Herman J Berge
Doktor Holms vei 17 D

N-0787 Oslo



Phone (Pr)        : +47 22 14 56 52

Mobile              : +47 958 40 531

E-mail              : herman.berge@rettsnorge.no





Mr. Ole Kristian Aabo-Evensen                                             December 21, 2006

P.O. Box 1789 Vika

N-0122 Oslo






Att                        : Mr. Aabo-Evensen

Re                         : The estate of the late Mr. Einar Riis, 44 blvd d’Italie, 98000 Monaco

Case #                   :

Your reference        : oka

Our reference          :

Posting by              : E-mail

Your fax #              :

Numbers of pages    : 6

Attachment            :

Copy                      : Aabo-Evensen law firm, Me Didier Escaut, Notary Me Henry Rey (by fax), Mr. Varlet (by fax), Mrs. Amelia Riis (through e-mail to Benedicte Riis-Duryea), Mrs. Benedicte Riis-Duryea and Mr. Kenneth Riis.



Sirs and Mrs


This is a respond to Mr. Ole Kristian Aabo-Evensen’s, attorney at law (Norway), e-mail to me of December 18, 2006. It should be mentioned in the same sense that I haven’t found any reasons to act upon Mr. Kenneth Riis’ letter to me of November 14, 2006, due to the threatening and otherwise farfetched content of the letter.


Yesterday I made a request through both Mr. Aabo-Evensen and Me Didier Escaut, asking for consent to speak freely about matters that both Mr. and Mrs. Riis has made confidential.


Mr Aabo-Evensen’s answer in his e-mail of December 20, 2006 is of such a state that I find it appropriate not responding to this emotional outburst, for now. I can only conclude that Mr. Aabo-Evensen has failed to answer my request made yesterday. It should though be noticed that Mr. Aabo-Evensen seems to act on behalf of the estate of the late Mr. Einar Riis, Monaco. 


Since it seems that Mr. Aabo-Evensen in some way or other is representing some or all of the heirs of the estate in Monaco – this in contradiction to information I have received from Me Didier Escaut (Monaco) and Mr. Kenneth Riis – I find it proper to send this e-mail in copy to Me Didier Escaut, together with copies to Me Henry Rey (Notary), the Riis-family, and Mr. Varlet (BNP Paribas).


I find it quite confusing[1] receiving letters/faxes from Mr. Kenneth Riis stating that he’s the one to be addressed in this case, then receiving a different message from Me Escaut stating that he’s the family’s legal representative, then receiving a new fax from Mr. Kenneth Riis stating that 1.) Me Escaut is only Mrs. Riis’ representative (Thus the estate doesn’t have any representative but me, this in accordance with Mr. Einar Riis’ will, and I underline what everyone in this case know by heart: This was his will and determination, and the reason why he and his wife years ago signed all the papers advising this). 2.) That all correspondence should be sent to him, no matter what case we are talking about, it seems, and 3.) That I have to stop sending harassing letters (invoices. I have never harassed Mrs. Riis. She’s the only person according to our agreements that can receive invoices from me) to Mrs. Riis, and now finally an e-mail from Mr. Aabo-Evensen informing me that all correspondence in this case should go to either Mr. Aabo-Evensen or to Me Escaut.


I advice the family and the lawyers to decide upon who is the one to take care of claims against the estate in Monaco, and who is to take care of claims against Mrs. Riis, and who is to take care of their two children’s rights and obligations. By this we will be able to correspond in a somewhat acceptable manner, avoiding delays, misunderstandings and other mess concerning these cases and their grounds. When this is done, I would appreciate to be informed.


It should be known that Mr. Aabo-Evensen has given me three to five days to answer his criminal threat; either you wave all your rights in the estate after the late Mr. Riis, or we will raise criminal and civil charges against you, anywhere. This threat is, though sadly, similar to the one I got from Me Didier Escaut earlier this fall. Such a threat could of course lead to investigation and criminal charges against the instigator. Regarding the deadline I have been given, vaguely said to be three or five days, observed in the light of the content of the e-mail, can’t be taken seriously.


