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.

76 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.

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