City Court in Norway Sacks Human Rights Counsel and Activist Marius Reikeras

14138731_10153672874336875_1207469514649300437_o

Freedom of speech and dissent appear to be trampled in Norway once again.

Norwegian counsel and human rights activist Marius Reikeras‘ work has been found illegal by a low-level court in the city of Bergen. He writes in a FB message:

“Dear friends.

Today my Human Rights work in Norway, has been found to be illegal by the Bergen City court.

I was not allowed to be present in the trial.

The judgment is not final and will be appealed, but I have decided to protest against this evil regime, by closing down my Human Rights work in Norway .

I will carry on and speed up my work internationally, as the world needs to be aware of the crimes against humanity that takes place here, and how the regime shuts down the voices of those who try to battle it.

From this moment, I will not be on Facebook, and the protest will carry on until I have the necessary guarantees not longer being harassed by the Norwegian authorities.”

Reikeras has been very active in social media criticizing various actions of the Norwegian government, especially in the area of Child Protective Services (Barnevernet) where high-profile cases have demonstrated human rights violations. He traveled to the United States and other European countries in support of the Bodnariu family and other Barnevernet victims. He participated as a speaker in various protests at home and abroad supporting families whose children have been removed without due process.

To those of us living in the United States it is unfathomable to not be allowed to face your accuser in court. This appears to be the case here as Marius was not allowed to be present at trial. One could reasonably conclude that his activity on Facebook where he has approximately 12,000 followers has been banned by the court.

Freedom of speech. Freedom of dissent. Freedom to protest. Freedom to criticize the government.

Do these freedoms continue to exist in Norway? Regardless of how Norwegians feel about Marius Reikeras or anyone else’s work, this ruling should be very troubling for them.

89 comments on “City Court in Norway Sacks Human Rights Counsel and Activist Marius Reikeras

  1. It’s simply not true that he wasn’t allowed to be present at his trial. He is lying. He is sentenced for serving as a lawyer or legal assistant without a license, comparable to acting as a medical doctor without a license. He is trying to get attention, it’s that simple.

      • He isn’t sentenced for giving international advice or being an activist. He is sentenced for being the in-fact councelor for a man in a trial. And that is against the laws, when you are not licenced to practice law.

        In the same way you can talk about medicine on the internet as much as you like, but you can’t pretend to be a doctor for a patient, without actually being one.

        And again, he is straight up lying about not being allowed to be present at his own trial.

    • Marius Reikerås is not lying; persons claiming such a thing is either one of many powerful in Norway who wants to silence him or one who for other reasons is communicating this without having full knowledge and view of the case and the truth.

    • It clearly states “City Court in Norway Sacks Human Rights COUNSEL and Activist Marius Reikeras” So he is clearly NOT lying, It seems to us that He is a brave man fighting for the rights of the oppressed…And why do you say he is ‘sentenced’? sentenced for helping people?? That doesn’t sound right at all..

  2. I AM SO SAD THAT NORWAY IS SUCH AN EVIL COUNTRY!!! NO ONE KIDNAPS CHILDREN WITHOUT A CAUSE!!! I PRAY THAT GOD WILL INTERVENE SOON!!!!

  3. This story is pretty strange…

    As far as I remember, Marius Reikeras was talking about a landmark case lost at all courts in Norway but won in Strasbourg with respect to compensation for oil-industry workers. Hence it could be easy to imagine that his work is uncomfortable and hurting interests.
    However it might have happened that there had been some reason to revoke his license.

    Without full documentation and open hearings at court, all the protocol written down it is pretty hard to say anyhing for this case.
    So I hope Marius Reikeras will publish all his documents, showing that way that there is no shame on him.

  4. He was, a couple of years ago, disbarred for not having is papers in order.

    He could have applied for being given his license back, but he has never done so.

    He was not denied access to the trial last week. He didnt respond when He was notified.

  5. Marius Reikeras broke the law and he has to pay a fine as a result of this action. Nothing more, nothing less. The Court wasn´t interested in his political activities at all, his illegal work without necessary license was discussed by the Court.It has had nothing to do with Child welfare system etc. Reikeras lost his rights to work as a lawyer a few years ago (in 2009?) because he misused the situation and lured some amount of money from an old client even though he wasn´t allowed by the law to get this money. He had to return the money to the client´s family later. He was convinced of threating another attorney as well- so he lost the permission (license) to work as a lawyer and give legal advices for money.

      • I think that there must be a way how to find out these documents but I´m lazy to do it right now. But I read an article about this verdict of the Discrict Court of Bergen and I want to highligh that Reikaras wasn´t sued by the State or a State authority, but by his private client who paid for service which Reikeras couldn´t deliver when he has not had his license. The article was published in Norwegian in Bergenavisen. Reikeras has to pay a fine- 20,000 Norwegian kroner (it´s less than a month salary for professionals), nothing more:

