Circular Reasoning (EN)

Circular Reasoning – The Authority Chain

When authorities admit errors in writing – but no one corrects them

12
Authorities
0
Corrections
4
Years
October 9, 2020

1. Municipal Building Control – final inspection

▼
What was requested
Final inspection for a detached house
What happened
Approved without a valid building permit (expired 9 years earlier), without mandatory inspections, based on an electrical commissioning inspection report that was 13 years late K33
❌ Illegal approval
2021–2023

2. Building Control – investigation

▼
What was requested
Information requests about building permit documents, inspection records K17 K18
What happened
Building control admitted in meetings and in writing that mandatory documents were missing, inspections had not been conducted, and the final inspection was approved with an expired permit K30 K32.
“That’s what the legislation says, yes, it’s unambiguous in that respect, that it should be done. But we have interpreted… we do it, so to speak, for the benefit of the citizens.”
— Markku Aro, Building Inspector, April 6, 2022 K37
❌ Admitted illegality, did not correct
March 28, 2022

3. City Board

▼
What was requested
Complaint about building control errors, request for hearing K1 K2
What happened
The city lawyer prepared a decision proposal K11 that addressed “construction quality” – even though the complaint concerned the failure of official supervision.
⚠️ Show: How the city blocked legal protection
Step 1: Järvinen changed the question

City lawyer Turo Järvinen prepared a decision proposal in which he changed the subject of the complaint.

Step 2: We warned about the error

We sent an email to all city board members two days before the meeting K9

Step 3: Warning bypassed

The city board approved the proposal unanimously K12

❌ Rejected without examining content
February 2, 2023

4. City’s threat

▼
What happened
The city responded with a threat when we presented a claim directly to the responsible official.
“Otherwise, direct contacts to the official will be treated by the City as harassment under Section 28 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
— City officials, February 2, 2023 K75
❌ Threat to prevent exercise of rights
2021–2023

5. Tukes (Finnish Safety and Chemicals Agency)

▼
What was requested
Investigation of electrical safety violations K38
What happened
Senior Inspector admitted legal violations in writing K39 K48. No consequences.
“The Electrical Safety Act Section 43 has been violated in the sense that the commissioning inspection has been done deficiently.”
— Ville Huurinainen, Tukes, January 13, 2023 K48
⚠️ Admitted violations, no consequences
2022

6. Energy Authority

▼
What was requested
Investigation of network company’s illegal action K40
What happened
Falsely claimed the law does not regulate such situations K41. The Electricity Market Act Section 9 specifically prohibits this.
❌ Incorrect legal interpretation, no action
December 19, 2022

7. Police (first investigation request)

▼
What was requested
Investigation request for aggravated fraud and breach of official duty K52
What happened
Recorded the fraud’s timeframe incorrectly as ending in 2012, even though the property sale was in January 2021. Claimed prosecution right had expired K53.
❌ No preliminary investigation
2022–2023

8. Chancellor of Justice

▼
What was requested
Complaint about Tukes and Energy Authority failures K43
What happened
Dismissed the complaint without examining substantively K49. Finally stated the matter would no longer be responded to K51.
❌ Refused to investigate
December 28, 2022

9. Parliamentary Ombudsman (first complaint)

▼
What was requested
Complaint about building control, city board, and city lawyer actions K58
What happened
Dismissed as “over two years old”, even though complainants became property owners only in January 2021 K60.
❌ Left unexamined / bypassed
November 20, 2023

10. Regional State Administrative Agency – investigation begins

▼
What was requested
Administrative complaint about building control illegality K63
What happened
Development Manager Ulla Peltola noted a “special reason” and decided to investigate K65. Sent extensive request for clarification K66.
“In this case, however, circumstances have emerged that lead to the matter being investigated through administrative complaint procedures.”
— Ulla Peltola, AVI, November 20, 2023
✓ Investigation initiated
January 4, 2024

11. Police (second investigation request)

▼
What was requested
Investigation request with 11-page supplement and 22 documents K55
What happened
Investigation Director stated the matter is “complaint-type” and belongs to Regional State Administrative Agency. Did not assess whether documented procedure meets crime criteria K57.
❌ No preliminary investigation, transferred responsibility
March 27, 2024

12. Supreme Administrative Court

▼
What was requested
Annulment or revocation of final inspection K76
What happened
Left unexamined. Stated final inspection report is not an appealable decision K77 – even though it creates public registry entry and legal presumption.
❌ Left unexamined
June 24, 2024

