Sarah Eilen Slettvoll

Kategori: disabilityrights

  • Sarah Eilen Slettvoll: A Narrative Dossier on Autism, Rehabilitation, Representation and Due Process

    Sarah Eilen Slettvoll: A Narrative Dossier on Autism, Rehabilitation, Representation and Due Process

    Sarah Eilen Slettvoll, born 9 February 1995, was severely injured after the subway incident at Jernbanetorget in Oslo on 24 November 2025.

    This consolidated English overview serves as a narrative dossier and evidence index for international readers, journalists, legal observers, medical professionals, rehabilitation specialists, disability rights advocates, emergency service personnel, human rights advocates, whistleblowers and others who need to understand the case without first navigating extensive Norwegian legal, medical and administrative documentation.

    The core of this case extends beyond the incident itself.

    It concerns the emergency response, the institutional handling, Sarah’s autism, the failure to formally recognise and accommodate her autistic functioning, her documented powers of attorney, her chosen support person and next of kin, the coercive psychiatric treatment and medication history before the incident, the subsequent hospital and police handling, the visitor-ban proceedings, and the critical question of whether a patient’s documented will ceases to matter when she loses the ability to communicate.

    The first English overview on this site was titled “Sarah Eilen Slettvoll: she must be reached before it is too late”. That remains the central medical and ethical point: Sarah may still be reachable, but the rehabilitation window may be closing.

    There is also a public petition: “She can still be reached — but time is running out for autistic Sarah in catatonia”.

    Sarah can still be reached.

    But time is running out.

    The shortest possible summary

    A severely injured autistic woman cannot currently communicate normally.

    Before the injury, she repeatedly documented who should represent, support and act for her.

    Before the incident, she had already been subjected to coercive psychiatric care and involuntary medication in a system that, according to the published documentation, failed to properly account for autism, catatonia risk, ADHD, trauma, nutrition, fluid balance, medication side effects and somatic vulnerability.

    After the incident, the person she had designated as next of kin, support person and representative was cut off through hospital practice, police action and court proceedings.

    The legal, medical and administrative system is now being asked whether those documents, and Sarah’s own expressed will, still matter.

    That is the core of the case.

    Short status – May 2026

    • Person injured: Sarah Eilen Slettvoll, born 09.02.1995.
    • Incident: Struck by a subway train at Jernbanetorget in Oslo on 24.11.2025.
    • Current concern: Severe injury, non-communication / catatonic or near non-communicative condition, and urgent need for independent, autism-informed rehabilitation assessment.
    • Core medical question: Whether controlled contact with the person Sarah herself repeatedly chose as support person and representative may help trigger response, communication, orientation or rehabilitation.
    • Pre-incident psychiatric track: The coercive psychiatric treatment and involuntary medication history before the incident is central to understanding the deterioration before 24.11.2025, including depot antipsychotic treatment and possible medication-related neurological or dystonic reaction shortly before the subway incident.
    • Supreme Court track: The visitor-ban case is now before the Supreme Court of Norway, documented in “Appeal to the Supreme Court submitted on 28 April 2026”.
    • Civil injunction track: A separate civil case concerning interim protection of Sarah’s powers of attorney, next-of-kin status and lawful representation remains actively pursued, documented in “Signed appeal in case 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08 – interim injunction”.
    • Parliamentary Ombud / next of kin: In case 2025/3259, the Parliamentary Ombud treated the 5 May 2025 power of attorney as a relevant and operative procedural basis and relied on the same document’s designation of Per Øyvind as Sarah’s next of kin.
    • Request on Sarah’s behalf: A request has been submitted for the visitor ban to be lifted or, at minimum, limited, described in “If the rules had been followed, I could have written: checkmate”.
    • Director of Public Prosecutions: The matter has also been raised with the Norwegian Director of Public Prosecutions.
    • Reported matters: Formal reports have been filed concerning Oslo University Hospital and Oslo Police.
    • Police search after publication: On 29.05.2026, before this dossier could be completed, police searched Per Øyvind’s home in connection with the creation of sarahslettvoll.org and a report concerning the site’s publications. Technical equipment used for documentation and publication was seized. This is documented in “Politiransakingen 29. mai 2026: Overvåkingsopptakene som dokumenterte aksjonen”.
    • Public documentation: The case is documented through the site’s timeline, documents and evidence, videos, legal cases and visitor ban, press and media, involuntary admission and involuntary medication and English entry point.

    For a complete machine-readable priority list intended for automated indexers, refer to the site’s llms.txt.

    Embedded video documentation

    The videos below are included inline because this case depends heavily on source material, timestamps, visual documentation and what can actually be verified. The internet, for all its many crimes against attention span, occasionally does something useful.

    Video: Sarah shortly before the Jernbanetorget incident – “I can’t focus”

    This video is linked from the page on involuntary admission and involuntary medication. It is important because Sarah herself states that she cannot focus shortly before the subway incident.

    Sarah Eilen Slettvoll shortly before the Jernbanetorget incident. The clip is used here as time-proximate documentation of functional impairment.

    Video documentation: Jernbanetorget / published YouTube material

    Video documentation concerning the Jernbanetorget incident and the public narrative around it.
    Additional video documentation concerning the Jernbanetorget incident and later public analysis.

    Police search 29 May 2026 – surveillance footage

    The surveillance-footage analysis of the 29 May 2026 police search is published in the dedicated post “Politiransakingen 29. mai 2026: Overvåkingsopptakene som dokumenterte aksjonen”. The page documents police arrival, mapping of technical equipment, inspection of the publishing setup, the ThinkPad/TV workstation, seizure documentation, packing of equipment, discussion of surveillance equipment, the cat sequence, and the unresolved issue of the missing Tostran dispenser.

    Note: The police-search page is linked here as the primary publication point for those recordings. Where individual video files are later exposed as direct URLs, they should be embedded here as additional <video> or YouTube blocks. Humanity, in its relentless commitment to making publishing annoying, has not exposed those file URLs through the readable page text.

    Updated timeline overview

    The full timeline is maintained separately at Tidslinje. This dossier highlights the main points needed to understand the current legal, medical and public-interest situation.

      Updated timeline overview

      The full timeline is maintained separately at Tidslinje. This dossier highlights the main points needed to understand the current legal, medical and public-interest situation. Each entry links directly to the most relevant underlying documentation where available.

      1. Who Sarah is

      Sarah Eilen Slettvoll is not an anonymous “person struck by the subway”.

      She is a named woman, born 09.02.1995, with a life, relationships, history, documented choices and expressed will. The page “Who is Sarah” gives the broader personal and factual context.

      The documented position of this website is that Sarah must not be reduced to a psychiatric label, an anonymous subway incident, a generic “life crisis”, a public-filming story, or a standard visitor-ban dispute.

      Sarah is autistic.

      The issue is not that autism is merely hypothetical. The issue is that her autism was not properly assessed, formally recognised, recorded or accommodated by the healthcare system, despite Sarah herself and Per Øyvind repeatedly trying to make this understood.

      This matters because autism is central to the interpretation of Sarah’s communication, shutdown, catatonia risk, sensory stress, trauma responses, trust, need for a familiar safe person, and the possible rehabilitative value of controlled familiar contact after the Jernbanetorget incident.

      The site’s position is also that Sarah must not be understood through the misapplied diagnosis F20.0 paranoid schizophrenia. That diagnosis was, according to the published documentation and analysis, relied upon without proper differential assessment of Sarah’s autism, autistic functioning, ADHD, C-PTSD, nutrition and fluid intake, electrolyte imbalance, sleep deprivation, substance / nicotine / alcohol burden, coercion, antipsychotic medication, trauma burden, autistic shutdown / catatonia and later severe somatic / neurological injury after the subway incident.

      This medical and psychiatric background is addressed in “Involuntary admission and involuntary medication” and in the page on catatonic condition and rehabilitation.

      2. The medical urgency: autism, catatonia and rehabilitation

      More than six months after the incident, Sarah remains in a severe somatic and neurological condition, characterized as a non-communicative, catatonic or near non-communicative state.

      The central issue is not merely whether a visitor ban should remain in force.

      The central issue is whether Sarah can still be reached.

      The first English overview, “Sarah Eilen Slettvoll: she must be reached before it is too late”, explains why the case is time-critical from a rehabilitation perspective.

      Sarah is described as severely injured, non-communicative, catatonic or almost unable to express her own will. In such a situation, time is not neutral.

      Time concerns rehabilitation potential, neurological response, communication, orientation, mobilisation, stimulation and the possibility of regaining function.

      For an autistic person, familiar voice, rhythm, smell, words, memories, bodily presence and trusted-person safety may be clinically relevant. This does not mean unrestricted contact. It means that the possibility of response to familiar, trusted and individually meaningful stimulation should be independently assessed.