        Jobber ulovlig
        som advokat»
        For syv år siden bleMarius Reikerås avskiltetsom advokat.
        Myndighetene menerhan bryter loven ved åyte ulovlig rettshjelp.Olav SundvOr
        olav.sundvor@ba.no
        Bergen tingrett: – Jeg trodde jeg hadde fått en god advokat
        og kunne ikke drømme om at han ikke hadde papirene
        i orden, sier en fortvilt pensjonisti 70-årene.
        Han betalte Reikerås 50  000kroner for å hjelpe ham i en
        skattesak, men arbeidet endte i fiasko, og han så ingenting til
        pengene.Først da han fikk brev fra Høyesterett om at de oppfattet
        Reikerås som prosessfullmektig uten å ha tillatelse, skjønte
        han at han var ført bak lyset.– Omfanget uvisst
        Eksadvokaten har ikke levert selvangivelser for de siste tre
        årene, og det er uvisst hvor mye han har tjent på det påtalemyndigheten
        mener er ulovlig virksomhet.Det kom frem i rettssaken
        mot Reikerås i Bergen tingrett igår.
        Han har fått et forelegg på20  000 kroner for brudd på
        domstolsloven. Boten har hanikke vedtatt.
        Eksadvokaten titulerer segso m menneskerettighetsjurist,
        men han møtte ikke opp i sin egen rettssak.
        Han har ikke svart på stevninger, møtt til avhør eller skrevet
        under på forelegget.Han svarte heller ikke på BAs
        henvendelser i går. Mens rettssakenmot ham pågikk la han ut
        generell kritikk på sin egen Facebook-side av norske dommere
        som han mener ikke kan menneskerettighetene. Han
        har 5000 venner/følgere i det sosiale mediet.
        – Erfaringene med Reikerås er at han ikke følger opp, og det
        er meningsløst å innhente hans synspunkter, sa seniorrådgiver
        Jonas Haugsvold i Tilsynsrådet for advokatvirksomhet da han
        vitnet i Bergen tingrett. Ifølge Haugsvold har tilsynsrådet
        fått flere bekymringsmeldingerfra privatpersoner og offentlig
        organ på Reikerås, og at dette var bakgrunnen for politianmeldelsen.
        En fersk anmeldelse fra kommuneadvokaten i Fjell er den
        siste i rekken.Sjeldent tilfelle– Det hender at folk som mister
        advokatbevillingen driver videre som konsulent i grenseland.
        Det skal veldig lite til før man bryter loven, men dette er et
        veldig sjeldent tilfelle der man bevisst velger ikke å innrette
        seg, sa Haugsvold. Strenge vilkår
        For å jobbe som rettshjelper stiller myndighetene en rekke
        vilkår. Man må være organisertpå linje med en privatpraktiserende
        advokat – ha registrert etforetak med sikkerhetsstillelse,
        revisor og ha hederlig vandel.Aktor, politiadvokat Trygve
        Ritland, ba retten om å dømme Reikerås til å betale 25 000 kroner
        i bot samt betale saksomkostningene for retten.
        Dom faller senere.

      • He could apply for the revocation of the decision, but he has not done it so far…. Never. He has been doing pure politics instead of it.
        I found a factual article (the author is not Reikeras friend, but she cites reliable sources) about this matter in Norwegian:
        https://kristinbruun.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/apent-brev-til-marius-reikeras-vedrorende-underskriftskampanje-for-bevilling/

        I used Google to translate the beginning of the article (it contains some links and you may check all author´s claims):

        In 2009, attorney Marius Reikerås practicing certificate revoked after tax audits , and judgment in Case threats against lawyer colleague. The separated lawyer has yet been pressing the government to give him the license back without application to the Supervisory Council for Legal Practice . So long as he is bankrupt , he will get rejections.

        In 2011 asked his girlfriend Joan Myhre Director of the Trusteeship Council to “break and go to hell” , when she in a friendly way was explained that petitions were not the way to go.

        2011-04-04_joanmyhre_ber-hegebjolseth-tr-go-to-hell-because-don’t-agree-at-mariusreikeras-should-have-license-back

        In 2015 launched Reikerås a new petition. Now it was the parliamentary politicians who would give back the license he has not applied for. Instead of answering questions about when he sought and what supervision the Council’s assessment has been, continues Reikerås with the aimless campaigns. Why?

        • First: this is a blogpost and hence not so factual by nature. I cannot see good references to facts.
          I was expecting a factual article to be a news article in some official media…

        • 1. The document scanned seems to be not a verdict but an administrative decision to me due to wording “tiltak”.
          2. Even if the decision has not been revoked, you told nothing about appeal history. I guess you know the human right called presumption of innocence, requiring decisions to come to force only when they are binding, except for very exceptional cases… Hence if the appeal chain is open, the decision may not be in force yet due to appeals.
          That is why the topmost decision on the appeal chain is important.

  6. A good comment from a Norwegian to Norwegian speaking readers of this blog:

    Helt ærlig: Marius Reikerås må da gjerne fortsette sitt arbeid. Ingen som hindrer han i det. Dommen har han fått fordi han driver rettshjelpsvirksomhet i Norge uten å ha bevilling/autorisasjon – for å drive rettshjelpsvirksomhet må man ha advokatbeviling eller autorisasjon som rettshjelper.

    Det er de samme kravene som gjelder i de fleste land i Europa….. men Marius Reikerås vil tilsynelatende ikke respektere disse reglene.

    Han har ikke søkt om å få tilbake advokatbevillingen og han har ikke søkt om autorisasjon som rettshjelper. Istedet fortsetter han å praktisere uten løyve.

    Hvorfor det?

    Hva er så forbasket vanskelig med å søke om bevilling eller autorisasjon? Vil han praktisere, så får han gjøre det. På de samme vilkår som alle oss andre må etterleve, vi som driver rettshjelpsvirksomhet.

