søndag 17. februar 2019

No. 1476: The blog about Jan Aage Torp just gets more and more popular!

No. 1476:
The blog about Jan Aage Torp just gets more and more popular!

See for yourself here: http://justismord.janchristensen.net/

Facsimile about the blog we mention Jan Aage Torp. His hatred against my preaching of marriage and remarriage.

Facsimile of 
justismord



No. 1475: When the verdict against me / us breaks with Norwegian law, then the courts have played out their credibility!

No. 1475:
When the verdict against me / us breaks with Norwegian law, then the courts have played out their credibility!


Picture of my lawyer Knut Magne Howlid.




1 Cor. 6. 1. Do any of you watch when he has a case against his neighbor, then seek judgment with the unjust and not with the saints? 2 Know ye not that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world be judged by you, are ye then unworthy to judge in the least? 3 Know ye not that we should judge angels? how much more in temporal things! 4 So then, when you have matters about temporal things, put them to judges who do not regard anything in the church!

We read here in the scripture that if any believer is bringing a case against other believers like Jan Aage Torp opposed me because he hated my preaching against remarriage. Then he is not in God's will with his life and follows the Lord.

But this is not what I should emphasize in this article, this was just as a parenthesis. It is that we read in the word of God that we, as believers, will be judging the whole world, even the angels and all other creatures. Therefore, it is quite obvious that Satan wants to draw us believers to justice and judge us when Satan has always been one who will imitate what God does and has promised in his own word.

It is strange that I / we have now been in three court cases. Not one of them has been necessary or we have made near any criminal offense, but Satan and the dark forces love this game. Why? Because he will always imitate God and draw us believers into the courtrooms. In this way, Jesus and the first Christians experienced it constantly. We read through the entire Bible, even in the GT and even more in the NT that all who followed the Lord would stand in different courts. Although they had never done anything criminal or a "fly" mischief!

Here in this last trial I have taken care that what is the main question. That I have been told that building masonry on old wall was not required to apply. That this I wrote in advance to the court and spoke well and long in court. And now in the petition my lawyer has taken this up as a main concern. When Oslo District Court says that I have misunderstood etc. Then they drive with a rickety lie in the verdict against me / us. Then a law has to say what I write here in the headline:

"When the verdict against me / us breaks with Norwegian law, then the courts have played out their credibility!"

This writes my lawyer Magne Howlid to Borgarting Lagmannsrett:

Support Wall - Advance guidance

Christensen applied for advance guidance in the Oslo municipality on two occasions before the support wall was erected. Christensen has argued that in both inquiries he described the wall and that he was accepted for the entry of the wall without having to seek prior permission.
In the two telephone calls in 2013 that Christensen had with case officer Kaja Lange Aubert, who knew the area years back through the development period at Krokstien 2, he asked whether it was okay to record a new and higher wall on the former old wall along the Stormyrveien in order to get a bigger and much better outdoor area southwest of their home on Krokstien 2 c.
On both occasions, Christensen thinks that by the municipal case officer he got clear answer that the wall was not subject to application as he described it. He himself perceived it as a binding acceptance and agreement. It appears to be clearly unreasonable whether it is Christensen who in a case like this should have the risk of a possible misunderstanding.
It is stated that there are service faults in relation to guidance / counseling. If there had been any basis for any form of doubt on the part of the officer regarding what the request was, she should have requested to receive a sketch and / or written presentation of the construction measure to ensure that her guidance / advice was correct.

Thus, the municipality's duty to proper guidance and / or counseling has failed and in any case not been properly clarified vs. an initiative owner who addresses the municipality's planning and building agency with a very specific question about prior permission in a concrete building case.

The case officer was dropped off as a witness to the district court. But it turned out later during the main hearing that the prosecutor for the state had no knowledge that the relevant case officer who Christensen approached, had also been case officer in connection with the planning and development of Krokstien 2 a b c and d.

The person was thus locally known in the area, knew about the terrain heights and the formations, as she had followed the development of Krokstien from A to Å as far as Christensen has knowledge. The person in question will therefore, as a witness, supply the necessary information so that it becomes much better and more properly informed.

In the guidance given to Christensen, nothing was mentioned about the consideration of small house buildings e, only that Christensen's wall would be like the other walls in the immediate area. Aubert Lange guided out from other people's house in Stormyrveien.

