ksu, I appreciate your in-depth-analysis of my situation in Spitsbergen, and everything you say is right, but it doesn't make my position wrong.

In your link to the Spitsbergen treaty it says right in the first paragraph:
"The exercise of sovereignty is, however, subject to certain stipulations, and not all Norwegian law applies."

The usual term for places like Barentsburg would be "de jure under Norwegian control, de facto under Russian control".

In the 100 years since taking over Barentsburg et al. from the Dutch, it has been self-governed by the Russians, and there were only two cases (one murder, one major fire, both in the last 10 years) when the Norwegian Governor exercised some authority there.

In any case, Spitsbergen's legal situation is unique in the world, meaning it is only possible to compare some aspects - but never all aspects - with e.g. the division of Antarctica, or mining & oil exploration in Africa, Arabia, Mongolia, or partly (un-)recognized territories like Transnistria, or the correct naming of Burma/Myanmar, or of course: Norway.

The Spitsbergen Treaty has been signed by a small minority of the world's nations only (ca. 40), but they happen to be the more powerful.

I didn't bring up the supra-national law discussion, but I noted that you avoided the issue of the informal Norwegian "Jante's law" (an anti-arrogance-attitude, typical for Scandinavia, which the aggressive Portuguese migrant worker tried to claim for himself, instead of just doing his service job).

My three experiences in Spitsbergen (transit to North Pole) were indeed "coloured" as you suspect: by the hoi polloi quality of tourism there.

I would be happy to limit the law discussion to the case itself

Here you say you are sceptic, ksu, about jurisdiction of a "a Swedish/Belgian company in the US". OK. Payment with a US credit card is one argument I raise. And what about US-mother company Carlson? After all, the thread has just been moved here. (Thanks ^)

To the OP:

Simply based on your comments here on this thread you come across as an educated, intelligent, entitled arse with extremely limited legal knowledge.

Based on what you are saying you were threatened by a waiter. Where are your damages? There is a difference between civil law and criminal law. Which do you attempt to apply here?

Maybe the waiter and GM were rude in your opinion. So what? They have the right to be that way. Just like you have the right to not go back. You are refusing to giving us an objective recount of what happened.

What did you do to provoke the waiter? Did you grab a waitress' butt, who happened to be his girlfriend? I'd threaten to beat you up too, regardless of my position.
What was said in the letter to the GM? Sounds like the letter was quite offensive.

Until you provide a full account, your story is very suspicious and lacks credibility.

However, please update us with your outstanding settlement and feel free to gloat. Assuming you will ever find a lawyer here for this issue.

disqualified you for further reading or comment, however is a minor crime in most jurisdictions. I don't pursue small fish ...

Suggestion: in your next life, write "PITA" to avoid legal relevance

I repeat:

Herzlichen Gl�ckwunsch nachtr�glich! (Congratulations belated)

Dankesch�n!

Janteloven is often used in Danish and Norwegian brooding about national character, but I don't think that a 81-year old literary concept is all that relevant for this discussion.

Your OP was AFAIU about a civil case in the US. Or are you planning a criminal case against the waiter and the hotel manager in the US?

You simply made my point.
Sorry that I missed your self-appointment to moderator where you can disqualify members from posting.

Please re-read your own post and maybe, just maybe, the ridiculousness of your statement will become evident to you.

"however is a minor crime in most jurisdiction". I did not know that "however" is a crime anywhere unless you failed to write a complete sentence.

Then," _____ is a MINOR crime"is followed by "I don't pursue small fish". That in itself is a complete contradition.

So whatever vicicous attack almost happened to you may be a minor crime and you don't pursue small fish. Yet you are rasing hell here and are desperately trying to find a lawyer. HUH?

You have not communicated anything that remotely constitutes a basis for a civil filing in the USA. But I can see how you annoyed the staff, the GM and probably even the general population in Spitsbergen.

I'll bet you $1000 that the heineous crime that vicitimized you so badly will never be prosecuted AND lead to a conviction in the USA.

Mann oder Memme?

I think that the migrant waiter was on a janteloven trip.

I am interested in the civil case for damages in the US, based on non-action of CarlsonRezidor's Radisson regarding the criminal behavior of its staff member.

So exactly what were your damages?

Being in the mid-40s, settled, investor, boardmember (university lecturer & book author too), in a relatively expensive Radisson (€ 250-350), to be called out by a waiter to "go outside", threatened with violence and to "be taught a lesson, foreigner", in front of 20+ guests and co-travellers is an unnecessary stress and embarassment.

There was only a 10% probability of being hurt (I'm Krav Maga expert level; however "leave your guns outside"!?! ... who knows), but a 100% chance I'd miss my flight to the North Pole Marathon (which would have left without me 3 hours later - try again next year ...).

Picture yourself in the position, you probably wouldn't be happy either.

If it happened in a seedy third world brothel, ok. But in a Radisson in Norway?

Add to this that alcohol is served aplenty, many people carry guns (against icebears), and there is no manager-on-duty (never!).

Then the GM who "apologizes" but calls my PA's letter "uneducated and ill-mannered" for saying that "this migrant worker is not fit for the service industry but should rather work in the local mining or meatpacking industry". This from a Radisson GM?

BTW: the trigger was to say "unbelievable, unbelievable" when the spaghetti arrived after one hour (!) to which the waiter said "do you want the food or not?" ... "I paid for it, you better put it there" ... "My father doesn't talk to me like that!" ... "He better should have!" ... "Let's go outside ...

Would I be happy? Certainly not!

Would I go through a crap load of trouble to sue a hotel chain for it? Hell no!!

And to be honest, if that is what your PA wrote, I would also not stand for it as a GM. You could have just written a letter asking for an apology without being condesending, even if you are a board member and all that.

If all those people around you agree the guy was out of bound, then how is this embarrassing to you? Nobody got hurt, everyone made their flight and the best way for you to make a point is by never going there again.

I wouldn't waste more time on it but then again, go wild if it makes you feel better!

The issue remains.. What are your damages?

Was it good service? No.
Was it pleasant? No.
Was the waiter rude? Possibly.

But you are missing the very basic principle of law. For it to be a criminal offense, a crime must have occured. What was the crime?

For civil suits, you must have damages. Having your feelings hurt or be embarrassed in public does not qualify. You can't sue Internet Brands for embarrassing yourself with your posts here.

Other than a bruised ego, you have no damages

ETA:

The letter your PA wrote is offensive. "Migrant worker", while maybe accurate, is certainly not a way to describe an employee and get the GM to support you. Couple that with the description of yourself "mid-40s, settled, investor, boardmember (university lecturer & book author too)", it only confirms my initial assessment of you.

You are getting no sympathy here and I don't think ANYBODY who reads this thread will cancel their hotel stay in Spitsbergen because of your experience.

Hear hear Deltahater!

It would only be condescending if you look down on the mining and meatpacking industries.

A migrant worker certainly is someone who travels 5.000 km from a poor country to a rich country to get a job in the service industry (in his mid-30s).

Thanks for a fuller description of the details of the incident.

Here is a link to an unofficial translation of the Norwegian Penal Code from the library of the University of Oslo.

http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/l...22-010-eng.pdf

I am not a lawyer, but have professionally a lot to do with our court system.

I think that the relevant section here is the felony Section 227, threatening in word or deed to commit a criminal act that is punishable with more than six months of imprisonment, "under such circumstances that the threat is likely to cause serious fear." The bolded part is the essence here (and up to the court to decide). It would be argued by the defence, that a challenge to "come outside" is not likely to cause great fear: it is certainly a nuisance and unpleasant, but not enough to convict.

In that case the misdemeanour Section 390 a) would be used: "Any person who by frightening or annoying behaviour or other inconsiderate conduct violates another person's right to be left in peace". This is a very common section for prosecutions. Section 350 about improper conduct disturbing public peace and order might be relevant, but my experience is that the police prosecutors usually use � 227 or � 390 a.

As for the GM section 347 might be of interest, but I would guess that it would be difficult to prove that one!

I presume that your lawyer in the civil case in the US will seek assistance on the niceties of the Norwegian criminal code from someone qualified before filing your suit.