These are true stories, four of which have been covered to different degrees on this blog.

I hadn’t looked at the Baby Aria and her family website for awhile. I found this video at the top of the site today. One of my friends in the effort to educate the world about the horrific problem of child snatching by “authorities,” Ken Olsen, was recently published in a Norwegian media source. His article can be found HERE.

Please continue to pray for Ken, Nadia, Amy, Eugene and others like them.

Chris Reimers


  1. Veronika says:

    The Children welfare agencies´s aim is to protect a child and his or her rights, even against the bad parents. Ken Olsenś case has been communicating by the ECHR ( The European human rights court whose rullings are binding). But it is unlike that Olsen would win taking all facts into account. I don´t know how long and how profoundly have you known your friend Ken Olsen, but some sad facts concerning his personality and his behavior in the relation to his then pregnant partner Vibeke have been revealed by the Court.
    In English English (K.O. for Ken Olsen and V.M for Vibeke Morrisey){“respondent”:[“NOR”],”itemid”:[“001-174201”]}

    Domestic violence in a nutshell I would say. It´s proven that Vibeke had tried to escape from Ken several times just months berofe she gave birth to Aria. She (and the neighbours) called for police several times during her pregnancy because of Ken´s behavior to her (and to-logically unborn baby who was able to feel, hear everything just a month before the birth). But Vibeke was unable to break her dependency on Ken- he even isolated her from her family and friends while using threads against her relatives, including her mother (grandmother of Aria). The CPS was given a notification from several sources, including police (two letters of concern), hospital staff and Vibeke´s close relatives.The parents refused to cooperate with CPS before the birth and the communication with them has been very problematic. According to the Court, the child´ s needs – emotional and the others- would be neglected if she was raised up in this conflict and domestic violence dominated household. It´s unlikely that Ken would change since he has been prosecuted for violent acts six times so far (including domestic disturbances in 2013,14) and he spent 15 years in prisons. He was reported to police in 100 cases, some of them have not been resolved until today. Even Vibeke´s mum (grandmother of Aria) reported Ken for threads. Is it normal that the CPS and Courts have been worried about Aria´s future? Not to mention that Ken is smoking cannabis daily- and his brain has been devasted day after day by it.

    By the way, Norway won a similar case (Barneven case) just two months ago:{“documentcollectionid2”:[“DECGRANDCHAMBER”,”ADMISSIBILITY”,”ADMISSIBILITYCOM”],”itemid”:[“001-173552”]}

    • Chris says:

      How do you know so much about Ken’s case, Veronika? Is this the same Veronika that continually stuck up for the Barnevernet on Delight in Truth’s blog?

      One’s case doesn’t get as far as the ECHR with a description that you have given this case. There are many others who know Ken better than you or I do and they support him. Until you can prove to me otherwise, you have done quite a hatchet job here.

      To the readers of my blog:

      This is how the Norwegian CPS works. Ken was stolen from his own mother when he was a little kid and it is used against him to this day. I will contact Ken and ask him to make a reply to Veronika. I will let him respond to these “charges.”

      • Veronika says:

        The case is public now and you can read all details (not Barnevern claims) here- in English:{“respondent”:[“NOR”],”itemid”:[“001-174201”]}

      • Ken Joar Olsen says:

        First of all this must be said…
        We are thankful that even though the ECHR have been so kind that they have anonymized the case, you have disclosed all the involved in the case.
        So hopefully this is something that will be a subject towards the evaluation on your mental health…

        And hopefully i can get some judicial assistance, and can file a complaint against you Veronika…

        Actually i guess luckily i did meet some one at the demonstration in Prague, so when one do good it also comes back good..,

        You on the other hand, have just crossed the line for what i will tolerate… And i guess that i am a patient man, but determined on justice so hopefully this is the way many people that dislike your propaganda can shut you down…

        • Chris says:

          Defamation of character is against the law in America, Ken, for those who cross the line. I would hope that the same is true in Norway and the Czech Republic.