Though Mr. Aabo-Evensen’s e-mail doesn’t deserve an answer – especially by the sole reason of his language together with the mere fact that he hasn’t at all provided himself with relevant facts as he is obliged to as an attorney at law, this in addition to the fact that according to Norwegian law he should never had accepted the Riis-families attempt to engage him in this case in the first place – I feel obligated to give a proper preliminary answer, in a decent and civilized manner (though to the point when needed) this in contrary to Mr. Aabo-Evensen’s rather rude and undisciplined attempt to bully his anger and alleged claims against me by threatening to us the legal system and its laws if I refuse to give in for his unfounded and speculative demands.


I take it for granted that you will understand that at this point it is not possible for me to in a matter of days give a thoroughly answer on Mr. Aabo-Evensens blunt effort to get me to wave all my legal rights.


I will be overseas for a period of five weeks. This means that all correspondence should be e-mailed to me in this period. When I’m back I will have my first meeting with my lawyer in France. This meeting is to take place during the last week of January 07.


My trip overseas has been planned (as Mrs. Riis know) a long time before this problem occurred, and therefore it should not be held against me that I am trying to delay the dividing of the estate.


For the record I will provide you with a few important facts that can help the family to understand their own problem:


1.      Mrs. Amelia Riis has together with her husband Mr. Einar Riis, authored and signed all our agreements.

a.      Now stating that these agreements are unfounded, worthless, null and void, etc. will at the same time mean that I for a period of nine years have been severely mislead and defrauded by this family, in particular by Mrs Riis.

2.      Mr. Aabo-Evensen states that he is basing his arguments and statements on Mr. Kenneth Riis’ arguments and statements. It should be known by now that Mr. Kenneth Riis’ understanding and comprehension of the little he know about the facts in this matter is at the best very modest and therefore should be counted as insufficient (which any lawyer on an early stage of considering a matter should realize) for such a conclusion that I am a “conman”, and that I have spent 6 years trying to con a flat broke family, and then after I made the deal between the Department of Justice and the family, spending another three years to con them a little bit more by investing my working hours, besides spending almost NOK 1 million of my own money to make myself able to continue the families fight for their rights.

a.      I do have sufficient documentation that will prove that the con-theory of course is not true, that this is Mr. Aabo-Evensens own thoughts sadly though based on his own anger against me. Stating such an unfounded accusation will of course lead to adequate reactions which of now known causes must be dealt with later on.

3.      It should be mentioned, in an attempt to get you to understand Mr. Aabo-Evensen’s rude and defaming attack on me, that Mr. Aabo-Evensen has spent some time in and outside the courts getting the judges to accept two of his witnesses and by their statements seeking the court’s verdict on that – of all things – he doesn’t like me, allegedly having solid reasons for this statement. This particular court case also clearly shows how easy Mr. Aabo-Evensen looses his focus on the case and his obligations towards his clients, trying his best to get me instead of concentrating on the case. The judge in this mentioned court case was to decide upon whether Mr. Aabo-Evensens legal fees towards Mrs. Riis was acceptable, not whether he liked me or not. Mr. Aabo-Evensen’s struggle to get an emotional non-measurable verdict was by understandable legal reasons rejected by the court, and his fees were reduced by a half.

a.      It should be considered beyond doubt that Mr. Aabo-Evensen’s sole reason to accept this engagement was – in some sad way or other – to get even with me. His reasons is as far as he has told me and Mr. Einar Riis, that he wasn’t mentioned – or not enough compared to me – in the TV-news and in the newspapers at the time of the judgement in the “Probate case”, and at the time of the settlement in the same case in June 2003. He was according to himself the best and he was determined to be the only lawyer in Norway winning for the Riis-family (forgetting that Mr. Tore S. Engelschiøn won one huge victory for the family in 1981, besides other earlier though few victories), and I seemed to have destroyed his seek for fame and glory by letting the media interviewing me and by solving the case for the family with a €7 million settlement. In contradiction to Mr. Aabo-Evensen’s statements in his latest correspondence with me, he told a newspaper in 2001 that there wouldn’t be a case without Mr. Berge’s work. 

b.      Another reason for Mr. Aabo-Evensen’s extreme dislike against me is the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Riis filed a criminal charge against one of the most powerful people in Norway (His statements and lies in the “Probate-case” – which was the base for these charges against him – before Oslo City Court, are documented lies). Mr. Aabo-Evensen believe in his heart that I was the one that convinced the family to take such action, and that the Riis-family would have acted differently if the family hadn’t been able to confer with me. According to numerous letters from Mr. Riis to me and Mr. Aabo-Evensen this is not by far a correct description of Mr. and Mrs. Riis’ thoughts about this part of the Riis-cases and how they wanted this to be handled.

