The Olympic Champion attacked by “Royal Lions” – the Norwegian legal system
Olympic victory in
The commando attack
According to Wikipedia and Sudan Vision, a few weeks ago (June 21 2009) armed men (likely being secret Norwegian commandos, which you might find other places in the world acting in different Royal missions) broke in to Mr. Skah’s apartment, grabbed his two minor children aged 13 and 16, and transported the kids to the Royal Embassy of Norway or to the ambassadors residence in Rabat, Morocco, where they stayed for some three days until the chartered ship was ready to set sail for Spain.
According to the Associated Press (AP), referring from a Governmental statement, the children in question is of Moroccan nationality, they are minors, and they cannot leave national territory without the authorisation of their father.
After sun comes rain
after the couple had settled down in
Presenting a “legally enforceable document” from a Norwegian court to Moroccan authorities, Hopstock knew her chance to have full access to their children would redouble, which in turn would ease her way to have the children “transported” to her country, the Kingdom of Norway, if necessary with the help from the embassy or whatever means that would be required to have the children moved from A to B. Furthermore such a legal document was her ticket to the press, to ignorant Norwegian journalists who never question anything that taste of “binding” judicial decisions.
for Hopstock was to file the standard criminal
complaint against the always and everlasting mean EX (which for some obscure
reason always changes character just before a break-up), doing whatever to get
it her way. According to Verdens Gang, she filed the
criminal complaint in
Hopstock stated that she also was in mortal danger and that she had been threatened by Skah, but this serious and continuous threat didn’t stop her from paying Skah a visit kicking a hole in his front door while he was at home.
the news about this case, it seems that Hopstock
didn’t file any criminal complaints against Skah in
In June 2009, two years later, the kids were still alive, and still in mortal danger according to the scorned ex-wife.
danger? Well, why not, this is eaten raw by the judges and the media in
Acquiring a judgment
As a lawyer (we have to rely on Wikipedia here) Hopstock knew that it would be a piece of cake to get a judgment in her favour from a Norwegian court, and she would have no problem getting this in secret either. So next step was then to file a custody-/parental rights-case against her ex, and in 2008 Oslo City Court hurriedly passed their default judgement – as expected – giving Hopstock full custody over their children.
Making more hell
To help the news readers to believe Hopstock’s story, Skah has been accused of kidnapping the children. Kidnapping, that’s a serious crime, but it is as serious to accuse someone of doing this if it is not true.
is the evidence of the alleged kidnapping in this story? Hopstock
married to a – to her – foreigner. They chose to relocate to
How to solve a problem: What to do and what not to do
Anyway, if Hopstock feels that she is a much better parent than Skah, and thus thinks it’s the stupidest question ever to ask who the children should live with, then she is free to file a parental rights case in Morocco, as Norwegian courts is not an option.
Assuming that both parents are Norwegian, living in Norway, fighting over their children, then – according to the Norwegian Childrens Act §36, second section – it is up to the court to decide where the children are to live. Thus it is not for Hopstock to decide this by herself, neither is it up to the Roayl Embassy or the Minister of foreign affairs.
several important facts in this case in which consequences the media has not
written much about, e.g. that the family have relocated to
these three conditions are fulfilled as both Skah as
well as his children are domiciled in
didn't stop the Oslo City Court from admitting this inadmissible case. But of
course, when you are “taking care of”
the judge (which is not unusual in
Service of judicial documents abroad
The document – whether it is a writ of summons or any other judicial paper – could then have this travel path: the court signs its decision (anyone that has got a decision/judgement from Norway should be aware of the fact that judgements/decisions in Norway are rarely signed by the judges, or by anyone else for that matter, consequently the decision is null and void) and dispatch it to the Ministry of Justice è Ministry of Foreign Affairs è diplomatic/consular representation in Morocco (somewhere on this trip the document has to be translated into the language of the State of destination) è Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Morocco è Ministry of Justice, Morocco, if accepted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
If the Moroccan Ministry of Justice accepts the document and the decision – after having assessed the document and having tried its merits – the document is ready to be served according to Moroccan rules, most likely by the competent authority/judicial officer.
Normally a Norwegian judicial officer/judge would just send the decision by ordinary mail to the addressee, in Norwegian, and then hastily conclude that the document is served, this according to Norwegian procedural law, which by the way does not apply in other countries.
reasons to believe that this Norwegian decision which has been used as some
sort of a door opener to the press as well as to get Governmental assistance in
kidnapping these children to
· Norwegian courts have no jurisdiction.
· The writ of summons has not been served.
· The summons to the main hearing has not been served.
· The court deprived Skah’s rights to be heard (lack of contradiction)
· The judgement is not signed.
· The judgement is not served.
The judge has neither signed the
mandatory oath to the King (see the Norwegian Constitution
§ 21) nor the oath swearing the judge in (see the Norwegian Procedural
Act §60). In this regard these two articles in Norwegian (I and II) will give you an idea on how big this problem is in
From years of experience of the chaotic Norwegian legal system, as well as three victories in Strasbourg against Norway, this is my educational assumption. I might be wrong on some of the details, but I am almost 100% sure that this judgement will not hold water and thus is legally not binding even if the Norwegian court had jurisdiction.
