TREATY
International Law
TREATY
Dybingveien 15 TELEFAX Tele : 51-62 19 40 4300 Sandnes. Fax : 51-62 19 40 Norway. E-mail: dadwatch@robin.no
To : Norges Høyesterett
Case file 225-1997
Fax : 22-33 23 55
Kingdom of Norway
cc : Senior Judge Gulating
Case file 93-00860 A
Fax : 55-23 07 2
Bergen Hordaland
cc : Sorenskriver Mr. Matningsdal
Case file 657-92 A
Jæren Herredsrett
Fax : 51-48 39 48
From : Mr. G. Wynn-Green.
Date : 29th August 1997
Pages: 20
Our Ref.: Appeal\BCGWG\97 SP
inc. cover.
Yr. Ref : Sak Nr. 225-1997
SUBJ.: Ankesak Nr. : 225-1997 ------Mor------ (Appellant)
V Gordon Wynn-Green (Appellant)
International Law.
Treaty :
The European
Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Petitioner : Mr. Gordon Wynn-Green
Co-Petitioner : Miss. Datter 1 - - - and - - - Miss. Datter 2
State :
The High Contracting Party, The Kingdom of Norway.
Civil Law : The Law of Children and
Parents 8 April 1981 (Barnelova) Chapters 5 and 6
Criminal : Straffeloven 22
Mai 1902, 19de og 20de Kapitel
Law
Court Law : Lov om Domstolene 13th
August 1915 (Domstolloven)
Case :
Jæren Herredsrett … … … … Case File 657-92 A
Appeal
Gulating Lagmannsrett … … Case File 93-00860 A
Appeal
Norges Høyesterett … … … … Case File 225-1997
Charge :
Violation of Article 6. (1 + 2 + 3d), Article 8.
Claim :
Violation of Article 3.
Article 6. 1 taken together or in conjunction with Article 14,
Article 13
Article 5 of the 7 Protocol.
________________________________________________
Preamble .
Rules of the Convention.
According to the rules of The European Convention on Human Rights, it is the duty in the
event of an infringement and or breach of the aforesaid Convention to put a complaint
before the National Court of Law of the Respondent State and to advise said State of the
complaints in which a party contends his rights under the Convention has or is
being violated by the High Contracting Party in order that said State being a signatory to
the Convention may have the opportunity to rectify and or correct Administrative or Legal
errors or failures made by the Courts of the First and Second Instances so the Petitioner
and Co-Petitioner may seek restitution with a domestic remedy in a final decision.
(Article 26 of the Convention).
Estoppel.
As such and to ensure that there is no Estoppel either now nor at a later date,
before the Commission or the Court of Human Rights the Appellee puts said
complaints intended to be made subsequently before the Convention organs at least in
substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in
domestic law and International Law .
(- see Castells v Spain 1992 Series A 236. #27 -).
The Petitioner contends that this twenty (20) page complaint is better than
"in substance" as required by the Convention organs.
General.
When one looks at this Case " as a whole" anybody with common sense,
minimum understanding of justice, and without too much in-depth detail can see that "
something is wrong".
" Greater than a crime, is a blunder".
Lawyers.
As the two (2) Legal Counsels who have represented the Petitioner in the present
case, clearly do not understand nor comprehend nor appear to be interested in the basic
intricacies nor the basic rules of The European Convention on Human Rights the Petitioner
is thus forced and is duty bound by his civil rights and obligations to
place before the Supreme Court these complaints upon his own initiative.
Complaints.
I claim infringements and or breaches of the said Convention by the Kingdom of Norway
which is to the detriment of the Petitioner and Co-Petitioners, in the
present case, and therefore consider our position as "Victims" for the purposes
of Article 25 #1 , or as may be understood
and interpreted by the Commission of Human Rights and the Court of Human Rights. (Article
25 of the Convention)
I allege violations by the Courts of the First and Second Instance of the Respondent
State, The Kingdom of Norway of said Convention.
Complaints Summary.
For the Petitioner:
Article 3 .
"Punishment" (arbitrary, unjustified and disproportionate punishment)
Article 6. #1.
"criminal"
"fair trial",
"within a reasonable time….."
"impartial tribunal established by law…..",
Article 6. #2
"presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Article 6. #3d
"to examine or have examined witnesses against him……"
Article 8 .
"family life….."
Article 6. #1 taken together or in
conjunction with Article 14 ,
"..shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as ..."
Article 5 of the 7th Protocol
equality of rights ..... in their relations with their children ..."
For the Co.-Petitioners:
Article 6. #1 .
" Civil rights .."
Article 8.
"Family life"
I allege the following Hearings are in violation of Article 6. #1.
1) Second (2nd) set of the First Instance June 10th1993.
2) Injunction "Hearing" of the Second Instance of November 10th 1994.
3) First (1st) set of the Second Instance April 3rd 1995.
4) Second (2nd) set of the Second Instance November 11th 1996
Introduction.
I contend that this Case is not a Civil case concerning Parental Rights and
Samvær, but a "Criminal Case" in that as of February 1993 a "Black
Cloud" of allegations of Sexual misconduct and other misconduct's falling within the
ambit of the Chapter 19 and 20 of the Penal Code of 22nd Mai 1902, have
over-shadowed the whole conduct of Lawyers, Sakkyndigs, Judges, Court proceedings and not
least the Petitioner.
No formal Charges have been lodged. The Petitioner, has lived with said
allegations for
Four (4) years, ten (10) months and counting,
therefore contends and claims that the Petitioner's position, in legal terms,
falls under the following definition of the word "Charge";
Foti v Italy, (Charge) Series A 56 (1982)
" 'Charge' may in general be defined as 'the official notification given to an
individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal
offence', though it may in some instances take the form of other measures which carry the
implication of such an allegation and which likewise substantially affect the situation of
the suspect".
The Petitioner, in his Defence, falls upon, as is his right under the terms
of the Convention, the English definition of the word 'Charge' in the English text, which
is very wide in scope, and not the words used in the French text 'accusation en matiere
penale' which is narrower in scope, of Article 6.1 of the Convention.
The Petitioner, contends that until a Court of Law within the Kingdom of Norway
declares or states to the contrary the allegations to be untrue or has no foundation, the Petitioner
will not accept terminated or dismissed and until such Judgment or Decision falls,
contends Article 6 of said Convention is still applicable.