    • Anonymous says:

      I see that Veronika can read the same blatant lies, as the Barnevernet produce. and that is fair enough. I guess “she” is a system loyal person, and I think we actually should be logging the IP address. And do a reverse search… But that is only a suggestion, and to respond to such a text is not worth my time…
      But to clarify some facts, the grand mother admitted in court that she was the one hitting me in the back of my head (i have audio recording of the court case) So I guess the next complaint will be on article 6 if this is not a case that will be opened. And if opened there will be some issues about the writing of the sentence and the facts that was presented.
      And I guess that Vibeke and me living in a healthy, loving relationship and have been doing that for the past two and a half years under the extreme pressure of the case… Will be a proof of the wrong conclusion, about our relationship… That the court appointed psychologist also concluded, I guess the average person is able to reflect upon that… Are you a average person Veronika, or are you a propaganda troll?

  2. Ken Joar Olsen says:

    By the way domestic violence in a nutshell?

    That is actually to be telling lies, since they charged me for this two days after they the police gave Vibeke a ride home to me the “abusive” boyfriend and father of Aria. And the charges was dropped two days after result of the care overtaking case was received. And this is and will be a huge subject in the upcoming media attention towards our case. So Veronika, hopefully you are a good lawyer I guess both you and others will be needing one…

    • Chris says:

      Thank you for responding my friend. The Bible says that we will reap what we sow and Veronika will have no different fate.

      Hopefully, many will read this comment filled with lies and see how sinister the Barnevernet and those supporting it can be.

      To my readers:

      Ken’s reaction to this comment by Veronika speaks volumes about his character. He laughed. It was all too ridiculous for him.

      I have thought that Ken was smart for some time. That is not what drew me to him and his situation. I’ve always sensed humility and decency about him in our conversations. He is a sinner just like I am but we are also both miracles. His laughter is a miracle to me.

      Here is a part of Ken’s private comment to me that he gave me permission to print:

      “By the way my dear friend, I see that Veronika mentions my devastated brain… I guess “she’s” not aware of my membership in Mensa, since I was tested during the case. The results were sent, and I became a member… 😊”

      Ken must not be too dangerous. He has been given security clearance in a very scrutinous venue, the European parliament where he spoke to members.

      To those who would continue to try and dump condemnation on this man:

      You are merciless and pitiful. May you come to your senses and ask the same God who forgives me to help you overcome your cruel ways. Repent and ask God for forgiveness before it is too late for you.

      • Ken Joar Olsen says:

        Thank you for your kind support my friend, you are and have always been a light in the darkness. Where the greedy entrepreneurs ,of the business that barnevernet in Norway are lurking…
        So thank you for all you do for us all, and especially the future of our children.
        And i have always wondered how much credibility comments posted by anonymous persons should be given, but this is a proof of the extent this system are taking it to.

        • Chris says:

          You’re welcome and thank you for understanding the reason behind my allowance of such a comment. Also, thank you for your kind words. Christians are to be salt and light to the world. I do not try to be salt or light, it is a part of how God’s Holy Spirit works through a sinner like me.

          I hope many people read “Veronica’s” comment. It is very educational.

  3. The website of the European Court of Human Rights is not altogether easy, but this address should bring you there:

    Then you can search (upper right hand corner), or for that matter click directly into a particular judgment on the “recent” list. When you get into a judgment, there is one address in your address slot, e.g{“itemid”:[“001-173777”]}
    but this is NOT an address that you yourself can write/copy onto your address slot another time. However, in the judgment you will see up close to the top, about line 3, I guess:
    Document URL:
    This is the address you can use.

    Another unusual and confusing thing about the Hudoc files is that it seems sometimes (varied experience!) difficult or impossible to click BACK to the website you were previously on (not only because the file has come up in a new window). You then have to enter a new address in your address slot.

    About judgments and decisions:

    There is a difference between an “admissibility decision” and a “judgment” from the Court. An admissibility decision means that the case has passed a preliminary check, it has not been thrown out directly, not been found to be unfounded according to the Court’s standards, so it is given permission to be taken to the court to be argued there. A judgment is the outcome of such court proceedings.
    (I have not checked whether the references given above are one or the other.)

    A judgment from the Court finding a country NOT guilty is of course not in any way binding on the party that brought the complaint. It just means that the Court has not backed his complaint of violations of human rights. He cannot bring the same complaint to the court again, but he can bring a new complaint, on new or partially new grounds to the Court.