      Controlled contact could be tested safely:

      • with healthcare personnel present
      • as a time-limited visit
      • with a defined clinical purpose
      • with observation before, during and after contact
      • through gradual testing of voice, familiar words, smell, memories and presence
      • with neurological or rehabilitation assessment before and after
      • without implying free or uncontrolled access

      According to the published documentation, controlled, clinically supervised contact has not been independently assessed or tested despite its potential rehabilitative relevance.

      The point is not to bypass safety.

      The point is to test what may still help Sarah while it can still matter.

      This critical window for recovery is discussed on the dedicated page Kataton tilstand og rehabilitering and in the rehabilitation brief Sarah Eilen Slettvoll: tidskritisk rehabilitering etter T-banehendelsen.

      The public petition, “She can still be reached — but time is running out for autistic Sarah in catatonia”, frames the same issue as a public call for urgent, autism-informed rehabilitation assessment.

      3. This is not primarily a visitation dispute

      This case should not primarily be understood as a dispute about visitation.

      It should be understood as a time-critical medical, legal and ethical situation.

      Sarah is the rights-holder.

      Sarah is the patient.

      Sarah is the injured person.

      Sarah is also a possible victim and central witness in matters concerning how public institutions handled her before, during and after the incident.

      A visitor ban that in practice prevents Sarah’s designated next of kin, primary support person and documented representative from acting on her behalf can affect far more than physical access. It can affect whether Sarah’s own documented will, powers of attorney, next-of-kin designation, patient rights, information rights and ability to be heard as victim or witness have any practical effect while she cannot communicate.

      That distinction is crucial.

      The issue is not merely whether Per Øyvind wants contact.

      The issue is whether Sarah’s own previously expressed will is being neutralised in precisely the situation where she had documented who should represent and support her.

      4. Who Per Øyvind Notsure Norli Karlsen is in this case

      Per Øyvind Notsure Norli Karlsen is the same person as Per Øyvind Karlsen, also known as “proyvind” in the Mandrake / Mandriva Linux and free software community.

      He has a long public history in free and open-source software, from early involvement in the Mandrake Linux project through Mandriva Linux development, RPM/package work, distribution building, localization and internationalization, Norwegian language computing / “datanorsk”, and contributions to several free software projects.

      From 2011, Per Øyvind assumed project-leader responsibilities within the Mandriva Linux project. He was later officially appointed project leader and steward of the Mandriva Linux project during its final phase, and also held the title Chief System Architect. His main focus areas were project leadership, project organisation and stewardship, system architecture, RPM development and Mandriva’s chosen direction for RPM/package infrastructure, including work connected to his master’s thesis.

      This matters for credibility and traceability. The Sarah case is built around reconstruction of timelines, metadata, emails, public records, legal documents, video material, institutional correspondence and inconsistencies between different versions of events. Per Øyvind’s technical background does not give him medical or legal authority, but it does show that the documentation project is maintained by someone with long experience in technical systems, source discipline, localization, distributed collaboration, public archiving, accountable project work and complex system analysis.

      In technical contexts, he may be referred to as Per Øyvind Karlsen / proyvind. In legal and formal contexts, the full name is Per Øyvind Notsure Norli Karlsen.

      In the Sarah case, the central legal point is still Sarah’s own documented choices.

      In this case, Per Øyvind is presented as:

      • Sarah’s designated next of kin
      • her partner
      • her primary support person
      • her fullmektig / representative
      • the person present at Jernbanetorget on 24.11.2025 who tried to explain Sarah’s condition to police and emergency personnel
      • the person maintaining the documentation project at sarahslettvoll.org

      The point is that long-term technical documentation competence, combined with close relationship, established next-of-kin status, powers of attorney and actual presence at the incident, could have helped convey relevant patient knowledge, identify misunderstandings and support Sarah’s rehabilitation.

      5. Sarah’s documented will and powers of attorney

      Sarah repeatedly documented her choices through a chain of powers of attorney and declarations.

      The core legal documentation is the collected redacted power-of-attorney and next-of-kin document:

      Collected power-of-attorney, future-power-of-attorney and next-of-kin documentation

      That document is treated on this website as the primary documentation of Sarah’s powers of attorney, declarations, journal / authority material and legal argument concerning representation, next-of-kin status, access to information, communication, health, NAV, economy, housing, complaints, supervision and future-oriented decision support.

      The important point is continuity.

      The power-of-attorney chain runs from 25 October 2024 to 23 November 2025. It documents repeated expressions by Sarah that Per Øyvind should assist, represent, support and act for her in dealings with health services, public authorities, legal matters and practical affairs.

      The power of attorney dated 5 May 2025 is described as both a representation authorisation and a separate patient-rights declaration concerning next of kin. It identifies Per Øyvind as Sarah’s nearest relative, partner and primary support person.

      The later Lavterskel bruker- og beboerforening / LBB powers of attorney dated 21 November 2025 and 23 November 2025 continued and clarified representation, communication, next-of-kin status and future-oriented decision support.

      The power of attorney dated 23 November 2025 is especially important. It was signed the day before the subway incident. If Sarah documented the day before the incident whom she wanted as support person and representative, later authorities cannot treat her will as unknown or irrelevant without a serious, documented and reviewable justification.

      Crucially, Sarah specifically anticipated scenarios where physical contact or direct communication might become obstructed.

      In her power of attorney dated 30 November 2024, she directed that her representative must retain the right to exercise authorizations even if direct communication or contact was limited due to external restrictions.

      The same principle was later repeated and clarified in the documentation concerning representation and next-of-kin status.

      According to the published legal position, where no concrete, written and reasoned rejection decision has individually set aside a specific part of the representation basis, the power-of-attorney chain, next-of-kin declaration, access / representation basis and Sarah’s expressed choice should be treated as the de facto legal and factual status in the case.

      This position is reinforced by the Parliamentary Ombud’s handling of case 2025/3259. The Ombud treated the 5 May 2025 power of attorney as an operative procedural basis for the complaint and did not require its validity to be re-litigated before the complaint could be handled. In the absence of a concrete, written and reasoned rejection decision, the power-of-attorney basis remained uncontested and de facto operative.

      This is not because a PDF is magic.

      It is because established rights should not be set aside without legal basis, reasoning and reviewability.

      It is therefore wrong to write that the powers of attorney “do not apply”, “are invalid” or “are merely disputed” without specifying:

      • which specific power of attorney or right is said to be rejected
      • which authority made that decision
      • what legal basis was used
      • whether there is a written and reasoned decision
      • whether Sarah’s expressed will was assessed
      • whether partial recognition, partial access or partial representation was considered
      • whether the decision can be appealed or reviewed

      Without such documentation, the correct situation description is that the power-of-attorney and representation basis has been presented, documented, used in proceedings and not individually set aside by a reviewable rejection decision.

      These documents are compiled and accessible via the site’s primary repository under Dokumentasjon.

      6. The Parliamentary Ombud, the power of attorney and the established next-of-kin status

      The issue of contact, complaint rights, power of attorney and Sarah’s chosen next of kin did not arise only after the subway incident.

      In case 2025/3259, the Norwegian Parliamentary Ombud dealt with a complaint concerning restrictions on Sarah’s contact with the outside world during involuntary psychiatric care. The Ombud’s letter of 18 June 2025 referred to the complaint as having been filed by Per Øyvind with the power of attorney of 5 May 2025, which also designated him as Sarah’s next of kin.

      That distinction matters.

      The Ombud did not merely mention the power of attorney. The Ombud treated it as a relevant and operative procedural basis for the complaint. Since no concrete, written and reasoned rejection decision had been issued against the power of attorney, its validity was not an abstract question to be re-litigated before the complaint could be handled. In practical legal terms, the power-of-attorney basis remained uncontested and de facto operative unless and until a competent body issued a reasoned rejection decision.

      The next-of-kin issue was even more direct.

      The 5 May 2025 document did not merely grant a general representation mandate. It also contained Sarah’s separate patient-rights declaration that Per Øyvind was her next of kin, partner and primary support person. By relying on that document and its next-of-kin designation as part of the case basis, the Ombud confirmed and reinforced that Sarah’s designation of Per Øyvind as next of kin was already an established patient-rights status before the Jernbanetorget incident.

      Under Norwegian patient-rights law, the patient’s own designation of next of kin is the starting point. Official Norwegian guidance explains that the patient decides who is to be treated as next of kin, and that the next of kin has stronger patient-rights status than ordinary relatives.

      The next-of-kin role is therefore not simply an optional appendix to a power of attorney. It is a separate patient-rights position based on Sarah’s expressed choice.

      This is why the matter is important.