Prevailing Conditions.
I draw the attention of the Supreme Court to certain facts of major significance
which took place prior to the first (1st) set of Hearings,
1) Ms.---Mor---- threatened incest with Miss. Datter XXX during a meeting at
Stavanger Airport in October 1992.
2) From October to December 1992, a four (4) month period, the Girls and Petitioner
had a total of 17 hours Samvær.
3) During meetings at the Familieråds Kontor, Ms.---Mor-- made further insinuations of
misconduct and allegations of incest with the Girls.
4) Due to the general situation, the Girls were in a pitiful state, Datter 1 having
"Anfalls"
5) The Petitioner was on a daily dose of 4 Valium and nightly dose of 100 mg of
Sarotex.
6) Normal Samvær was made impossible by Ms.---Mor--- due to her restrictions.
Over the whole of the Case stands numerous "Black clouds" which have slowly
generated during the years and can be summed up by, administrative mismanagement,
unnecessary delays, deliberate postponements, and incompetence by Lawyers, Sakkyndiges,
Judges, the School and the Barnvern, an unbelievable mess, summary;
Jæren Herredsrett
1) The "Wormnes Report" May 1993 (Doc.12), his change of opinion in Court (June
1993)
2) Sorenskriver Matningsdal's manner and conduct towards the Petitioner and
his Counsel in Court during a " unfair" trial without " witnesses
for or against" on 10th June 1993. ( Doc. 13 ).
3) The Judgment of 17th June 1993, the conclusion of "punishment"
and lack of "respect" for our "family life" ( Doc. 14 ).
.
4) The effect of that Judgment on the Petitioner, the subsequent relationship with
the Girls, during the Case and upon our " family life"
5) Postponement of Hearing June 1994 and the effect on "family life".
Lagdommer Jacobsen
6) The failure of Lagdommer Jacobsen to organise Samvær and lack of respect
for our " family life" during August to November 1994.
7) The "discriminatory" conditions set by Lagdommer Jacobsen for
the "fair hearing" without "witnesses for or against" in
November 1994.(Doc. 50)
8) The Injunction of 23rd November 1994 and the consequent long term
devastating effect on "family life".
Ms. Hasselknippe (Til'utdrag Page 25)
9) The failure of Ms. Hasselknippe to perform her brief in 1995 and the effect on
" family life". The Lady only had two (2) meetings with the Girls within
the time limited agreed and accepted April 1995 to December 1995.
a) Ms. Hasselknippe only began her "Brief" in earnest in January 1996 and
effects of said failure on "family life".
b) The failure of Ms. Hasselknippe to reply to three requests from the Court:
(i) Letter 8th May 1996. (Doc. 97)
(ii) Letter 22nd May 1996 (Doc. 100)
(iii) Telephone message end May 1996 (Doc.100).
(iv) Her sudden reply 5th June '96 immediately After receiving
notification of cancellation 4th June '96
c) Surely this is Contempt of Court and falls into the 2nd category of this
offence, and is against the Domstolloven.
d) The Petitioner notes that Judge Vestrheim issued no penalty in this
instance.
e) Due to the importance that Judge Vestrheim placed in Ms. Hasselknippe's
Report and evidence, the Petitioner contends the Lady in question must therefore be
considered as an Expert Witness. And therefore in legal terms, a Witness Against.
Contradictory Evidence.
f) The statement by Ms. Hasselknippe of the Umulig Criteria. This totally contradicts
available evidence below:
(i) Meeting held with ---Datter 1--- in April 1995 (Video), the lady has seen the Film
(ii) Meeting held on the 27th May 1997 in the presence of Mr.------ her
Teacher. During which --Datter 1--- when asked the question about Samvær, and I quote,
"Yes, but only at school".
(iii) Meeting held S---- school 5th June 1997 (Lærer Mr.-----)
10) The deliberate Postponement by the Government in June 1996, the " unreasonable time" required for a " fair hearing" and the effect of that delay on " family life".
Switching Judges
11) The failure of the Senior Judge, at the material time, of the Gulating to replace a
Judge the Petitioner considered lacked " impartiality" due to his
previous administration of the case, Lagdommer Jacobsen.
a) The Petitioner gave Notification of Challenge (Doc. 122) on the morning of Tuesday the 5th November 1996 at 07.22 hrs. This is six (6) days notice, the Court of Human Rights held that four (4) days was ample time to switch Judges. (Da Silva v Portugal Series A 153-A (1989)
Video Film (Doc. 96)
12) The denial by the Gulating to see critical evidence "The Video of 11th
April 95". --Datter 1 --- says twice (2) " Ikke se til Mamma eller Dommer"
Who is afraid of who ?. Ms. Hasselknippe has seen the Video Film.
Less than six (6) months after the November 1994 Injunction !!!! This episode could easily have been pushed under the carpet. But because of the Video Film it proves that the truth is very different.
13) The question directed to the Petitioner by Judge Vestrheim in November 1996.
" Remove Question"?
The Petitioner had no advance warning of the question.
Violation of Article 6. § 3b.
Witnesses (Doc. 115)
14) The cancellation of " witnesses for or against" at the request of Judge
Vestrheim, due to a lack of time. These were vital " witnesses",
Tantes, Teachers, Friends in November 1996.
15) Three (3) of the witnesses were in the waiting room, 12.00 Tuesday 12 Nov. 96, (Doc. 115) Mrs. --------- (Husvertine), Mrs. ----- (Datter 1 Lærer), Mr. ---- (Datter 2 Lærer)
a) Other witnesses were telephoned
The preliminary Custody and Visitation Rights proceedings.
Thus already at this stage, we, the Petitioner and Legal Counsel were going
into Court with allegations and or insinuations of sexual misconduct and in addition,
allegations of a general manner of bad behaviour, i.e. threatening and uncooperative
"unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman" already in "the air".
Court of the First Instance 3rd February 1993.
Jæren Herredsrett Bryne
Presiding
Sorenskriver M. Matningsdal.
(a) First set of 1st Proceedings (3rd February).
Counsel had advised me to just sit quietly beside him and to agree to his suggestions
and agree to the Courts suggestions on Samvær. Counsel said he would obtain as much as
possible due to the circumstances. At this stage the Petitioner was on medication
of four (4) Valium per day and 100 mg Sarotex per night.
