My letter to the lawyer Torjus Torjusen of 3 october 2025

My letter to the lawyer Torjus Torjusen of 3 october 2025

John Bjarne Grover

On 2 october 2025 I got an email (later also in the post on paper) from the lawyer Torjus Torjusen at Centrum Advokatkontor in Fredrikstad - he wrote that I would get advance inheritance from the sales of the house of 'Ragna Grøver' and therefore he asked me to send him my bank details. It would be one third of the value of the house. The money would be transferred around 15 february 2026. The following day I wrote back the following letter explaining why I cannot receive such a 'gift' from 'Ragna Grøver' - of course it is a gift and not an inheritance. Then in an email annotated with 28 october 2025 he wrote once again asking me to change my mind and send him my bank details.

I published the article 'The norwegian problem' in the evening 28 october 2025, in fact before I had found this new email - which I found on my email account only the next day - but dated the day before. My article explains in detail why I cannot receive a gift which puts up more formal dependencies between me and the state of Norway - on the contrary it should be of utmost importance to diminish any such relations.

My email to the lawyer of 3 october 2025 is the following. It is translated with translate.google.com with only very small emendations by me - and I add also a correction to the letter of 3 october 2025. Here follows first the translation (plus correction) and thereafter the original:

Friday 3 Oct 2025 at 1:25 PM

Thank you for your letter.

Based on johnbjarnegrover.com/occipitaldetail.jpg this MRI scan of my head (2012), which shows that part of the visual patch has been cut away while the skull is intact, which means that it must have happened while I was in my first months in 1957, as well as johnbjarnegrover.com/evidence.htm this data which shows that it is probably about some politics, as well as johnbjarnegrover.com/replacedfatherstory.htm this story which means that Ragna Grøver was involved in replacing the first father with a new one who never told his identity but used the previous father's name (I was not informed in advance), as well as her so-called car accident in 1981 around the assassination of the Pope which in principle could have been a person-swap (I visited her in the hospital after the accident - she had a clean and open scalpel cut across her forehead - you could put your fingertip in - which was made by a doctor, not by a car, and that she might was a little rounder around the hips afterwards), it is perhaps not unlikely that she does not have an authentic identity and is therefore not strictly the legal owner of the property. It is against the background of the whole story that it does not make sense to receive such a gift from 'Ragna Grøver'. I have guessed (but have not received any information) that both parents may have worked for the state intelligence service with me as a 'project' to create power for the state. I had some consultations with therapist Per Mentzen (in Oslo) in 1982 (or 1983) and he told me that 'both parents were addicts' (were agents?) and that I 'had not received enough love as a child' (was exposed to severe child abuse?) and there was not much to be done about it. My parents have admitted that I almost died of an allergic attack in 1958 or 1959 (probably about 18 months old) but they claim that I had done it myself - put a nut in my mouth. (I myself would like to believe - I have speculated on the basis of little empirical evidence but some personal experience - that it may have been the most severe form of torture - to create power for the state). Mentzen died 3-4 years later - 'overtaken by a dangerous illness', as the obituary in Aftenposten stated.

Mrs Grøver was also formally responsible for my forced admission to a mental hospital in 1999-2000 - it was done on the basis of her signature - but I had had no contact with her since 1988 - except for two short telephone conversations in 1993, and there was therefore not sufficient contact to use her signature as a basis for forced admission. The two telephone conversations in 1993 concerned an advance on an inheritance (100,000 kroner) after 'John Grøver' who officially died in 1990 - when I tried to cash the check she sent, there were no funds in the account so I left it alone. I still received the money as informal compensation (it had grown to 125,000 by then) after I was released from the mental hospital and had to flee the country and therefore had to give away my belongings which probably cost the same amount. The lawyer at the time (who helped me out of the mental hospital) said that there was no point in reviewing the forced treatment in court. I was supposed to have my doctorate approved in 1998 but was forcibly admitted in 1999 ('instead') while Gro Harlem Brundtland became head of the WHO (in 1998). There was no reason to believe that I was dangerous to myself or others.

I do not have enough grounds to speculate whether the two sisters could also be copies. If that were the case, it could even be imagined that I (theoretically) could be considered the only real owner of the house - and in that case the story could have been a political idea of 'auto-fellatio' - which may have been the concept for the exchange of the first father while we were waiting in the car at the Vikebukt ferry landing in 1969 (not far from Måndalen - now called 'Voll' - at Åndalsnes) - 'fella ti ho...' = 'that trap of hers...' - the father said 'I have to pee' and went behind a shed and another man came back. This may have been the concept for 'Jimmy Carter' (James Earl Carter) and Walter Mondale in 1976. Mondale told the Norwegian media that his family came from Måndalen. The exchange of the father probably happened around the time of the first moon landing - but even today it is probably difficult to send someone to the moon and back again.

The worst theories say that the second father could have been Adolf Hitler, the mother could have been Heinrich Himmler, the eldest sister could have been von Ribbentrop and the youngest John F. Kennedy (hence Carter/Mondale), but it goes without saying that there is no point in claiming any reality in such theories without knowing anything.

It would therefore not make sense to accept a gift from Mrs. Grøver. It is probably more sensible to wait for a fair compensation ('billighetserstatning') from the state. I have no opinion on whether that can be realistic or not.

John Bjarne Grover
Pf.15
1152 Wien
Austria

Addition made today 31 october 2025:

I have to correct an inaccuracy: I wrote that I "had no contact with her since 1988 - except for two short telephone conversations in 1993". That is not entirely correct: I was in the alleged father's funeral in 1990 and it may be that his wife was also present but I kept a distance and had no contact with her there. In the autumn 1994 she was also on my door and I was foolish enough to open it to give her a chance to confess but she had no confession to present - only a brief choice she presented - whether I wanted "plums from the garden or father's anorak". I closed the door again and should not have opened it. A last time in the spring 1995 she tried to block for my progress in the street but I ran past her and mumbled 'go to hell' into the roadside (I did not communicate that to her - and if that should be her trump card today it would be only for claiming that I had taken up contact with her, which is not true). She also sent numerous letters (all in all at least a dozen, maybe two dozen) to 'John Bj.Grøver' ('Arne Treholt' = 'Arne Grove[r]' had in 1985 been sentenced for espionage and high treason) which I returned unopened to sender all of them before I understood (in probably the second half of the 1990's) that it could have meant a sort of 'contact' for her (as if I 'handed over information to her') and I therefore had to start demolishing them unopened and unread. I have never read any communcation from her since 1988 (except for the letters from lawyer). Clearly this is not sufficient for a forced hospitalization to psychiatric treatment: The norwegian law (at least in those days) said, as far as I remember, that 'regular contact' ('jevnlig kontakt') was a requirement for such a signature from a next-of-kin to be a valid basis for a forced psychiatric hospitalization and in 1999 that could not be said to apply.

'Treholt denied that he had handed over information to his contacts that could harm national security'. See my article for the idea why that could have applied to me if I had continued returning the letters unopened to her.

Finding such a letter in my PO Box came to be worse and worse (it could put me out of working shape for days) untill I started sending them unopened to the police (probably around 2008 or maybe a few years later). I hope the lawyer in Fredrikstad is not entering into similar persistence. There are good reasons to suspect that there could be enough reason for a 'billighetserstatning'. I have the right to know what all this circus was - without any secrecy obligations. Of course I cannot agree to a gift which only throws me into more intrigues.

The lawyer in his two emails refers to the law of inheritance §24:

"Den lengstlevende ektefellen kan gi fullt eller delvis arveoppgjør av uskifteformuen til en arving bare hvis alle arvingene får en like stor del av sin arv eller har gitt samtykke".

= (by translate.google.com)

"The surviving spouse may make a full or partial inheritance settlement of the uninherited assets to an heir only if all heirs receive an equal share of their inheritance or have given their consent".

I could guess that this could have been the question about 'plums from the garden or father's anorak' (TEQ #112 was on the front page of my homepage through some years) - since such 'pre-inheritance' would include also the alleged father's part. I cannot pay for the alleged father's crimes and need no 'shiners' - even if I must admit that I returned the unopened letters through the first years after 1988.

I would not be surprised to learn that this could have been the background of the Arne Treholt case and the specific wording of the norwegian inheritance law.

There exists also a photo of the man who called himself 'John Grøver' in anorak in probably the 1970's in a posture rather similar to another photo which exists of Paul Celan in a similar posture in probably the 1960's - both with foot lifted up on a 'ledge' or something like that.

It is very high time to terminate the 'intelligence project' - if that is what this story is. I hope for a political asylum or citizenship in another country and a complete termination of all my contact with Norway.

The original letter:

Friday 3 Oct 2025 at 1:25 PM

Jeg takker for brev.