c.      I do have sufficient information satisfactory for a rejection of Mr. Aabo-Evensen as a representative for the Riis-family. He is too involved in the case, ha has personal problems blaming the Riis-family for his family problems and divorce (he wept in court (on the witness stand) until I had to stop him by slamming my hand to the table to snap him out of it, as I knew from times when we were friendly to each other where he revealed to me that this (weeping before the judges) was just his way of trying to get sympathy from the judge. I was told that sympathy is more important than facts. He cannot act as a legal representative under these circumstances. I will though – if it still is necessary – come back to you with a more precise argumentation (together with verifications on my statements) upon this subject in question in my answer in February 07.

4.      I have tapes where Mrs. Amelia Riis is stating that she as soon as Mr. Riis had got his speech back after his second – and this time serious stroke, made a run for the typewriter to type a transfer of NOK one million to his children. He was in delirium and thought he had seen his mother, and since he felt that the end was near, he wanted to give some money to his children. Mrs. Riis made it clear to me that she did this as fast as she could, by this avoiding Mr. Riis never ending second thoughts which she knew would come when he recovered. Mrs. Riis was by this somewhat disturbing action obviously not afraid of Mr. Riis passing away (she and her children would have got their share within a short time), but of Mr. Riis going into a long and ongoing coma, leaving her or her children waiting for the big bucks that was brought to Monaco. My point is to show Mrs. Riis willingness to wait until her husband was at his weakest before she went to work with her mission to take advantage of his poor health.

a.      I do have – on top of all the letters and other documents – hours of conversations between me and the Riis-family on tape, which will prove my diligent and fair work for the family on top of all my sacrifices. This was Mr. Riis’ own idea, to tape everything, thus avoiding misunderstandings and so forth. It will also prove that what has been told to lawyers and others about the relationship in the family, and especially between family-members is not quite as it appears.

5.      Be aware of the fact that it is Mrs. Amelia Riis (of course with Mr. Riis’ knowledge and consent) that has made most of the payments to me. I find it hard to believe that a lawyer that obviously should have known such an important fact still concludes that the estate of the late Mr. Riis should be in their right to kind of vindicate these sums that Mrs. Riis has paid according to our agreements.

6.      There are a lot of accusations on criminal conduct made against me in Mr. Aabo-Evensen’s e-mail. These accusations will of course as mentioned be taken care of in due time.

7.      I find it proper to mention that I have on tape in several conversations with Mrs. Riis, her stating that she was forced by Mr. Aabo-Evensen to make several statements in a Press Release of August 17, 2006, by this settling a three year long court case filed against Mrs. Riis by Mr. Aabo-Evensen himself.

a.      In these conversations Mrs. Riis made it clear to me that I had to stay put – since she was (as she put it) very afraid of Mr. Aabo-Evensen and what he could do to her and me – and not open my mouth to the press or anyone else, otherwise Mr. Aabo-Evensen had told her that he would go after me, pressing charges against me.

b.      This was one of the main reasons why Mrs. Riis signed this Press Release, authored by Mr. Aabo-Evensen, and by this settled the case. The statements in the Press Release as well as the settlement will in any court be considered as short of legal grounds. Mr. Aabo-Evensen’s actions forcing Mrs. Riis to sign, on top of making her paying a higher amount than the verdict described, will in any normal cases be considered criminal.

c.      Most of the Press Release must be regarded as a vendetta against me and Mrs. Riis late husband, Mr. Riis, which for 15 years had been living a double life though known for the whole family and also accepted by them. Mrs. Riis son was not at all happy with his mother’s actions settling the case with Mr. Aabo-Evensen paying a lot more than she was obliged to according to a verdict, which made him and his sister thinking of claiming their heir after their father from her, right away.