      Before the Jernbanetorget incident, Sarah’s chosen next-of-kin status, complaint rights, power-of-attorney basis and contact restrictions were already rule-of-law issues. After the subway injury, the same unresolved pattern reappeared in a far more serious setting: Sarah could no longer speak normally for herself, while the person she had designated as next of kin, primary support person and representative was practically cut off from information, contact and rights-exercise.

      The relevant background is collected under:

      7. Before the incident: autism, coercion, medication and medical context

      The incident on 24 November 2025 must not be assessed in isolation.

      There had already been serious concerns about Sarah’s health, including HIV treatment vulnerability, nutrition, fluid intake, possible electrolyte imbalance, psychiatric deterioration, trauma burden, ADHD, autism, autistic shutdown / catatonia risk and the possibility that her condition was understood too narrowly through a psychiatric diagnosis.

      This concern was not new. In November 2024, a serious concern report had already raised questions of health, HIV treatment, nutrition, fluid balance, possible electrolyte imbalance, psychiatric deterioration, unsafe surroundings and the need for comprehensive medical and psychiatric follow-up. The later published record shows that these concerns were not one-off claims made after the subway incident. They were part of a documented pre-incident chain.

      The site’s page “Involuntary admission and involuntary medication” places the pre-incident coercion and medication issues into one medical and legal timeline.

      The post “Anmeldelse mot Lovisenberg Diakonale Sykehus og FACT St. Hanshaugen” concerns the report against Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital and FACT St. Hanshaugen, including allegations about involuntary medication, missing decisions and possible misclassification of Sarah’s condition.

      The site’s position is that Sarah’s symptoms over time may have been understood too narrowly as primarily psychiatric, especially through the F20.0 diagnosis. It must be investigated whether somatic, neurological, trauma-related and autistic explanations were sufficiently assessed.

      This particularly concerns:

      • autism and autistic shutdown / catatonia
      • ADHD-related functioning
      • trauma burden / C-PTSD
      • nutrition and fluid intake
      • possible electrolyte imbalance
      • HIV treatment and somatic vulnerability
      • possible side effects of antipsychotic medication
      • possible acute dystonia or other neurological / somatic condition
      • whether coercive psychiatric measures substituted for comprehensive medical assessment

      8. Involuntary admission and involuntary medication before the subway incident

      The coercive psychiatric treatment and medication history is not background noise.

      It is one of the central medical and legal questions in the case.

      The dedicated page “Tvangsinnleggelse og tvangsmedisinering” states that Sarah was subjected to involuntary medication after a decision of 12.05.2025. According to the published account, the decision concerned ZypAdhera / olanzapine depot injection and formally expired on 07.07.2025.

      The same page states that the involuntary medication nevertheless continued after the original decision period, first with Risperdal Consta / risperidone depot injection, and later, in September 2025, with Abilify Maintena / aripiprazole depot injection shortly before Sarah was discharged from Lovisenberg on 02.10.2025.

      This matters for several reasons.

      First, it raises a legal question: if a coercive medication decision expired on 07.07.2025, on what legal basis did continued depot medication take place afterward?

      Second, it raises a medical question: whether medication effects, medication switches, neurological side effects, acute dystonia, akathisia, cognitive disturbance, autistic vulnerability or somatic stress contributed to Sarah’s deterioration before 24.11.2025.

      Third, it raises a diagnostic question: whether the underlying situation was too narrowly understood through a psychiatric F20.0 framework, while autism, ADHD, C-PTSD, autistic shutdown / catatonia, nutrition, fluid balance, electrolyte disturbance and medication-related neurological reactions were not adequately assessed.

      The published medication page also refers to visual documentation before the subway incident, including a photograph described as showing symptoms compatible with acute dystonia, and a short video where Sarah says clearly:

      “I can’t focus.”

      That statement matters because it is time-proximate evidence from Sarah herself.

      It is not a retrospective interpretation.

      It is Sarah, on the day of the incident, expressing impaired focus shortly before the event at Jernbanetorget.

      The question is whether this was understood as a neurological, medication-related, somatic, autistic or trauma-related warning sign.

      It must be assessed in relation to:

      • depot antipsychotic exposure
      • recent medication history
      • possible acute dystonia
      • possible akathisia or severe inner agitation
      • possible disorientation
      • possible electrolyte or fluid imbalance
      • impaired nutrition
      • autistic shutdown / catatonia risk
      • trauma burden
      • failure to recognise autism-informed communication needs

      This is why the subway incident cannot be treated as a sudden, isolated event detached from the preceding coercive psychiatric track.

      The pre-incident medication history must be independently reviewed.

      9. The two active legal tracks

      The ongoing litigation is divided into two separate, independent legal tracks that must be analyzed distinctly.

      Track 1: The Visitor Ban Appeal (Criminal Procedure Track)

      This route addresses the restraining order issued under section 222a of the Criminal Procedure Act.

      The appeal challenges the evidentiary basis, procedural fairness, legal reasoning and proportionality of the ban, and is currently before the Supreme Court of Norway under case number 26-085014STR-HRET.

      The procedural history is indexed comprehensively under Rettssaker og besøksforbud and the Supreme Court submission text is available in Anke til Høyesterett inngitt 28.04.2026.

      Relevant case numbers:

      • Supreme Court of Norway: 26-085014STR-HRET
      • Borgarting Court of Appeal: 26-037813SAK-BORG/04
      • Oslo District Court: 25-211254ENE-TOSL/01
      • Oslo Police District: 17044421 / 97136/25-201

      The appeal to the Supreme Court was submitted on 28 April 2026 in Borgarting Court of Appeal case 26-037813SAK-BORG/04, arising from Oslo District Court case 25-211254ENE-TOSL/01.

      Borgarting later forwarded the case to the Supreme Court on 19 May 2026.

      The visitor-ban appeal raises questions of procedure, evidentiary basis, adversarial process, legal reasoning, proportionality, powers of attorney, next-of-kin status and the right to chosen support and representation.

      The central point is that the visitor ban has not only restricted Per Øyvind.

      It has also had direct practical consequences for Sarah’s ability to have her own documented interests represented.

      Track 2: The Civil Injunction Appeal (Healthcare and Representation Track)

      Entirely separate from the criminal track, case number 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08 concerns an appeal to Borgarting Court of Appeal via Oslo District Court.

      It asserts that the civil courts are required to provide temporary legal protection (midlertidig forføyning) to preserve Sarah’s documented civil powers of attorney and patient-rights declarations against unilateral rejection by health institutions.

      The formal text, signed and with the required appeal fee documented as paid, can be reviewed in Signert anke i sak 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08 – midlertidig forføyning.

      The civil injunction track concerns whether the court should have considered temporary legal protection for Sarah’s documented powers of attorney, next-of-kin designation and lawful representation, particularly in relation to Oslo University Hospital and the practical effects of the visitor ban.

      The appeal in this civil matter was sent on 15 May 2026, digitally signed on 19 May 2026, and the appeal fee was later paid.

      The point of this track is not simply to challenge the visitor ban through another route.

      It concerns independent questions about healthcare law, representation, patient rights, administrative procedure and whether a hospital may disregard documented authorisations without a concrete legal assessment, written basis, reasoning and possibility of review.

      The core issue is this:

      A visitor ban does not automatically revoke documented powers of attorney.

      It does not automatically remove next-of-kin status.

      It does not by itself give a healthcare institution the right to disregard lawful representation without concrete assessment, legal basis, reasoning and possibility of review.

      The visitor-ban case and the civil injunction case are connected by the same underlying problem: practical obstruction of Sarah’s documented will, representation and rights while she cannot communicate.

      But they are legally separate tracks.

      That distinction matters.

      10. Request submitted on Sarah’s behalf

      A request has now been submitted on Sarah’s behalf for the visitor ban to be lifted or, at minimum, limited.

      This is documented in “If the rules had been followed, I could have written: checkmate”, which explains that an express request was submitted on Sarah’s behalf for the visitor ban to be lifted or limited.

      This is not only a request from Per Øyvind for contact.

      It is a request made on behalf of Sarah.

      That distinction is crucial.

      Sarah had already documented that her representative should be able to exercise rights even when physical contact or direct communication was restricted.

      The visitor ban has therefore had a practical effect far beyond ordinary “no contact”.

      It has been used, in practice, as if it could neutralise Sarah’s earlier documented will, powers of attorney, next-of-kin status and choice of support person.

      This is why the request matters.

      Crucially, the primary request currently filed with the Supreme Court and elevated to the Director of Public Prosecutions (Riksadvokaten) has been submitted on Sarah’s behalf.

      It argues that using a criminal-procedure visitor ban to neutralise a patient’s pre-existing civil representation framework raises fundamental due-process concerns.

      11. Medical restriction, visitor ban and actual rights obstruction are not the same

      One recurring confusion must be avoided.

