1

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:

2

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* (*here-

after 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,

3

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

4

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/ex-

ploited 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 Nor-

wegian 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 dishono-

rable examples of state supported rottenness and premeditated human rights vio-

lations 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)

5

―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 menti-

oned beneath the heading “Accused” in nearby complaint are entirely disquali-

fied 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 Con-

stitution (sic):

‗In order to safeguard international peace and security or to promote

the international rule of law and cooperation between nations, the Stor-

ting may, by a three-fourths majority, consent that an international orga-

nization 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 Tor-

Aksel 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

6

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

7

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

8

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 goose-

steps 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:

9

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 Tor-

Aksel 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.‖

10

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

11

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.

12

Oct 28, 2007:

In the afternoon representatives of Norwegian authorities launched an

aggres-

sive 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, NO-

Brattvåg) 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 No-

Brattvåg 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:

November 06, 2007

13

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 (wwerner77@yahoo.com).....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)!

14

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:

15

―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.

16

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 Prose-

cutions premeditatedly and in explicitly aggravating manner

obstructed lawfull execution of justice by intentionally cor-

rupting essential facts of the present case and mala fide sup-

pressing information he positively knew was all important as

regards e.g unbiased criminal investigation of corre-

sponding 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 will-

fully 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 as-

cribable 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:

17

―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 04th 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.

18

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 highest-

ranking civil and ecclesiastical officials, commanders of regi-

ments and other military formations, commandants of forts

and officers commanding warships. Whether pensions should

be granted to senior officials thus dismissed shall be deter-

19

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

20

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 ac-

cording 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 govern-

ment 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 de-

cided, 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 be-

come valid, be countersigned. The decisions relating to

military command are countersigned by the person who

has presented the matter, while other decisions are counter-

signed 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

21

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 Free-

doms,

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.

22

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 Decla-

ration, 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 terri-

tory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-

governing 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.

23

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.

24

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.

25

Article 14 (1):

All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the deter-

mination 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 in-

terests 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 be-

fore 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 so-

cial 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.)

26

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

27

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;

28

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

29

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.”

30

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 com-

mitted in their official capacity.

The specific rules concerning indictment by the Odelsting in accor-

dance with this Article shall be determined by law. However, the

limitation period for the institution of indictment proceedings be-

fore the Court of Impeachment may not be set at less than 15 years.

The permanent Members of the Lagting and the permanently app-

ointed 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 re-

sign 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 proceed-

ings 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 draw-

ing of lots.

31

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 Mem-

bers 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 compos-

ition 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)

32

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)

33

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 deter-

mination 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

34

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 juri-

dical 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 pre-

cisely 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.’

35

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 low-

mindedness — 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

36

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 maladjust-

ment/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, hamartio-

philia, unwarranted suspiciousness/hostility, turncoat mentality, distrust-

ful 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

37

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!

38

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

39

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 Euro-

American 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

40

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

41

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 ill-

starred 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)

42

―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 deep-

rooted 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 well-

43

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

44

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 well-

educated 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.

45

―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)

46

ENCLOSURES:

1) FORMAL COMPLAINT VS THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY* (*here-

after 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.