    Det er altså tale om en domfellelse fordi han praktiserer uten bevilling/autorisasjon. Dette kunne han ordnet på forhånd – det er bare å søke om bevilling/autorisasjon, slik alle vi andre har gjort det.

    Men nå har han altså rotet det til. Dersom dommen blir stående, så går det mange år før han kan håper å få bevilling innvilget.

    Det er for meg helt ubegripelig hvorfor han hele tiden har insistert på at han ikke trengte bevilling for å drive rettshjelpsvirksomhet.

        • Of course, but what is important? We do know that Reikeras has not got his license back since 2009, so he couldn´t provide legal assistance as an attorney according to the Norwegian law.
          He did not cooperat with Bergen district court and it was his decision not to show up during the trial.
          His case is not about ideology or human rights, but about him and his clients who weren´t aware that he hasn´t had the necessary license.

          It´s embrassing for him that he even wrote to his friend- Czech (I´m Czech myself) member of the European Parliament Tomáš Zdechovský that he is in danger of being put in a jail (no, it´s not going to happen, but he has to pay the fine) and that he may apply for political asylum in our Czech republic. So embrassing… First, his application (if it is submitted) is going to be rejected because he comes from so called safe country- you can´t be granted political asyl in CZ if you live in a safe country, member state of the EEA. Second, there are not reasons for granting him political asyl since his case is not political one and he can appeal it.

          See his letter to Zdechovský (via Reikeras facebook). He is not self- critical at all, is he?

          “Dear Tomáš Zdechovský .

          First I want to thank you for your fantastic support in our fight against crimes against humanity in Norway.

          You are an amazing person.

          In the last few days, my personal situation has further deteriorated, and now the Norwegian authorities will prohibit me from further work on human rights with threats of putting me in prison.

          This in a judgment from Bergen district court, which is subject to appeal, however I have decided to close down my human rights work in Norway, as it is simply too dangerous.

          The question is whether it is possible for me to move to other places in Europe, maybe the Czech republic to continue my work against the Norwegian State.

          In that respect, I ask whether it is possible to apply for political asylum , alternatively being able to get guidance on how to establish a Human Rights office in Czech .

          Bedt regards,your friend Marius

          I hope to hear from you about this, as this is of importance for how I can best perform my work in the future.”

        • but what is important? We do know that Reikeras has not got his license back since 2009

          At the moment I don’t know if the revokal of his license is binding already or not binding and is under appeal…

          That is an important point.

        • To Jasper: Yes, the revocal is binding. Read more in the Court verdict from 23.09. 2016 (just 7 pages).

  7. Well, a few commentators are making very firm and confident statements about Mr Reikeras and the trial in city court. As if they were present there and have access to documents, drawing conclusions that he refused to show up when he states he was not allowed in the trial. I think that is premature.

    His public activism and speeches have been consistent, well informed, very supportive of victims of Barnevernet, and right now he is one of the main voices in Norway in the anti-Barnevernet movement. Hence the reason why the system and system’s supporters are slinging mud at him, digging back to last decade.

  8. I have tried to dig a bit on the base case that might have led to license revokal.
    The freshest hit I have found yet is http://www.bt.no/nyheter/lokalt/Marius-Reikeras-vil-anke-dommen-227176b.html

    So: there had been a proceeding started as alleged fraud against Marius Reikeras. He has been acquitted in 2011 from fraud, still (not bindingly) convicted for influencing the judical system, and he was about to appeal and told he is a victim of miscarriage of justice.

    Hence it is clearly not the case that he had been convicted of fraud in 2009 and the rest of the story (since 2011) is pretty foggy to me.

  9. The Norwegian articles that I have seen on the internet on this matter give a total different view. They state that it wasn’t about a Human Rights issue but about Marius acting as a Lawyer for a client even though he didn’t have a license. It also says in the articles that Marius didn’t show up in the court trial. Well, he attended an Anti-Barnevernet Symposium in Austria and spoke at the Polish Parliament. So there are two different versions of the story. Which one is true? My advice to all Christians out there would be this: don’t rely on Marius alone in your efforts against Barnevernet. There are far better contacts out there who are much more reliable. But if you build your arguments on Marius alone, everything might fall apart.
    PS: Here is a Link to a Norwegian article that you can run through Google translate: http://www.ba.no/bergen/jobb/krim/eksadvokat-domt-for-ulovlig-jobbing/s/5-8-433351

    • I think your advise is good, Martin. At the same time, I don’t think Christians, or anyone else for that matter, are relying on Mr. Reikeras solely.

      If the internet articles you are reading are coming from Norwegian media sources, I think you need to look elsewhere to be educated. I have found the Norwegian media to be very slanted in the pro-Barnevernet direction. I’ve found some who have been harmed by the Barnevernet to be satisfied by certain Norwegian articles that I think are awful. It is kind of like a starving person who is made happy by a few crumbs.

      I honestly don’t know a lot about Mr. Reikeras. I do know this: I have been watching conversations between those who have been harmed by the Barneveret for months now and I have only “met” one person who doesn’t like Mr. Reikeras. In other words, he is almost unanimously appreciated by those who are very upset with the Barnevernet. These people include many Norwegians whom I have come to admire. I don’t think they would allow Mr. Reikeras to help them in any manner if they suspected he didn’t have their best interests in mind.

