--- BREVENE ( ekstern
) --- Ang-stevningen-21_10_2010.html
( intern ) ---
The translation of this document from Norwegian to English is perr
18.02. 2011 hasty done with Google Translator and is
because of that not good!
((( The norwegian original-version of this document
are to be find on this link: 20110216-fra-RLH-til-G-lagmannsrett.html
( intern )
Kopi / avskrift, RLH:
Dette brevet ansendes pr. telefax 16.02. 2011.
( intern ) ---
Oversettelse fra norsk (bokmål) til engelsk
- 20110216-from-RLH-to-G lagmannsrett.html --- Letters (external) ---
Ang-writ-21_10_2010.html (internal) --- dbn.html (external) ---
Copy / transcript, RLH: This letter sendt rates. fax 16.02. 2011.
--- Judges etc-in-case-index.html (internal) ---
As fax 55699501
Gulating Court of Appeal,
PO Box 7414,
Leander Rune Hansen,
Regarding notice to me that the Court of Appeal is considering denying
the appeal filed,
Leander Rune Hansen - Trude Monica Hansen
I refer to the letter to me dated 15.02. 2011 from
Gulating Court by Judge Meyer Haakon with reference no.
11-016621ASD-GULA/AVD1, in which states the following:
"The Appeal Court is considering denying the appeal
promotion (external) under the Disputes Act § 29-13, second
paragraph, where it is called the appeal of the verdict may be denied
promotion when the Court finds it clear that the appeal will not
succeed. / You have the opportunity to express you about this no later
than 22/02/2011. "
It does not surprise me. It has happened before in this
case complex, for to have mentioned it.
Law unconstitutional without justification as well. The
phrase "when the court finds it clear that the appeal will not
succeed", is no real justification.
Already with this show judge Haakon Meyer's in-hability.
Otherwise I can here mention, that an appeal with so
much clarity will reach in relation to in and for
Norway over-ordinal law and right should one have to
look long for.
Another issue is that there are some certain who do not
want it to
And even now already have shown their attitude.
And this despite the fact that most of the children
concerned have not seen or had contact with their father in almost
and a half years, since 21.10. 2008. And that the kids even before that
with 03.04. 2008 most of the time were held prisoner and gagged by the
counterparty and the counterparty co-players.
This is despite the child's and father's clear and
unequivocal right to the contrary. And the clear and unambiguous wants,
needs and desires of it.
Despite this and much else.
Something very different is that Haugaland District Court
Judgement of 8.5. 2009 (external) on all kinds and
concerns in aftertime has
been shown not to have been the best for the children, but the
opposite. And neither in keeping with the law or to best for
the family and society.
In addition, documentation of what really happened during
and since has been grown much in scope (external) and is in harmony
with the facts and circumstances clearly made progress in relation to
everything and everything in its many aspects.
And thos I'm not referring to the court's version
something other than a very limited and distorted version and
documentation. That court has held hard-hasty in his base and refused
any form of contradiction and investigation and all the way violated,
harassed and outplundered the children and their father is actually
very unequivocal enough.
Otherwise is also the lack of will or interest the
shown for to examine the consequences of what the court
did, an example of to relate against law and right.
Here I especially once again point out and claim that I -
and of course the children - among other things, what I did in my
write-appeal dated 11.01. 2011 (external), the following law:
Human Rights Act, Appendix 2, ECHR, Art 13:
"The right to an effective remedy / Everyone whose rights
and freedoms set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an
effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the
violation is committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
And the Human Rights Act, Appendix 2, ECHR, Art 6:
"The right to a fair trial / 1 In the determination of his
civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him,
everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable
time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The
sentence will avsis public but the press and public may be excluded
from all or part of the proceedings for reasons of morality, public
order or national security in a democratic society, when the interests
of youth or the parties private life requires it, or to the extent the
opinion of the court strictly necessary in special circumstances where
publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. / 2 Everyone
charged with a criminal offense shall be presumed innocent until proved
guilty according to law. / 3 Everyone charged with a criminal offense
shall have the following minimum rights : / a. To be informed promptly,
in a language he understands and in detail, about the nature and cause
of the accusation against him / b. To have adequate time and facilities
to prepare his defense; / c. to defend himself in person or with the
legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he does not have sufficient
funds to pay for legal assistance, to receive it free when required by
the interests of justice; / d. to examine or have examined witnesses
against him and to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses on
his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; / e. to
have the free assistance of an interpreter if he can not understand or
speak the language used in court. "
An important aspect of this last is the fact that what the
court has done for my children and me in this matter, in reality, is to
punish us grossly monstrous and totally unjustified.
Nearly or quite the worst punishment imaginable for a
As I said completely unjustified.
With regards from
Rune Hansen, L., ((+ signature))
Wednesday 16 February 2011.
At the same per copy. fax to the party by a lawyer Odd Arild Helland,
fax 52 70 05 33