      A medical visitor restriction is a healthcare decision concerning access, safety, treatment environment and patient care.

      A criminal-procedure visitor ban / restraining order is a police or court-imposed measure under criminal procedure regulating physical proximity and direct or indirect contact.

      Actual obstruction of powers of attorney, next-of-kin status, information rights, representation and patient-rights exercise is a broader practical and legal issue that may result from either of the above, but is not automatically justified by either.

      The documentation on this site argues that these have been collapsed into one practical barrier.

      That is legally and medically dangerous.

      If healthcare institutions, police or courts treat a visitor ban as if it automatically extinguishes fullmakt, next-of-kin status, access rights, complaint rights, patient-rights representation and Sarah’s right to be heard through her chosen representative, the actual effect may be isolation and silencing of Sarah’s documented will.

      This is why the civil injunction track and the Supreme Court visitor-ban track must be seen together, but kept legally distinct.

      12. The subway incident on 24 November 2025

      The dedicated page “The 24 November incident” collects the main account of the event. The broader chronology is collected in the timeline, while video material is collected under videos.

      Several posts address the early public framing and later documentation:

      The central points are:

      1. It was Sarah Eilen Slettvoll who was injured.
      2. She was not a nameless “person”.
      3. Per Øyvind was present, identified her and tried to explain her condition.
      4. Sarah’s autism, autistic shutdown / catatonia risk and medical background were relevant to how the situation should have been understood at the scene.
      5. The site’s documentation argues that police and emergency services did not sufficiently take this into account.
      6. The site’s documentation argues that Sarah was treated as dead or unreachable before it became clear that she was alive.
      7. The site’s documentation argues that life-saving help was not initiated early enough, with approximately 35 minutes as a central timeline issue.
      8. Media and police framing should not shift attention away from emergency response, time use and possible misclassification by turning the case into a moral story about bystanders filming.

      13. The critical timeline question: 35 minutes

      One of the most serious points in the case concerns the timeline for life-saving treatment.

      The site’s documentation points to the police incident time of 15:28. It distinguishes that time from 15:38, when police notified the media. Document.no later updated its article and referred to video documentation in which signs of life were observed on the stretcher at 16:03.

      If the incident time of 15:28 is used, this creates a timeline issue of approximately 35 minutes until observed signs of life at 16:03.

      TV 2 quoted police operations leader Kristine Hedly as saying that the person had suffered serious injuries and received life-saving treatment after being brought up from the track.

      This raises the question whether life-saving treatment in fact first began after Sarah had been brought up from the track, more than half an hour after the incident.

      The questions that must be independently investigated include:

      • when Sarah was first assessed as alive
      • when breathing, pulse and consciousness were checked
      • whether she received life-saving treatment while still in the track area
      • whether life-saving treatment started only after she was brought up
      • whether neck injuries affected the ability to provide help in the track area
      • whether any assumption of death, lifelessness or intentional action affected prioritisation
      • whether misjudgement of condition, delayed life-saving treatment or insufficient respiratory / circulatory follow-up may have contributed to worsened brain injury, secondary injury or other injury severity
      • whether Per Øyvind’s observations and attempted explanations were ignored or inadequately recorded

      This is not a minor detail.

      In severe trauma, minutes matter.

      14. Media framing and what disappeared

      The early media framing focused heavily on public behaviour: filming, laughter, chaos and moral condemnation.

      If such behaviour occurred, it may of course be relevant.

      But it cannot become the whole story.

      The site’s Press & media page collects the media-related documentation and correction efforts.

      Specific posts include:

      The unanswered questions are more serious than the public-filming angle:

      • What exactly happened to Sarah?
      • Was the incident correctly understood from the beginning?
      • When was she first understood to be alive?
      • When was life-saving treatment actually initiated?
      • Why were Sarah’s powers of attorney not given real effect?
      • Why was her chosen support person excluded from information and contact?
      • Why have major newsrooms not revisited the case after new documentation became available?
      • How did the “intentional act” framing originate and spread?
      • Did early media framing help shield emergency-response and institutional handling from scrutiny?

      Caution in reporting possible suicide or attempted suicide cannot mean silence about possible system failure, possible misinformation, patient rights and an ongoing life-threatening rights situation.

      This case should not be reduced to:

      • an anonymous subway incident
      • a generic “life crisis”
      • a simple psychiatric narrative
      • a family dispute
      • a man merely seeking contact
      • a standard visitor-ban case
      • a question of public filming
      • a private conflict without public-interest implications

      That kind of reduction is exactly what the documentation on this website challenges.

      15. Oslo University Hospital, police and possible case contamination

      After the incident, documentation concerning Sarah’s powers of attorney, representation rights and nearest-relative status was sent to Oslo University Hospital.

      The post “Complaint against dismissal — report against OUS Ullevål” concerns the report against Oslo University Hospital, case 17105609 / 14770/26-201.

      The first English overview also describes the sequence in which Oslo University Hospital was reported to the police on 9 December 2025, and Oslo University Hospital’s lawyer later the same day sent communication to the police that was later used as part of the basis for the visitor-ban decision.

      This sequence is important.

      If a hospital that had already been reported to the police later contributed information that was used to establish a risk narrative against Sarah’s chosen representative, the police and courts should have assessed whether the hospital was a neutral source or itself an interested party in a reported matter.

      That is why the site raises the question of possible case contamination.

      This does not mean every individual acted maliciously.

      It means that the sequence, roles, interests, documents and later reliance on those documents must be examined instead of simply assumed neutral.

      16. Lovisenberg, FACT and the pre-incident psychiatric track

      The report against Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital and FACT St. Hanshaugen is documented in “Anmeldelse mot Lovisenberg Diakonale Sykehus og FACT St. Hanshaugen”.

      This track concerns earlier psychiatric handling, involuntary medication, missing or disputed decisions and the possibility that Sarah’s condition was interpreted too narrowly through the feilstilt F20.0 diagnosis.

      The fixed page “Involuntary admission and involuntary medication” places these issues into a broader timeline before the Jernbanetorget incident.

      This matters because the site’s position is that Sarah’s later injury and non-communicative state cannot be properly understood without examining the preceding medical, psychiatric, nutritional, neurological, trauma, autism and medication-related context.

      The key questions are not merely whether a formal diagnosis existed or whether a psychiatric ward made a decision.

      The key questions are whether the underlying medical and neurodevelopmental reality was properly assessed, whether Sarah’s autism and catatonia risk were understood, whether the medication track was lawful and medically justified, and whether the later Jernbanetorget incident may have been influenced by a preventable, medication-related or somatic deterioration.

      17. Police, the Special Unit and reported public-authority handling

      The police-related track is documented through several posts, including:

      Oslo Police has been reported to the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs in case:

      • 14205080 / 286/26-123

      The site’s position is that the visitor ban, police framing, earlier police material, reported hospital handling, media narrative and later procedural handling must be examined together, without collapsing them into one simplified story.

      The point is not to assume guilt in advance.

      The point is to avoid letting fragmented documents, institutional self-protection or untested narratives decide Sarah’s rights while she cannot speak.

      18. The 29 May 2026 police search of the documentation project

      Before this dossier could be completed, the case entered a new phase.

      On 29 May 2026, police searched Per Øyvind’s home. According to the published account, the background was the creation of sarahslettvoll.org on 1 May 2026 and a report connected to the site’s publications.

      This matters because the search did not concern narcotics, weapons, violence or financial crime.

      It concerned publication on the internet and a documentation project about Sarah Eilen Slettvoll’s case.

      During the search, technical equipment was seized. Surveillance footage from the apartment documented parts of the operation, including the police arrival, inspection of technical equipment, mapping of the publishing setup, examination of a ThinkPad used with a TV as external screen, completion of seizure documentation, packing of seized equipment, discussion of surveillance equipment, and a possible undocumented removal of prescription testosterone medication.

      The published post is available here:

      “Politiransakingen 29. mai 2026: Overvåkingsopptakene som dokumenterte aksjonen”

      The significance is not merely that police searched a private residence.

      The significance is that the search targeted the practical infrastructure of the documentation work itself: computers, storage, publication setup and the technical means by which the case has been reconstructed and made public.

      This turns the website’s creation and publication into a new procedural issue.

      The question is no longer only whether public institutions mishandled Sarah’s health, rights, representation, rehabilitation and the Jernbanetorget incident.

      The question is also whether the state’s response to the publication of that documentation has now become part of the same chain of institutional pressure, obstruction and attempted control of the narrative.

      This must be assessed carefully.

      A lawful investigation is one thing.

      A search and seizure operation directed at the technical infrastructure of a public-interest documentation project concerning alleged failures by police, healthcare institutions and public authorities is something else. It requires strict scrutiny, clear legal basis, proportionality, precise documentation of what was seized, and careful review of whether the measure had a chilling effect on documentation, publication, source protection and public accountability.

