human rights violations ever seen in Norway! It's perfectly evident many of the crimes dealt with in this petition and corresponding documents had been very difficult to commit and impossible to get away with in a relatively uncorrupted and otherwise healthy society…..and lo — as might be expected; behind the wormy stage settings we find the meanest herd of mentally deranged, felonious, self-aggrandizing and utterly condemnable misfits and conspiring officials ever sighted in a claimed — not to say pretended — democracy! — and, behold; I'm truthfully characterizing the innately psychopathic descendants of a notoriously fiendish people duly mentioned by the hounded and grotesquely misknown genius William James SIDIS (1898–1944)…: ‗These Norse invaders in 'Vinland,' as they named the country, treated the native inhabitants (whom they named 'Skrellings,' or 'skinned people') about the same way as they did in Europe — as subjects for pillage and slave-raids. They raided as far as the 'Wonderstrand' (Cape Cod), and they usually made themselves enemies wherever they went, in America as in Europe.‘" (cf FOCO, pp 151–152)

41

―The heinous array of crimes habitually indulged in by Norwegian officials and senior civil servants the latter years, are largely and manifestly ascribable to the tremendous prevalence of indigenous sociopathy* characteristic of Norway (*cf pp 122–124 &c). Based on continuous and exacting observations since 1992, it's perfectly evident Norwegian ‗health‘ personnel and police officers directly executing and criminally liable for the atrocities partially described in nearby Petition and elsewhere has derived sexual excitement and significant satisfaction from their systematic nefariousness and lawbreaking. Combined with fixed and markedly paranoic personality traits, the deeprooted psychopathy and sadism by and large hallmarking Norwegian senior state officials and public servants are practically incurable* (*cf pp 122–127, 155–156 and 172 &c). Under otherwise ‗normal‘ circumstances and the disastrous ascendancy and profane catholicity of state supported criminality considered, it's hardly anything but a waste of time and energy to bring legal/intrastatal actions against the slimy politicians and (senior) civil servants constituting the rotten hard core of official Norwegian malversation….and, especially if you're a high-principled human rights activist, the only acceptable alternative left may be to apply for political asylum outside Norway in order to escape explicitly nocent and unlawful persecution.‖ (cf FOCO, p 190) ―The 2007 version of this official — though tactically incomplete and slightly unconventional — human rights petition, gives a partially unique and unvarnished picture of certain aspects and implications of the state supported corruption obnoxiously suffusing next to all parts of the Norwegian Civil Service. Precisely as anticipated, Norwegian authorities has maintained and segmentally reinforced their intensely criminal, human rights violating, and contemptuously subhuman terrorism throughout AD 2007 (cf pp 1, 10, 122–124, item Doc #4588 etc), and I've described and formally reported a tiny fraction of the various offences only. On the whole, this year may be seen as a practically unbroken chain of state actuated crimes, insanities, and malicious provocations massively corroborating and justifying whatever denouncement of Norwegian authorities set forth in nearby Complaint....indeed; the execrable picture of a nation governed by a pack evil-minded, lunatic, and vehemently depraved lowbrows enthusiastically subverting justice and promoting stark diabolism has become still clearer (cf p 126 &c), and my beforehand well42

set antipathy toward these slimy and absolutely condemnable representatives of mankind are significantly strengthened! Whereas — as continuously and unambiguously demonstrated since 1992 — Norwegian authorities are both unable and totally unwilling to behave in compliance with international human rights conventions and globally accepted etiquette, it‘s certainly high time drastic steps are taken to remove, incarcerate, and replace the heinously foul recidivists responsible for the corresponding and state supported criminality dealt with in nearby Complaint and enclosed documents* (*cf p 2 ib). Without efficient neutralization of these arrantly criminal elements and — preferably — stabilizing international intervention, Norwegian politicians and (senior) civil servants will continue to annihilate essential human rights regulations just for hell of it, and arrogantly — typically with distinct delight — ignore Norwegian law whenever deemed necessary to upkeep/escalate/hide etc their sociopathic terrorism or protect themselves and their rotten accomplices against legal prosecution. As expectable — the endemic character and genetic base of the ‗Norwegian Police and Statesman Malignant Syndrom‘* (*‗NPSMS‘, cf pp 122–124 etc) considered, the extensive criminalism, general ineptness, theological insecurity, and psychopathological disregard for ethical norms usw by and large typifying nowadays Norwegian politicians and (senior) civil servants, has an abundance of historical parallels.‖ (cf FOCO, 196–197)