The Government family "Megler" gave evidence as to calling in of the parties,
due to certain disagreements between the parties. This followed by legal arguments
concerning the "megling".
The first Hearing in such cases is the usual automatic process of appointing the mother
as the Custodian. The Court having done that the father has to "fight" to obtain
Samvær.
Counsel asked the Court to appoint a Sakkyndig. Mr. Folkestad then said "Ja, de er
mange vonde saker", Sorenskriver Matningsdal and looked at me with a
"frozen" expression.
I stood up immediately and said in a recognised international legal language, English, "I will call a spade a spade, Mrs. --Mor--- is alleging and insinuating Incest".
There then followed some discussion about who to appoint, as Sakkyndig, the
Sorenskriver, finally said he would try to get "Wormnes".
During the negotiations, Ms. --Mor-- and her lawyer asked for a "limited"
Samvær, with no over-night stay for the Girls. Counsel advised me to just accept, already
at this stage, the Petitioner felt the unfairness and the assumption by the Court
of some act having been conducted, and the inequality of the Court.
The Hearing terminated by signing a temporary Agreement (Forlik). This is the normal
procedure in Norwegian Courts at the first (1st) Hearing in Child Custody
Cases.
(b) Second set of 1st Proceedings (Hovedforhandling 10th June).
I will now remind the Supreme Court that before going into the Hearing of the above
date a Sakkyndig Report had been presented to the Court dated 31st May 1993.
This report contained the most defamatory statements as to the Petitioner's person.
When read, as a whole, the reader would obtain a picture of an "
animal" gone wild. It contained numerous false allegations - sexual misconduct,
dereliction of family, violence, and personal private descriptions which had nothing to do
with the question Samvær. Only one word for it, Revolting, Irrelevant and Unnecessary.
However, Samvær was recommended plus Joint Foreldreansvaret and Ms --Mor---- was
advised to and I quote from the final points:
3. Ms. --- Mor --- må slutte å dirigere barna.
6. The entire Paragraph. In brief, Ms. --Mor---- should control the further development of Samvær since the Lady had Omsorg.
Telephone conversation prior to Hearing.
Some time before this Hearing, I was told by Counsel that he and Sorenskriver
Matningsdal had a telephone conversation, in which it was agreed that the Sorenskriver
would present a Samvær plan in Court. So prior to our arrival in Court, I had the clear
impression from Counsel that the Samvær problem was already solved and or
"agreed".
Witnesses.
Due to the situation in the above paragraph, Counsel decided not to call any witnesses for
the Hearing.
I objected to Counsel, stating that these were serious allegations in the Wormnes Report, that such allegations would be taken most seriously in England. But, he said that after talking on the telephone to Sorenskriver Matningsdal, this would not be a major problem as far as Samvær was concerned.
Nor did the Counsel for Ms. -- Mor --- call or present witnesses.
A point, I have questioned since mid 1996.
However, on entering the Courtroom and after the Hearing had begun, no Samvær Plan was
presented by the Sorenskriver to the parties. There then ensued "Talks", between
the Lawyers, the Sorenskriver, Mr. Wormnes as to a Samvær Plan.
Talks continued after lunch, a draft was agreed upon, there was a pause to consider the
proposals.
Counsel and the Petitioner went into a separate room.
Points of disagreement
1) Why the Petitioner could not have a Summer holiday with his girls in 1993.
2) Why the Petitioner could not have over nighting immediately or from a given
date.
3) Why the Petitioner could not have normal Samvær in instead of only during the
day.
4) Why the Petitioner could only have normal Samvær beginning as of 1st
January 1994.
5) Why the Petitioner could not have Christmas 1993.
On return Counsel declared that the Petitioner and Counsel would not " Swallow" Sorenskriver Matningsdal's, Mr Wormnes and the Plaintiff's Samvær Plan due to the reasons given above.
Sorenskriver Matningsdal "hit the roof", there was a hefty
discussion or argument for quite sometime, between Counsel and the Sorenskriver on the
above and various points, about days allocated, dividing the case, previous agreements per
telephone, condition of the Petitioner and other points. Sorenskriver Matningsdal's
attitude and manner to Counsel for the Defence "had to be seen to be believed",
Counsel was just "bulldozed" into submission, deplorable. If the Petitioner
had been in a better "all-round" condition he would have taken up
"arms" to assist Counsel, but unfortunately he was not.
Petitioner just kept quite during all this Norwegian "carry-on".
That scenario over, Sorenskriver Matningsdal, using his left hand, then waved the Petitioner into the witness box. Petitioner then gave evidence. Various questions were asked. Petitioner refuting and denying adamantly the allegations made against him and professing his innocence as concerns these most heinous crimes. Asking why I could not have and stating why I wished the above points clarified as to precise start of over-nighting, normal samvær, Summer Holidays, Christmas, Easter and other minor points. Explaining that I could not leave Norway as Ms.--- Mor --- had my British Passport.
That I only had some of my personal possessions, six (6) black plastic bags and no more. That the rest of my possessions were being held by Ms.--- Mor --- who refused to return them. And stating or trying to explain the awful condition my Girls were in due to all this situation.
It all "fell" on deaf ears.
After giving evidence Sorenskriver Matningsdal and Mr. Wormnes left the Courtroom.
Complaint.
I complain as follows and claim violation of the Article 6. #1, 6. #2, 6. #3 d and
8;
1) The Petitioner and Counsel were lead to believe by Sorenskriver Matningsdal,
that a draft Samvær Plan was worked out and would be presented as soon as the Hearing had
commenced.
2) No such draft Samvær Plan was presented on entering the Courtroom.
3) After lunch, Sorenskriver Magnus Matningsdal lost his temper (Approx. 14.00
Hrs).
4) Shortened the Hearing from two (2) days to one (1) day.
5) Let the Hearing run from 09.00 Hrs to 20.00 Hrs with only 2 breaks.
6) Denied the right to postpone the property side of the Affair, as was requested and
agreed, prior to the Hearing, between the Sorenskriver and the Petitioner's Legal
Counsel.
7) Did not advise the Petitioner of his legal rights in a normal "cool"
manner, as an honourable Judge should do.