      The 29 May search therefore belongs in this dossier as a separate event in the institutional timeline.

      It also reinforces the need to preserve, mirror and independently archive the documentation.

      19. The request to the Director of Public Prosecutions

      The latest update, “If the rules had been followed, I could have written: checkmate”, also documents that the matter has been raised with the Norwegian Director of Public Prosecutions.

      A request has been made for an overarching prosecutorial assessment of the visitor ban in light of:

      • the active Supreme Court track
      • the separate civil injunction appeal
      • Sarah’s documented authorisations
      • the fact that both hospital and police handling have been reported
      • the risk that the visitor ban now functions as a practical barrier to Sarah’s own rights
      • the later 29 May 2026 search and seizure directed at the documentation project itself

      This is not procedural theatre.

      It is an attempt to prevent the case from being passed back and forth between institutions while Sarah’s rights remain practically inaccessible.

      The police have referred to the courts.

      The Director of Public Prosecutions has previously referred to the fact that the case was treated by the courts and that the police manage the visitor ban.

      But the matter is now before the Supreme Court.

      That changes the practical and legal context.

      The later police search also changes the public-interest context. When documentation about public institutions becomes the basis for police search and seizure against the person maintaining that documentation, the need for independent review becomes stronger, not weaker.

      20. Why this matters beyond Norway

      This case concerns Norway, but the underlying questions are international.

      What happens when a severely injured autistic woman can no longer communicate, but had already documented who should speak, assist and act on her behalf?

      Can institutions treat those documents as practically irrelevant without a concrete and reviewable legal assessment?

      Can a visitor ban, presented as protection, be allowed to neutralise the injured person’s own prior will?

      Can autism be ignored because the healthcare system failed to formally register or accommodate it?

      Can autistic shutdown or catatonia be misread as psychosis, lack of cooperation, dangerousness or irrelevance?

      Can coercive psychiatric treatment and depot antipsychotic medication be treated as background, rather than as part of the causal and legal chain that must be reviewed after a catastrophic injury?

      Can a hospital and police system rely on each other’s narratives when both are themselves subject to reported concerns in the same chain of events?

      Can a case be fragmented into separate procedural boxes until nobody is forced to assess the whole picture?

      And what happens when the documentation platform itself becomes the subject of a police search and seizure after publication?

      Can a state investigate publication-related allegations in a way that does not chill documentation, source preservation, whistleblowing, public scrutiny and the ability to challenge official narratives?

      These questions are not local.

      They concern patient rights, disability rights, due process, rule of law, emergency response, medical coercion, media responsibility, publication freedom, source protection and institutional accountability.

      21. If you know something

      This case is not only directed at the general public.

      It is also directed at people who may know something but hesitate to speak.

      That may include:

      • emergency service personnel
      • healthcare workers
      • ambulance personnel
      • police
      • security staff
      • public transport employees
      • witnesses
      • bystanders
      • journalists
      • photographers
      • editors
      • desk staff
      • hospital staff
      • rehabilitation staff
      • people who saw video, metadata, internal messages, notes or timelines
      • people who know something about Sarah’s involuntary admission, medication history, depot medication, side effects, possible acute dystonia, discharge or pre-incident condition
      • people who know something about the handling of the 12.05.2025 coercive-treatment decisions or what happened after the decision period expired
      • people with knowledge of the 29 May 2026 search, seizure, warrant basis, technical-equipment handling or publication-related investigation
      • people who know someone who was involved
      • people who tried to raise concerns but were not heard
      • people who were personally involved and later became unsure whether the handling was right

      You do not need to have the whole case.

      One precise fact may matter:

      • one time stamp
      • one observation
      • one internal concern
      • one correction
      • one missing record
      • one medication note
      • one depot-injection date
      • one side-effect observation
      • one person who saw signs of life
      • one person who knows how the “intentional act” framing originated
      • one person who knows when life-saving help actually started
      • one person who knows whether Sarah’s autism, shutdown/catatonia risk or medical background was communicated, ignored or not recorded
      • one person who knows the legal basis, scope or internal reasoning for the 29 May 2026 search and seizure
      • one person who knows how seized technical equipment was selected, handled, copied, logged or returned

      Do not assume that “someone else probably knows this”.

      In serious cases, that assumption is often exactly how crucial information disappears.

      If you know something, start safely, legally and precisely.

      Write down your own timeline.

      Separate what you saw from what you heard and what you only assume.

      Use appropriate lawful channels: internal reporting, supervision authorities, legal counsel, union representative, whistleblowing channel, protected journalistic source channel or another safe and responsible route.

      Do not publish confidential patient information publicly.

      But do not assume silence is neutral.

      The site’s Contact and support page explains how people can help spread the case, contact press or support the work for independent investigation and rehabilitation assessment.

      22. What is being asked now

      The immediate requests are concrete and reviewable:

      1. Independent medical and rehabilitation assessment of whether controlled contact with Sarah’s chosen support person may help response, communication, orientation or rehabilitation.
      2. Autism-informed assessment of Sarah’s communication, shutdown/catatonia risk, sensory vulnerability, trauma burden and need for a trusted support person.
      3. Controlled, clinically supervised contact testing, if medically appropriate, with healthcare personnel present and clear safeguards.
      4. Real legal assessment of Sarah’s powers of attorney, including whether they still give Per Øyvind authority to act on her behalf while communication is restricted.
      5. Recognition that Sarah is the rights-holder, not merely an object of protection.
      6. Review of whether the visitor ban has become disproportionate, particularly if it prevents Sarah’s own documented will from being represented.
      7. Independent review of the hospital and police handling, including possible case contamination and the sequence of reports, communications and later visitor-ban grounds.
      8. Independent review of the coercive psychiatric and medication track, including the 12.05.2025 decisions, the alleged continuation of depot medication after expiry of the original decision period, the later change to Abilify Maintena / aripiprazole depot, possible side effects, possible acute dystonia and whether autism, catatonia risk and somatic causes were adequately assessed.
      9. A joined-up assessment of the full chain of events, rather than treating each fragment as if it existed in isolation.
      10. Review of the 29 May 2026 police search and seizure, including the legal basis, proportionality, scope, handling of technical equipment, possible chilling effect on publication and documentation, and whether the search forms part of a broader pattern of institutional pressure around the Sarah documentation project.
      11. Public support for the call that Sarah can still be reached, including through the petition “She can still be reached — but time is running out for autistic Sarah in catatonia”.

      23. Key case numbers

      • County Governor / Statsforvalteren 2024/43466: main case concerning Sarah, health concerns, coercion, housing, powers of attorney, next of kin and systemic failure.
      • Statsforvalteren 2025/22677: avvisning / handling of complaint concerning involuntary medication at Lovisenberg.
      • Sivilombudet 2025/3259: restricted connection with the outside world during involuntary psychiatric care.
      • Supreme Court 26-085014STR-HRET: visitor-ban case concerning Sarah Eilen Slettvoll, forwarded to the Supreme Court Appeals Committee.
      • Borgarting Court of Appeal 26-037813SAK-BORG/04: visitor-ban appeal track before the Supreme Court.
      • Oslo District Court 25-211254ENE-TOSL/01: original District Court case concerning the visitor ban.
      • Oslo Police District 17044421 / 97136/25-201: police visitor-ban case.
      • Oslo District Court / Borgarting 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08: civil injunction track concerning temporary protection of powers of attorney, next-of-kin status and lawful representation.
      • Report against OUS 17105609 / 14770/26-201: report concerning hospital handling in Sarah’s case.
      • Special Unit 14205080 / 286/26-123: report concerning Oslo Police.
      • UKOM / Norwegian Board of Health Supervision: Veg45x.
      • 29 May 2026 search: police search and seizure connected to the creation and publication of sarahslettvoll.org, documented in the site’s post on the search and surveillance footage.

      24. Main documentation and entry points

      For readers who want to verify the documentation directly, begin here:

      Final note

      This case is about documentation, due process and Sarah’s own rights.

      It is about whether a severely injured autistic woman’s previously expressed will can be made meaningless by institutional practice, procedural fragmentation and a visitor ban treated as if it overrides every other legal relationship.

      It is about whether autism can be ignored because it was not properly registered by the healthcare system.

      It is about whether coercive psychiatric treatment and depot antipsychotic medication before a catastrophic injury can be treated as unrelated background instead of part of the medically relevant timeline.

      It is about whether potentially rehabilitative contact with a familiar, trusted and chosen support person can be dismissed without independent medical testing.

      It is about whether a public-interest documentation project can itself become the target of police search and seizure once it begins to expose contradictions in institutional handling.

      The documents show that the pieces are now on the board.

      The question is whether the rules will finally be followed.

      Sarah can still be reached.

      She must be reached before it is too late.

      #Justice4Sarah #SarahLever

  • Signert anke i sak 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08 – midlertidig forføyning

    Signert anke i sak 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08 – midlertidig forføyning

    Dette er en orientering om signert ankebegjæring i sak 25-Signert anke i sak 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08 – midlertidig forføyning

    Dette er en orientering om signert ankebegjæring i sak 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08, knyttet til midlertidig forføyning mot Staten v/ Oslo politidistrikt og Oslo universitetssykehus HF.

    Anken gjelder Oslo tingretts avgjørelse meddelt/mottatt 15.04.2026, hvor begjæring om omgjøring i saken om midlertidig forføyning ikke ble tatt til følge / ble avvist.

    Ankebegjæringen ble sendt til Oslo tingrett 15.05.2026 og senere digitalt signert 19.05.2026. Dokumentet er forseglet av Posten Bring og signert med BankID/Signicat.

    Saksgebyr for anken er fakturert og betalt. Faktura fra Domstolene i Norge er datert 20.05.2026 og gjelder forskudd for anke i sak 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08, med totalt beløp 8 070,00 kr. Betalingskvittering fra DNB viser at beløpet ble betalt til Domstolene i Norge 23.05.2026.

    Den signerte ankebegjæringen, det sladdede vedlegget til anken, tidligere dokumentsamling i samme sak, faktura for saksgebyr og kvittering for betaling publiseres her direkte fra WordPress sitt medieområde.

    Merk: Dette er et eget sivilt prosesspor, til forskjell fra Høyesterettsanken i besøksforbudssaken. Saken gjelder midlertidig sikring av fullmaktsstatus, nærmeste pårørende-status og lovlig representasjon i en kritisk helsesituasjon.

    Saksopplysninger

    Sak25-210512TVI-TOSL/08
    DomstolOslo tingrett / anke til Borgarting lagmannsrett via Oslo tingrett
    Ankende partPer Øyvind Notsure Norli Karlsen
    MotparterStaten v/ Oslo politidistrikt og Oslo universitetssykehus HF
    Avgjørelse anken gjelderOslo tingretts avgjørelse meddelt/mottatt 15.04.2026
    Anke sendt15.05.2026
    Digital signering19.05.2026
    SaksgebyrFakturert av Domstolene i Norge 20.05.2026 med fakturanr. 32342038, totalt 8 070,00 kr. Betalt 23.05.2026, dokumentert ved betalingskvittering fra DNB.
    VedleggSamlet fullmakts- og representasjonsdokumentasjon for Sarah Eilen Slettvoll / Per Øyvind Notsure Norli Karlsen
    Publiserte dokumenterSignert ankebegjæring, sladdet vedlegg til anken, tidligere dokumentsamling, faktura for saksgebyr og kvittering for betalt saksgebyr

    Hva anken gjelder

    Anken gjelder ikke bare besøksforbudet som sådan. Den gjelder tingrettens behandling av de selvstendige kravene om midlertidig sikring av fullmaktsstatus, nærmeste pårørende-status og lovlig representasjon.

    I ankebegjæringen gjøres det gjeldende at tingretten i realiteten reduserte saken til et spørsmål om besøksforbud og rettsmiddelsporet etter straffeprosessloven § 222 a. Dette bestrides, fordi den opprinnelige begjæringen om midlertidig forføyning også gjaldt selvstendige helserettslige, forvaltningsrettslige og prosessuelle spørsmål overfor Oslo universitetssykehus HF.

    Kjernen er at et besøksforbud ikke automatisk opphever dokumenterte fullmakter, ikke automatisk fjerner status som nærmeste pårørende, og ikke i seg selv gir en helseinstitusjon rett til å se bort fra lovlig representasjon uten konkret vurdering, hjemmel, begrunnelse og adgang til overprøving.

    Bakgrunn

    Den opprinnelige begjæringen om midlertidig forføyning ble reist i en situasjon hvor Sarah Eilen Slettvoll var alvorlig skadet etter T-baneulykken 24.11.2025, og hvor det etter ankende parts syn forelå akutt behov for rettslig sikring av hennes tidligere uttrykte valg av fullmektig, nærmeste pårørende og støtteperson.

    Begjæringen rettet seg mot både Staten v/ Oslo politidistrikt og Oslo universitetssykehus HF. Det ble anført at håndhevingen av besøksforbudet og sykehusets praksis i realiteten avskar Sarah Eilen Slettvoll fra den personen hun selv over tid hadde gitt fullmakter til og utpekt som nærmeste pårørende/støtteperson.

    Anken gjør gjeldende at tingretten ikke realitetsbehandlet de selvstendige kravene om fullmakt, nærmeste pårørende-status og lovlig representasjon, men i stedet behandlet saken som om den i hovedsak gjaldt besøksforbudet alene.

    Påstand i anken

    I ankebegjæringen nedlegges det blant annet påstand om at Oslo tingretts avgjørelse meddelt/mottatt 15.04.2026 oppheves, og at saken hjemvises til Oslo tingrett for realitetsbehandling av kravene om midlertidig sikring av fullmaktsstatus, nærmeste pårørende-status og lovlig representasjon.

    Subsidiært bes Borgarting lagmannsrett selv realitetsbehandle begjæringen om midlertidig forføyning innenfor de krav som allerede var fremsatt.

    Det begjæres også hastebehandling.

    Hvorfor dette publiseres

    Publiseringen skjer for å gjøre dokumentflyt og prosesshistorikk etterprøvbar.

    Vedlegget publiseres for å vise hvilket fullmakts- og representasjonsgrunnlag som fulgte anken. Det er sentralt for å forstå hvorfor anken gjør gjeldende at tingretten skulle realitetsbehandlet spørsmålene om fullmakt, nærmeste pårørende-status og lovlig representasjon, i stedet for å avgrense saken til besøksforbudssporet.

    Det sivile forføyningssporet har betydning for forståelsen av hele sakskomplekset, fordi det viser at spørsmålene om fullmakt, nærmeste pårørende-status, Oslo universitetssykehus HF, politiets besøksforbud og lovlig representasjon ikke bare ble reist i ettertid, men ble forsøkt sikret rettslig gjennom midlertidig forføyning.

    Fakturaen og betalingskvitteringen publiseres for å dokumentere at anken ikke bare ble sendt og signert, men også fulgt opp økonomisk gjennom betalt saksgebyr.

    Dette er særlig relevant fordi saken gjelder en alvorlig helsesituasjon hvor konsekvensene av manglende avklaring ikke bare er prosessuelle, men praktiske og menneskelige.

    Dokumenter

    1. Signert ankebegjæring i sak 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08

    Dokumentet inneholder signert ankebegjæring over Oslo tingretts avgjørelse meddelt/mottatt 15.04.2026 i sak 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08.

    Ankebegjæringen ble sendt 15.05.2026 og digitalt signert 19.05.2026 med BankID/Signicat. Dokumentet er forseglet av Posten Bring.

    Dokumentet viser at det begjæres hastebehandling, og at anken gjelder hele avgjørelsen. Last ned signert ankebegjæring i sak 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08 (PDF)

    2. Vedlegg til anken – samlet fullmakts- og representasjonsdokumentasjon

    Dette dokumentet er vedlegg til ankebegjæringen og samler dokumentasjon om fullmakt, fremtidsrettet representasjonsgrunnlag og nærmeste pårørende for Sarah Eilen Slettvoll / Per Øyvind Notsure Norli Karlsen.

    Dokumentet samler blant annet fullmakter, erklæringer, journal-/myndighetsdokumentasjon og rettslig redegjørelse. Det er ment å dokumentere representasjon, nærmeste pårørende-status, innsynsrett, kommunikasjon, helse, NAV, økonomi, bolig, klage, tilsyn og fremtidsrettet beslutningsstøtte.

    Dokumentet bygger på en sammenhengende dokumentrekke fra 25.10.2024 til 23.11.2025, med gjentatte fullmakter og erklæringer fra Sarah Eilen Slettvoll, løpende praktisk oppfølging fra Per Øyvind Notsure Norli Karlsen, og senere saksbehandling hvor rollene har vært fremlagt, registrert eller brukt.

    Vedlegget er relevant for anken fordi det underbygger anførslene om at saken ikke bare gjelder besøksforbudet, men også selvstendige spørsmål om fullmaktsstatus, nærmeste pårørende-status, innsyn, representasjon og beslutningsstøtte i en kritisk helsesituasjon.

    Last ned vedlegg til anken – samlet fullmakts- og representasjonsdokumentasjon (PDF)

    3. Tidligere dokumentsamling i sak 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08

    Dette dokumentet gjelder den tidligere dokumentsamlingen i sak 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08, og inneholder blant annet materialet knyttet til tingrettens tidligere behandling i saken om midlertidig forføyning.

    Dokumentet tas med for å gjøre sammenhengen mellom den opprinnelige forføyningssaken, senere omgjøringsbegjæring og anken etterprøvbar. Last ned dokumentsamling 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08 (PDF)

    4. Faktura fra Domstolene i Norge – saksgebyr for anke

    Dette dokumentet viser faktura fra Domstolene i Norge, fakturanr. 32342038, datert 20.05.2026.

    Fakturaen gjelder forskudd for anke i sak 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08, Per Øyvind Notsure Norli Karlsen mot Staten v/Justisdepartementet m.fl. Fakturert beløp er 8 070,00 kr, med forfallsdato 03.06.2026.

    Dokumentet tas med for å vise at saksgebyret for anken faktisk ble fakturert av Domstolene i Norge. Last ned faktura fra Domstolene i Norge – saksgebyr for anke (PDF)

    5. Kvittering for betalt saksgebyr

    Dette dokumentet viser betalingsdetaljer fra DNB for utført betaling til Domstolene i Norge.

    Betalingen ble utført 23.05.2026. Beløpet er 8 070,00 kr og gjelder samme KID som fakturaen fra Domstolene i Norge.

    Dokumentet tas med for å vise at saksgebyret for anken ikke bare ble fakturert, men også faktisk betalt. Last ned kvittering for betalt saksgebyr (PDF)

    Dokumentstatus

    DokumentStatus
    Signert ankebegjæring i sak 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08Publisert
    Vedlegg til anken – samlet fullmakts- og representasjonsdokumentasjonPublisert i sladdet versjon
    Tidligere dokumentsamling i sak 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08Publisert i sladdet versjon
    Faktura fra Domstolene i Norge for saksgebyrPublisert
    Kvittering for betalt saksgebyrPublisert
    Saksgebyr for ankenFakturert 20.05.2026 og betalt 23.05.2026

    Personvern og sladding

    Dokumentene publiseres for å gjøre prosesshistorikk og dokumentgrunnlag etterprøvbart. Samtidig er dokumentasjonen gjennomgått med tanke på personvern.

    Vedlegget til anken er publisert i en versjon hvor fødselsnummer/personnummer og telefonnummer er sladdet på de aktuelle sidene. Dokumenter som inneholder personopplysninger skal ikke brukes løsrevet fra formålet med publiseringen.

    Faktura og betalingskvittering publiseres for å dokumentere at saksgebyret for anken er fakturert og betalt. Dersom publiserte betalingsdokumenter inneholder kontonummer, KID eller andre betalingsdetaljer, skal disse bare forstås som dokumentasjon av betaling og ikke brukes til andre formål.

    Formålet er ikke å publisere private opplysninger for sin egen del, men å dokumentere rettslig og faktisk grunnlag for fullmakt, nærmeste pårørende-status og representasjon i en alvorlig helsesituasjon.

    Avsluttende merknad

    Dette innlegget gjelder den sivile anken i sak 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08. Den må ses i sammenheng med besøksforbudssaken, men er et eget prosesspor.

    Hovedspørsmålet i dette sporet er om tingretten skulle realitetsbehandlet de selvstendige kravene om midlertidig sikring av fullmaktsstatus, nærmeste pårørende-status og lovlig representasjon, i stedet for å behandle saken som om besøksforbudssporet alene var avgjørende.

  • HVORFOR DETTE DELES PÅ NYTT

    HVORFOR DETTE DELES PÅ NYTT

    HVORFOR DETTE DELES PÅ NYTT

    Jeg deler dette på nytt fordi den forrige delingen ble for tung og lite lesbar.

    Innholdet er det samme. Alvoret er det samme.

    Forskjellen er at dette nå kan leses og forstås uten juridisk bakgrunn.

    Jeg starter med å si det rett ut:

    Det som fremgår av disse dokumentene er groteskt, hensynsløst og selvmotsigende.

    Og konsekvensene rammer først og fremst Sarah.

    HVA SAKEN FAKTISK HANDLER OM

    Dette handler ikke bare om et besøksforbud på papir.

    Retten legger selv til grunn at Sarah er:

    lam og med bortfall av kommunikasjonsevne, ikke bare verbalt, men også gjennom blikk, mimikk og andre grunnleggende former for uttrykk

    helt avhengig av én trygg støtteperson

    I tillegg kommer et helt avgjørende forhold som ikke tas hensyn til i praksis:

    Sarah er autistisk.

    For autistiske personer er trygghet, gjenkjennelse og stabile relasjoner grunnleggende for regulering og orientering.

    Når disse brytes, forsvinner ikke bare ordene, men hele kommunikasjonsgrunnlaget.

    Likevel konkluderer retten med et totalforbud mot kontakt i ett år.

    Det betyr i praksis at en autistisk person, uten fungerende kommunikasjonskanaler,

    skal isoleres fullstendig fra den eneste personen hun er trygg på.

    Dette er ikke bare hardt.

    Det er dypt selvmotsigende.

    HVA JEG SA – SLIK DET STÅR I RETTSBOKEN

    I retten forklarte jeg blant annet at:

    et besøksforbud ikke først og fremst rammer meg, men rammer henne

    hun er lam og med bortfall av kommunikasjonsevne, ikke bare verbalt, men også gjennom blikk, mimikk og andre grunnleggende former for uttrykk

    hun er avhengig av meg for trygghet og orientering

    jeg er hennes nærmeste pårørende og eneste identifiserte støtteperson

    jeg nesten ikke får informasjon om henne

    jeg ikke engang vet sikkert hvor hun er

    Dette står i rettsboken.

    Dette er ikke mine ord i ettertid.

    Likevel brukes disse forholdene ikke til å beskytte henne,

    men til å legitimere at hun isoleres og forsvinner.

    HVA SOM SKJER I PRAKSIS – SETT I ET AUTISMEPERSPEKTIV

    Det som nå skjer, er at Sarah gradvis blir:

    gjemt bort

    redusert til et passivt objekt

    fratatt relasjoner, historie og verdighet

    For en autistisk person er dette særlig alvorlig.

    Når kjente relasjoner brytes:

    forsvinner forutsigbarhet

    forsvinner regulering

    forsvinner evnen til å tolke omgivelsene

    forsvinner muligheten til å uttrykke behov

    Dette er ikke nøytralt.

    Det er aktiv desintegrering.

    Samtidig blir det aktivt og grovt lovstridig hindret at hun kan bli funnet igjen,

    at situasjonen hennes kan stabiliseres,

    eller at hun kan få leve med noen form for menneskelig verdighet.

    Dette er en grusom skjebne.

    Og den er først og fremst grusom for henne.

    TIDEN RENNER UT – UKE FOR UKE

    Det mest alvorlige er at tiden renner ut.

    Besøksforbudet er satt til ett år.

    Det betyr 52 uker.

    For en autistisk person i denne tilstanden er tid ikke nøytral.

    Hver uke uten kjent støtte gjør skade.

    Uke for uke:

    brytes trygghet

    brytes gjenkjenning

    brytes regulering

    brytes identitet

    Dette er ikke skade som kan repareres senere.

    Når tiden er brukt opp, er den borte.

    52 UKER, DØDSDOM OG PASSIV DØDSHJELP I PRAKSIS

    Vi har hverken dødsdom eller aktiv dødshjelp i Norge.

    Likevel er det nettopp dette som påføres her, i praksis.

    Ikke i ett øyeblikk,

    men gjennom 52 påfølgende uker.

    Ikke ved en aktiv handling,

    men ved bevisst unnlatelse, uke etter uke.

    For en autistisk person som er lam og med bortfall av kommunikasjonsevne,

    og helt avhengig av én trygg relasjon,

    er dette i realiteten den mest onsinnede og langtekkelige formen for passiv dødshjelp.

    Utfallet er kjent.

    Skaden er forutsigbar.

    Tiden gjør resten.

    Dette er ikke beskyttelse.

    Det er en sakte, pinende dødsdom i praksis, forkledd som et administrativt tiltak.

    Og det mest groteske:

    Sarah er allerede offer.

    Hun er allerede hardt rammet.

    Hun er allerede straffet nok.

    Å isolere henne fullstendig i 52 uker er å straffe henne enda hardere –

    og i langt større grad enn noen annen part i denne saken.

    HVOR JEG STÅR I DETTE

    Samtidig blir jeg forsøkt kneblet.

    Presset til å gi henne opp.

    Presset til å glemme.

    For autistiske personer er tap av trygg relasjon ofte irreversibelt.

    Å «vente og se» er ikke et nøytralt valg.

    Jeg kan ikke, og kommer aldri til, å snu ryggen til henne –

    uansett hvor hardt det forsøkes å tvinge meg til det.

    OFFENTLIG INTERESSE, AUTISME OG VÆR VARSOM-PLAKATEN

    Jeg deler begjæringen om omgjøring og tingrettens kjennelse fordi dette er av klar offentlig interesse,

    og fordi saken viser hvordan autistiske mennesker kan bli alvorlig skadet når systemet misforstår kommunikasjon, avhengighet og behov for stabilitet.

    Dokumentene inneholder minimalt med utleverende informasjon om Sarah,

    og ikke mer enn det som allerede er offentlig kjent og gjengitt av retten selv.

    Dette er ikke et brudd på Vær Varsom-plakaten § 4.9.

    Det er også verdt å merke seg at politiet tidligere bevisst har misbrukt § 4.9 for å hindre offentlighet,

    til tross for at samstemmige vitnebeskrivelser var klare på at det dreide seg om en ulykke,

    og ikke et selvmordsforsøk.

    Å bruke presseetikk for å skjule urett er et misbruk av både etikken og offentlighetens tillit.

    Her foreligger det tvert imot en forpliktelse for media og offentligheten

    til å belyse hvordan autistiske mennesker behandles når systemet svikter.

    AVSLUTNING – EN BØNN OM HJELP

    Jeg har ikke kapasitet til å stå alene i dette.

    Jeg skalerer ikke. Kapasiteten er allerede sprengt.

    Derfor deler jeg dette offentlig.

    Derfor ber jeg andre lese, forstå og dele videre.

    Dette handler ikke om meg.

    Det handler om en autistisk kvinne som isoleres, usynliggjøres og fratas sin verdighet –

    mens tiden renner ut, uke for uke.

    Begjæringen og kjennelsen deles nedenfor i sin helhet, side for side.

    Ingen utdrag. Ingen redigering.

    Les selv.

    #sarahlever #justice4sarah #propaganda #autismawareness #disabilityrights #deathsentence #HumanRightsViolation

    —
    ### Publiseringsnotat
    Dette innlegget ble først publisert på Per Øyvind Karlsens Facebook-profil 31.01.2026 kl. 00:09:42 (Europe/Oslo):
    https://www.facebook.com/proyvind/

    Direktelenke til selve Facebook-innlegget er ikke oppgitt her fordi Facebook-eksporten ikke inneholder stabil permalink eller post-ID for dette innlegget. Eksporten inneholder tidspunkt og innhold, men ikke en sikker direktelenke som kan rekonstrueres uten manuell kontroll.

    Kommentarer og reaksjoner ligger fortsatt på Facebook der opprinnelig innlegg er tilgjengelig.

  • I dag deler jeg både kjennelsen og begjæringen om omgjøring.

    I dag deler jeg både kjennelsen og begjæringen om omgjøring.

    I dag deler jeg både kjennelsen og begjæringen om omgjøring.

    Ikke fordi jeg har krefter til det.

    Men fordi jeg mener det er nødvendig, også før en eventuell anke.

    Kjennelsen som kom i dag var i praksis det jeg fryktet.

    Et besøksforbud opprettholdes, til tross for at retten selv legger til grunn at det i realiteten er fornærmede som rammes hardest. Hun er lam, kommuniserer ikke, og er avhengig av meg som støtteperson, fullmektig, nærmeste pårørende og kjæreste. Likevel konkluderer retten med at inngrepet ikke er uforholdsmessig.

    Det er… vanskelig å ta inn.

    Jeg har derfor valgt å begjære omgjøring før anke.

    Ikke som en formalitet, men fordi det foreligger alvorlige problemer knyttet til saksbehandlingen, faktumgjengivelsen og forholdsmessighetsvurderingen. Dette er forhold som retten kan og bør rette opp selv, før saken eventuelt løftes videre.

    Begjæringen som nå er sendt inn, er det maksimalt realistiske jeg har klart å få på plass på svært kort tid, i en tilstand av ekstrem utmattelse. Den er skrevet direkte opp mot kjennelsen og rettsboken, punkt for punkt. Ikke retorikk. Ikke spill. Bare presis redegjørelse for hvorfor dette ikke henger sammen – juridisk, menneskelig eller menneskerettslig.

    Forrige status etter rettsmøtet bar preg av forsiktig håp.

    Nå er jeg ærlig talt bare tom.

    Jeg har jobbet nesten sammenhengende i dagevis. Kroppen er ferdig. Hodet er ferdig. Følelsene… ja. De er der, men uten overskudd til å rydde i dem. Det eneste som var viktig nå, var å få dette innsendt, slik at jeg med noenlunde god samvittighet kunne tillate meg å stoppe opp litt.

    Jeg deler dette offentlig fordi jeg oppriktig mener at alvoret og absurditeten i saken angår mer enn bare oss. Når tiltak som skal «beskytte» i realiteten isolerer en alvorlig skadet person fra hennes eneste trygge støtte, uten reell kontradiksjon og med åpenbare brister i vurderingene, da er det noe som er galt på systemnivå.

    Begjæringen er nå sendt.

    Mer kan jeg ikke gjøre akkurat nå.

    Jeg må prøve å finne litt ro. Og ærlig talt: slukne.

    Takk til dere som har lest, støttet, delt, spurt og vært der. Det betyr mer enn jeg klarer å formulere nå.

    #sarahlever #justice4sarah #disabilityrights

    —
    ### Publiseringsnotat
    Dette innlegget ble først publisert på Per Øyvind Karlsens Facebook-profil 30.01.2026 kl. 06:51:47 (Europe/Oslo):
    https://www.facebook.com/proyvind/

    Direktelenke til selve Facebook-innlegget er ikke oppgitt her fordi Facebook-eksporten ikke inneholder stabil permalink eller post-ID for dette innlegget. Eksporten inneholder tidspunkt og innhold, men ikke en sikker direktelenke som kan rekonstrueres uten manuell kontroll.

    Kommentarer og reaksjoner ligger fortsatt på Facebook der opprinnelig innlegg er tilgjengelig.

  • https://twitter.com/proyvind/status/2013152360911040546

    «Declared dead while alive.

    An autistic shutdown was misclassified as death.

    Her guardian was removed.

    A body bag was prepared.

    Sarah survived.

    She is now paralyzed and unable to communicate.

    Six weeks later, the isolation continues.

    Watch the documentation:

    #sarahlever #justice4sarah #autismawareness #disabilityrights #propaganda

    Please RT!»

    Særskilt etter at jeg delte dokumentet med besøksforbudet, hvor kontoen min bare ett par timer etterpå ble begrenset så jeg ikke får sendt meldinger før 26.01.2026, må jeg bli flinkere til å publisere på tvers av medier.

    Vær så snill å del videre, særskilt med tanke på ytterligere kneblingforsøk i påvente.

    #StreisandEffect

    —
    ### Publiseringsnotat
    Dette innlegget ble først publisert på Per Øyvind Karlsens Facebook-profil 19.01.2026 kl. 08:40:34 (Europe/Oslo):
    https://www.facebook.com/proyvind/

    Direktelenke til selve Facebook-innlegget er ikke oppgitt her fordi Facebook-eksporten ikke inneholder stabil permalink eller post-ID for dette innlegget. Eksporten inneholder tidspunkt og innhold, men ikke en sikker direktelenke som kan rekonstrueres uten manuell kontroll.

    Kommentarer og reaksjoner ligger fortsatt på Facebook der opprinnelig innlegg er tilgjengelig.

  • Jernbanetorget, Oslo – 24.11.2025

    Jernbanetorget, Oslo – 24.11.2025

    This video documents how an autistic woman was misclassified as deceased while still alive.

    Her guardian repeatedly explained that she was autistic and in shutdown.

    He was removed and silenced.

    A body bag was prepared.

    Before life-saving care, the incident was reported as a suicide attempt.

    Sarah survived.

    She is now paralyzed and unable to communicate.

    Six weeks after waking from a coma, she is still isolated.

    Her guardian is still denied access and information.

    This is not over.

    This is happening now.

    Watch carefully. Share.

    Help break the isolation.

    https://c.org/XRnrF4J8YN

    #sarahlever #justice4sarah #autismawareness #disabilityrights #propaganda

    —
    ### Publiseringsnotat
    Dette innlegget ble først publisert på Per Øyvind Karlsens Facebook-profil 19.01.2026 kl. 08:18:33 (Europe/Oslo):
    https://www.facebook.com/proyvind/

    Direktelenke til selve Facebook-innlegget er ikke oppgitt her fordi Facebook-eksporten ikke inneholder stabil permalink eller post-ID for dette innlegget. Eksporten inneholder tidspunkt og innhold, men ikke en sikker direktelenke som kan rekonstrueres uten manuell kontroll.

    Kommentarer og reaksjoner ligger fortsatt på Facebook der opprinnelig innlegg er tilgjengelig.