    A judgment finding a country guilty of a violation of human rights is not binding in the sense that the Court can do anything to make the country put things right or change its legislation, except that the Court verdict can tell the state to pay so-and-so much in damages etc. A not unusual formulation from the Court is that the finding of guilt by the country is considered sufficient satisfaction. A country is morally supposed, though, to do anything necessary to improve / put right whatever it is, and is as a member of the Council of Europe (which “owns” the Court) morally obliged to try to comply with the ethos as well as with judgments handed down by the Court. Infringements would have to go very far before a country was actually thrown out of the Council. The idea and ideal is that every member country should try its best to improve conditions in the country, including its legislation. In practice, the world is different! Many cases of very clear violations nevertheless are found inadmissible or do not lead to conviction of the state. Cf what Siv Westerberg says:
    “Med reservation för att den siffra jag ger inte är helt aktuell kan jag säga att av de klagomål som kommer in till Strasbourg från alla konventionsstaterna i Europa blir endast 3 % admissible. 97 % avvisas alltså och får ingen sakprövning.” (With the reservation that the figures I give may not be quite up to date I can say that of the complaints going to Strasbourg from all the convention states of Europe, only 3% are found admissible. 97% are rejected and do not go to trial.) And: “Vanligtvis är det ju formaliafel som man får målet admissible på.” (Usually, it is formal errors [in the country’s legislation or legal procedure] that lead to a case being accepted as admissible.)
    (About Mrs Westerberg:

    Nor can the Court accept more than a fraction of all complaints for trial. Some 10 years ago there were about 100,000 complaints pending. The Court expects all countries to take note of the cases in which some country is found guilty as a guideline they should obey in other cases in its own judicial and administrative systems.
    There are very many cases going to Strasbourg involving clear violations, including even cases where the Court has absolved the country but rather clearly should not have done so. The judges of the Court tend (there has been at least one study of this) to never find its own country guilty unless he is in a very solid majority. In other words: The Danish judge will normally find Denmark not guilty, and so on.
    However, even though the European Court of Human Rights is very far from perfect, it is at least better than the national courts generally in very many countries.

    • Ambiguous formulation: “A not unusual formulation from the Court is that the finding of guilt by the country is considered sufficient satisfaction.”

      I meant:
      The statement in a judgment from the Court that it has found the country guilty of having violated human rights is considered sufficient satisfaction.

      • Chris says:

        Thank you for this very interesting and thorough information, Marianne.

        “In other words: The Danish judge will normally find Denmark not guilty, and so on.”

        This reminds me of the problems that the Olympics had with ice skating judges, except this is much more serious.

        “However, even though the European Court of Human Rights is very far from perfect, it is at least better than the national courts generally in very many countries.”

        This certainly doesn’t speak well for the national courts in many countries but now I understand why there is an effort to get cases to the ECHR.

        Going to the link you provided, I saw the number of cases pending. No wonder there is such a long wait in many cases. It is also illustrative of the problems Europeans are having getting any satisfaction within their own countries.

        Our American courts are nothing like they were 50 years ago and they were even better 100 years ago. They certainly weren’t perfect by any means in those days but they were so much better than they are now. I hope this leftest/socialist trend can be reversed. Our constitution is in great danger.

        “A judgment finding a country guilty of a violation of human rights is not binding in the sense that the Court can do anything to make the country put things right or change its legislation, except that the Court verdict can tell the state to pay so-and-so much in damages etc.”

        This must be a frustrating truth for so many. At the same time, I am reluctant to see any body like the ECHR have overreaching powers that would affect the sovereignty of any nation. I am glad this court exists, of course. But, It seems that no nation is very worried about being “thrown out of the Council” for the reason you stated.

        Up on my soapbox for a quick statement:

        It is up to each country to find a proper way for the people to be represented and for justice to be done. The problem in our day is the definition of “Justice.” As the word means “just behavior or treatment,” the problem is obvious. In many cases just behavior or treatment isn’t the main consideration. Thus, our “modern” problem.

        Again, thank you for clearly communicating how the ECHR works, Marianne. It has been very helpful.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: