Human rights, rule of law or constitution are not valid in Finland?

 There is a little state Finland in north-west frontier of Russia. There live ab. 5,5 million people, most of them ancestors originating from Volga river wells, ab. 500 000 inhabitants from different countries who have moved to Finland for several reasons.

Finland gave its declaration of independence 1917 during Russian revolution, there was a civil war 1918 when finnish socialists wanted to stay as a part of Soviet Union after bolsevich revolution murdered Russian emperor family and Soviet Union was founded.

Finnish socialists lost their case and Finland started its independent history. After very severe times during 1940-1950 decades eventually progress was made and industry gave work and wealth for finnish people.

In late 1980 years finnish banks competed fiercely and brought enormously much valutas to finnish capital markets, because Finland Bank and state council had opened markets to free valuta exchange.

That free valuta market decision and revaluation of finnish mark started deep collapsion in finnish economy when Finland Bank and state council lost their fight against banks and industry leaders who wanted the  devaluation of finnish mark. After devaluation and over 100000 company bankcrupt and over 10000 suicide the crisis of 1990 slowly vanished and miraculous Nokia mobile phone brought over 100 billion dollars to finnish national income from 1995 to 2010.

That was seemingly good times but actually started the time of lazy economy, state councils lived over means, heavy taxes destroyed motivation of ordinary people. And after 2010, when Nokia collapsed, state councils have only increased public expenses and number of civil servants. This has been financed by loaning money from abroad and by selling national wealth to abroad.

Finland economy has not grown for 15 years, when counting money value we have lived backwards. At the same time, finnish political elite, state councils and public administrators have given up the obligation of rule of law and the demands concerning the equality of citizens in front of law.

This blog tells the sad story of ”Virtanen family”. It is only one story but there are at least 100 000 stories alike, where finnish public administrators in police, taxation, prosecutor office and administrative judges have broken human rights, EU-directives, Finland constitution law, criminal law and many other laws that are meant to give rights and shelter for citizens.

You can translate and read or listen how our family was attacked by police and taxinspectors 27.3.2012 time 7.44 AM using false criminal declaration. After 3 years false investigation nothing wrong was found but still state prosecutor Sari Aho presented false accusations of tax fraud, crimes on work force, crimes on bookkeeping and crimes on social insurance.

All the false accusations were doomed false. But Finland is not a state by rule of law, tax officials did not pay back the confiscated money that they had robbed using false tax inspection story. Police has not started investigation why all the organizations of Finland attacked without any reason on Virtanen family and police doesnot investigate the tax inspection story that has been written against truth. The tax inspector Jauhiainen confessed in criminal court that he wrote tax memorandum as he thought how things might have happened, not how things really were?

Dear reader, now it seems that all the mighty state elite doesnot obey human rights convention, Finland constitution or EU-declarations or EU-directives. That is why we ask all world leaders to conduct investigations if Finland is found to behave falsely also on it`s international agreements. It is usually so, that in internal situations used ways and habits broadens also to all behaviour and deeds.

Finland has declared, among other, that it obeys Roman agreement. Now it seems that our prime minister Petteri Orpo is not willing to do so. What should be done?

LEGAL SECTIONS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH MINISTERS MUST ALSO COMPLY WITH THE LAW

State Agreement 60/1989 (SopS 59-60/89) Prohibition of torture: Torture and other

In Rome on July 17, 1998, made by the International Criminal Court

Rome Statute, which entered into force in Finland on July 1, 2002 (Crime against humanity):

Article 7 (1) (e) Crime against Humanity of imprisonment or other

severe deprivation of physical liberty

Article 7(1)(e): Unlawful imprisonment or other serious deprivation of liberty as part of the description of crimes against humanity

- The perpetrator imprisoned one or more persons or otherwise

severely deprived one or more persons of physical liberty.

- The Gravity of the conduct was such that it was in violation of fundamental rules of international law.

- The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the gravity of the conduct.

Article 7 (1) (f) Crime against Humanity of torture

Article 7(1)(f): Torture, whether physical or

mental, as part of the description of the crime against humanity act

- The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons.

- Such person or persons were in the custody or under the control of the perpetrator.

- Such pain or suffering did not arise only from, and was not inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions

Article 7 (1) (h) Crime against Humanity of persecution

Article 7 paragraph 1 subparagraph h: Persecution of a person as part of the description of the act of crimes against humanity

- The perpetrator severely deprived, contrary to international law, one or more persons of fundamental rights.

 convention against degrading treatment or punishment 29.9.1989

cruel, inhuman or

 (Crime against humanity)

 - - the so-called The participants of the "enhanced official cooperation attack on the gray economy" are the police, the tax administration,

 On 12 October 2011, the prosecutor's office and the enforcement agency started an encrypted cooperation project with officials, which

 as far as the only official involved or their supervisor is concerned, the so-called judicial supervision

 the authorities have not stopped the mental torture and suffering and the violations of the laws

 maintaining confiscations, the actions of which affect all members of the Virtanen family.

 - - the judgment of the district court, 3 decisions of the Tax Adjustment Board and the Helsinki Administrative Court

 decision confirm that the Virtanen family members selected as targets of human rights violations are

 acted in all respects according to the laws, there is not a single thing or Act in their operation

 shown to be in violation of laws, regulations or statutes. Only administrative officials representing the public sector,

 police officers, tax officers, bailiffs, the prosecutor's office and the so-called law enforcement sector have done

 mistakes, maybe crimes and not even the chancellor of justice of the State Council or the ombudsman of the Parliament

 wanted to correct illegal taxation, investigate officials suspected of criminal activity or

 own activities.

