-- 20110216-E-fra-RLH-til-G-lagmannsrett.html         --- BREVENE ( ekstern ) --- Ang-stevningen-21_10_2010.html ( intern ) --- dbn.html  ( ekstern ) --- 
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.   

--- Dommer-etc-i-saken-Index.html ( 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,
5020 Bergen

Leander Rune Hansen,
5568 Vikebygd

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 arrive.
   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 two and a half years, since 21.10. 2008. And that the kids even before that starting 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 along as 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 court has 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 human being.
   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