Furthermore, no unlawful conduct was found.
Enclosed you will find an answer to your complaint to the Chancellor of Justice. The answer is in Finnish. It is, however being translated in English, and you will receive the answer in English at the earliest opportunity, probably in the beginning of June.
In your complaint dated February 22nd 2018 and in your additional letters you have expressed your discontent, among others, with the conduct of District Court Judge Petteri Plosila, attorneys Tom Hedkrok and Salme Sandström, Maria Flygare, Pekka Ylikoski, Public Legal Aid Attorney Harry Storm and former attorney Pekka Ruokonen.
In addition to the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, you have sent your complaint about the conduct of Pekka Ruokonen simultaneously to the Finnish Bar Association.
On behalf of the Substitute for the Deputy Chancellor of Justice, Mr. Kimmo Hakonen, I hereby inform you as follows:
The primary responsibility for the supervision of attorneys rests with the organs of the Finnish Bar Association. The Chancellor of Justice supervises attorneys and advocates as the guardian of public interest. The Chancellor of Justice must ensure that they comply with their professional duties, but he cannot intervene in their work or impose disciplinary measures. The Chancellor of Justice has the right of appeal to a Court of Appeal in respect of the Finnish Bar Association’s decisions concerning disciplinary measures. In accordance with the law on Public Legal Aid Offices, the Public Legal Aid Attorneys are also under supervision of the Finnish Bar Association.
The Chancellor of Justice has decided not to take an appeal against the decisions of the Disciplinary Board of the Finnish Bar Association.
Furthermore, no unlawful conduct was found.
Yours sincerely,
Senior Legal Adviser Minna Ruuskanen
To whom it may concern,
It is day 15 of my hunger strike at the actions of Judge Plosila. I have ceased all food. I started this hunger strike due to being faced with gross and endemic corruption and malpractice within the Finnish legal system, that has had a continuous debilitating effect on my ability to live a private life free of violence, fear and protected by human rights.
Please see attached titled Re decision decision.pdf
As the demand documentation for Judge Plosila’s decision came before the time to appeal was up and as I filed my appeal within the time originally stated on the court documents, on the 21st of May. Only to have the court respond and change the date to the 27th of April, retrospectively.
It is impossible to see any impartiality in the actions of Judge Plosila. A man now willing to change dates and send court demands for money for Pekka Ruokonen before the time to appeal is up. And award finances to an attorney fired for malpractice.
As the Justice Chancellor appears willing to condone and enable such actions and in its correspondence display a negligence of keeping good record of the case, its decision has left some questions. The 22nd February 2018 email referenced in the Justice Chancellor’s response is attached. The Justice Chancellor’s decision makes vague reference made to other letters, some of which were individual complaints. There is no clarity to what the Justice Chancellor is replying to.
Is this supposed to be taken as a response to all matters? In its rush to absolve all parties of wrong doing, the office of the Justice Chancellor is vague. Is this on purpose? Please clarify the following;
1. Does the office of the Justice Chancellor condone Pekka Ruokonen’s contract fraud? Or is it stating that it did not happen?
2. Does the office of the Justice Chancellor mean to tell me that Pekka Ruokonen never threatened to murder me with a shotgun execution repeatedly? Can the Justice chancellor put into clear writing where it stands on that matter?
3. Does this mean that the office of the justice chancellor is approving of Pekka Ruokonen forwarding sexualised and racist email threads he was having about his tenant with other attorney Jan Anders Enegren. That this is normal and acceptable behaviour of guardians of public interest.
4. Does the office of the justice chancellor condone the fraudulent and discriminatory actions of Tom Hedkrok; such as but not limited to, not acting for the good of his former client, lying to his former client, refusing to observe and report the rule of law. Using private and confidential medical information in a manner of clear discrimination meant to bad mouth his former client and cause disregard for his client by submitting my private and confidential medical information as evidence that what I am saying did not happen and any complaint against him be disregarded based on it?
5. As the handling of the matter and response from the Finnish Bar Association displayed not only deliberate time wasting with regard to the complaint about Tom Hedkrok, (something Finland has been reprimanded for repeatedly in the European Court of Human rights). It did not address the matter clearly or the complaints actually raised, preferring to only and snidely reprimand Tom Hedkrok for his poor spelling. And it would appear to have been written only from having read Tom Hedkrok’s response to the complaint, which he opened with an insult. Could the office of the Justice Chancellor clearly state that even though the Finnish Bar Association clearly lists the codes of conduct and practice for attorneys; a person must not expect these codes of conduct to be enforced and that, they will not be enforced, and that they may change at any time or just be ignored so as they may not exist at all.
6. Can the office of the Justice Chancellor clarify how there was no conflict of interest in the matters concerning Pekka Ruokonen’s wife Salme Sandström’s previous positions as president of the Finnish Bar Association? Further, can the Justice Chancellor clarify its position on the ethics of Salme Sandström representing her husband as he, a fellow member of the Finnish Bar Association has threatened to murder his tenant with a shotgun.
7. Can the Office of the Justice Chancellor state clearly that Pekka Ruokonen taking photos of me getting dressed without permission and then attacking me is normal and acceptable and that Judge Plosila’s refusal to discuss that sexualised violence, is good conduct of a guardian of the public interest.
