FORMAL COMPLAINT - Sweden Confidential

United Nations petition — incomplete report
A complex case drenched with conventionally aggravating circumstances,
accumulation, concurrence and uncommon constellations otherwise entailing
increased penalty, the following sections of the Norwegian Penal Code has
particular interest for the assessment of sentence:
§ 62;
If any person has by one or more acts committed more than one felony
or misdemeanour punishable by imprisonment or detention, a joint cus-
todial sentence shall be imposed which must be more severe than the
highest minimum penalty prescribed for any of the felonies or misdem-
eanors and must in no case exceed the highest penalty prescribed for
any of them by more than 50 percent. The joint custodial penalty shall
normally take the form of imprisonment when any criminal acts would
have been punishable thereby.
The provisions of the first paragraph shall apply correspondingly if a
joint sentence of community service is imposed. If community service
is imposed as well as unconditional sentence of imprisonment, in ass-
essing the sentence of community service the unconditional sentence of
imprisonment shall be taken into account.
If any of the felonies or misdemeanours should have been punished by
imprisonment, the same supplementary penalties shall be imposed in the
case of detention as would have applied in the case of imprisonment.
§ 63;
If any person has by one or more acts committed more than one felony
or misdemeanour punishable by fines, a joint fine shall be imposed
which must be more severe than that which any one of the felonies or
misdemeanours should have incurred.
The court may, when some of the felonies or misdemeanours should
have been punished by a custodial sentence and others by fines, regard
the felonies or misdemeanours for which fines are prescribed as aggra-
vating circumstances instead of pronouncing sentence for them.
As his legal representative, the Norwegian Attorney-General — Mr Bjørn
HAUG — had appointed assistant lawyer Ms Bergljot WEBSTER.
Ms Webster was thus employed at the same office as assistant advocate
Ms Hanne HARLEM* (*cf p 63 item Doc #377 — entries of Oct 18 and
26) who — pathognomonically — functioned as Mr Haug's personal assi-
stant...!
It's perfectly clear Ms Webster and Ms Hanne Harlem indulged in numerous
and unmistakably conspirational conversations the weeks and days before att-
ingent court case.....and, perhaps you've guessed it; Hanne is the younger sister
87
FORMAL COMPLAINT VS THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY
by Wilh. Werner WINTHER, Norway
87