This page documents a structural problem rather than a single disputed decision. In the same police-prosecutorial framework, I was formally charged in a serious criminal case, while my direct access to relevant case materials was restricted during the proceedings.
At the same time, when I filed counter-complaints alleging falsification of medical records and prescription history, the police decided not to initiate an investigation. The issue presented here is not only the content of individual decisions, but the imbalance created when one system can prosecute, control disclosure, and decline to examine complaints raised against itself.
The authorities issued a formal indictment in a serious criminal matter. This was not an informal accusation or an administrative misunderstanding, but the start of a formal prosecutorial process with potentially severe consequences.
While the case was still active, I was denied direct access to the full case materials. The position communicated by the police was that access had to be exercised through appointed counsel rather than directly by me. In practice, this created a situation in which I was subject to prosecution while lacking equal and timely access to the underlying material.
When I reported suspected falsification of medical history and prescription records, the police decided not to initiate an investigation. This means that the same institutional structure that acted with full force in prosecuting me did not apply comparable scrutiny when complaints were made against actors within connected systems.
In a fair legal structure, prosecution and access to information should not be radically asymmetrical. A person facing serious charges should not depend entirely on restricted institutional channels for understanding the case against them.
The concern here is broader than any one procedural ruling. The same system that holds the power to accuse can also define what the accused may see, when they may see it, and whether complaints against associated actors will be investigated at all.
This creates a structural imbalance in which procedural power is concentrated, while the individual’s ability to respond, understand, and challenge the process is weakened.
The issue is not simply that I disagree with the authorities’ decisions. The issue is that the same institutional framework had the power to prosecute, to restrict direct access to information, and to decline criminal investigation of my counter-complaints.
This page is based on official documents including the indictment, the refusal of direct actindsigt access, and the police decision not to initiate an investigation into my complaint regarding alleged falsification of medical records.
Download Full Evidence File (PDF)Suggested file: the PDF containing the indictment, actindsigt refusal, and the non-investigation decision.