30 May 2017

Judgment against Marius Reikerås quashed

By Marianne Haslev Skånland

This is a kind of top class entertainment, showing a lot about Norway.

The judgment (finding Reikerås guilty) from the city / district court (the court of first instance) has been quashed. Of all media it is Dagbladet writing about it – I would have thought they would hide it.

Dom mot Marius Reikerås opphevet
Marius Reikerås ble dømt for å jobbe ulovlig som advokat. Nå er dommen slaktet og opphevet
Vant fram i lagmannsretten.
(Judgment against Marius Reikerås quashed.
Marius Reikerås was found guilty of working illegally as a lawyer. Now the judgment has been "slaughtered" and quashed.
(He) won through in the appeal court.)
Dagbladet, 28 May 2017

But the extremely entertaining thing is not that the new judgment finds Reikerås not guilty, nor indeed is it whether Reikerås has done anything criminal or not! It is what the appeal court says about the basis for its judgment. Dagbladet's article:

"En enstemmig lagmannsrett skriver at det ut fra tingrettens begrunnelse ikke er mulig å se hvorfor tingretten har lagt til grunn at Reikerås ikke har rett til å yte rettshjelp etter domstolloven."
(A unanimous appeal court writes that from the reasoning of the court of first instance, Tingretten, it is not possible to see why Tingretten has based its judgment on Reikerås not having the right to give legal aid i accordance with The Courts of Justice Act.)

Hoho – in the state of Norway, which is virtuously proud of being under the rule of law, judgments are passed in which it is impossible to see why you have been found guilty.

The prosecutor's office is "studying" this new judgment – they have not yet decided what to do.

Marius Reikerås himself has 
a comment on Facebook.


Thinking of it as a political move, some thoughts certainly spring to mind as to why Reikerås was found guilty in Tingretten. Dagbladet says it, too (although it is not clear to me whether they are as offended as are our authorities or whether Dagbladet has gone as far as to be ironical of our worthy authorities):

"27. april i år skrev Dagbladet at Marius Reikerås (44) i årevis har vært et konstant uromoment for norske myndigheter.
Han fronter kampanjer mot barnevernet og har fått en barnevernssak mot Norge opp i menneskerettighetsdomstolen i Strasbourg."

(On 27 April of this year Dagbladet wrote that Marius Reikerås has been a constant nuisance factor for Norwegian authorities.
He is in front of campaigns against Barnevernet and has had a Barnevern case against Norway accepted by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.)

Ah yes, the Norwegian establishment wants to be rid of him. In this country everything is to take place bureaucratically and quietly – we are the best country in the world, everybody here is honest, law-abiding (not least our authorities), we are all extremely competent too!

And yes, to lead campaigns against the child protection system which Norway has made for itself, an organisation which in practice far from always protects children although it looks fine on paper, that is of course a disturbing nuisance for our authorities. And fancy being as nasty as to bring a case against your perfect country to the human rights court, even have it ACCEPTED for pleading before the court! How terrible of Reikerås! Honey-pleasant official Norway, which is so busy touring the world teaching other countries how to make peace, how to practice human rights, how to build a child protection service on a Norwegian pattern (Norway dishes out considerable sums to East-European countries to do this) – to make complaints against such a country for violating human rights! Even have The European Court of Human Rights accept the case for pleading! Minister of child affairs Mrs Horne's next-in-command Mr Terning has previously said, many times, that the protests abroad against Norwegian child protection give him a stomach upset. Now the poor man may be upset again!

The unrest we have seen over the last couple of years, because families persecuted by the child protection organisation Barnevernet find each other and take courage to go public with information about how they are treated by Barnevernet, this unrest worries our authorities. We notice that they are very concerned to have a change, BUT the change they want, is NOT that Barnevernet shall change materially, it is that all of us shall be muzzled, while Barnevernet continues as before, possibly with superficial "improvements" that matter not a hoot.