      Here is a major statement made by Mr. Reikeras in Delight’s article above:

      “I was not allowed to be present in the trial.”

      I don’t think Mr. Reikeras is lying about this and it is hard to imagine that a person found guilty of any “crime” would not be allowed to attend their own trial. The worst criminals in America get to go to their own trials. (Oops…I had forgotten that Delight had already made this point in the article above.)

      This fact alone should make anyone suspect what Delight has stated in this comment:

      “His public activism and speeches have been consistent, well informed, very supportive of victims of Barnevernet, and right now he is one of the main voices in Norway in the anti-Barnevernet movement. Hence the reason why the system and system’s supporters are slinging mud at him, digging back to last decade.”

      I would like someone to explain to me how this is anything other than an attempt to silence someone who is a very vocal opponent of the Barnevernet. It certainly has all of the appearances and I have seen no documentation here to prove otherwise. Other vocal opponents have lost children and jobs.

      The timing of this “decision” also seems very suspicious. I know Mr. Reikeras was visible on this issue way before I ever heard his name. However, I was beginning to notice him more and more and I’m sure his Facebook contacts were growing. He was probably at the height of his influence and popularity among activists when this “trial” took place.

      • Excuse-me but if your read the verdict from Bergen court (see above, but it´s in Norwegian), you may realize that Mr. Reikeras decided not to show up during his trial himself. He was aware of the date of the trial and so on, it was his decision not to go there. His case has a little to do with Barnevern or child welfare system in general. He even lost his license few years ago due to a legal action which had nothing in common with Barnevern cases (he took money from an old client in another kind of legal dispute altough it was illegal and he shouldn´t have to ask for money- he had to return the money to the client´s family, he was punished for threating another lawyer as well, his behavior was seen as unethical by the professional body whose aim is to regulate the attorney work- it´s independent on the government and has no ties to social services ).

        Marius Reikeras is known as liar in the Czech republic. He told a Czech journalist that 12,000 children were removed every year from their parents in Norway, but it´s not true and you can reveal the facts easily…

        • “Mr. Reikeras decided not to show up during his trial himself. He was aware of the date of the trial and so on, it was his decision not to go there.”

          If your comment is true, Veronika, it does, indeed, show Mr. Reikeras to be lying in the most important of situations.
          I don’t understand how a verdict can show that Mr. Reikeras was allowed/not allowed to go to his own trial, but maybe there was some statement made in the courtroom about the issue.
          I will translate the link and read it for myself when I get home from work later today. I did check a few of the links in this thread. I am not able to copy a PDF. So, I am unable to translate anything in PDF format. Unfortunately, I don’t know the Norwegian language and, after looking at it, I appreciate those who have somewhat mastered it and English.
          This does limit me at times in understanding important statements made in Norway. I can translate most media reports, statistics, blog pages, and social media, but I know many of the court docs are put into PDF format. I can’t read those. 😦

        • I translated all seven pages and read them. Near the bottom of page 2 is this:

          “The hearing was held 14/09/2016. The defendant did not attend. The court decided that the case should be promoted in the defendant’s absence as the court found the conditions for this in the Criminal Procedure Act §281 to be met.”

          The implication seems to be that Mr. Reikeras had a choice to be there or not. I don’t know lawyer speak and it’s because of Norwegian courts that I don’t trust them much. So, until there is no doubt that Mr. Reikeras is lying, I will have some.

          I know that Mr. Reikeras has been a high profile figure on this issue. That makes him important. If he has done bad things in the past, it will eventually be known. It appears that he would like to leave Norway. In this way he is no different than those in Norway who are my main focus: adequate parents who would like to leave Norway in peace with their families intact.

        • Let me have a guess here.
          I wonder when the date 14th of September was picked by the court.
          It could have been a more-or-less late pick, when the symposium at Vienna have been known already.
          In that case scheduling the trial for this exact date could be an attempt against freedom of assembly.
          This would be not so surprising after Barnevernet scheduling lots of visitations for 16th of April earlier to try to prevent parents from joining the protests that day.
          I would expect Marius Reikeras might have asked for a postponal which request might have been declined.

        • Marius Reikeras can move to another country if he likes, because he is not sentenced to the prison. He has to pay an amount of 25,000 NOK plus 10,000 for the Court expenses and I hope he will either appeal the decision or respect the verdict. The 40 days sentence (fengsel) is metionned in the verdict, but it would be applicable just in the case Mr. Reikeras rejected to submit to judgement (he wouldn´t pay the fine and he wouldn´t appeal the decision at the same time).

          Ir reminds me of one Czech case from my country: A driver of city bus in a Moravian town Olomouc demolished billboards of various political parties during the election campaign (he painted anntennae on the heads of the politicians whose pictures were on the billboards). He was sued for descrution of the private property (political parties paid for the advertisement).The Court decided that he had to work some hours for the community (community service). He ignored the verdict because he wanted to be put in a jail (for the period of 100 days) and it did happen as a result of not starting with the community service to the prescribed date. So he ended up in a prison and he used the situation to identify himsefl as a “political prisoner in undemocratic country.” He attracted some supporters, it was a kind of show. I hope that show is not everything for Reikeras…

        • Human rights violations in Norway is not a show, Veronika. Parents and children’s rights are systematically trampled by Barnevernet to the point that the ECoHR has to intervene in a multitude of case, not to mention the Council of Europe. Mr Reikeras has been a voice for those who do not have a voice. I wish him success in this activism.

        • Veronika: your reasoning is correct, however it could be only part of truth.
          ECHR is binding for national court decisions as well.

          If the court picked the date intendedly to try to prevent Marius Reikeras from joining the conference in Vienna then it was a gross violation against freedom of assembly — in that case the procedure should be declared null and void and be repeated at first instance — even better in another city.

        • Thank you for your comments, Chris and Jasper. Chris, I did not write about human rights in Norway, but about Mr. Reikeras behavior in relation to the Court trial. He did not communicate with the Court staff and he did not ask for delay of the session because of his attendance at a conference. I don´t think that any Court is obliged to follow Mr. Reikeras programme for the next days (how they could know that he is going to travel abroad??) without being informed by him about his important activity in a foreign country (by the way, what would happen if he didn´t participate at the Vienna conference becuase he prefered to go to his own trial?)?

          The European Court of the human rights is an authority whose verdict are binding and have to be respected by the members states of the Council of Europe, it´s true. Norway did lost some cases which were submitted to this Court- but the number of these cases, especially cases involving the right to family life has been much lower than in the case of the other member countries so far. Norway is far of being among the worst perpetrators of the human rights.

          You can check it here (see the link to the European court statitistic page). It´s a comparision to my country- the Czech republic.

          Statistics available on the website of the European Court of Human Rights refute voiced chorus that “Norway in Strasbourg loses”. The file, which can be found on the website of that institution Strasbourg (http://bit.ly/lQMaZ7w- THE LINK) summarizes the results of litigation over fifty years. In the Norwegian case there was at that time generally 40 complaints, of which 28 cases were found to be substantiated, it means that the court has found that the original decisions from the country- Norway had broken some of human rights in these cases: When it comes to the “right to private and family life” Norwegian verdicts were canceled as violating people´s right in 7 cases (the statistics from the year 2015).The Czech republic has been member of the European Council since 1991 (1991-93 as Czechoslovakia, 1993 to nowdays as the Czech republic). Since then it has been filed 238 lawsuits from our country (CZ), of which 183 were found to be justified; when it comes to the “right to private and family life”, it was 19 cases. So to say that Norway in Strasbourg loses is rather an oversimplification.”

        • I was referring to the European Convention for Human Rights at this time.
          The convention — like any other treaty of international law — is binding for any national court.

          It would be pretty sad in case a court would try to hinder freedom of assembly in Europe by picking a date for a proceeding intentionally that is known for an assembly important for the client — or, after if learning this declining postponing the proceedings.

        • Veronika Valachova,

          I don’t know if you are the other Veronika making comments here, but at least you seem civil. Some of what you have stated here is very questionable in my mind.

          First, the link you shared doesn’t work.

          Then you have written this:

          “Norway is far of being among the worst perpetrators of the human rights.”

          Most of us know that North Korea is probably the worst, followed by certain Middle East and African nations.

          Norway has gotten attention because it is supposed to be one of the best places on earth to live and it is shocking that such family abuse is happening in an educated, European country. I would like you to prove your statement to me. Using apples to apples, show me statistics that any democracy has a worse CPS system. I understand that Sweden may be worse but Norway has taken center stage mostly because of outraged Romanian Christians who live all over the world. Norway has put the spotlight on itself and most people who are protesting, like myself, feel angered by such cruel decisions make by the Barnevernet.

          For many of us this has become personal. We now feel we have friends in Norway (as opposed to Sweden) whose stories we are following closely. Norway has brought this condemnation upon itself. “Thanks” to Norway, many of us have become more aware of these types of Human Rights abuses in the Nordic countries and in the U.K., and I am beginning to watch the CPS in my country more carefully even though I have worked among CPS workers in America in the past. Bad things happen here too but I’m not aware of anything remotely close to “Mother’s Homes.”

          Your statement about the ECHR seems to me to make the point that CZ is more vigilant than Norway in this area. Please correct me if I have misunderstood you.

          Also, the Barnevernet doesn’t seem to care what decisions the ECHR makes. It is “business as usual” in Norway the day after a statement of condemnation is made by the ECHR.

          Lastly, on the Reikeras matter, I have to wait until more information becomes readily available on what happened to him when he wasn’t in the courtroom. There is a lot of “he said,” “she said” going on here so I will treat the man like a true democracy does: He is innocent until proven guilty. I must state, however, that the reaction I’ve seen to the treatment Mr. Reikeras has received is overwhelmingly in his favor.

    • Thanks.

      The government says its resistance to go along with the Protocol is that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child would not properly balance considerations of what’s best for a child against other important public interests, such as immigration regulations.

      Shortly speaking the Norwegian government is trying to defend the “child’s best interest” from the child herself/himself. Congratulations… Big Brother?

    • Thank you, Octavian.

      It appears that, in spite of all the criticism Norway has received, instead of becoming more transparent leaders have decided to “circle the wagons.” This information along with new proposals indicate that Norway has no intention of making much needed reforms.

  10. Bodnariu family sang a song in Norwegian yesterday in my home town. You may see them in the video below at min. 46:00

    I am very glad to see them happy with the family reunited.

  11. What happened to all of you in the evolving discussions we had? Are there any “war against CPS in Norway”still? How are you,Delight? And Veronica? And Jasper? ETC: Marius Reikerås,has he got asylum anywhere? Knut Nygaard;how are you? And;the forever loudly Chris,where do u discuss nowadays?
    Delight: The Bodnarious court date are jan.3 2017,-has anything changed in the state of mind about the case and the law and view about the norwegian cps? Or Norwegians residents in general? Are we still brainwashed and so on? What about an uptodate?
    Whit regards Topsy

    • Hello Topsy,

      a short literary summary:
      “It’s a long way to Tipperary,
      but my heart’s right there.

      It’s a long way to Tipperary,
      a long way to go.”

      As far as I see the immune system of Norwegian society is getting awekaning, with several news articles, for example the recent one in Romeriker Blad on Loke family.
      I am also glad that more and more Norwegian blog posts on more and motre blogs discuss the approach, procedures and legislation of Norwegian Child Welfare.
      Some feel their long work being justified by the last few years and I think they could be correct.

      There are huge steps taken, on the potential bias of experts, if a single expert opinion should be reliable enough — on the recent pedophil case but it should also apply for emergency care orders –, doubted necessity for County Boards at all.

      Still, after the lots of small steps there is still a long way to go to really safeguard children — both from serious imminent threars at home and from unneccesary placements outside home. I think Norwegian society’s immune system might need some external help still. So I can hardly wait for the nine recently admitted cases to be judged in Strasbourg.

      I have read some interesting discussions on how the Norwegian Child Welfare Act is to be changed — I personally do not think that the presence of absence of the so called fourth principle — safeguarding child’s development is the main issue, but the lack or vagueness of safeguarding the human rights of the child herself/himself — in terms of Articles 8, 6 and 13 of European Convention for Human Rights:
      * right of protection against state intervention that is not necessary in a democratic society,
      * right for fair proceedings by an impartial and indepenedent tribunal — that also means both parents and Barnevernet are assumed to be legal guardians of the child seeking the best interests of the child
      * right for effective — quick enough! — domestic legal remedy against an emergency care order, which can cause an emergency situation of its own and the regular way of domestic legal remedy does not protect againt Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

      So far so good… but still a long way to go.

    • The latest news out of Norway is that they are busting pedophile rings which may be fed by Barnevernet.

      Reikeras seems to be active again on FB and with increased activity on the international scene. We have not gone anywhere, no worries.

      BV is still harassing the Bodnarius with various tactics.

      BV just arrested Dumitru Nan for no good reason while his wife Michelle and their children were visiting relatives in Romania.

      Looks like not much has changed in Norway.

      • The criminal case against Ruth and Marius Bodnariu is scheduled to take all of 7 days.

        A criminal case has one advantage, though: It is open. To be sure, the judges and the prosecution is likely to try to shut the doors to as much as they can, probably because it is supposed to be so sensitive to the Bodnariu parents and children. (No concern over what Barnevernet has done which has seriously harmed the children nor over the way open doors in court is a strength for the accused parents and really only harms Barnevernet and the prosecution). But they cannot close a criminal case entirely. The best protection for the family is to have as much publicity and openness as possible, that will expose further the weird state of affairs in Norway and show that the parents are certainly both honourable and excellent parents.

  12. What about the County Governor Decision?
    Did the Cps do an ok job?
    What i am asking: did everything go by the Public Administration Act in Norway? Does anyone know if Naustdal barnevern followed the rules?An update? From what i know,no one knows what Naustdal kommune has done after the Bodnariu family escaped and if the Cps changed the attitude

    • Hello Topsy.

      it is straightforward that after the B. case and the withdrawal of visitation rights for the M. family there was/is a likely issue with Naustdal Child Welfare services that they fail to recognize their own bias and proceed with cases with bias obvious to the whole world.

      Remember: in case of B. family, there has been a photo published in Norwegian media, that had been taken before the case, with a few women talking with each other, among them B. mother and the local child welfare manager.
      Remember, visitation rights had been revoked from M. family due to they exercising freedom of expression and freedom of assembly related to the case of B. family where the local child welfate services had been involved as a party.

      Unfortunately I have serious doubts if the City Governor was willing to investigate into that direction.

  13. Some thoughts from an old lady: why did this blog get heated for a while? Why did Delight and Chris and Knut and Skanland etc .-and me-so engaged? Was it basically a profound concern about how we treat people in Norway? Was it ignorance? Was it religiously? Or was it -as i see now more and more -hate? I am scared of how this is devloping when i visit other blogs etc. The hate is growing- and i do not understand why? I can understand if my child was removed away from me,: i`ve gone crazy for a while! But i do not understand this subway of hate we have in Norway or towards Norway. Please explain. I grow up learning responsibility comes with actions.: What goes around comes around

    • I don’t understand what kind of hate do you see growing.

      I can tell you why I got involved and engaged so much. Through media, I have heard the cries of children for their parents and siblings– in cases when there have been ridiculous reasons behind their removal from their families. Looking into the issues it became clear that there is most likely a failure on system level — highlighted by the concern letter signed by 170+ Norwegian professionals. This concern letter has received no substantive responses so far as far as I know, and hence the probable system level failure is not mitigated yet.
      I would like to see a mitigation plan at least and then follow the execution of such a plan. I would be very happy if that could go on in a timely manner.

  14. So- from what i understand; you yourself has not lost a child to the Cps? Your engagement comes from the media and facebook and etc, How can you rely on that? I know for a fact, and trust me, i have lived for a while and my husband was a child welfare leader-that some persons should never, ever be in charge of anyone. Not a lifepartner,not a
    child/children ,not animals,not a pet or a plant-some people are just born plain bad and psycopaths. How do you know if you are not in an invironment that are just filled up with people like this? Whatever they are trying to brainwash you with so called facts,you must feel sometimes in your gut feeling that there are something wrong with all these people claiming that they have never done anything wrong? Do you see how they behave and the way they write? How they attack anyone if they get a chance?
    Hence come the remarke about hate. It is so much hate going around in this anti-cps environment and i get the chills whenever i read anything on sosial media comming from them. It seems to me people get stuck in a phase. And i do empathize with them,i would go in to shock if someone removed my children away from me.
    But the rest are those who have never been a parent maybe, and are equal angry. Pluss some attorneys who are stirring the pot and other selvclaimed experts who are leading people in the wrong directions. And maybe not towards the real goal; to get their children back. They are just angry and has no one to talk with.
    – When i was young,and my parents/grandparents; the focus was to make a life and survive day by day. No adays it seems to spew filth on internett. Do you trust everything you read?
    With regards Topsy

    • Topsy, I do not understand why do you think about parents who have lost custody to their kids and their lawyers indeed try to brainwash while the child welfare system by no chance could do that?

      Let us be fair, and assume neither try to do that. I have started with that assumption. However, reading about stories and testimonies by witnesses and reading the reactions by different levels of Norwegian government and administration — this is the best thing you could do in such a debate, trying to simulate a confrontation at court — I have found that the government have not responded honestly, especially to the concern message signed by 170+ Norwegian professionals, trying to hide behind individual errors made by administration and putingt heads into the sand when discussion comes to potential system level failures.

      So not the parents and their lawyers have convinced me. It was Bufdir and Norwegian government who convinced me by their reactions that many parents were right.

      The best way to show me I am wrong is showing there are substantive, reassuring answers to the questions raised in that concern message linked above that I might have missed — and by showing ECHR in those cases — Thomas Zdechovsky’s team is talking about 9 cases already — that state intervention had been indeed necessary in a democratic society.

    • Hi Topsy,

      I’ll admit to hating sin, particularly the sin of stealing children from their parents. I do not hate those who are stealing the children, in fact I am supposed to love my enemies. Silence is not loving.

      I can’t believe you are back again to defend the Barnevernet. Cases of abuse have been thoroughly documented.

      Your evaluation of the reason behind the “hate” is not surprising based on your past remarks.

      I am glad that you recognize the effort to rid the world of the scourge in Norway is alive and well. More people are now aware of the problem than ever. A few blogs may not be as active as they once were at this point, but people are more active.

      I am thankful for those like Jasper, commenting here. If you have followed his comments, Topsy, he has not trusted “everything he has read.” It is obvious to me that he has done his research as has Octavian, Delight, Professor Skanland and those who have commented on the many posts here. Norway continues to be a focus because little has been done by those in power to correct the evil problem. Until that happens, don’t be surprised if the Barnevernet continues to receive a great amount of criticism from social media among others.

  15. The Norwegians’ care about the best interest of the children is reflected in this article:

    http://www.thelocal.no/20161208/norwegian-man-gets-eight-years-for-the-sexual-abuse-of-62-children

    A pedophile who destroyed the innocence of 62 children gets 8 years in prison!!! Norwegian system says that it gives the criminals a chance to mend their ways or to improve their behavior it also give the criminal high chances to commit other crimes. Aren’t they concerned about the safety of those children after the pedophile will be freed in eight years?

  16. Let me rephrase the last part of my comment. Norwegian system which claims that it gives chances to pedophiles “to improve” seems to elude the fact that it also give chances to these criminals to assault other victims.

  17.   
    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 rather 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.”
    Dagbladet, 28 May 2017

    (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.)

    http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/marius-reikeras-ble-domt-for-a-jobbe-ulovlig-som-advokat-na-er-dommen-slaktet-og-opphevet/67624939

    But the extremely entertaining thing is not that the new judgment finds Reikerås not guilty, not indeed is it whether Reikerås has done anything criminal or not. It is what the appeal court says about the basis for its judgment:

    “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 se 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 practicing the rule of law, judgments are passed in which it is impossible to see why you have been found guilty.

    The prosecutor’s office are “studying” this new judgment – they have not yet decided what to do.

    Marius Reikerås himself has a comment on Facebook:

    (A further comment / “explanation” from me below!)

    • On a political level, it certainly springs to mind 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):

      (from Dagbladet’s article:)
      “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.

      • Isn’t it enough for you, Jasper, that the appeal court finds the lower court’s judgment untenable and therefore sets it aside, because the lower court has not in its judgment shown anything about why Reikerås should not be entitled to give legal aid although he does not now hold a licence to act as a lawyer? What else would you have them say?

        Say I had cut down a bush in my garden. The municipality takes me to court, claiming that I have acted illegally. The lower court says yes she has, she is not entitled to cut down bushes. I appeal to the higher court, and they quash (set aside) the judgment of the lower court because the lower court has not in any way pointed to any place in the law that could possibly apply to my being prohibited from cutting down that bush. There exists legislation giving the municipality the right to decide over the vegetation even in private gardens if such and such is the case, but the lower court has not shown that that is applicable or has been applied here.

        • It looks like logging in to wordpress on another page is reused here… I am trying to take care of it then… Delight in Truth, may I ask you to delete the comment above?

          Repeating the content: I would like to understand Dagbladet is trying to send among with the verdict, which I welcome as well 🙂

    • Quite right, it is the same kind of thing. This lawyer had written on facebook that the County Board for social services (the “court-like” first instance in Barnevern cases) was incompetent. They then said he could not take Barnevern cases to them and they have also complained to the Disciplinary Board that he is not fit to work as a lawyer at all (i.e they will have his licence as a lawyer taken away). The concrete desicion was set aside. The demand to the Disciplinary Board has not been decided yet, and the representative of the County Board said that the decision now does not influence on their demand that he be prohibited from working as a lawyer.

      At the same time, we have these days an increasing number of fines and prison sentences being dished out to anybody who threatens Barnevern workers or even makes them feel criticised. They have been complaining for months and the Minister Solveig Horne has responded several times saying that “we can’t have such treatment of social workers” and that the state will come up with new legislation making it increasingly illegal. It seems they have passed the discussion and announcing state and have started practicing shutting us all down.

      It seems to be going the way of tyrannical regimes generally. Many people will of course say that I am exaggerating. Well, in Britain it has for many years now been forbidden even to talk – not to say write – about your own cps case and people are put in prison if they do. In Norway, the large majority of the population have good lives, and long traditions of looking down on those who don’t and those who disrupt the milk-and-honey life here by discussing or doing “unpleasant things”. There is certainly no deep understanding of the function of freedom of speech.

      • I think imminent real threats are to be prosecuted.
        However bitter wishes from families torn appart to the employees and experts to experience the same on their own are not threats and part of freedom of expression, it is not necessary for the state to intervene in a democratic society with respect to such bitter wishes. Again, I am talking in terms of ECHR.

      • “There is certainly no deep understanding of the function of freedom of speech.”

        Interesting comment, Marianne.

        I think this understanding is decreasing worldwide. The U.S. is certainly no exception.

        • I think you may be right. There are probably at least two reasons for such a lack of understanding its importance:

          Either the situation is so pressed that people feel the freedom to express thoughts which may upset the situation further, has to go. That is a bit like a situation of emergency, in which a state is entitled to set aside certain human rights for a while (cf our European Convention on Human Rights,
          ARTICLE 15  Derogation in time of emergency
          1. In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.)

          Or the society is so peaceful and docile that the population does not feel it needs freedom of speech, because nothing much needs to be changed, and it is more comfortable to avoid unpleasantness.

          The Norwegian “sickness” seems to be mainly for the second reason, but with a dash of the first. Our authorities, though, also tend to react according to the first: If any really serious opposition to current arrangements materialises, they want to silence and stop the opposition, not to amend the causes of the opposition (or even to go seriously into the question of whether the opposition is right).

        • I appreciate your comments, Marianne. I have been informed by someone whom I think is pretty knowledgeable about Europe that Sweden is farther down the road to totalitarianism than Norway. It seems they are so docile there that they mostly let the government do as it will. Is this a pretty good assessment of the situation there?

          In America, we have our 1st amendment:

          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

          In recent years, more than one Christian American has been punished by lawsuits by expressing their freedom of speech by not serving someone through their businesses because of a moral conviction. Here is one example:

          http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/17/christian-florist-who-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-arrangements-to-take-case-to-u-s-supreme-court/

          Here is another interesting article about American freedom of speech.

          https://pauldughi.com/2016/05/20/standing-up-for-the-first-amendment-in-the-digital-age/

          For the most part, I think freedom of speech is alive and well in America.

          It is a different subject, but I think it is worth mentioning because it is a problem. The “Fake News” problem is real. Many American media sources have created stories that are backed by little or no facts. So many stories, like the stealing of children from their parents, get almost no attention while entire media companies editorialize where they never have before and make mountains out of molehills. As the American media continues to lose credibility over this behavior, it has been great to see certain internet sources gain credibility. One person with the truth, some talent/education, and a knowledge of how to use the internet can become a “news source.”

          Greg Hunter of “USA Watchdog” is only one such individual. Having worked for more than one mainstream media source, guys like him are having more of an impact than most people know.

          https://www.youtube.com/user/usawatchdog

          The internet has seen some censorship. Here’s one article about it:

          http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/18/tech/web/google-transparency-report/index.html

          For the most part, however, the average American is free to publish online without being bothered. I may be wrong but this is my impression for the moment. This internet has become one of the best ways of communicating ideas and opinions. If these freedoms are threatened it will be, of course, a sign that something is very wrong apart from speech freedoms on the internet and will signal to me that we are in more trouble than we currently are. I have heard “rumblings” of such censorship but nothing major has happened as far as I know.

          Another question is: “How fast can our freedom of speech rights be taken from us due to some large event that is possible in our times?” It is a speculative question, but not unimportant in our world I think. The world is looking for a savior. I think the real savior has come and completed the work that is necessary to save mankind. There are many who disagree with me and they will be the first to look for someone who will save them if a good portion of the world becomes like what we are now seeing in Venezuela.

          I believe our freedom of speech can never be taken from us. Yes, there may be a successful attempt to silence us but the only thing that will really work is to sew our mouths shut. I know this can be done in more ways than one, but until our rights to speak are violated to that extent I know you feel as I do. I am compelled to “speak.”

Share your thoughts...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s