13. Parliamentary Ombudsman (second complaint)

▼
What was requested
Complaint about police action in handling investigation requests K61
What happened
Accepted police decisions citing “investigative tactical reasons” K62 – even though no investigation had been initiated.
❌ No action
September 19, 2024

14. Regional State Administrative Agency – investigation interrupted

▼
What happened
Peltola was removed from investigation without notifying complainants. New presenter. Director General signed decision: “no special reason to investigate” K70 – completely opposite to previous decision.
❌ Interrupted without justification
December 19, 2024

15. Ministry of Finance

▼
What was requested
Complaint about AVI’s procedural errors K71
What happened
Falsely claimed “administrative complaint procedure has not been interrupted” K74 – even though AVI had already sent extensive request for clarification on January 11, 2024.
❌ Factual error and formal dismissal
October 24, 2025

16. District Court

▼
What was requested
Declaration of property sale nullity and damages K79
What happened
Rejected the nullity claim K78. Refused to assess legality of final inspection because “administrative court has not reversed it”.

📋 WITNESS TESTIMONIES

Four Naantali officials testified under oath. The testimonies revealed that officials knew the legal requirements but decided to act “discretionally” contrary to them.

“It was probably known immediately that the permit had expired […] discretionally considered, the inspection can be performed.”
— Building Inspector Ellilä, District Court October 8, 2025

Read witness testimonies verbatim transcribed (K88-K91) →
❌ Rejected without substantive assessment
January 15, 2026

17. LähiTapiola – third party confirms jurisdictional ambiguity

▼
What happened
Insurance company made a decision K87 that reveals structural problem: LähiTapiola considers damages case belongs to District Court – while SAC stated final inspection cannot be reversed, and District Court suggested matter belongs to administrative court.
“We compensate costs insofar as the matter concerns a damages case against the City that could be brought before the District Court.”
— LähiTapiola, January 15, 2026
Why is this significant?

Circular reasoning confirmed:

  • SAC: “Final inspection is not revocable”
  • District Court: “Supervisory authority action to administrative court”
  • LähiTapiola: “Matter belongs to District Court”

When a professional actor assessing legal risk disagrees with the court, there is a structural problem in the legal system.

✓ Third-party confirmation: jurisdictional ambiguity is real
2026

18. Court of Appeal

▼
Status
Appeal pending K86. Awaiting decision.
⏳ Under review

CIRCULAR REASONING

Administrative Court: “We cannot reverse because final inspection is not appealable.” K77

General Court: “We cannot assess legality because administrative court has not reversed it.” K78

LähiTapiola (independent): “Matter belongs to District Court.” K87

Police: “Matter belongs to AVI.” K57

AVI: “We do not investigate criminal law matters.” K70

Perfect circle. No one is accountable.

When an independent professional actor disagrees with the court,
there is a structural problem in the legal system.

⚠️ Circular reasoning in practice: same official, two answers

▼
City lawyer to police (December 18, 2023)

“The complaint can be made to the Regional State Administrative Agency (AVI), which can investigate whether the municipality has acted in accordance with valid laws.”

→ Directs matter away from police to AVI

Same city lawyer to AVI (March 18, 2024)

“In the city’s view, it does not belong to AVI’s authority to investigate criminal law matters as requested. In that respect, the police have already made decisions not to investigate.”

→ Directs matter away from AVI to police (which already left unexamined)

Same person — two opposite directions — goal: no one investigates.

This is not a mistake. This is strategy.

City Lawyer’s Actions 2022–2024

One official’s documented role in blocking legal protection

▼
February 2, 2022

Threatens with occupancy ban

“If there is obvious danger from the building to safety, the building must be ordered demolished or its use must be prohibited.”

March 28, 2022

Distorts complaint content

Prepared decision proposal that changed complaint subject from legality supervision to construction quality.

February 2, 2023

Threatens with harassment charges

“Direct contacts to the official will be treated by the City as harassment under Section 28 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”

December 18, 2023

Directs police to AVI

“The complaint can be made to the Regional State Administrative Agency (AVI).”

March 18, 2024

Directs AVI to police

“It does not belong to AVI’s authority. The police have already made decisions not to investigate.”

Two years. Five documented actions. One goal.

Threats, content distortion, and contradictory directions to different authorities form a whole where citizen’s legal protection has been systematically blocked.

~100 documents. Written admissions. Zero consequences.

All official correspondence is public and documented.

Explore the documents →
Scroll to Top