Focusing more precisely on the specific reasons for disqualification directly related to nearby impeachment case, special emphasis should be laid on the intimate ties between the King’s Council and the Norwegian Storting/Parliament. Notwithstanding the revolting fact many Odelsting/Lagting members* (*cf Articles 49 and 73 above) has been — and are — involved in the lawless conspiracy against me (cf FOCO p 30 etc), it appears clearly from the Norwegian Constitution Articles 74–81 that the actual interaction between the Council of State and aforementioned Parliament renders a sufficient degree of independence and impartiality wholly unattainable as far as appointment of judges pursuant to Articles 86 and 87 of said Constitution is concerned; members of the King’s Council will almost daily meet and associate closely with Norwegian Parliament members both in- and outside the Storting Building in Oslo — indicated persons are colleagues, bosom friends, fellow party/committee/organization/club members, and….partners in crime (— moreover, the great majority of Norwegian Parliament members are also 43

disqualified from the juror function on account of their intellectual insufficiency — cf FOCO, pp 9 and 146)! When it comes to the Norwegian Supreme Court, it’s sufficient — for the time being — to refer to FOCO pp 30 and 68; several of corresponding judges — among them Mr Tore SCHEI (the Chief Justice) — should be impeached (cf FOCO pp 33 and 67–68, item pp 205–206 above). In addition to the impeachment cases, there’ll be legal proceedings against numerous (senior) civil servants in the Norwegian government ministries, the Norwegian police force, the Norwegian public ―health‖ service, the Norwegian State Church, the Norwegian armed forces, Møre og Romsdal county municipality/council, Haram/Molde/Ålesund municipalities, the Norwegian Telecommunications, the Norwegian Post Office Services, the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation….et alia (cf FOCO, p 2). Although the various offences mentioned in FOCO/INDO provides a solid basis for criminal investigation, a most substantial number of essential facts and descriptions of illegal acts has been intentionally omitted from these tactically incomplete books (cf FOCO pp 10 [last paragraph] and 196–197 &c) — in any case unbiased and scrupulous investigation will produce more than enough proofs that will stand up in the court. Aforesaid and extraordinarily vile circumstances considered, it’s certainly appropriate as well as obligatory to entrust impartial and otherwise competent representatives from an international organization to which Norway adheres (e.g the United Nations) — or will adhere — with the formal responsibility for investigating, prosecuting and adjudicating etc the various crimes wherewith the Kingdom of Norway are charged in this case — cf the Norwegian Constitution Article 93, pp 175 and 178 above, item FOCO pp 8–9. ―The members of the actual juries in this case will face a pack welleducated and politically experienced liars who will do their very best to manipulate and deceive them.....so, by reason of the intellectual challenges represented by this and other facts of the case, none possessing a general IQ as measured on the WAIS, Stanford-Binet or PM 47 (―PM 48‖, Raven — 40 min deadline) test subordinate to, respectively; 142, 145 or 143 should be accepted as (lay) judges or experts in forthcoming trials.‖* (FOCO, p 9) *Cf FOCO pp 145–149 etc.

44

―Employing e.g TEMPEST-equipment, Norwegian authorities are constantly downloading stuff appearing on my PC-screen — consequently they‘ve kicked off a putrid charm campaign to surreptitiously influence v.g the UN and various human rights organizations in this case!‖ (INDO, Doc #5007)

Empirically the chances Norwegian authorities will fulfil their juridical obligations and otherwise behave themselves are very small in this unique case (cf FOCO, pp 196–197 etc), but one nevertheless — almost pro forma — admonish members of the Storting and Council of State to comply with Norwegian law and international human rights conventions (cf the Norwegian Constitution Articles 13, 21 and 110 c &c)....; there’s no way whatsoever Norwegian authorities can win this case, but they can — at least — endeavour to lose it with some dignity.

Norwegian authorities are hereby encouraged to bring Article 93 of their Constitution into service and to further lawful execution of justice by entrusting qualified representatives from the United Nations with the formal responsibility for investigating, prosecuting and adjudicating usw the various crimes wherewith the Kingdom of Norway are charged in this case (cf FOCO, pp 8–9).

NO-Brattvåg, May 01 2008

Wilh. Werner WINTHER (SIGNATURE)

45

ENCLOSURES: 1) FORMAL COMPLAINT VS THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY* (*hereafter referred to as ―FOCO‖) by Mr Wilh. Werner WINTHER; pp 1–217, 2) INTERNET DOCUMENTS* (*hereafter referred to as ―INDO‖) by Mr Wilh. Werner WINTHER; pp 1–173, 3) letter 108/08-63/ROS004 dated Jan 29 HA from the Norwegian Director General of Public Prosecutions, Mr Tor-Aksel BUSCH (NO-Oslo); 1 page, 4) letter 070630/200700587 dated Feb 02 HA from the Special Investigating Unit for Police Matters (NO-Hamar); 1 page, 5) e-mail of Oct 28, 2007, from Mr Wilh. Werner WINTHER to the Special Investigating Unit for Police Matters, The Norwegian Supreme Court, the Norwegian Prime Minister, the Norwegian Ministry of Justice, AO; 1 page.

46