8) Due to status (1+2) the Petitioner and Counsel were mislead by Sorenskriver
Matningsdal and therefore deprived of the right of calling important witnesses for
the Defence in violation of Article 6. 3d. of the Convention (Doc.13).
9) Said witnesses could and would have given evidence as to the Petitioner's good
character.
10) Said witnesses could have and would have given evidence as to the Petitioner's
excellent relationship with his two "Super Chicks".
11) Violation of Article 6. §3 (d)
The Plaintiff did not give evidence nor was she put into the Witness box.
Sorenskriver Matningsdal violated the rights of the Defence. The Defence
was therefore denied the right to examine the Plaintiff concerning the allegations made
against him, in violation of Article 6. §3 (d) of the Convention (Doc.13).
12) Punished the Petitioner for his conduct in Court, by denying him and his
daughters Easter Holidays, Christmas, Summer Holidays and a normal "Samvær"
according to the Law of the Kingdom of Norway in violation of Article. 3. of the
Convention (Doc.14).
13) Punished the Petitioner again, by depriving him of his
"Foreldreansvaret" for his two (2) daughters, in violation of Article. 3,
Article. 8.1 and 8.2.of the Convention (Doc. 14).
14) Did not hold the Petitioner in "Contempt of Court" (Doc. 14).
(Sunday Times v United Kingdom Series A 30 1978)
15) Advised the Petitioner that " If he did not accept the "forlik"
for samvær, the Norwegian practice of Law would be applied, i.e. that the final
"Decision" could or would be less than the suggested verbal "forlik"
(in Court).
16) Did not take into consideration the, " then", (at the material time)
physical, mental nor medical condition of the Petitioner (Five Valium and 175 mg.
of Sarotex per day.)
17) Violation of Article 6. §1
a) by leaving the Courtroom with Expert Witness Mr. J. Wormnes of
Stavanger, for a private discussion, in a separate
room, behind closed doors, in violation of Article. 6.1.
of the Convention. (Doc. 14, Page 14 # 3).
b) On returning to the Court room the Expert Witness changed his mind
and recommended that Samvær stayed as it was
and that the Petitioner should not have Parental Rights. ( Doc. 14, Page 14 ).
18) Violation of Article 6. §1
Expert Witness Mr. J. Wormnes did not to give evidence, did not enter the witness box.
Violating the rights of the Defence. Defence was therefore denied the right to examine Mr.
Wormnes concerning the allegations made against the Petitioner or cross examine him
in relation to his report, in violation of Article 6. §3(d) of the Convention (Doc
13).
19) Did not put to question, nor ask any questions concerning any of the above allegations, nor any allegations in the report delivered by Expert Witness, Mr. J. Wormnes, Stavanger, prior to the June Hearing of 1993,( Doc. 14 ).
a) To the Defendant
b) To the Plaintiff
c) To Expert Witness Wormnes
20) Handed down a Judgment limiting "Samvær" only during the day, 10.00 hrs to 17.00 hrs.
21) Took for granted, and accepted, anything acceptable to the Mother as to the question of timing, extent or limitation of Samvær.
22) Denied the Petitioner a remedy causing the total loss of his personal property, family items and heirlooms, causing the Petitioner, to beg for simple things such as bed sheets from his friends leaving the Petitioner with only six (6) Norwegian Black Plastic Boss Bags (Doc. 14 Page 16).
23) Did not give any warnings, nor penalties nor take any punitive action to the Mother for
a) Depriving my "Super Chicks" of a normal Samvær in 1992.
b) Causing my "Super Chicks" much pain by sabotaging Samvær.
c) Limiting Samvær to only 17 hrs. for the period October to December 1992.
d) Causing my "Super Chicks" much pain by denying their legal rights
to share Christmas.
e) Causing much distress woe and sorrow for sabotaging Easter week-end 93 Samvær.
f) Making false declarations and allegations to the Police, prior to the June 1993
Hearing.
24) Finally, the whole Courtroom had a distinct air of a " Kangaroo Court" in which justice and a fair hearing were "thrown out of the window".
25) This how my "Super Chicks" rights are protected by the law and the
importance of the father in " family life" to the Norwegian Government
and Legal System.
The Judgment of 17th June 1993.
Contempt of Court
In the Judgment Sorenskriver Matningsdal complained about Petitioner's
behaviour (Oppførsel) in Court.
The basics of Contempt of Court is divided into the following two (2) categories:
a) "Contempt in the face of the Court", for example,
(i) throwing missiles at the Judge
(ii) insulting persons in Court
(iii) demonstrating in Court
b) "Contempt out of Court", subdivided into:
(i) reprisals against witnesses
(ii) "scandalising the Court", for example abusing a judge qua judge
(iii) disobedience to Court orders.
(iv) conduct liable to interfere with the course of justice.
Lord Salmon (as to the starting point of contempt) Sunday Times v UK Series A 30
(1979)
"Nowhere, because I would not have contempt. I say never. Certainly never in a
judge-alone case. I think the law of libel takes care of anything you may say about a
civil case, and if a judge is going to be affected by what is written or said he is not
fit to be a judge"
The Petitioner did none of the acts falling within the first (1st)
category.
The Petitioner only professed his innocence, continuously, adamantly, and
forcefully.
Vanlig Samvær
The Petitioner could not understand why "Vanlig Samvær" could not be
granted immediately.
Parental Responsibility
The Petitioner was deprived of Parental Responsibility on two (2) grounds:
(a) Ms.---Mor-- claimed that the Petitioner intended to leave the country.
(b) Mr. Wormnes stated that due to the Petitioner lack of "co-operation"
in Court, for not accepting the suggested forlik, Ms.--Mor-- should have Parental
Responsibility Alone.
Violations of the First (1st) Instance.
Article 3. " Punishment"
a) I allege violation of said Article that deprivation of Parental Responsibility was
" punishment" for the Petitioner's non co-operation or more
appropriate for not " Swallowing" the suggested Draft Samvær Plan
which limited access to ONLY during the day as requested by Plaintiff Ms. ---Mor--.
b) I allege violation of said Article and deprivation of Christmas, Summer Holidays and
Easter as specific " punishment" for my behaviour in Court.