Norwegian Government – How to handle this matter
The Norwegian Government can still find its way out of this mess which their Minister of foreign affairs has put the country in, by intervening in accordance with the Norwegian Procedural Act, §37, which in brief says that:
If a court has admitted a case, and this case is not subject to Norwegian jurisdiction, the Government can lodge an objection and declare an appeal to the Supreme Court in order to have the administration of the case as well as the decision declared null and void.
* * *
Some obstacles on (in) the way
There is no need for an in-dept judicial review in order to point out and remind about a few procedural obstacles in this case: If the family had relocated, as stated in Wikipedia, the decision from Oslo City Court is worthless and serves no purpose due to a lack of Norwegian jurisdiction.
And just for the sake of the exercise: Did the Oslo City Court serve the writ of summons? Did the Oslo City Court summon Mr. Skah properly (that is; did they serve the judicial documents?) and according to traditional international rules to the main hearing?
I dare answer this on behalf of Skah and say no, they most likely didn’t. The consequence – if so – is that this decision from the Oslo City Court has no legal power what so ever even if the Norwegian courts had jurisdiction over the matter.
More on the Norwegian legal system – corruption
When it comes to certain groups of persons the Norwegian legal system acts as there were no rights to govern or to protect. Skah is unfortunately in several of these groups.
to the AP referred to in Miami Herald, the Ambassador (and jurist) Bjorn Olav Blokhus handed over
the children to Hopstock without knowing she intended
to bring them to Norway, that is; without understanding that this Norwegian
person was about to violate Moroccan and international law by kidnapping the
kids. On top of this the jurist (and former secretary to the ambassador Egil Winsnes in
"They were underaged. They had Norwegian passports. They asked for protection. What could we do?"
could have helped them contacting relevant national authority, like the police,
or something. If these kids really were in mortal danger, this would obviously
be a case for the police. And if there were any truth behind this allegation,
the police would be obliged to protect the kids. And if Gahr
Stoere feels that the Moroccan police does a lousy
job (compared to their sleeping colleagues in
To AP Hopstock’s representative, a lawyer Marte Brodtkorb, argued that Skah had held their children against their will for more than two years, and that the kids had Norwegian passports, thus suggesting that there were no legal problem with the cross-border “transport-operation” of these kids. On the contrary, this was how it should be done according to this lawyer.
tell the AP though that the kids were living in
What does this case tell us?
This case more than indicates the legal chaos in the Norwegian legal system:
Norwegian public prosecutor has gone wild in
The Oslo City Court has gone wild not only assessing legal matters without jurisdiction but also wilfully depriving the other party’s rights.
The Government and its diplomacy has gone wild in Morocco not only permitting its staff to contribute in illegal and criminal actions in foreign jurisdictions (Morocco and Spain), but also opening for a new practice where children of culturally mixed families from now on can rely on the Norwegian foreign minister’s help in any illegal actions on foreign soil, thus directly interfering in other state’s affairs.
And finally the press has – thanks to Hopstock – contributed in this mess making it most likely impossible for the children to even think: “This was not really what we wanted. We love our dad. We might have had our disagreements, but we love him. What is happening around us? We don’t want to see/we can’t face anyone after this.”
As for now – while the kids daily must face this almost insuperable problem which the media and Hopstock have created – they must be thinking: “We love our dad but now we are almost forced to distance ourselves from our father, agreeing on all the shit the news papers are writing about him. Thank you for destroying our lives!”
What to do next?
Unforeseeable problems will always be a factor in mixing cultures, especially when you reject to educate yourself in these cultures thus being unable to handle the “problems” when they occur. Both of the parents have to coop with this, making their best effort in doing what is in the best interest for the “family” as a whole.
If this had happened between Norwegian parents the chance is though that none of the parents would see their children again, as the Child Care institution (CCI) in an increasingly degree is intervening in ordinary fights between parents over their children. A well known strategy from the CCI is to obstruct (with absolutely all means) the most resourceful of the parents’ attempt of taking care of the child/children, thus handing the child over to the less resourceful, which in turn will have to inform (or by action or lack of action demonstrate to) the CCI within some months or so that she/he is not capable of doing this alone. Then the road is open for the CCI to take the child and put it into one of the infamous and horrifying Norwegian institutions destroying the kids for the rest of their lives.
Anyway, the mother in this particular case, Hopstock, has by far demonstrated that she is totally incapable of acting to the best interest of the kids. Nevertheless, the only right thing to do is to re-establish the legal situation as it was prior to the Hopstock-/Government-actions and thus send the children back to their father in Morocco, and make sure, by a Royal decree, that the kids can travel in and out of Norway without any problems or risks of being kidnapped or in any other way harmed ever again.
Herman J Berge
 At this point the Moroccan authorities would most likely reject the document on different reasons: No Norwegian jurisdiction, the judgment is not signed, the writ of summons has not been served, the judge has not been sworn in, etc. In other words; basic violations on Human Rights.
 Related to the Assistand Director Anne Margot Brodtkorb in the Ministry of Justice?
 All children are held against “their will”. Try this simple exercise; leave your child unattended and see what happens. It will always try to extend its boundaries, explore the surroundings, and when explored (and still alive despite being unattended), extend the exploration and in the end run away. That’s why God has given us our parents for so many years. They are there to hold us back, guide us through – at least – the first 15-20 years of our lives and make sure that we don’t do stupid things.