#390 01

Dybingveien 15, Vatne 4300 Sandnes. Norway.	TELEFAX	Tel : 51-62 19 40 Tel : 51-62 19 40 E-mail: dadwatch@robin.no
TO : Sandnes Police ATTN : Chief of Police Ms. I. Johansen		Fax : 51-68 40 03
FROM : Mr. Gordon Wynn-Green. Date : 5th July 1998.		Pages 1 inc. cover.
Our Ref. : SP\PC #390\Echr\Art. §6 + § 10 Yr. Ref.: Sak Nr. Jnr 299 8000 190

Dear Madame,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated the 29th of June '98, the envelope Post Stamped the
30th June 98 and received by me 1st July 98.

Madame, I have not seen the evidence upon which the Charge of breaching Art. # 390 of the Penal
Code.

I called Ms. Tjorhum who was not available and left a message for the Lady to call me back. I have not
heard from her.

First reaction is that the Bøt of 3.500 Nkr is very high and far beyond my monthly income of
4.000.- Nkr. This huge Bøt will take me many years to pay and is not in relation to my Income.
According to the Storting and the Government I must be " Fined " in relation to my " Means ".

I would also point out that I contend I am not in Violation of # 390.

I would like to see the evidence before I accept or decline your very kind and thoughtful offer.

I remain
Your Humble Servant.

G. Wynn-Green.
Father of two Lovely Daughters.

E\WP\GWG\Case\Girls\GWG Priv\Sandnes Cops\Fax 05 July 98 Ref. # 390 Reqest to see Evidence 05.07.98 21 :37