Against this background, it is wrong of the district court to not assume that the owner of the measure has been in good faith with regard to the obligation to apply. Only thing that has taken place by negligence is the case handler handling Christensen's inquiries. It is wrong of the district court not to see this as a significant breach of the duty of supervision after the FvL. § 11.
(quote end).

What does Norwegian law say? Listen:

King Kristian the law of the fifth.

By Decree 14 Apr 1688, the law came into force from Mikkelsdag (Sep. 29, 1688). Here, only the provisions that are believed to remain in force are included. If repeal of different provisions and if any provisions that are supposedly lapsed, please refer to older editions of Norway's Law.

Fifth Book. About Access, Gods and Gield.

In Cap. About Contracts and Obligations.

1 Art. Every one is obliged to comply if the hand with mouth, hand and seal promised and entered gardens.

2 Art. All contracts made by the volunteer by the volunteer, and come to the age of them, be they jealousy, hall, gift, alternation, pledge, loan, rent, obligation, forerunner, and other things by what name the name of the name of the man who is not against The Law, or Honor, should be kept in all its words and punctures, as the entry is.

1.) The City of Oslo has violated § 11 Supervisory duty.

2.) PBE in Oslo has violated section 171. Service error since they have guided us really well and rightly, as they subsequently call for illegality when they themselves have both made gross service errors, and supervised in all possible directions as and when.

3.) The City of Oslo has violated Kong Kristian's fifth law, which states that oral agreement is as binding as in writing.

Edvards Os writes in this judgment:

Significance of the guidance from the municipality. The initiative owner has perceived the municipality's guidance so that the support wall was not subject to application.
Such guidance is given on the basis of the information provided by the promoter, and oral counseling by telephone does not have binding effect on the municipality.
In this case, there is a large discrepancy between what is allowed by the regulations and what is listed. We cannot see that it is probable that the municipality has given consent to a wall of this size, placed in a regulated road surface.
(quote end).

When he writes that "this is not probable that the municipality has given consent to a wall of this size, placed in a regulated road surface."

Then this is the lie of the century, that's the crazy frenzy he writes. Of course, I was told that it was not mandatory to build on top of an old wall. Finished work!

Final Comment:

Imagine, in this case, I called down to our case officer at least 2 times to get guidance.

I was clearly told to build on old wall, was not required to apply.
The wall that stood there from before was enough so that in our case we should not build a wall that was higher than that of others.
We then built a wall that is actually lower in the terrain than the neighbor's over on the other side.
But a wall that doesn't stand out or seems inappropriate.
Stairs and a small storage room were also built, as it was allowed to build at that time a shed under 15 sqm without applying.
If one enters the PBE's pages, then finding out that such small deviations will be granted a dispensation for if they apply. Not least in our case where all other neighbors have signed. But what does PBE do to us? They run almost a campaign against us, which is obviously abuse of authority.

In our case here with the public prosecutor, we have gone through so many cases here in Oslo. Where everyone in our similar situation does not do anything about negative aspects. But we are hit and punished as hard as they can get. What is the reason for that?
Others probably see it differently from me and us as a family.
But we look at this as nothing but Satan who is noisy, lying and wanting to destroy.
We read in God's word about Jesus and Satan's tasks, whatever it is.

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

Jesus wants us to feel good in this world, but above all in the world to come.
Satan or the thief he is called here. He wants the opposite, "stealing and murdering and destroying."

When, as here, we have built something that is aesthetically pleasing, does not prevent anyone. And the Government Attorney wants this to be removed, who is behind this?
For me, it is not difficult to know, of course, the forces of darkness are out on the road, nothing else!

lørdag 16. februar 2019

No. 1474: The lies against me from the Oslo District Court and from the guard around Jesus' resurrection are almost identical, talk that the successors of the Master will experience the same!

No. 1474:
The lies against me from the Oslo District Court and from the guard around Jesus' resurrection are almost identical, talk that the successors of the Master will experience the same!


District Court Judge Edvards Os, those who kept watch at Jesus' tomb and some others "see" what they want to see.
What they don't want and can see and hear, they dictate a story or "adventure". Such as doing half-lies are really worse than crooks as they want to look better than they are. Sad, but true. Illustration picture on islands that look both here and there, and what they should see, and what they should hear, they do not hear! They really live in the back country, and we know that everything is going well!
Yes, "In the back country where the east is west and five and two are nine." Then it is not easy to relate to such people. It's an impossibility.