Article 6. §1 " Fair"
a) I allege violation of said Article due to the conduct and lack of impartiality
by Sorenskriver Matningsdal, his manner, his lack of consideration, his biased
manner in accepting or agreeing to anything the plaintiff requested, his private meeting
with Mr. Wormnes in a separate room behind closed doors.
b) I allege violation of said Article due to the lack of impartiality of Mr.
Wormnes,and for his lack of consideration for the continued good welfare of my daughters
and their relationship with their father. Co-operation between Mother and Father was more
important than the rights of the Girls to a normal Samvær and relationship with
the Father.
Article 6. §2. " Presumption of innocence"
a) I allege violation of said Article by Sorenskriver Matningsdal for restricting
Samvær to ONLY during the day as a result of the allegations made against the Petitioner
by Ms.---Mor--- and her family and that this is also reflects and confirms the suspicions
in the Courts Decision.
Article 6. §3d. " examination of witnesses"
a) I allege violation of said Article by Sorenskriver Matningsdal in that the Defence in the "Heat" of the proceedings was denied the right to cross examine,
1) The Plaintiff Ms.---Mor-- who did not enter the Witness Box.
2) Mr. Wormnes who did not enter the Witness Box.
Article 8. " family life"
I allege violation of said Article by Sorenskriver Matningsdal denying normal
Samvær.
The Petitioners opinion of the 17th June 1993 Judgment.
The 'Principle' of irrationality or unreasonableness.
"Nobody with the minimum of acumen, being sober of mind, nor any other
comparable person or body taking all factors into account and applying their mind, and
jurisprudence, to the problem, would have arrived at such an unreasonable judgment".
Maybe the Bryne Judgment of 1993 should be adopted as this Principle.
Court of the Second Instance 20th June 1994
Gulating Lagmannsrett
Presiding Judge
Jacobsen (The Administrator)
Hearing Cancelled
Court of the Second Instance 10th November 1994.
Injunction Proceedings.
Gulating Lagmannsrett
Presiding Judge
Jacobsen (The Admin.) No other Judges during this Sitting 09.00 to 10.45 Hrs.
Injunction requested by Ms.--Mor-- in September 1993 originally based on grounds of
"Episodes" prior to 10th September '93, which Sandnes Namsrett by
decision January 1994 found unreasonable.
However, Judge Jacobsen granted the Injunction for different reasons "New
Episodes", "Barn er redd ham" (Girls are afraid of father) and the
"Konflikt",
1) It took His Worship over six (6) months to appoint Expert Witnesses. (Doc. 32).
The Expert Witnesses were of his own choice, i.e. "His men".
2) The Report then stated that my daughters were not "Redd" of their
father as the Mother had claimed !!, and recommended Samvær.
3) His Worship did not read the Sakkyndig report dated 12th August 1994, until
October 1994, that is two and a half (2. ½) months after the Gulating received the Report
and then only after the Petitioner telephoned Mr. Stavnes on
Wednesday 19th October 94. Who apologised, and said it would be passed
"up" immediately.
4) Ignored the Sakkyndig recommends in the report and ignored the Sakkyndig evidence given
in Court that it would take about two (2) months for normal Samvær to take place.
Hearing.
Lagdommer Jacobsen changed his mind three (3) times prior to establishing the
Hearing date.
His Worship Lagdommer Jacobsen, handled the whole Hearing, in the coolest of manner, the Hearing lasted not more than one (1) hour - Samvær (Access) section.
1) Informed Counsels that the Court had already made a Decision. (Doc. 50)
2) Then informed Counsel that there would be a Hearing with a Quorum (3) of Judges.
3) Then after pressure from Petitioner's Counsel accepted a Hearing on conditions,
a) No legal Arguments from either side. (50 A)
b) No Witnesses from either side.
c) Only Expert Witness Jenseg, Stavanger, to enter the Witness box.
d) No Barnehage Tante, who had agreed to act as a "Companion" for ---Datter 2--
my youngest daughter. (Page 310 Doc. 48 Page 311 # 2)
4) Their Worships further threatened total removal of "Samvær", if
the "Konflikt" was not resolved. The Petitioner having not seen
his daughters since 29th August 1993.
(Judgment Nov 94 Page 334 last para.)
5) Their Worships, Lagdommer Lunde, Lillebø and Jacobsen, then "handed-down" a
Judgment denying all access to my two (2) daughters, until, and I quote, " inntil
en rettskraftig Dom".
The Petitioner can not see why a "Konflikt" should prevent a father and
his children having Samvær and a " family life". This argument has no
logic, a case does not end in a Courtroom if there is not a "Konflikt" or
dispute. Therefore, in all such cases the Father and the children should not see
each other due to the "Konflikt". The reasoning is beyond my comprehension.
a) Deprived of Samvær and " family life" with my "Super Chicks"
Violation of Article 6. §1 + §2 + 3d, Article 8, (see in addition Doc. 122)
This period August to November 1994 was the "Turning Point" of this Affaire.
Lagdommer Jacobsen changed the course of events decisively.
Hence the Petitioner's objection to his further adjudication on the Case.
Court of the Third Instance March 1995.
Injunction Appeal.
The Petitioner appealed to Supreme Court who up-held the Injunction, giving
as reasons that the Injunction was only "midlertidig".
The Petitioner contends that due to the process during the November 1994
proceedings, this Injunction is illegal. That the grounds or evidence upon which
this Final Decision is based is false. The Video meeting of the 11th April 1995
with --Datter 1---, is conclusive proof of this false evidence.
Court of the Second Instance 3rd + 4th April 1995.
Gulating Lagmannsrett
Presiding Judges
Lagdommer Vestrheim (The Admin.), Lagdommer Jacobsen and Lund.
(a) First set of 1st Proceedings (3rd and 4th April
Custody Part).
Hearing stopped by Judge Vestrheim on Monday 3rd, during Petitioner's Counsel
"Innledning" on page 175.
Mr. Wormnes gave evidence. Declaring there was "No Sexual Overgrep" !!!!!!!.
Having declared that there was in his report in May 1993 !!!!.
My comment "I mean really. One minute "Yes" next minute "No".
Mr. Jenseg called Ms. Hasselknippe using a Court phone, who accepted the Brief.
(Tuesday 4th April)
Much discussion between Judges and Sakkyndigs about Girls condition. Girls had "
Monster bilde of father" (Jenseg), Nightmares and were generally in a bad state.
Lagdommer Vestrheim suggested parties in the interests of "fellesbarna",
come to an agreement, as suggested to the judges by the Sakkyndigs.
Counsel suggested Petitioner accept the Temporary Stoppage for nine (9) months and
sign the Agreement, otherwise Petitioner could loose all Samvær due to the Threat
issued by Judge Jacobsen in the November 1994 Judgment.
1) Contend Lagdommer Jacobsen was "innhabil". (Hauschildt v
Denmark Series A 154 '89)
2) Contend so were Lagdommer Vestrheim and Lund during Hearing of April 1995.
The Hasselknippe (Brief) signed 4th April 1995. (Til'Utdrag Page 25)
1) Object of brief to establish Samvær.
2) Ms. Hasselknippe consulted Girls only Twice (2) from April '95 to Dec. '95
3) Consulted Girls total of 18 times January '96 to November '96.
4) Has not seen Girls since 6th November 1996, confirmed by phone 18th
August 1997.
Ms. Hasselknippe failed to set-up any meetings between Girls and Petitioner.
Court of the Second Instance 10th June 1996.
Gulating Lagmannsrett
Presiding Judge
Lagdommer Vestrheim (The Admin.).
Cancelled.
1) Hearing requested by the Petitioner over the telephone, and by facsimile dated 7th
February 1996 (page 36 tilleggsutdrag Nov.96)
2) Hearing approved by Court letter dated 6th February 1996 (Page 37).
3) His Worship Lagdommer Vestrheim failed to issue instructions for the two (2) the
Expert Witnesses Mr. Jenseg and Mr. Austeid to make another report.
4) The refusal of Ms. Hasselknippe to reply to three requests from the Court:
(i) Letter 8th May 1996. (Doc. 97)
(ii) Letter 22nd May 1996 (Doc. 100)
(iii) Telephone message end May 1996 (Doc.100).
5) In consequence of this Lagdommer Vestrheim cancelled Hearing by Court letter
dated 4th June 1996 (Doc.100).
6) Lagdommer Vestrheim did not "hold" Ms. Hasselknippe in Contempt
of Court as per above,
(see Contempt of Court paragraph (b) + (iii) or (iv)).
Court of the Second Instance 11th November 1996
Gulating Lagmannsrett
Presiding Judges
Lagdommer Vestrheim (The Admin.), Lagdommer Jacobsen, Byfogden Dommer Opdahl
(a) Second set of 2nd Proceedings (11th and 14th
November).
Vitne Avhør of Mr. Wormnes Monday 4th November 1996 (Page 98)
1) During a "Vitne Avhor" (Hearing) Expert Witness Mr. Wormnes,
Stavanger, then stated that there was "Ikke Seksual Overgrep", again contrary to
his report of May 1993 !!!!!.
a) Then confirms "Monster Bilde" as per Jenseg's opinion in April 1995 !!!!
2) Mr. Wormnes made some, additional, remarkable statements during this
"Hearing",
a) But, in the same breath recommended that the Petitioner should not see his Girls
until they were 14 to 15 years old , or take the initiative to make contact. Astonishing
statement from a Government Expert Witness.
In violation of Article 8. (Til'utdrag Page 102 # 4 + 104).
b) Mr Wormnes also suggested that the Petitioner should make contact with his Girls,
1) By ONLY sending Birthday cards, Christmas cards and by telephoning them. This has
been done by the Petitioner in 1994, all cards have never been collected by the
Ms.--Mor-- from the Post Office. Gulating Utdrag ( Datter 1\Page 274 to 276, Datter
2\Page 297 to 299)
2) The Petitioner had tried to make telephone contact that has failed, by
Ms.--Mor-- slamming down the phone.
3) If the Petitioner should met his Girls by chance in the street,
the Petitioner should ONLY wave to his Girls, but not initiate direct contact !!!!.
4) Petitioner should not take Video Film of his Girls (Til'utdrag 102)
5) That the Petitioner should not try to contact his Girls !!!!. (Til'utdrag 102)
3) Mr Wormnes criticised the Petitioner's "Væremåte" (General
Manner). Mr. Wormnes had not met the Petitioner since Hearing of June 10th
1993 !!!!. The Petitioner being at the material time under heavy sedation of Valium
due to the allegations.
a) Mr. Wormnes however did not criticise nor consider Ms. --Mor-- conduct
despicable !!!!.
Only that " barna ….befinner seg nær opp til en barnevernssituasjon"
Petitioners Comment " Sakkyndigs have been saying this since 1994 + 1995
Gulating Hearing of November 11th to 14th 1996
During this Hearing a number of things occurred, and which are related, but are
not recorded in the Court Protocol (Rettsbok) and I shall just take up, at this moment two
(2) points,
Have you done this to your Girls ? (A Child Abuse question)
The Petitioner while in the Witness Box, was asked the above question by Lagdommer
Vestrheim to which the Petitioner replied,
1) No, I had not. (No Culpa.) and then proceeded, along the following lines, to
explain and justify that I had never had
a) A Pornographic thought about my daughters.
b) Nor was I interested in such reading matter.
c) Nor conducted myself in any manner which could be construed as carrying out such an
act.
Thursday Morning 14th November 1996.
(Datter XXX = Datter av Mor fra hennes første Ekteskap som ogsa har IKKE sett
hennes far.)
On the Thursday morning Miss.-Datter XXX, - Ms.---Mor-- eldest daughter from her 1st
marriage- made numerous allegations about my conduct towards her from the Witness Box,
1) That she was frightened of me, and had to lock herself in her room
2) That I had tried to "play around" with her Bryst (Breasts) she also said that
this was the first (1st) time that she had ever told anybody and had never
even told her mother. All this under a flood of tears. A real display.
While Miss.-Datter XXX was in the Witness Box, Ms. Baumann, suddenly said "I think
this witness in making this statement under pressure", upon which "all
hell" broke loose, the Judge suggested a break, and "all hell" continued in
the corridor.
In the corridor, Judge Vestrheim, Ms. Baumann and Mr. Folkestad had a talk. Ms. Baumann
suggesting to the Judge that this should be reported to the Police immediately and or that
the Judges should go into another room to have a separate Hearing from Miss. --Datter
XXX--. The Judge trying to cool things down, suggested that we should all go back into the
Courtroom.
The Hearing then continued with Miss.-Datter XXX-- in the Witness box.
His Worship Lagdommer Jacobsen asked me a question concerning the statements made
by Miss. Datter XXX.
"I said this was a LIE", referring to my supposed acts upon Miss. Datter XXX.
After this, Expert Witness Mr. B. Austeid entered the Witness box, and said what he had
heard was plausible, and had the Expert Witnesses known about these events at the
beginning (1994), the Expert Witnesses would have organised themselves differently !!!!!.
Judgment of 20th March 1997
The Petitioner notices the total silence in the Judgment of:
1) The real condition of my two (2) daughters.
2) Violations to which they have been subjected, Manipulation of every conceivable kind.
3) The desire of --Datter 1-- to have contact with her father to whom she was very close.
4) The lack of any mention of the Parental Alienation Syndrome.
5) The numerous attempts by the father to mediate (Page 232 + 341 + Hasselknippe).
6) No mention of sabotaging, hindering in defiance of the Law and of Court Orders .
7) No determination nor verdict as to the Allegations.
8) No mention of the persistent continuos flagrant hindering and sabotaging of Samvær.
9) The awful condition Datter 2 is in, and the views she has about her Father.
10) No mention of the "Har de befølt jentene i skrittet" question by Judge
Vestrheim.
11) Finally and suddenly, no mention of the Allegations made concerning Incest, Tukling,
or other misconduct's falling within the ambit of the Penal Code of 1902.
I arrive after nigh on 5 years of this Affaire, to the conclusion that this must be a
Government Policy.
But the Gulating was most occupied by,
Internet
12) This question concerning Internet and the false statement of Mr. Jenseg and Mr.
Austeid, "Taushetsbelagte" in the November 1996 report,
a) Numerous Cases are on Dadwatch, not one of them violates Norwegian Law.
These Cases are from Norwegian Law concerning Fathers "fights" to see their
Children.
Site address: http.\\www.robin.no\~dadwatch
Judgments, Sakkyndig Reports, Agreements, Letters, Prosesskrives.
b) Numerous Judgments from the Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg
1) Adele Johansen v Norway Series A 530 1996
2) Olsson v Sweden
3) Eriksson v Sweden Series A 144 1989
4) Andersson v Sweden
Retthaverskhet
13) Suddenly, since the Petitioner (June 96) became interested in the European Convention of Human Rights, and is "studying" and reading, its Case Law , Den Europæiske Menneskeretskonvention Lorenzen, Rehof, Trier. Theory and Practice of the ECHR, Van Dijk, van Hoof.
Law of the ECHR, Harris, O'Boyle, Warbrick. Plus Kaplan + Wiarda and other Judgments from the Court of Human Rights.
The Gulating Court now takes this up and moves the reasons for criticism to a new
field, that of Human Rights. The judgment states on various pages, I select (Page 15 §
2);
"Et karakteristisk trekk ved konflikten synes å være en ikke ubetydelig grad av retthaverskhet
hos den ankende part"
This is just laughable, if we have not rights then what is the point of the Kingdom
of Norway signing a Treaty and in addition, what point is there in "Barnet har rett
til Samvær".
The Petitioner being a British subject, finds this unjustified, offensive and
insulting, since the Hearing started the 11th November '96, was run during
"Remberance Week". Astonishing statement contained in a Judgment.
This I think very well sums-up the position of Fathers in Norway and enters the
question of the position and jurisprudence of the Courts in Norway in relation to the
children's and fathers rights.
And yet only pages later - Page 22 § 3 - states;
" må ta konsekvensene av og ansvaret for at de sammen er foreldre for de to barna,
som har Rett til et mest mulig fullverdig liv".
Foreldereansvaret
14) In the Judgment of 17th June 1993 the reasons given for giving the Mother
Sole Parental Responsibility were;
a) Father moving out of country.
b) The father's non-co-operation.
The reason now given in this Judgment for the Mother having Sole Parental
Responsibility is that (page 22 § 1) and I cite;
" vil påvike og svekke hennes evne til omsorgsutøvelse, dersom
foreldreansvaret skal være felles"
If that is the case, even more reason for this Mother not having this responsibility,
alone.
I claim violation of Article 6.1 of "Fair" + "Impartial tribunal
established by law"
Ms. Baumann Counsel for the Petitioner
1) Ms. Baumann did not defend her client according to the Code of Ethics of the
Norwegian Law Society,
Evidence:
a) The Petitioner had to send a fax (Doc 106) to Lagdommer Vestrheim asking for a
Hearing. Ms. Baumann said "we"
should wait for the Judge to notify us !!!.
b) The Petitioner asked Ms. Baumann to invoke the Convention. She just refused.
So the Petitioner had to do this by fax again (Doc 116).
c) The Petitioner asked Ms. Baumann to " Challenge" Lagdommer
Jacobsen based on his conduct - activity and non
activity - from 93 to 95, especially the November 1994
"Ilegal Hearing", Threat and Injunction.
d) Legal Counsel Ms. Baumann would not do so, in fact Ms. Baumann refused.
Saying during a pause of the "Vitne Avhor" of Mr. Wormnes on
Monday 4th November 96;
"Du ikke gjøre slike ting mot en Norsk Dommer".
e) The Petitioner again had to defend himself by sending a fax (Doc 122) to
the Gulating to conform to the rules of the
Convention. Invoking #108 and #111 of Domstolloven 1915.
f) At the opening of the Hearing, Judge Vestrheim, addressed this question to Ms. Baumann
the consequence of this resulted
in the Petitioner making the challenge using material and Case-Law
kindly sent from the Court of Human Rights,
Strasbourg.
g) Did not ask the Court to record Judge Vestrheim's question nor took any Defensive
measures, nor asked for an
Adjournment or a Pause to consult with her Client.
h) Ms. Baumann was fully aware of my strong views as to these allegations.
i) Ms. Baumann was my Lawyer from end of February 1996 to the end of December 1996.
Ms. Baumann is now a Judge at Jæren Herredsrett.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6. §1 TAKEN TOGETHER OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH
ARTICLE 14.