If this is what the office of the Justice Chancellor is stating, then it would seem that Axl Smith has been unfairly convicted in 30 counts of voyeurism and this stand point of the Justice Chancellor and attached information should be provided to Axl Smith’s attorney. Can I rely on the Justice Chancellor to pass this information to Axl Smith? If you’re too busy, I can do that.
8. Contextually, the mention of Harry Storm seems confused. Where previously the actions of Harry Storm were used as an example of the difficulty of securing adequate representation from the Public Legal Office. Taking into account again the detailed comments by attorney Tommi Parviainen who went to lengths to describe the problem with racism amongst Finnish judges , a racism Mr. Parviainen, stated made a number of them unable to do their jobs with impartiality.
9. As the office of the Justice Chancellor states it must ensure that attorneys and judges comply with their duties as guardians of public interest. Clarify why that means that Judge Plosila can state in correspondence that he is not impartial. As a lack of impartiality is clearly stated as against the code of conduct for judges. I can only take that to mean the Justice Chancellor is obtusely stating that the law and the codes of conduct it states it is meant to oversee, do not apply to me unless they are being used against me. Please clarify.
Further, please clarify the difficulty Judge Plosila created with language, including but not limited to giving me 60 minutes to translate four years of documents. As Finland states it is meant to observe human rights, how am I meant to get a fair trial if I am being denied a) the fair ability to get representation b) understand the proceedings of the court. As we have to remember, attorney Pekka Ylikoski has strenuously explained that his failure in court was not his fault but because my interpreter was incompetent and that all Helsinki court interpreters are incompetent in matters of the law.
Unless the office of Justice Chancellor is informing me that the two hour phone conversation with Pekka Ylikoski did not happen; in which case, could they clarify that in writing so I can claim back the costs from the phone company for what must be a technical glitch?
10. If the Justice Chancellor’s actual aim is to maintain the well-being of the judges and attorneys and not act as guardian of public interest, the public including those not lucky enough to be protected from the law by being a member of the Finnish Bar Association and member of the Judiciary. Can the Finnish Justice Chancellor please state this clearly.
11. If the Justice Chancellor and the Finnish judiciary ask for evidence; and they are then given evidence, only to then state nothing happened. And further to pointedly ignore details, audio recordings and witnesses. It stands to reason that the Justice Chancellor is stating that not only does the evidence not exist, but that, essentially, the law as described and detailed, does not exist.
If as the Justice Chancellor is stating, the law does not exist and that none of these codes of conduct exist, as they must not exist, because it is not enforcing them, not even something as basic as an impartial judge. Please clarify my ability to completely disregard Judge Plosila’s decision in the Pekka Ruokonen case.
Unless the Justice Chancellor is stating that we have a phantom rental contract that states Pekka Ruokonen was legally obliged to refuse my deposit out of hand repeatedly? Threaten to murder me, assault me, sexually harass me, take photos of me partially dressed and all the rest that has been detailed
And that Judge Plosila calling me a liar in email did not happen?
Or that the many files of correspondence with Tom Hedkrok that show him not even paying lip service to the code of conduct of attorneys also do not exist?
And that Maria Flygare was not fired for malpractice and lying to her client and failing to act in her client’s best interest, including but not limited to involving Salme Sandstrom’s cousin, Pekka Ylikoski. Whom he also mentioned to have been drinking with Pekka Ruokonen before meeting me.
If the Justice Chancellor can clarify that none of these things happened, then it seems legally prudent that I disregard Judge Plosila’s decision, as in the words of Judge Plosila, when told of Pekka Ruokonen’s violence, “stick to the facts.” And the facts are, as the Justice Chancellor is stating, “none of this happened.” Including Judge Plosila changing the due date for the appeal. As Judge Plosila would appear to be unable to maintain the correct date for appeal, let alone impartiality, then it would seem I am discussing phantom events and looking at a phantom box of documents and post related to a phantom matter that has not happened.
Since the letter from the Justice Chancellor is vague, can I take it that the matter has not happened, and receiving the demand for €12,085.63 before the time to appeal was up to apparently the incorrect appeal date or just an appeal date that was changeable based on Judge Plosila’s mood; was in fact a clerical error and that it can be disregarded in its entirety?
If it can then be disregarded completely, then can I cease hunger strike at the actions of Judge Plosila?
As this all appears to some terrible mix up based on events that have never happened. And those bruises I got from Pekka Ruokonen were psychosomatic and that there are no photos on his phone that digital forensics will pull up. And his death threats were not witnessed by *** ********.
If that is the state of affairs, I can cease hunger strike. I think we can agree, I will likely need the strength to finish another application to the European Court of Human Rights against the Finnish state.
If it is not, then I remain on hunger strike.
Please urgently advise; as while it might sound dramatic, this is a matter of life and death. And correspondence is getting more difficult as I head toward 20 days without any food. And to be frank, on the human side of things, I really miss soup. But not enough to let the people involved away with their corruption.
Further information about my hunger strike can be found at
I have attached some further documentation pertaining to this email.
Please advise if the Justice Chancellor requires more documentation, or more detailed documentation.