Joh.e. 15. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command you. 15 I no longer call you servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I have called you friends, for I have told you all that I have heard from my Father. 16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and I have set you to go forth, and bear fruit, fruit that endures, that the Father may give you all that ye ask of him in my name. 17 This I command you to love one another. 18 When the world hates you, you will know that it hated me before you. 19 Be ye of the world, then the world would love its own; But because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word which I said unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they shall also persecute you; If they have kept my word, they will also keep you. 21 But all these things shall they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know him not that sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, then they had no sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates me also hates my Father. 24 If I had not done the works of them that no one else did, they had no sin; but now they have seen them and yet hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is done, that the word which is written in their law may be fulfilled: They hated me without cause.

What is so interesting about God is that we read about our lives in good and evil beforehand. Everything is actually written in the word of God, as here.

2 Tim. 2. 11 It is a credible word; for if we are dead with him, we shall also live with him; 12 If we go out, we will rule with him; we deny, he will deny us; 13 If we are faithless, he is faithful; for he cannot deny himself.

We live with Christ in time, but in the next "leg" we shall rule with Christ.

In this world lies and truth go hand in hand. When we are to reign with Christ, only the truth will be tolerated and accepted.

The main point during these negotiations was to make sure that was "waterproof" when I also wrote in advance about this, and talked well and long about it in court. But what does the judge do? This was the dishonest judge Edvards Os.
Well, he says in a lie story that I haven't understood what I've been told. It reminds me of what Jesus and his disciples suffered from lies. When Jesus had stood up, the guards who "slept" were paid to pay to say that his disciples had stolen his body. The lies of the guards of the tomb of Jesus and the court judge Edvard's Os are of the same age. How can you see that someone steals a "dead" body when sleeping and overhears a phone call that is not part of or has heard? It is of course impossible.

Matt. 28. But at the end of the Sabbath, when it brightened toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake; for the angel of the Lord went down from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it. 3 And he was like a lightning to look upon, and his garment was white as snow; 4 And for fear of him they trembled, and kept watch, and they died. 5 But the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not; I know that you are seeking Jesus, the crucified; 6 He is not here; he is the resurrection as he said; come see the place where he was! 7 And go in haste, and say unto his disciples, that he is the resurrection of the dead. And, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there you will see him. Behold, I have told you. 8 And they hastily departed from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 And, behold, Jesus met them, saying, Peace be unto you. But they went forward and embraced his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then said Jesus unto them, Fear not; Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they must see me. 11 But while they were on the road, behold, some of the guard came into the city and told the chief priests all that had happened. 12 Then they came with the elders and counseled, and gave much money to the soldiers, 13 and said, You shall say, His disciples came at night, and stole him away while we slept. 14 And if it should come to the governor f or ear, then we shall speak well with him, and make it so that you may be safe. 15 Then they took the money, and did as they were taught; and this reputation came out among the Jews, and has remained to this day.

Jesus had stood up, but that this should not come out. Then there was a counter-action on this. Then with lies that the disciples had stolen his body. This was witnessed by something that slept. In our case there are similar liars as there are people who have not heard my conversation with our case officer, saying that it has never occurred. And if it has taken place, then they know what has been said, but not me.

This court writes Judge Edvards Os in the judgment against me. In the next section I tell my version. They are like night and day, like darkness and light.
Edvards Os writes this:

Significance of the guidance from the municipality. The initiative owner has perceived the municipality's guidance so that the support wall was not subject to application.
Such guidance is given on the basis of the information provided by the promoter, and oral counseling by telephone does not have binding effect on the municipality.
In this case, there is a large discrepancy between what is allowed by the regulations and what is listed. We cannot see that it is probable that the municipality has given consent to a wall of this size, placed in a regulated road surface.
(quote end).

This, of course, is just a lie, and again a lie. He has no prerequisite for being able to speak out as he has never heard or heard the conversation between us.

He acts as if he is a psychic or predicts what has been said and bases his judgment. Talk about acting like a crook as a court judge in my eyes. Such can then no one hold on.

Yes, I have received guidance several times, here is what actually happened.

We moved in here in 2012. In 2013 we called down to our then case officer Kaja Lange Aubert. It was called down 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.
And, that the city of Oslo has not been interested in hearing our version at all, they had decided 3 - 4 years ago that we should get everything down.