På bakgrunn av johnbjarnegrover.com/occipitaldetail.jpg dette magnet-scan-bildet av mitt hode (2012), som viser at en del av synslappen er klippet bort mens skallen er intakt, som betyr at det må ha skjedd mens jeg var i mine første måneder i 1957, samt johnbjarnegrover.com/evidence.htm disse dataene som viser at det sannsynligvis dreier seg om noe politikk, samt johnbjarnegrover.com/replacedfatherstory.htm denne historien som betyr at Ragna Grøver var med på å bytte ut den første faren med en ny som aldri fortalte sin identitet men brukte den forrige farens navn (jeg ble ikke informert på forhånd), samt hennes såkalte bilulykke i 1981 omkring attentatet på paven som i prinsippet kan ha vært et person-bytte (jeg besøkte henne på sykehuset etter ulykken - hun hadde et rent og åpent skalpell-snitt tvers over pannen - man kunne putte fingertuppen inn - som var gjort av lege, ikke av bil, samt at hun kanskje var litt rundere rundt hoftene etterpå), er det kanskje ikke usannsynlig at hun ikke har autentisk identitet og derfor strengt tatt ikke er den juridiske eier av eiendommen. Det er på bakgrunn av hele historien at det ikke er fornuftig å motta en slik presang fra 'Ragna Grøver'. Jeg har gjettet (men har ikke fått noen opplysninger) at begge foreldrene kan ha arbeidet for statens etterretningstjeneste med meg som 'prosjekt' for å skape makt for staten. Jeg hadde noen konsultasjoner med terapeut Per Mentzen (i Oslo) i 1982 (eller 1983) og han fortalte at 'begge foreldrene var avhengige' (var agenter?) og at jeg 'ikke hadde fått nok kjærlighet som barn' (var utsatt for grov barnemishandling?) og det var ikke så mye å gjøre med det. Foreldrene har innrømmet at jeg nesten døde av et allergisk anfall i 1958 eller 1959 (sannsynligvis ca. 18 måneders alder) men de hevder at jeg hadde gjort det selv - puttet en nøtt i munnen. (Jeg selv vil kunne tro - har spekulert på bakgrunn av lite empiri men noen personlige erfaringer - at det kanskje kan ha vært den aller groveste form for tortur - for å skape makt for staten). Mentzen døde 3-4 år senere - 'innhentet av en farlig sykdom', som det sto i nekrologen i Aftenposten.

Fru Grøver var også formelt ansvarlig for tvangsinnleggelsen av meg på sinnsykehus i 1999-2000 - det var gjort på grunnlag av hennes signatur - men jeg hadde ikke hatt noen kontakt med henne siden 1988 - unntatt to korte telefonsamtaler i 1993, og det var derfor ikke tilstrekkelig kontakt til at man kunne bruke hennes signatur som grunnlag for tvangsinnleggelse. I de to telefonsamtalene i 1993 dreide det seg om et forskudd på arv (100.000 kroner) etter 'John Grøver' som offisielt døde i 1990 - når jeg forsøkte å heve sjekken hun sendte var det ikke dekning på kontoen så jeg lot det være. Jeg mottok allikevel pengene som uformell erstatning (de hadde da vokst til 125.000) etter at jeg slapp ut fra sinnsykehuset og måtte rømme fra landet og derfor måtte gi bort mine eiendeler som sikkert kostet like mye. Advokaten den gangen (som hjalp meg ut av sinnsykehuset) fortalte at det ikke var noen vits i å overprøve tvangsbehandlingen i retten. Jeg skulle hatt min doktorgrad godkjent i 1998 men ble tvangsinnlagt i 1999 ('i stedet') mens Gro Harlem Brundtland ble sjef for WHO (i 1998). Det var ingen grunn til å tro at jeg var farlig for meg selv eller andre.

Jeg har ikke nok grunnlag for å spekulere på om de to søstrene også kunne være kopier. Hvis det skulle ha vært tilfelle, kunne det tilmed tenkes at jeg (teoretisk) kunne betraktes som den eneste egentlige eieren av boligen - og i så fall kunne historien ha vært en politisk ide om 'auto-fellatio' - noe som kan ha vært konseptet for utbyttingen av den første faren mens vi ventet i bil på Vikebukt fergeleie i 1969 (ikke langt fra Måndalen - nå kalt 'Voll' - ved Åndalsnes) - 'fella til ho...' - faren sa 'e må pisse' og gikk bak et skur og en annen mann kom tilbake. Dette kan ha vært konseptet for 'Jimmy Carter' (James Earl Carter) og Walter Mondale i 1976. Mondale fortalte i norske medier at hans familie kom fra Måndalen. Utskiftingen av faren skjedde antagelig omkring tiden for den første månelandingen - men selv i dag er det vel vanskelig å sende noen til månen og tilbake igjen.

De verste teoriene sier at den andre faren kan ha vært Adolf Hitler, moren kan ha vært Heinrich Himmler, den eldste søsteren kunne være von Ribbentrop og den yngste John F.Kennedy (hence Carter/Mondale), men det sier seg selv at det ikke er noen vits i å påstå noen realitet i slike teorier uten å vite noe.

Det ville derfor ikke være fornuftig å ta imot en presang fra fru Grøver. Det er vel fornuftigere å vente på en billighetserstatning fra staten. Jeg har ikke noen mening om hvorvidt det kan være realistisk eller ikke.