Dybingveien 15, Vatne TELEFAX Tel: 51-62 19 40 4300 Sandnes. Fax: 51-62 19 40 Norway. E-mail: dadwatch@robin.no TO : Sandnes Police Fax : 51-68 40 03 ATTN : Ms. I. Johansen FROM : Mr. Gordon Wynn-Green. Date : 20th Aug. 1998. Pages 6 inc. cover. Our Ref.: § 390 \ 98 Yr. Ref.: Sak Nr. 2998000190 SUBJ : Straffeloven Mai 1902 Art. § 390 ____________________________________________________________________ Dear Madame, I apologise for the delay in replying to, as I promised you on Friday the 31st of July 1998 at Sandnes Police Station during our "Quick Chat" after inspecting the Police Case-File. Thank you for your kind offer of permitting me to reply in English, for that I am most grateful. Enclosed please find, my extended Preliminary Objection to accepting and \ or challenging the Charge of violating Art. § 390 of Straffeloven av Mai 1902. Yours faithfully, G. Wynn-Green. Father of two Lovely Daughters. Preliminary Objection The Complaint 1. The complaint is lodged on or about the end of January beginning of February 1998 ( exact date in the Police File ) against Gordon Wynn-Green a British subject legally resident in the Kingdom of Norway for placing certain information, inter alia, Judgments, Expert Witness Reports, Pleadings pertaining to a Divorce, Custody and Visitation Rights Case and portions of the Defendant's Petition to The European Commission of Human Rights in Strasbourg on a privately run Internet Site operating under title of DADWATCH within the jurisdiction of Sandnes Police in that the Plaintiffs Ms. A. S. Knutzen and Mr. O. Knutzen and Ms. A. C. Knutzen declare that said information is in violation of Art. # 390 of The Norwegian Penal Code of Mai 1902. The Law Straffeloven § 390 [Mai 1902] 2. § 390. reads as follows ; Med bøter eller fengsel inntil 3 måneder straffes den som krenker privatlivets fred ved å gi offentlig meddelelse om personlige eller huslige forhold. §§ 250 og 254 får tilsvarende anvendelse. Er forseelsen forøvet i trykt skrift, kan inndragning besluttes i samsvar med § 38. Offentlig påtale finner bare sted når det begjæres av fornærmede og finnes påkrevet av almene hensyn. 3. The Penal Code of Mai 1902 is based upon preliminarily work ( Travaux Preparatoires ) carried out in the 1890's, over one hundred ( 100 ) years ago, that which was acceptable or not acceptable in the last century, is now acceptable or not acceptable at the end of the 20th Century. Society has changed in the meantime and the interpretation of the law is obliged to change accordingly. 4. The coming into force of the above Article # 390 as it is today is from the 23rd March 1973. The world has changed considerably in the 27 years since this last change and this section, # 390, of the law must also be interpreted in relation and in the light of the standards of a society in the Europe of today. The Notification 5. The official Notification of the Charge by Sandnes Police is dated 29th June 1998 and is not accompanied by any documentation. The Charge reads as follows; Case Nr. Jnr. 2998000190 Siktes for overtredelse av Straffelovens § 390, for å ha krenket privatlivets fred ved å gi offentlig meddelelse om personlige eller huslige forhold. Grunnlag: I tidsrommet fra høsten 1996 til februar 1998 i Sandnes, har han ved flere anledninger lagt ut på Internett, rettsbøker og saksdokumenter i sivil sak vedrørende samværett med felles barne med sin tidligere ektefelle Aud Knutzen, på en slik måte at Knutzen og den øvrige familie lett kunne identifiseres av eventuelle lesere. For overtredelsen (e) ilegges De: ( 1 ) en bot til statskassen på kr 3.500,-, eller hvis boten ikke betales eller kan tvangsinndrives fengsel i 7 dager. Documentary Evidence 6. No Documentary Evidence accompanied the Notification as in # 2 above. 7. Following a request by Gordon Wynn-Green to have " Discovery " of the Case-File, said inspection took place on Friday 31st July 1998 at Sandnes Police Station. 8. Copies of the Complaint and Evidence from the Case-File were not permitted to be taken by Defendant Gordon Wynn-Green to prepare a formal defence ( in accordance with Article 6. § 3b + § 3c ) and answer the specific points of the Complaint nor of the Evidence, thus it is not possible to submit a detailed and specific argument in full to the charges on a point by point nor word by word and or specific bases, either legally or from the view as to when said violations started. 9. The evidence inspected in the Police Case-File and that which is on Internet contain statements which the complaining Party, the Knutzen's, have themselves declared and stated. Request for Copies of the Complaint and Evidence 10. Gordon Wynn-Green requests copies of the formal complaints and evidence. Dadwatch 11. Dadwatch is an Internet Site whose primary objective was and is to present information to Dads, Fathers and the general public and to publicise and highlight the discrepancies between Fathers and Mothers and the injustices, prejudice and indifference perpetrated by the Norwegian Legal system upon the Dads and their Children concerning the violations within the Court system ; · Dads and Fathers as to their rights or lack thereof · Bring attention and awareness to the General Public · Publicise and highlight the injustices in the Court system · Forewarn future Dads and Fathers what they can expect · Show the sheer stupidity of the Mothers reasons for refusing Samvær · Indicate and display the legal reasoning given by the Courts in the Judgments · Give an indication as to the gullibility of Judges · Highlight and display the incompetence of Expert Witnesses ( Sakkyundiges ) · Display the part which the Norwegian Bar Association and Lawyers play to sustain this industry upon which they are dependent. The Constitution of 1814 The One Hundredth Amendment. 12. § 100. reads as follows ; Trykkefrihed bør finde Sted. Ingen kan straffes for noget Skrift, af hvad Indhold det end maatte være, som han har ladet trykke eller udgive, medmindre han forsætligen og aabenbare har enten selv vist, eller tilskyndet Andre til, Ulydighed mod Lovene, Ringeagt mod Religionen, Sædelighed eller de konstitutionelle Magter, Modstand mod disses Befalinger, eller fremført falske og ærekrænkende Beskyldninger mod Nogen. Frimodige Ytringer, om Statsstyrelsen og hvilkensomhelst anden Gjenstand, ere Enhver tilladte. 13. The High Contracting Party the Kingdom of Norway having had it's Fundamental Freedoms Freedom of Speech Freedom of Thought Freedom of Religion restored and Democratic Rights re-established by the English Speaking Nations on the Ninth of May Nineteen Hundred and Forty Five at great cost and being a Member State of the United Nations and thereby one of the State Parties and signatory to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the Tenth of December Nineteen Hundred and Forty Eight and also a State Party and signatory to The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of the Second of September Nineteen Hundred and Ninety and being a Member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to The European Convention of Human Rights dated the Fourth of November Nineteen Hundred and Fifty in the year of our Lord at Rome. 14. Freedom of speech is a hard earned right as indicated above and the passing of information by whatever means is an integral part of that Freedom to be " defended to the last ". The restriction of free speech, in the instant case, and the proposed sanction to be imposed would, and or will be in violation of the One Hundredth Amendment and in violation of Article 10 of the Convention even though a violation of Art. # 390 is considered a misdemeanour ( Forseelser ) under Norwegian law. Censorship 15. The Government by limiting and restricting the usage of names, places and events, as in the instance case, is imposing a censorship not only in the media, in the form of Newspapers and Television, but is attempting to impose a censorship of the transfer and receiving of information on the means of communication of the 21st century, The Internet. 16. If therefore the censorship is imposed upon Gordon Wynn-Green for declaring the names of persons and places on the Internet Site, the censorship must also be imposed upon other media entering Norway where the names, places, events are given. 17. No limitation is placed upon the Norwegian Media, for declaring the names, photos and events of persons who live outside Norway, ie News Reel from the USA, Canada and the UK, which would therefore also be in violation of Art. # 390. Discrimination 18. As a consequence of the above limitation of information this practice is therefore a discrimination between the "Local Media" and the "International Media" and is subsequently in violation of Article § 10 taken in conjunction with Article § 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights as it segregates what is to be received or not received in Norway. The European Convention of Human Rights 19. The Convention Organs have described, Tyrer v UK ( Series A 26 1978 ), that is to say some twenty (20) years ago, the Convention is, " a living instrument which, as the Commission rightly stressed, must be interpreted in the light of present day conditions". 20. The Court has also stated that which is determinative are the standards currently accepted in European society, not those prevalent when the Convention was adopted. The Decisions and Reports of the Commission and the Judgments of the Court of Human Rights declares all the information as to a Petitioner's case, these Decisions and Judgments are distributed throughout Europe and are even obtainable via the Internet. 21. The information contained therein covers ; Dated of Birth, Name of Petitioner, Family members, all persons involved both of Government employees and independent Expert Witnesses and extracts from reports. [ Site Note : The Bad Guys are in Red Ludi V Switzerland, Tomasi V France, Boyle V UK, Bouamar V Belgium Adele Johansen V NORWAY. 22. Thus the Petition lodged by the Defendant Gordon Wynn-Green and registered with the Commission of Human Rights contains all the documents pertaining to the Case and which are on the Internet. It is therefore open to any person to inspect the specific Petition and all Case-Files with their contents ( Pleadings ) will be open for inspection as of the 1st November 1998. Preliminary Conclusion 23. A) The wording in the Charge is not defined adequately and is ambiguous. B) The allegations pertaining to two of the Plaintiffs complaints per the Police Case-File, that of Ms. A. C. Knutzen ( 1079/98 ) and Mr. O. Knutzen ( 1184/98 ) can not be sustained as there is no direct reference by name and is therefore spurious. C) A considerable amount of the information has been made aware to the Plaintiffs as far back as the last quarter of 1996. Sakkyndig Report 1996 + Dom 20 March 1997 D) No complaint nor protest was made nor Injunction ( Kjennelse ) requested, at the material time. E) The violations upon my two daughters by the Plaintiffs are greater than any violation which Gordon Wynn-Green has or could possible conduct upon the Plaintiffs in the aforementioned Complaint. F) To the best of knowledge of the Defendant Gordon Wynn-Green the meaning of certain words in Norwegian law have not been clarified nor defined in Norwegian Case-Law. 24. In the event the appropriate Authorities propose to continue with this case I shall in defence utilise all necessary Case-Law ; a) English Case-Law ( of which there is an abundance ) b) United States Case-Law ( of which there is an abundance ) c) The European Convention Case-Law.

Dad (Pappa) Watch