Tvangsbot Injunction (#48) 1993 and Injunction denying Samværsrett (§38) 1994
The Petitioner alleges violation of the above Articles, which is particularly
aggravating, as said violation is the cause of much suffering, deep distress, woe and
sorrow for the Petitioner and with particular distressing consequences for his two
(2) daughters Miss.---Datter 1--- and Miss.----Datter2----- as a consequence due to
the discriminatory practice conducted by the Respondent State the Kingdom of Norway
against the Petitioner in that the Petitioner was obliged to lodge a
Petition and in addition commence a new Case and attend a one day full Hearing in December
1993, give evidence of his version of the events, contradict, deny and/or justify the
claims as being unfounded untrue and explain in detail the circumstances of the events,
request the attendance of two (2) witnesses in conformity with Article 6.§3d for the Petitioner
to confirm corroborate and produce documentary evidence to prove the Petitioner's case,
while during the less than one (1) hour "Illegal Hearing" of November 1994 the
mother did not take the "Oath", nor give evidence of her version of the events,
nor was obliged or requested to present any witnesses in conformity with Article 6. §3d
to establish said claims, nor was obliged to provide any documentary evidence to
corroborate the claimed "New Episodes" or reasons nor to present proof of the
fact or evidence that the Girls were afraid, other than by oral expression to questions or
statements during a dialogue with Expert Witness Jenseg who contradicted these claims
following the July (94) meeting and observations, while sitting by her Legal Counsel as
had been claimed, while Judge Jacobsen must have known from the Case-File that the Petitioner
had not had Samvær nor had any communications or contact with his daughters due to the
refusal, denial , sabotaging, and flagrant violation of Court orders, of Samvær rights
since 12.10 hrs Sunday the 29th of August 1993.
Article 3.
The penalties handed-down by Sorenskriver Matningsdal on the Petitioner
and of which the Petitioner complains do not fall within the ambit of Domstolloven
1915 # 134 and are undeniably arbitrary, unjustified and disproportionate punishment for
the conduct claimed and the sanctions imposed upon the Petitioner, do not fall
within the sphere nor scope of Article 8.
A party - the Petitioner -, as a result of being in a secret Hearing (in
camera), is peculiarly vulnerable to arbitrary and unlawful actions by a Judge or Judges.
However, it follows that the prohibition under Article 3 of the Convention is an absolute
one and that there can never be under the Convention, or under International Law, a
justification for acts in breach of that provision.
Article 6.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations falling within the ambit of the Penal Code
of Mai 1902 Chapters 19 and 20 of the Kingdom of Norway and the claims made against the
Petitioner and the sanctions which the Petitioner had to face in this case
attained the level of severity which, according to the common standard of the Convention
States, must be considered as being proper to "Criminal Charges" in the sense of
the Convention.
In a democratic society within the meaning of the Convention, the right to a fair
administration of justice holds such a prominent place that a restrictive interpretation
of Article 6.(1) would not correspond to the aim and the purpose of that provision.
It therefore follows that the presumption of innocence will be violated if , without the
accused's having previously been proved guilty according to law and, notably, without his
having had the opportunity of exercising his rights of defence, a judicial decision
concerning him reflects an opinion that he is guilty. This may be so even in the absence
of any formal finding; it suffices that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court
regards the accused as guilty.
By the same token, the guarantees of Article 6. (3) exemplify the notion of a fair trial,
and their intrinsic aim is always to ensure, or contribute to ensuring, the fairness of
the criminal proceedings as a whole. The guarantees enshrined in Article 6. (3) are
therefore not an aim in themselves, and they must accordingly be interpreted in the light
of the function which they have in the overall context of the proceedings.
The Petitioner claims that these guarantees were not accorded in any of the
Hearings thus denying the right and of the Court to hear evidence to the contrary to
enable the Petitioner to be vindicated by the Court in its Judgment of said
allegations. This not being the circumstances in the present case the Petitioner
claims that Article 6 is still applicable or until such pronouncement or is exonerated by
a Final Decision.
Article 8.
The restrictions and penalties imposed upon the Petitioner by the Courts of the
First (1st) and Second (2nd) Instance and of which the
Petitioner complains are undeniably an "interference" with the exercise
of the rights in question. For such an interference to avoid infringing Article 8, it must
be "in accordance with the law", carried out in pursuit of one or more of the
four (4) legitimate aims set out in Article 8 §2 and "necessary in a democratic
society" in order to attain such an aim or aims.
The Petitioner contends the impugned measures of 17th June 1993 and
23rd November 1994 and its maintenance in force are not "in accordance
with the law" due to process of the proceedings that the access restrictions had no
basis in Norwegian Law and taken to prevent reunion of the parties had no legitimate aim
other than to concede and safeguard the requests of the Plaintiff and to continue the
illegal practice and policy conducted by the Respondent State.
I think this quote by an EC Commissioner on a statement made by the then Minister of
Fisheries Mr. Olsen, is appropriate to the present case and allegations;
"There is a limit to the perversion of the truth. Anybody who has any logic, should
see that this is a lie".
The Petitioner Mr. G. Wynn-Green
and
Co-Petitioners Miss. B. Wynn-Green Knutzen and Miss. C. Wynn-Green Knutzen
claim to be "Victims" due to violations of the above mentioned Articles of the
European Convention on Human Rights and holds that The Kingdom of Norway has violated our Human
Rights.
Therefore the Petitioner will make pleadings to the Commission on the following
counts to;
1) Hold that the Kingdom of Norway is in violation of Article 3 of the Convention
in respect of the Petitioner.
2) Hold that the Kingdom of Norway is in violation of Article 6. 1 of the
Convention in respect of the Petitioner and
Co-Petitioners.
3) Hold that the Kingdom of Norway is in violation of Article 8 of the
Convention in respect of the Petitioner and
Co-Petitioners.
4) Hold that the Kingdom of Norway is in violation of Article 13 of the
Convention in respect of the Petitioner.
5) Hold that the Kingdom of Norway is in violation of Article 6.1 taken together or
in conjunction with Article 14 of the
Convention in respect of the Petitioner.
6) Hold that the Kingdom of Norway is in violation of Article 5 of the 7th
Protocol of the Convention in respect of the
Petitioner.
Sandnes, den 29. August 1997.
Mr.G. Wynn-Green
The Petitioner.
Dybingveine 15
4300 Sandnes
Norge.