 - - Itä-Uusimaa police, inspection group 2 of Uusimaa's corporate tax office, Itä-Uusimaa

 engagement district prosecutor Sari Aho, the enforcement agency of Itä-Uusimaa has broken it by acting together

 grossly violates the international human rights treaty, EU regulations, EU directives and Finland

 honest business on the basis of baseless accusations invented while oppressing the constitution

 activities of members of the Virtanen family and the companies they control.

- The perpetrator targeted such person or persons by reason of the

identity of a group or collective or targeted the group or collective as such. - Such targeting was based on political, racial, national, ethnic,

cultural, religious, gender as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, of the Statute, or other grounds that are Universally recognized as

impermissible under international law.

Article 7 (1) (k) Crime against Humanity of other inhumane acts

Article 7 paragraph 1 subparagraph k: Other inhuman act as part of crimes against humanity description of the act

- The perpetrator inflicted great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health, by means of an inhumane act.

Article 25

Personal criminal liability

1. The jurisdiction of the court extends to natural persons in accordance with this statute.

2. A person who commits a crime within the jurisdiction of the court shall be personally responsible for it and may be punished in accordance with this statute.

3. In accordance with this statute, a person is liable for and punishable for an offense within the jurisdiction of the court if that person:

a) commits a crime alone or together with another person or through another person, regardless of whether the other person is criminally responsible;

(b) commands, incites or persuades the commission of such an offence, and the offense is actually committed or attempted;

c) in order to facilitate the execution of a crime, to help or assist in the commission of such a crime or the attempt to commit a crime, including providing the means of crime

d) in some other way contributes to the fulfillment of such a crime or its attempt, by a group of persons acting for a common goal. Such contribution must be intentional and:

i) its purpose must be to promote either the group's criminal activity or criminal goal, when such activity or goal involves a crime within the jurisdiction of the court; or

ii) the contributor must be aware of the group's intention to commit the crime; f) attempts to commit a crime by taking measures that substantially initiate its execution, but the crime remains unfulfilled due to circumstances beyond the person's control.

A person who abandons an attempt to commit a crime or otherwise prevents the completion of a crime shall not be punished for attempting a crime under this statute, if that person has completely and voluntarily renounced the criminal purpose.

 - - officials involved in human rights violations in the police, tax administration, prosecutor's office and

 in the enforcement agency and later the so-called law enforcement authorities named Virtanen's family

 members and their business as criminal and made baseless claims that the business was

 founded only to avoid taxes and public payments and that the Virtanen family's father ran the big one

 criminal cop. The officials who joined the criminal activity bypassed the presumption of innocence, they hid

 insurances paid and tax declarations filed and taxes paid.

 - - civil servants and their supervisors who filed baseless reports and baseless accusations and

 the ministers responsible for legality supervision of the activities of the ministries are each natural persons

 - - if Finland were a rule of law, not illegal "grey economy enhanced

 "authority cooperation attack" and its horrific consequences would have been objectively tested

 to make obsolete, to leave unexplored. All Finnish MPs, ministers, so-called

 judicial supervisors and senior officers of the police, the tax administration, the enforcement agency and the State Prosecutor's Office

 leaders and their staffs

4. The provisions of this Statute concerning personal criminal liability shall not affect the liability of States under international law.

Article 27

2. Immunity or special procedural rules of national or international law which may relate to a person's official status do not prevent the court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.

Article 28

Responsibility of managers and other supervisors

In addition to what is provided elsewhere in this Statute as to the grounds of criminal liability, in respect of offenses within the jurisdiction of the Court:

b) Regarding relationships between superiors and subordinates other than those in point (a).

 The irrelevance of official status

 1 This basic rule applies in the same way to all persons

 regardless of their official status. Specifically, an official position

 as head of state or government, member of government or parliament,

 under no circumstances as an elected representative or government official

 exempt a person from criminal liability under this statute

 of responsibility, and as such it is not a basis for mitigating the punishment.

 the superior is liable to the jurisdiction of the court

 of crimes included in which in his actual control and

 subordinates under his supervision have committed a crime as a result of which he

 has not properly supervised the activities of his subordinates, if:

 i) the supervisor either knew or deliberately did not pay attention to information which

 clearly indicated that his subordinates were doing or about to do

 the crimes in question;

 (ii) the offenses in question were related to activities that belonged to the superior

 actual responsibility and control; and not

 iii) the supervisor has taken all necessary measures at his disposal and

 reasonable measures to prevent or prevent crimes

 fulfillment or to refer the matter to the competent authorities

 to be processed for investigation and prosecution.

Article 29 - Inapplicability of limitation periods Limitation periods do not apply to crimes within the jurisdiction of the court.

Section 7, Section 21, Section 22, Section 106, Section 108 and Section 118 of the Constitution

§ 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

EIS Article 3, Article 6 paragraphs 1-3 and Article 7 paragraphs 1-2 and 13

article

Crime against the administration of justice (RL chapter 15 §§ 1-3)

Abuse of official position (RL 40:7 §§)

Gross abuse of official position (RL 40:8 §) Violation of official duty (RL 40:9 §)

Negligent breach of official duty (RL 40:10 §) Forgery or gross forgery (RL 33:1-2 §)

Outrageous unfounded statement in court (RL § 15:1-4)

False reporting (RL 15:6 §)

Gross falsification of evidence (RL 15:7-8 §§)

Crime against the administration of justice (RL chapter 15 §§ 1-3)

PertteriOrponministerinvastuu2024 1.pdf

Virtanen family has asked help from EU leader Ursula von der Leyen, MEP Henna Virkkunen, MEP Sirpa Pietikäinen, MEP Eero Heinäluoma, next starting MEP Pekka Toveri, MEP Aura Salla, MEP Mika Aaltola, MEP Li Andersson and several others. If Finland state council and its`ministers do not act as law demands, there is no reason that Finland should be a member state in EU?