d.      In conflict with Norwegian law, Mr. Aabo-Evensen made an appointment and held a three hour long meeting with my (at the time) client Mr. Riis on August 17, 2006, without informing me. Despite the fact that I at that time was Mrs. Riis legal and by the court accepted representative, Mr. Aabo-Evensen made it clear in the Press Release that I was not Mrs. Riis representative in this case (and by this concealing the truth). According to Mrs. Riis, she was absolutely convinced by Mr. Aabo-Evensen’s argumentation that this was true. This (throwing me out as her legal representative) was done without my knowledge, and also without the court’s knowledge. I have to this date not received any document dismissing me from this particular case.

e.      Mr. Aabo-Evensen was in such a hurry to get a settlement with Mrs. Riis, that he simply forgot the most important thing – to write an agreement. A sensible lawyer would of course never forget such an important part of an agreement, the written paper. He flatly authored a letter for Mrs. Riis, telling the court that they had reached an agreement. About what, now one knows. 

f.       For all I know it was Mr. Aabo-Evensen himself that wilfully started all these problems in his meeting with Mrs. Riis on August 17, 2006, ending up where we are now, orchestrated with the mission to get his hands on the family and their fortune, and most important for him; get a chance to get even with me. Reading the Press Release and listening to the tapes, this is not a farfetched assumption.

g.      These totally unacceptable actions conducted by Mr. Aabo-Evensen are one of the reasons why Mr. Aabo-Evensen should not be allowed to represent the family. I am quite sure that Mr. Aabo-Evensen has been – especially as a lawyer – aware of this fact and its contradiction to the picture of an objective and independent lawyer without any connection to the case and the persons that could e.g. lead him into the witness stand, or further down the road could lead to civil or even criminal charges against himself.

h.      Mr. Aabo-Evensen has by violating Norwegian law now got hold of information that he otherwise wouldn’t had access to. It seems that he intends to do his best misusing this information, and by such comforting himself without a thought about the Riis-family and their fall if he continues with his vendetta.

8.      As far as I know there is a chance of a conflict occurring between Mrs. Riis and at least one of her children. This means that according to Norwegian law it will not be feasible for any lawyer to represent the whole family as such in this case. This fact should be known or should have been known to Mr. Aabo-Evensen before he made up his mind going after me for his own reasons.

9.      I will not in this document go deeper into Mr. Aabo-Evensen’s numerous conflict of interest-problem occurring by accepting the Riis-family’s proposal, but I do urge him to have a look on “Domstolloven”, and “forskrift til domstolloven”, especially chapter 11.

10.  Regarding the Norwegian company, Tyvik AS, it seems obvious that Mr. Aabo-Evensen must have been misinformed or not informed at all. As a lawyer he should though be aware of the risk he puts himself and his clients into by concluding without knowing or understanding facts of the case. It is daunting to observe a lawyer wild-guessing like this. Despite a lack of relevant information he still concludes that my actions concurs with embezzlement, without knowing a thing about the company and Mr. Riis investments, and also Mrs. Riis’ secret investment (I was instructed by her to absolutely not inform her children, especially not Mr. Kenneth Riis about this investment) and engagement in this project.

11.  Finally I have also on tape Mr. Aabo-Evensen (in an other case between Mr. Aabo-Evensen and the Riis family) totally loosing it during a court case, screaming so loudly to me acting like he was on the verge to knock me down there and then. It was right out frightening. In this tape you can also hear Mrs. Riis slamming her hand to the table while in tears telling the judge that she had had it regarding the maltreatment of me and her family, finalising the scene (and the case) by walking out of the court.

12.  Mr. Riis advised me a long time ago to take care of my rights, by e.g. making notes, and recording everything. And so I did. He sure had his reasons. He didn’t trust anyone in his family, besides Benedicte. Long before I met the family, Mr. Riis was totally convinced that his son and Mrs. Riis had sunk his boat twice. He also accused his wife of stealing important documents from him, and of making threatening calls to his mistress (she would be killed if she didn’t move out of Oslo, which made her selling her business and relocate). Mrs. Riis has told me on tapes that she always looked through her husbands documents after he had went to bed. This situation that the family finds itself in now is a result of their own actions, where lies seem to be their best guard and weapon.

13.  This as for anything else mentioned above will of course be elaborated when needed.


I’ll end this letter by underlining that I will by no means wave any rights in this case, and that the Riis family and their representatives in due time after my meeting with my lawyer will be informed about our next step.









Herman J Berge

December 21, 2006



[1] This is also the reason why I do not address anyone in particular.