tirsdag 12. november 2019

No. 1475: The Gender Equality and Discrimination Ombud gives me full support that I am the one to be protected and that those who believe something else like Ruter / Unibuss and others have misunderstood and misinterpreted Norwegian law!

No. 1475:
The Gender Equality and Discrimination Ombud gives me full support that I am the one to be protected and that those who believe something else like Ruter / Unibuss and others have misunderstood and misinterpreted Norwegian law!

Screenshot of the website of the Gender Equality and Discrimination Ombud.


What I wrote:
Hi Ragnar Lie


Thanks for the phone call. Send the answers here, jk.chris@online.no

I've only played on regular channels, such as P1 and P4, and some others.
Otherwise, I listen to the usual sound level on these Christian channels as well.

107.7 which is now local radio and the UN network. A legal Norwegian channel. As well as Ptro, P7, Joh. 3. 16 and Vision Norway where I hear if there is anything about Israel in particular. All of these are legal with a license, and I never listen to a CD or anything else on my job.
That I turned up a song or something that I wanted to bring with me, it may have happened.
But on the whole, I hear excellent and don't need special loud music!
This is obviously harassment and bullying because my Christian faith, nothing else!

Know it sounds fierce, but so be it!

Regards
Jan Kåre Christensen
Crockstone 2 c
0672 Oslo
Tel: 995980

This answer I get:

Hi!
As I said, what you describe may be discrimination on grounds of religion under the Equality and Discrimination Act § 6. If there are no guidelines for playing music / radio at the employer, you may have been treated less well than others because you choose channels with Christian content. However, this is an issue that you must address with your union. The union must call here for guidance on the discrimination regulations.

Sincerely,

Ragnar Lie
senior advisor

Gender Equality and Discrimination Ombud | Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud

Mariboesgt. 13, 4th floor N-0183 Oslo (visit), PO Box 8048 Dep, N-0031 Oslo, Norway
www.ldo.no

Final Comment:

In reality, everyone now accepts me.
This I am very glad, thank you and praise for it.

I did not violate any internal rules or the Work Environment Act.
Therefore, this is also a matter for the Equality and Discrimination Ombud.

They write so clearly and correctly:
As I said, what you describe may be discrimination on grounds of religion under section 6 of the Equality and Discrimination Act.
If there are no guidelines for playing music / radio at the employer, you may have been treated less well than others because you choose channels with Christian content.

No. 1474: The Labor Inspectorate agrees with me that this I have received is a so-called illegal service claim as Unibuss or Ruter can point out that the Work Environment Act or some internal instructions are broken!

No. 1474:
The Labor Inspectorate agrees with me that this I have received is a so-called illegal service claim as Unibuss or Ruter can point out that the Work Environment Act or some internal instructions are broken!


Picture of a speaker, but I hear excellent and do not need loud sound.



Had a chat with the Labor Inspectorate today November 11, 2019 where I got to present this case to them.

Here is some of the chat log:

Hi, and welcome to the Black Service.
You're talking to Kristin now. What can I do for you?
K4346581:
Today 11:11

I have been prosecuted by the company for playing Christian song, is this law in Norway? I am a bus driver and this has happened through Ruter's so-called customer complaint
K4346581:
Today 11:12

I haven't played loud, but some customers call it propaganda, but this is only normal Norwegian radio that is legal over the ether
Kristin:
Today 11:12

This is not regulated by the Working Environment Act. You should check if you have any internal guidelines governing this.
K4346581:
Today 11:13

There are no internal guidelines on this
Kristin:
Today 11:13

But is this law in Norway? Be refused to play regular radio? This is experienced as harassment and bullying
K4346581:
Today 11:17

Had I been a Muslim or something else, everyone would have defended me, but not as a Christian, sad
K4346581:
Today 11:18

I mean I'm the one to be protected here, no one else. Do you agree with that?
Kristin:
Today 11:19
(Quote end.)

Final Comment:

Isaiah 5. 20 Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil, that turn darkness to light, and light unto darkness, that turn bitter to sweet, and sweet to bitter!

From the large Norwegian lexicon:
Christianity has a special position in Norway, but religious life has become increasingly complex and diverse. It is characterized by secularization, new forms of religiosity, and increased influx of persons with a religious affiliation other than the Christian, or of other forms of Christianity than the Evangelical-Lutheran direction.
(Quote end.)

I've only played on regular channels, such as P1 and P4, and some others.
Otherwise, I listen to the usual sound level on these Christian channels as well.

107.7 which is now local radio and the UN network. A legal Norwegian channel. As well as Ptro, P7, Joh. 3. 16 and Vision Norway where I hear if there is anything about Israel in particular. All of these are legal with a license, and I never listen to a CD or anything else on my job.
That I turned up a song or something that I wanted to bring with me, it may have happened. But on the whole, I hear excellent and do not need special high light!
This is obviously harassment and bullying because my Christian faith, nothing else!

søndag 3. november 2019

No. 1473: Despite all our Oil billionaires being in full crisis in public Norway, have we lost anything on the road to becoming so rich?


No. 1473:
Despite all our Oil billionaires being in full crisis in public Norway, have we lost anything on the road to becoming so rich?


Photo of Nav Director Sigrun Vågeng. It is not about any kind of ethics and responsibility or the lack of ethics and responsibility. It's all about just her personal gain and her retirement.
She is 69 years old and would like to wait until she retires with a planned pension at her 70th birthday! She has 2 Million in salary + pension that everyone gets when they turn 67.
Zacchaeus met Jesus, and here is his testimony.
Luke 19 8 And Zacchaeus stood and said unto the Lord, Behold, O Lord; I give half of my goods to the poor, and if I squeeze money out of someone, I give it four times more.
When you meet Jesus and become a "normal" person, honesty means much more than anything else. Think here Sigrun Vågeng has a long way to go, but there is hope for her and all other people.



Ecclesiastes 7. 18 It is good that you hold on to one, but you must not let go of the other; for the one who fears God will find a way out of all this.

There is a clear connection between the NAV scandals, the murder of justice against me x 2 times and the record number of cases in the European Court of Human Rights:
It is about that executive and judicial power has given way to our basic human rights, and got away with it.

That is why when such things happen, to discuss the wages of waste of calories and space. The focus is the miserable job they have done. Not one, but here the Government has failed at the Prime Ministers and the Prime Minister.

Everyone who works for them, everyone has gone into the same "fog world"

Hub the boss, and everyone who works for her. The courts, and everyone who works there. This is probably just the tip of an iceberg, the whole of public Norway does not work. No judge against anyone we can really be sure is correct, truthful and to be trusted.

The whole public is an overly large system. An unparalleled monster. A bureaucratized and largely dysfunctional mastodont, more concerned with cynical and ruthless A4 paragraph wrestling than helping people and fulfilling their real social function. This is evident in countless ways, through people sharing their horror stories with the public. There are probably many talented people in this organization who are doing their best within the framework provided by the system, but the whole organization seems to be characterized by a lot of unhealthy mentality in relation to the people to help, whether it be unemployed, people on admission, during work clearance or in relation to disability benefit or social security benefits. This is supposed to be a "service company" in the public domain, driven to help people, not to make life a nightmare for people they are supposed to help!

How much criticism really needs, how many horror stories from individuals must be made public, and how wrong must it really be before politicians take action?

Now politicians need to clean up this chess-driven mastodont and the uncultured and unfortunate mentality that characterizes this whole organization at the systemic level.

But the problem is that they are really part of the whole thing, what then?

I will briefly comment on how I have experienced the entire municipal and state system.
Then in from the municipality, to the County Governor, the Civil Ombudsman, the Police and the courts from the District Court, the Court of Appeal and the Norwegian Supreme Court. As well as the media with TV, Radio, newspapers and what's happening online!

According to statistics in the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg, France, Norway is the country if you include its citizens and share it with the population. Who has the most cases against them, where BV cases overweight.
But I think it is just as bad in Norway at every level, the fact is that Norway has become the most rotten and smelly country in Europe in terms of corruption and legal security.
Have faith in the public in Norway and that the judgments, the treatments and what the public has established since Norway became the EU's country in 1994 is like believing Santa Claus.
It is simply a tragedy, and the damage is so great and irreparable that I think most people will just close their eyes and think it is just a bad dream.
But that is not it, it is a reality that Norway is at the bottom of Europe not only in football, but also when it comes to public administration!
Tragic!
I think I am probably Norway's kindest and most law-abiding man, twice in court with 2 losses. Or to put it another way, 2 Justices murder against me!

Am not frustrated or stated on my behalf first and foremost

But when I read about how the Tolga Municipality was dealing with these three brothers who were unmasked by a money-grisly municipality. Now the NAV scandal, and an even worse scandal and bad is how Norwegian child welfare is. There are horrible and dangerous things there, and they are even allowed to keep on doing what they have always done.

Final Comment:

Room. 3. 10 As it is written, There is not one righteous, nor one; 11 There is not one that is wise; there is not one that sGod increases; 12 all have departed; they all become hopeless in hope; there is no one who does good, there is not one. 13 Their throat is an open grave; with their tongues they did deceit, worm poison is under their lips. 14 Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. 15 Their feet are quick to shed blood; 16 destruction and desolation are in their ways, 17 and they know not the way of peace. 18 It is not godliness in their eyes.

This is the testimony of us humans as we are in ourselves. This is my testimony as well. In other words, being dishonest and lying is man's "usual" standard. That is why we need to repent, it is the only cure. Everything else is hopeless!

fredag 25. oktober 2019

No. 1472: It is pretty obvious that the great apostasy is NOW - not to come when Jan Hanvold has become a "profiled" Christian leader, even though he is living in adultery with his life!


No. 1472:
It is pretty obvious that the great apostasy is NOW - not to come when Jan Hanvold has become a "profiled" Christian leader, even though he is living in adultery with his life!


Picture of the false prophet and preacher Jan Hanvold who runs the TV and Radio channel Vision Norway.

http://janchristensen.net/artiklerhoved.php?side=jan-hanvold

http://janchristensen.net/artiklerhoved.php?side=jan-hanvold-en-falsk-profet



1 Thess. 2. 13 And therefore we also thank God incessantly that when you received the word of God we preached, you received it, not as a human word, but, as it truly is, as a word of God, which also shows itself. work in you who believe.

The apostle Paul had a partial service in the sense that his preaching won very little hearing from the Jews. But in the Gentiles - those who were not Jews. There his preaching won. The apostle also praises the Greeks here in Thessaloniki for not accepting his preaching as human words. But as God's word as it truly is.

I must say that now after things have come a little distance after really a few hectic years. That when it comes to my preaching of the Christian marriage and what God's Word says and teaches.
Then it has been the way I see it a tremendous spirit struggle in and around me and my ministry because this. That's my full conviction!

First, apostasy must come, before Jesus comes again!

To understand this we need to know 2 things. God's Word and Church History. Without this, we will not understand or manage to place this word of God.
It does not say that the Spirit of God should not be shed, signs and miracles. This can happen at the same time, but it is something that must be accepted and accepted. That has not been accepted and accepted before, this is what is apostasy.

Eg. I have a certain "apostate" body today compared to what I had.
Before, I exercised 5 hours a day, and that with ease. Today it involves exercising a few hours a week. I had something that I don't have today.
It is a decay or apostasy.

What did the Church of God have before - which they do not have today?

2 Thess. 2. 1. We beseech you, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering with him, 2 that ye should not soon be led astray, nor be scared, neither by spirit nor by speech; by some letter, as it should be from us, as if the day of the Lord stood at the door. 3 Do not fool yourself in any way! for, first, apostasy must come, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 he who resists and exalts himself above all that is called god or sanctuary, so that he sits in the temple of God and pretends himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that I told you this when I was still with you? 6 And now you know what is holding back, so that he will be revealed first in his time.

Before then, remarriage was not accepted among believers, especially among preachers, pastors, and others in charge in the church of God.

When I have highlighted what has really been the history, preaching and teaching of the Christian congregation for nearly 2000 years.
Then I am a dark man, do not have social antennas, negative, critical, lies, envious and 1000 other things.
Even if this were true, then what God's Word says and teaches is what matters. The way I see it, there is nothing but false accusations being repeatedly brought to the square regarding my preaching, why?
No doubt, as far as I know, I'm the only one who really reveals Jan Hanvold and Vision Norway.

Others agree that Hanvold takes out too much pay, is greedy, and too much in pay.
That's not what Hanvold's problem is, what he earns. But that's how he lives, or the lack of how he, as a believer, lives.

Pastor Jan Hanvold actually breaks a 2000-year tradition of how pastors and preachers have related to marriage.

Throughout the entire church era of nearly 2000 years, there has been the parable of Jesus believers that a preacher should be married. And that marriage is life out. To the other door, finished work.

That Jan Hanvold now lives with, unfortunately, many others with wife # 2, 3 and beyond is contrary to both the word of God and to what is practice.
When they now choose to revolt and follow their own way and really Satan's way, should they not be contradicted and the church and the world, by the way, have the right to hear what is right and biblical? I believe that it is our duty, not least those who proclaim God's Word to warn against remarriage among believers.
As well as to warn against those who are remarried!

Final Comment:

Høysangen 2. 15 Catch the foxes for us, the little foxes that destroy the vineyards! Our vineyards are in bloom.

Now I have been a believer soon for 40 years, and by the grace of God I can say that to this day I have remained standing after all the struggles.
Why have I been standing? I think I can say that my greatest strength has been that I have always loved the Bible and to thank and praise God.

We read here from Høysangen that we should watch out for "15 Catch the foxes for us, the little foxes that destroyed gives the wineries! ”

In other words, what drives us away from God and His way and will, what is it?
It is usually the "small" legal things that God hates.

Jan Hanvold is in no way against Norwegian law. Norwegian law states that one can be married and divorced 2 times. Only one is married to one at a time, so Jan Hanvold does not break anything with Norwegian law and what is generally accepted and how Norwegian men live.
But what does the scripture say?
King David had only an extramarital affair, which brought him death and destruction into life and his Kingdom.
Common at that time was that Kings and those who ruled and ruled lay with whoever they wanted, just when it suited them. They could have x number of partners and live with almost one new lady every night if they wanted.

I can continue indefinitely, but will stop here. What I want to say is that Jan Hanvold is super-disqualified to preach God's word by New Testament standard.
Okay, then he is also a sign in time when he is accepted, then we know that we live in a waiver as long as he and others who live in the same way are accepted and not warned against!

One last example I have is Balaam, Beor's son. He had a Christ preaching and prophecy that is actually one of the strongest of GT, in the same category as Isaiah almost.
But he is referred to as a false prophet, why?
He had "everything" right in life except for one thing, he was in love. So maybe Jan Hanvold has a lot that is right?
I have not studied Hanvold so much, but he is a false prophet anyway as he does not control his sexual desires and lives in abstinence as he should have done as a divorced man!

torsdag 24. oktober 2019

No. 1471: Additional response to the County Governor again for us!

No. 1471:
Additional response to the County Governor again for us!


As mentioned, I received a letter from the County Governor, see picture.




Case number 201510929 - Construction case PBE here in Oslo
Their Ref. 2019/40980
Reply to the County Governor's response of 14/10/2019

Oslo 20 / 10-2019

You say for the rejection, justify that there are no new moments.
Maybe there is something true in that, since we have never received an answer to what we have asked for.

Here you see a problem that no one will answer me, it has been 5 years and no one answers.
Here you see in the picture that the neighbor's sloping filling goes farther down the roadway than our wall.
It's legal, not ours. This is such a contradiction that only here should you have given us a claim.
There are also grounds for exemption here just from the picture. Why? The environmental factor should be emphasized most. Before, we had the sad and disgusting.
Today we have it dry and nice. Also an environmental benefit. No new moments? Yes, have not received answers to any of the old people who speak to our clear advantage and favor.

Hope for an answer here now.

Regards
Berit and Jan Kåre Christensen
Crockstone 2 c
0672 Oslo
Tel: 99598070














Even in a totalitarian state, they do not act like PBE does, defending you is bad. Going to jail rather than bending us for this!

onsdag 23. oktober 2019

No. 1470: Since we have been instructed by PBE by the caseworker to build a wall, it will be completely wrong to demolish it as it does not hinder anything or anyone!

No. 1470:
Since we have been instructed by PBE by the caseworker to build a wall, it will be completely wrong to demolish it as it does not hinder anything or anyone!


Pictures from our wall, which fit perfectly into the terrain, and which we were instructed to build no higher than 2 meters so that it was not taller than the neighbor's and was not noticed more in the terrain than others.



I had some communication with Nils-Henrik Henningstad.

I said that in our case, everyone in our case had been granted an exemption.
And we have been given guidance by them to build.
Then Nils-Henrik Henningstad threw to me others who he claimed were in the same situation as us.
This was very easy to refute as these had among other things. The fire brigade who ordered the demolition, stands opposite to us.
What happened then?
All communication breaks, at the low level are these people.

I wrote this in an email to PBE, with zero response.
Eg. then I got a response from Nils-Henrik Henningstad that there were several others who had to demolish the wall etc. I went into the cases he came up with, and then the fire and rescue agency and other agencies were in to impose demolition. I pointed this out and told us it was also an advantage for fire and ambulance, as well as other agencies as we have built. Did I get an answer then? Never, such is PBE, just full of cheating and lack of good folk to answer things.

John Richard Island from Eiker Husbygg came back for a while to look at our buildings.

We might need a responsible applicant, so we called him.
We went over it all and he was mighty impressed with how everything went together.
When I said we had been given oral guidance. Then he answered back that he understood, for this could not happen by itself.
Everything was in harmony with and fit in the terrain and with both our house and the neighboring houses. This was no problem for him to understand.
I then asked if he would have testified in court about this? No problem, he said, he was more than happy to show up.
Why aren't the County Governor, the Civil Ombudsman and the courts doing the same? It is for one reason only that they protect and protect one another.
As mentioned, we have been given oral guidance on how to build.
And we didn't have to search when we built an old wall.
We have pulled the wall further in than it was before. We have got a greener and flatter terrain. Everything has gotten better.
Who would want to vandalize our property? That's no wonder.
Scripture says very clearly what light and darkness want, and what the good powers want and the bad ones. It's pretty obvious in the day.

Joh. 10. 10 The thief comes only to steal and murder and destroy; I have come that they may have life and have abundance.

That said, John Richard Island from Eiker Husbygg.
Who is an experienced builder who has been dealing with this whole life and who has a trained eye.
He saw right away that we had built under guidance, and had not taken care of ourselves!

This is what my lawyer Knut Howlid wrote to the Borgarting Court of Appeal.

The support wall - advance guidance

Christensen sought advance guidance in the municipality of Oslo on two occasions before the support wall was erected. Christensen claims that in both inquiries he described the wall and that he
was accepted for construction of the wall without having to seek prior permission.
In the two phone conversations in 2013 that Christensen had with case manager Kaja Lange Aubert, who knew the area years back through the development period to Krokstien 2, he asked if it was okay to erect a new and higher wall on the former old wall along Stormyrveien to get a larger and much better outdoor area southwest of their accommodation on Krokstien 2 c.
On both occasions, Christensen believes that he was given a clear answer by the municipal caseworker that the wall was not compulsory as he described it. He himself perceived it as a binding acceptance and agreement. It seems clearly unreasonable if it is Christensen who, in a case like this, should be at risk of any misunderstanding.
Service errors are stated with regard to the guidance / counseling. If there had been any basis for any kind of doubt from the caseworker regarding the request, she should have asked to have a sketch and / or written presentation of the building measure to make sure that her guidance / advice was correct. Thus, the municipality's duty to provide sound guidance and / or counseling has failed and in any case has not been properly clarified vs. a contractor who addresses the municipality's planning and building authorities with a very specific question of prior permission in a specific building case.

The case officer was waived by the undersigned as a witness for the district court. But it later emerged during the main hearing that the State Prosecutor had no knowledge that the case officer to whom Christensen approached had also been a case officer in connection with the planning and development of Krokstien 2 a b c and d.

He was thus known locally in the area, known to the terthe heights and the formations, having followed the development of the Krokstien from A to Z as far as Christensen has knowledge. Therefore, as a witness, the person will provide the case with the necessary information so that it will be far better and more properly informed.

Against this background, it is a mistake of the district court not to assume that the proprietor has been in good faith regarding the duty to apply. The only thing that has occurred through negligence is the case manager's handling of Christensen's inquiries. It is a mistake of the district court not to see this as a material breach of the duty to provide guidance after fvl. § 11.

Here is my presentation of the case. Takes it in from what I wrote to Oslo District Court.

1.) The municipality of Oslo writes this in its decision.

No violation of the duty of supervision after fvl. § 11
The State disputes that there is a breach of the duty to provide guidance pursuant to fvl. § 11.

The plaintiff claims to have received oral approval to erect the support wall from the municipality several times. The State refers to the Planning and Building Agency's letter of 30 January 2017 to the City Council Department for Urban Development stating that the case manager referred to has not said that a wall of this size placed in a regulated road is exempt from application. However, it may have been said that the repair / restoration of the original wall along the road would not be compulsory. The existing wall referred to was a low brick wall and cannot be compared to the listed wall.
The management's duty to provide guidance must be seen in the light of the fact that guidance is mainly conducted orally over the telephone, and that information is provided on a general basis on the basis of the information provided by the policyholder. Oral counseling on the telephone does not have a binding effect on the municipality, and the policyholder must bear the risk of having listed measures that are required to apply without permission.
(quote at end).

Note that this process of supervisory duty, which the City of Oslo believes they have done right, is confirmed by the County Governor and the Civil Ombudsman.

A.) "Plaintiff claims to have received oral approval to erect the support wall from the municipality several times."

Yes, I have been guided several times, here is what actually happened.

We moved in here in 2012. In 2013, we called our then case manager Kaja Lange Aubert. It was called 2-3 times, to make sure we did the right thing.
It is not easy to reproduce this five years later, and when there were several phone calls, it feels like one when it is five years later.
Also, that the City of Oslo has not at all been interested in hearing our version, they had decided 3 - 4 years ago that we would get no on everything.

What happened to the phone calls we had with our then supervisor Kaja Lange Aubert?

Remember to call in mid-May and August 2013? It is five years back in time, it is a long time ago and it is difficult to remember in detail every word as it was said, but in my recollection she answered like this.
Then I asked about the following, we have set up stairs and want to put up a wall. Trapp I mean we set up 2013, when before this we had had a rope that we threw ourselves down in the Stormyrveien, and believe it or not, it is to this level that Oslo municipality has given us an order to go back to, that we will use a rope to throw us down the road with. You don't think so, but this is how we had it before we built the stairs that the City of Oslo has given us orders to demolish.

I asked what it takes to build a wall, until I got the answer that if a wall had been built from there, it was not obligatory to build one on top of it. This answered Kaja Lange Aubert.
I said yes, and then Kaja Lange Aubert replied that then it was not compulsory when it was built a wall from before!
THIS IS GOING GOOD!

I further said that we imagine a wall of 1.5 meters and 1 meter fence.
This was no problem, she said, since others from earlier have higher walls than you.

In 2013, I even called an extra time, for safety's sake, and asked about the same, and the same answers were given.
BUILDING ON OLD WALL WAS NOT REQUIRED TO APPLY.
As long as there was a wall there from before, we didn't have to search even if the wall was different. In other words, we were given permission in advance of our construction of a wall, Oslo Municipality violates Norwegian law by disputing this.

However, PBE says something else now, namely:
b.) “However, it may have been said that the repair / restoration of the original wall along the road would not be mandatory. The existing wall referred to was a low brick wall and cannot be compared to the listed wall. "

The municipality of Oslo has not overheard this conversation.
Only Kaja Lange and I have Aubert, no one else.

When the City of Oslo sets out to explain what has been said in a telephone conversation that they have not heard. So they make two big mistakes here.
First, they lie, and then they fantasize about what they think has been said. This in itself means that neither the City of Oslo, the County Governor nor the Civil Ombudsman have any credibility when they canallowed themselves to commit such roars. This is also against Norwegian law and common decency to dictate things in a document.

Had the fictitious and false presentation that PBE provides here to be true, we would of course never have set up a wall.
Of course, this is purely spikka lie that PBE drives.
Unfortunately, both the County Governor and the Civil Ombudsman have let this pass, it only says that their credibility in this matter is equal to zero.

What exactly have both the City of Oslo, the County Governor and the Civil Ombudsman done here? When it can be stated with great certainty that all public agencies do not speak true and are not willing to admit that we have received oral approval, it means that their general credibility beats absolutely crucial cracks!
Yes, they do not respond to our inquiries about this, and when they do, they have either fabricated either a "truth" or speak false and dictate what could and may have been said in several phone calls they have never overheard or referred back to Kaja Lange Aubert who gave us oral permission to build.

§ 171. Service failure

With a fine or imprisonment for up to 2 years, the person who exercises or assists in the exercise of public authority is punished and grossly violates his duty of service.

c.) "The management's duty to provide guidance must be seen in light of the fact that guidance is mainly conducted orally over the telephone and that information is provided on a general basis on the basis of the information provided by the policyholder."

This also becomes false and wrong to write. We have not been given general guidance, but concrete guidance on several occasions. Therefore, to write such, then they neglect their duty again. The lies will if no end take for various bodies we have been in contact with. They lack pulse control completely. One day it's law, the next day it's illegality.

d.) "No violation of the duty of guidance pursuant to fvl. § 11 »

This is asserted by the City of Oslo, but it is not just a breach of the duty of guidance. There is also a violation of Norwegian law. This says Norwegian law.

King Kristian the Law of the Fifth.

By regulation 14 Apr 1688 the law was put into effect from Mikkelsdag (29 Sep 1688). Only the provisions that are believed to still apply are included here. For the repeal of various provisions and for certain provisions which are believed to have lapsed, please refer to older editions of the Norwegian Laws.

Fifth Book. About Access, Goods and Gield.
In Cap. About Contracter and Commitment.
1 Art.Everyone is obliged to comply with whose hand with mouth, hand and seal promised and entered into gardens.
2 Art. All Contracts that are voluntarily provided by those who are legal, and come to their Ages, be it Purchase, Sal, Gift, Gut, Mortgage, Loan, Rent, Commitment, Promoter and other know what Name the mentioned child who is not against The law, or veneration, should be kept in all their words and points, as they are.
(quote at end).

2.) Oslo Municipality's decision, confirmed by the County Governor and not criticized by the Civil Ombudsman that there are "illegally" built storage rooms, stairs and walls.

a.) We have built all this before, in different houses we have built. When we built and had a house on Karmøy around 2002, we built a wall against the road. It was probably 7 - 8 meters and at the highest 2.5 meters. All this we built without any application, only a telephone to the municipality of Karmøy. It stands to this day and is "approved". The same with a firewood.

b.) When we had a house at Mortensrud here in Oslo, we built a storage space of around 10 sqm2 which was set up without any kind of application when it was less than 15 sqm2 which meant that it was not required to apply. This was around 2008 it was built.

c.) This again shows that we had on several occasions built both a storage room and a wall without any kind of written application. It goes without saying that when we received oral approval from Kaja Lange Aubert on several occasions, this was not something we reacted negatively to. But positive as we have been allowed to set up the same before, without written application and approval. Is it unreasonable then that we have taken Aubert's guidance seriously and undertaken the construction of a wall.

3.) Implementation of the regulations.

PBE in Oslo gives permission, and then they withdraw it. Afterwards, we think we should have known better, even though no one else has searched in our area before we should have searched. Others have built walls almost out of the way, double and triple taller than us. PBE shows an unpredictability and unpredictability, as well as what we call illegal.
We tried to have a dialogue, not least in relation to the fact that we have been given oral permission, which they totally ignore until now when they have to deal with this as it has become a trial. Hollowing out most of it, we do not stand for it, but PBE here in Oslo, unfortunately supported by the County Governor and the Civil Ombudsman. In many ways, PBE is abusing its power to become a ruling power, in which it tries to hide its own mistakes in pushing us to do something that was legal and that is suddenly illegal. Everything is also nicely, functionally and appropriately built and located.

Final Comment:

It is in the Act of Schedule gging and construction cases (Planning and Building Act)

There must be "clear excess weight for consideration" (cf. § 19-2). The considerations behind the provision that is dispensed from or the considerations behind the purpose of the Act must not be neglected significantly and the benefits of granting a dispensation must be clearly greater than the disadvantages after an overall assessment.

• should be especially emphasized by exemption from legislation / regulations: consequences for health, environment, safety and accessibility

• should be particularly emphasized when exempting from plans: state and regional frameworks and targets

• The municipality should not exempt from plans, the provisions of the Act on plans and the prohibition in § 1-8 (prohibition zones along the sea and watercourses) when a directly affected state or regional authority has made a negative statement on the application for exemption (cf. § 19-2, fourth paragraph).

The right to set exemption terms

Exemption may be granted on terms, cf. Section 19-2, first paragraph, of the Planning and Building Act. Exemption conditions must be aimed at preventing, repairing, dampening or compensating for negative consequences of deviating from the regulations or plan.
(quote at the end.)

In our case, it is actually very special. There are only positive things about giving us an exemption.

No one has come up with a single negative thing about our buildings that hold water. No agencies, no government agencies or anyone else. Why? It does not exist. No one has mentioned a specific thing, but we can name many.

1.) Our wall lies further in than our pre-sloped south-facing slope.

2.) Fire and ambulance come easier to our property with our wall and stairs.

3.) Our booth is almost not seen from the road, it is not noticed until one comes up to our property.

4.) Our wall does not stand out negatively and is not higher than others in our living area.

5.) We have got a nicer, flatter and larger outdoor area by our wall.

6.) None of what we have built creators disharmony or noticed to be anything different that breaks with other buildings.

7.) The stairs that we have built are a thousand times safer and better to get down and up from Stormyrveien in conditions that we had before when we lowered ourselves with ropes and hoisted us up immediately.

8.) That we should return the property to how the property was before and that should not cause any negative inconvenience. Of course, that's not true.

9.) It's the way we feel now, which is the very best. It is simply more like it says when dispensing is to be granted and granted. Implications for health, the environment, safety and accessibility should be emphasized, to our advantage, not disadvantage. Why? There is not a single negative thing about what we have built, only positive.

10.) That we do not receive an exemption must be Norway's largest and worst interpretation of the Planning and Building Act.

It is not just an overweight, as the law required with the benefits of giving exemption. That must be clearly greater than the drawbacks after an overall assessment.

With us, this is not only fulfilled, but overfilled.

It is like you have asked to get 100,000, - NOK for a car and get 1 Million.

This gives you, the Civil Ombudsman and the PBE here in Oslo no exemption and order for demolition.
Yes, so when the state institutions are full of evil and do not realize it themselves ?!

tirsdag 22. oktober 2019

No. 1469: It is the Exemption Act that is valid in our case, all other laws must depart from it!

No. 1469:
It is the Exemption Act that is valid in our case, all other laws must depart from it!

Picture of lying down to relax in the hammock. We have a very good time with PBE who are pigeons, liars, scammers and crooks in our eyes.
Of course, we will never align with them and their lies and evil orders.
They should be dismissed from their jobs immediately. Because the way they hold on is really bad. We have built a wall under their guidance.
It lies farther in than what our sloped and muddy property was before. We will return our property to this. And throw us in a rope up and down like monkeys. This is what they want us to do, never under any circumstances will this happen voluntarily on our part.
We then do not go to the bad guy's errand and vandalize our own property, where everything is built on our own farm and land, it is rude and unnecessary what the PBE here in Oslo wants us to do.
It is extra bad that the County Governor, the Civil Ombudsman and the courts are taking part in this madness!



When one is to interpret the law, one cannot misinterpret and distort the one that PBE and public Norway do against us.

Jesus answered Satan with the word of God, even though Satan quoted the word of God.

We read in Matt. 4. 1. Then Jesus was led out of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was at last hungry. 3 And the tempter came unto him, and said, If thou be the Son of God, say that these stones shall be made bread. 4 And he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. 5 Then the devil took him into the holy city, and set him on the top of the temple, and said unto him, 6 If thou art the Son of God, cast thou down. for it is written, He shall command his angels concerning you, and they shall carry you on your hands, lest you strike your foot upon any stone. 7 And Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the LORD thy God. 8 Again the devil took him up on a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, and said to him, 9 All this I will give you if you will fall down and worship me. 10 Then Jesus said unto him, Away from me, Satan! for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him alone shalt thou serve. 11 Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came to him and ministered unto him.

Notice Satan's tactics that are always the same.
He came up with the "truth" of presenting a word of God.
How did Jesus answer Satan?
It is a word of God that is "more important" than what you come up with.
Such is always Satan, he distorts and manipulates.

In our case, there is also abuse of authority.

It is clear here: It is thus regarded as abuse of authority when the administration's exercise of discretion (regardless of its discretion), taking external considerations, making arbitrary, disproportionate or highly unreasonable decisions, or conducting unfair discrimination that has no basis in law.
Here, PBE here in Oslo has performed above us.

The constitution rests on a premise of distribution between the legislative, judicial and executive power, cf. the principle of power distribution. As the role of the courts is basically to enforce law, control is, as a starting point, limited to finding out whether the administration has stayed within the boundaries of law and justice, and then leaving it to the administration to consider whether their decisions are reasonable and appropriate . Therefore, the courts cannot in principle review a decision on the grounds that the decision as a result is unreasonable or inappropriate, as long as relevant legal considerations are taken into account in the discretion of the administration.

As a basic condition, a decision must always be based on considerations that are somehow factual or relevant in relation to the basis of competence itself (the law). Absolute arbitrary and extrinsic considerations should not be included in the assessment of the law, and thus the discretion must, as a general rule, be within the purpose of the law in some way. Accordingly, it is considered abuse of authority when the administration's exercise of discretion (regardless of its discretion), taking external considerations, making arbitrary, disproportionate or highly unreasonable decisions, or conducting unfair discrimination that has no basis in law.

Thus, when the discretion is clearly beyond what is reasonable to accept from the administration, the courts may try to invalidate a decision because external or undue consideration has not been taken into account, there is unlawful discrimination or violation of the principle of equality, and the decision is so unreasonable that it must be considered invalid. Disobedience would then have to be grounded in unlawful law and the doctrine of judicial review of government abuse.

Even though the administration under the law is granted the right to exercise a more or less free discretion, the law nevertheless sets certain external limits for the considerations that can be taken in the exercise of the discretion, as an absolute minimum tandard. Thus, there is a narrow opening for the courts to review the exercise of discretion even in relatively free discretion, when it considers that a decision is based on external considerations, unfair discrimination has been made, or whether the decision appears disproportionate and unreasonably burdensome. In other words, the courts may, according to case law, strike on judgments that are so unreasonable or unjustifiable in relation to the tasks that the administration must perform according to the domestic law that it must be termed abuse of authority by the administration.

In general, it is difficult to determine what are legitimate side considerations and what considerations are considered to be completely outside the law, as the administration is normally granted discretionary competence also in deciding what are legal considerations. The main view in the case law today is that it must be accepted to some extent that a decision is also based on considerations other than those which directly fall within the purpose of the relevant law and derive from so-called allowed / neutral side considerations. In Rt. 1982, p. 1625, it was stated that, as a general rule, one must exercise "caution in assuming that a consideration which can be adequately promoted under one law or statute is not relevant by another ...". In practice, the doctrine of abuse of authority therefore has the character of a very narrow safety valve on an unlawful basis (developed in case law), which is used in the most serious cases of poor discretion by the administration.

The existence of such a doctrine of abuse of authority was mentioned, inter alia, in the Court of Appeal's judgment in Rt. 1981, p. 745 (Isene, p. 751):

“Alfred S. Isene thinks the pre-sale ceiling is unreasonable. The courts cannot set aside an administrative decision because they think the decision is unreasonable or that any other result would have been more in accordance with the law's intentions. Nevertheless, through case law, rules have been developed that state that if a government decision is so unreasonably unreasonable that there is a cause for what one calls for abuse of power, the decision is invalid. The court believes that there is no such misuse of powers in this case. "

The doctrine of abuse of authority can also be applied to tender competitions, if there is an emphasis on considerations that lie outside the advertised tender basis, cf., for example, Rt. 1998 p. 1398 (Torghatten p. 1406):

“Against this background, the case must be considered on the basis that it is a matter of public authority. However, when the county government uses tenders to reduce public grants, the demands placed on the parties to the tendering law may also have a certain significance. This means, among other things, that the form of tender restricts which considerations the county authority can emphasize in the decision, which leads to the courts being able to try the decision to a greater extent ”.

The courts' willingness to go into a concrete assessment of the reasonableness and impartiality of administrative decisions following the doctrine of government abuse has gone on a wave. As I said, it is normally allowed to discriminate, and the administration is also relatively free to include side considerations in the legal application that do not necessarily arise directly from the wording, purpose or process of the law. In Rt. In 1997, p. 1795, the Supreme Court stated that much must be done before administrative decisions are rejected because of unreasonableness. Today, it is very important that a judgment be regarded as so one-sided, inaccurate, arbitrary or unreasonable that the decision is regarded as invalid according to the doctrine of abuse of authority. The list is very high, and in practice only the exceptionally clear violations of the requirements of sound discretion can be obtained. In case law, therefore, there are very few examples of decisions that are known to be invalid from recent times based on the doctrine of government abuse. In later case-law, questions have been raised as to whether the courts can test the weight of legal and factual considerations. For the time being, it does not appear that the courts will be able to try the emphasis on legal considerations, cf. Rt. 1993 pp. 528 and Rt. 1996 p 78.

There may also be abuse of authority if an administrative body does not respect other administrative decisions in its discretion. In Rt. 1962 p. 530 (Haraldshaugen), the majority in the Supreme Court held that the building council refused building permit under the then building law on the grounds of "beauty considerations", although the relevant ministry had dispensed under the then antiquities law (p. 538):

“It is clear that after the conservation decision, changes to houses in the area that we are dealing with here will also be approved by the Ministry of Church and Education. In our case, the ministry has given such approval, and thus in my opinion the case must be finally decided. When the law has passed the decision to the ministry, this must be understood that the ministry has exclusive competence in the fulfillment of the considerations that the law has intended to take into account and therefore the ministry has protected the area ”.
(quote at the end.)

Final Comment:


John Rickard Øen from Eiker Husbygg came back for a while to look at our buildings.
We might need a responsible applicant, so we called him.
We went over it all and he was mighty impressed with how everything went together.
When I said we had been given oral guidance. Then he answered back that he understood, for this could not happen by itself.
Everything was in harmony with and fit in the terrain and with both our house and the neighboring houses. This was no problem for him to understand.
I then asked if he would have testified in court about this? No problem, he said, he was more than happy to show up.
Why aren't the County Governor, the Civil Ombudsman and the courts doing the same? It is for one reason only that they protect and protect one another.
As mentioned, we have been given oral guidance on how to build.
And we didn't have to search when we built an old wall.
We have pulled the wall further in than it was before. We have got a greener and flatter terrain. Everything has gotten better.
Who would want to vandalize our property? That's no wonder.
Scripture says very clearly what light and darkness want, and what the good powers want and the bad ones. It's pretty obvious in the day.

Joh. 10. 10 The thief comes only to steal and murder and destroy; I have come that they may have life and have abundance.

That said, John Richard Island from Eiker Husbygg. Who is an experienced builder who has been dealing with this whole life and who has a trained eye.
He saw right away that we had built under guidance, and had not taken care of ourselves!
Photo by John Rickard Øen