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

Do you remember remembering that we called down mid-May and August 2013? It is five years back in time, it is a long time ago and difficult to remember in detail every word as it was said, but in my memory she replied like this.
Then I asked about the following, we set up stairs and wanted to set up walls. Trapp I think we set up 2013, when before this we had had a rope that we threw ourselves down on in the Stormyrveien, and believe it or not, it is to this level the Oslo municipality has given us the order to return to that we should use a rope to throw us down on the road with. You do not believe it, but we had it before we built a staircase that the city of Oslo has ordered us to demolish, to grasp the one who can.

I asked what was needed to build a wall, to which I got the answer that if a wall was built there before, it was not mandatory to build one on top of it. This replied Kaja Lange Aubert.
I said yes, and then Kaja Lange answered Aubert that then it was NOT APPLICABLE WHEN IT WAS BUILT A WALL FROM BEFORE!
THIS GOES GOOD GOOD!

I further said that we foresee a wall of 1.5 meters and 1 meter fence.
This was not a problem she said, as others from before have a higher wall than you.

In 2013, I even called an extra time, for the sake of safety and asked the same, and the same answers were given.

BUILDING UP OLD WALL WAS NOT APPLICABLE.

As long as there was a wall there before, we didn't have to search even though the wall was different. In other words, we got permission in advance of our construction of a wall, that district court judge Edvards Os believes that this conversation has not happened. As well as knowing what has happened, only shows that the man must obviously be very confused and hold on as if he were in trance or something like that.

Final Comment:

We read about those who kept watch at Jesus' tomb, that they actually did two things at the same time, they slept and were awake at the same time. The same court judge Edvard Os tries to hear both a phone call and not hear it, talk about "super-man"!

We read that this lie that the disciples robbed the body of Jesus, this lie was very well fixed.

Matt. 28. 15 Then they took the money, and did as they were taught; and this reputation came out among the Jews, and has remained to this day.

This is the same as I / we have experienced. This lie that I / we have not been promised that we can build masonry on old walls, PBE here in Oslo would not have considered. Not the County Governor or the Civil Ombudsman, and now in Oslo District Court they continue to lie and thickness something that is not at all.
Talk about being crooks, it doesn't help to wear a jacket when you are full of lies inside!
So it was with those who kept watch at Jesus' tomb, so it is and So with these various public agencies we have had to do. And last but not least, now. District Court Judge Edvards Os who continues with lies and fabricates stories that have absolutely nothing of the truth in them, only lies and fictitious things, like pure adventure!

There is more credibility with Asbjørnsen and Mo, than it is with these. But that someone is lying, it's nothing new. As long as this present world exists, lies and truth will be interchangeable. But in the end, it says in the word of God that liars should not inherit the kingdom of God. When the kingdom of God breaks out, the lies also cease!

fredag 15. februar 2019

No. 1473: The Norwegian judicial system appears to me as being directly corrupt in the sense that the judge and the judgment can lie and associate with the truth, but if a sentence man do, he is a criminal!

No. 1473:
The Norwegian judicial system appears to me as being directly corrupt in the sense that the judge and the judgment can lie and associate with the truth, but if a sentence man do, he is a criminal!


Picture Adolph Tidemand: "The Haugians", where we might see the best and most credible picture of Hans Nielsen Hauge? The picture shows a preacher holding a meeting - a Christian meeting - where he is later arrested, sentenced and must sit 11 years in prison for meetings without having asked the pastor.
It was Haug's great "sin" and that made him criminal. So it has always been that one is lied to, punished, and persecuted for the most incredible thing only for one having to do with the living God!



Have now been in three court cases, where I really have experienced things that I didn't think were true.
I have thought that in a court case, things would be something solemn, with respect for the court and that the Judge or Judges were interested in shedding a most correct judgment.
Although all three lawsuits I have been through have been really a form of persecution and malice on the part of the government against me and my family. So I / we up in the middle of the whole thought that a trial would after all bring justice. The truth would come forth, and then one would be able to put this behind it and move on.

Legal case 1.

The first trial I / we were in as "accused" we won completely victory, not least because of that we had a very good lawyer, Gullbrand Kjos.

The reason for this trial was as follows.
A late winter day in 2004, I was called to work by my wife.
She was completely out of bed, our kids were taken by the child welfare service while we were at work.

Why?
Of course, there were only fake rumors that the child welfare service spared, these dark servants.

If there had been any team in this, then only everything was solved with a simple conversation.
It was all that had been needed.

But here they made an emergency decision, put it into practice to try to break the Christensen family. They didn't succeed at all, I knew who was behind. It was not of good or of God. Of course, Satan was behind those ladies who opposed us. There were probably five pieces with a priest's wife at the head, Marta Elisabeth Åtland Førsvoll. She was rotten through!

Eventually, they tried to negotiate with lying, truing and everything possible. The child welfare service is like this if you admit something. as you never have to do, they use it against you. If you admit nothing, then they freely fantasize about both the one and the other. If you say to them, they say, "I hear what you say!" and do exactly as they want and have decided. The child welfare service in Norway is over-eager for liquidation as it works today!

To avoid trial, but we knew this was behind Satan.
When we had been the world's best and most loving parents!

Fortunately, we had a very good lawyer, the now deceased Gullbrann Kjos from Haugesund.
As well as that the judge and the referee were a man who soon realized that this was madness!

They said if they got a minor, then we should have the two biggest. And other lies and Satan's formulations. The trial then came in early summer 2004 and we won on all points. It has not been in the history of Norway a court case where the child welfare service then until the degrees have been revealed and not won on any points ?!

Case # 2.

Now I'm not going to write so much about this farce trial against me. Have your own blog created for it, see here:
http://justismord.janchristensen.net/

I was charged with one thing and actually convicted of something that was not dealt with in court. What was dealt with in court and which was my lawyer's main focus. It was law enforcement. It turns out now 1 year after the case has ended that Brynjar Meling was right. The fact is that judgment is of no importance, since I can write and speak just as before.
Had it been real, then the other laws had also been adapted to the judgment, which it is not. This was pointed out from day one of other Lawyers as well.

Now having reviewed three courts in Norway, there is a sad feeling about how bad it is possible to be treated in the Norwegian legal system!
And tried to advance to the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg, France, where we were rejected.

When one thinks of Hans Nielsen Hauge then it is what I and my family have gone through as blueberries.
But anyway, what we have gone through and going through is an abuse and not a rule of law worthy of it!

I actually thought about what Hans Nielsen Hauge went through 200 years ago. Hans Nielsen's Hauge name shines today as the most honest and good person Norway has ever fostered. But anyway, he was so badly treated, what I experience is just the same. It is the story that repeats itself, and those who went against Hauge have, for the time being, remained as men who opposed both God and Hauge. As I am convinced, the covenant will also see this matter between me and Meling on the one hand. And the ramp that has welcomed me and the Heavenly Blog will forever remain as some losers and outsiders kudde.

Now, of course, there is no blueprint that can be put on me and Hans Nielsen Hauge. I've really had 53 brilliant years. While Hans Nielsen Hauge died only 53 years, after 10 - 11 years in prison where he had been so badly treated that he never really got completely healthy after the prison stay. But it was as before, such as today, that one tries to stop God's men and women by a law that is most deeply to stop one from preaching and communicating the word of God and the revelations and thoughts that God has given one. Here the story is similar, it was by eg. konventik-kelplakaten. At this time, it was forbidden by law for others than priests to hold edifying meetings. Hans Nielsen Hauge therefore came into the authorities' spotlight. He defied the law and was imprisoned. Revival Christianity was seen as a threat not only to the church but also to the secular power apparatus. Awakening was a form of popular movement that the state had no control over, and therefore there were a number of restrictions on free life for the general; Restricted printing freedom, prohibition of ecclesiastical religious gatherings, and restrictions on people's travels and journeys. Hauge was imprisoned for the first time in 1797. Due to all the prison stays and the poor treatment they gave him, he was ill at a young age. He did not speak to anyone in the prison, he was inactive, and he did not get into fresh air either. This made him have both gout and scurvy, and he lost his teeth and hair. In 1811, Hauge was set free by his influential friends.

What about me?

Here I am condemned for something that among other things. Brynjar Meling and many others believe is incorrect law enforcement. What is so special about my case, is that I am charged with calling Jan Aage Torp for lepers and adulterers. During the discussions in both the Oslo District Court and the Borgarting Court of Appeal, the discussions have almost exclusively been applied by law. Listen from YouTube where Meling explains:

But what happens? I am convicted of having written "too much" about the same thing that the court has not considered or discussed. Only a few loose undocumented figures from Jan Aage Torp and which are not mentioned in the charge. In other words, one can say that the judge in Oslo District Court who was Malin Strømberg Amble. In the Borgarting Court of Appeal, the judge was Øystein Hermansen. Besides, it was team judge Bjørn Edvard Engstrøm and team judge Leiv Robberstad was third man. These are really judges in from "hell" when they are doing a fab-safe and ugly judgment against me and the heavenly blog.

All these judges, especially in the Borgarting Court of Appeal, gave clear expression to Brynjar Meling during the court proceedings that they followed his reasoning.
But what do they do?
What is not in the charge and which has not been the subject of discussion in court.
That it is written a lot, not a little. They are the basis for judging me.
When Brynjar Meling argued for wrong law enforcement.
Used all his time and his entire procedure on this. And the judges expressed their agreement with this. Then, if they had been fairly fair and fair.
So, they had expressed their opinion that they did not fully agree with him, and went on what has obviously been important in this matter. That is why we have used so much space. But they do not, who only prove that in my eyes is the police, the court and Torp are three criminals who stick with each other to take "two righteous"!

My family, who has held this out for now over 5 years, also deserves all admiration and support. They are phenomenal and glorious that have stood with me 120% throughout this process, even though it has been ugly and bad against me and my family!

I want to praise my lawyer Brynjar Meling for having an agenda, a principle he maintains. It is that wrong law enforcement has been used against me, and he does not shy away from that.
Several others have stated this, which means that he is not alone in thinking this. Which again makes the fight that we fight think I have good opportunities to win if both Jan Aage Torp, the Oslo police and the courts have partly been unfinished and kept us ridiculous and made a play out of this case.

The same has been said by lawyer Jon Wessel Aas at several occasions. Here is some of what Wessel Aas has black journalists:

Media law attorney Jon Wessel-Aas reacts to the fact that violation of the criminal code para.

- I cannot comment on the details of the case, but I think in principle that it is especially that this paragraph is used, because this is talk of speeches in a blog. So, Christensen does not seek out Torp by phone, text message or in any other way directly, but writes what he believes about him as a pastor in the blog. It is outside the core area of ​​the relevant provision, says Wessel-Aas, who emphasizes that he only knows the matter through circulation in Vårt Land and by reading the actual decision of the case.

Wessel-Aas refers to at the aforementioned provision in the Criminal Code from the old has been called "the telephony law".

- It is clear that bullying and harassment in social media over time can make people not have the energy to be more. But I still think it is important that the court does not extend the penalty clause to too much. It is a point to be as concrete as possible when limiting freedom of expression through legislation, says Wessel-Aas.

Statements such as "living in adultery" make it more obvious to use the lien, more the lawyer. Libel is decriminalized in the new Penal Code and can thus only form the basis for civil lawsuits. According to him, it seems more relevant in this case.

"I believe there is danger in the journey if the section in the Penal Code is expanded by adding something that is no longer criminal," says Wessel-Aas.

Public person. - What consequences can any judgment have?

- If there is a criminal conviction in line with the charge, I believe much else can be judged in the same way. It will make the boundaries of freedom of speech unclear, which in turn can lead to people avoiding utterance, Wessel-Aas replies and points out that there are any provisions to protect against untrue accusations, violations of privacy, threats and solicitation for violence.

Wessel-Aas points out that Torp is a well-known figure in Christian-Norway and far in the same position as many politicians.

- The room must be larger when it comes to public opinion.

Christensen disagrees with how Torp practices the relationship between life and learning, ie his interpretation of biblical texts, emphasizes Wessel-Aas.

- Also, the ceiling height must be large.

Yes to the Supreme Court.

Media and freedom of expression expert, lawyer Jon Wessel-Aas believes that Christensen's statement is not punishable.

"The special thing in this case is that you use punishment after a penalty clause that in any case historically and in its core will hit the more direct peace violations," he says.

Wessel Aas thinks it is more natural to consider whether the blog posts are defamatory?

He points out that the Storting has an intention that defamation should be a matter between the parties and therefore must be pursued through civil lawsuits with claims for compensation.

Such cases are no longer a matter for the police and prosecutors.

In principle, the Court of Appeal's view also implies that the press's ordinary publications can be prosecuted according to the provision on peace violations.

He likes to see the Supreme Court take hold of the case.

- This principle question of law interpretation should ideally get its clarification in the Supreme Court, Wessel Aas believes.
(quote end).

Now it turns out afterwards that this was right, that the use of law against me was only to get me convicted and try to scare me and like-minded people to silence. Since the Norwegian State has no real power online when I actually write on an American blog that is governed by the law in the US, not Norway.

Legal case 3
It is this matter I am now in. Now this is the third time I have been drawn to court for really nothing. The main point during these negotiations was to make sure that was "waterproof" when I also wrote in advance about this, and talked well and long about it in court. But what does the judge do? This was the dishonest judge Edvards Os. Well, he says in a lie story that I haven't understood what I've been told. It reminds me of what Jesus and his disciples suffered from lies. When Jesus had stood up, the guards who "slept" were paid to pay to say that his disciples had stolen his body. The lies of the guards of the tomb of Jesus and the court judge Edvard's Os are of the same age.

Matt. 28. But at the end of the Sabbath, when it brightened toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake; for the angel of the Lord went down from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it. 3 And he was like a lightning to look upon, and his garment was white as snow; 4 And for fear of him they trembled, and kept watch, and they died. 5 But the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not; I know that you are seeking Jesus, the crucified; 6 He is not here; he is the resurrection as he said; come see the place where he was! 7 And go in haste, and say unto his disciples, that he is the resurrection of the dead. And, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there you will see him. Behold, I have told you. 8 And they hastily departed from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 And, behold, Jesus met them, saying, Peace be unto you. But they went forward and embraced his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then said Jesus unto them, Fear not; Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they must see me. 11 But while they were on the road, behold, some of the guard came into the city and told the chief priests all that had happened. 12 Then they came with the elders and counseled, and they gave much money to the soldiers, 13 and said, You shall say, His disciples came in the night and stole.
him away while we slept. 14 And if the governor should come to the ears, then we shall speak well with him, and make it safe for you. 15 Then they took the money, and did as they were taught; and this reputation came out among the Jews, and has remained to this day.

Jesus had stood up, but that this should not come out. Then there was a counter-action on this. Then with lies that the disciples had stolen his body. This was witnessed by something that slept. In our case there are similar liars as there are people who have not heard my conversation with our case officer, saying that it has never occurred. And if it has taken place, then they know what has been said, but not me.

Here I write about the case:
Edvards Os writes:

DOM from Oslo District Court 11 December 2018
 
The case concerns the validity of refusal of exemption pursuant to section 19-2, second paragraph, of the Planning and Building Act.

Before the wall was erected, the plaintiff was in contact with the case officer Lange in the municipality. They had two phone calls. He asked on the entry of the wall on the old wall. It cannot be ruled out that in the conversation there were misunderstandings or ambiguities. The plaintiff perceived that he was confirmed that the measure was not required to apply when there was already a wall there, and in any case the municipality should have been guided in a different way by asking questions, and explaining what is assumed and what must be checked. The relevant case manager knew the property well through his dealings with the original building case for the four detached houses and the completed certificate for this measure. The municipality's guidance has been deficient and the plaintiff has therefore been in good faith when he set up the support wall.

In support of the claim, the Defendant essentially states:
Complaints indicate that the wall does not cause any significant inconvenience. We do not agree with this, since it must be regarded as a significant disadvantage that the considerations behind the plan are substantially disregarded. Nor is it an independent argument for dispensation that the disadvantages are small, see the Ombudsman's statement in SOM-2011-1023. There must be clear and relevant benefits from the measure in order for it to be possible to grant exemption. The absence of disadvantages is not enough.

Significance of the guidance from the municipality. The initiative owner has perceived the municipality's guidance so that the support wall was not subject to application. Such guidance is given on the basis of the information provided by the promoter, and oral counseling by telephone does not have binding effect on the municipality. In this case, there is a large discrepancy between what is allowed by the regulations and what is listed. We cannot see that it is probable that the municipality has given consent to a wall of this size, placed in a regulated road surface. The owner of the measure must bear the risk of having entered into measures subject to compulsory registration without permission.
(quote end).

Here is a triad of lies, falsehoods and truths. That a serious judge can write so I do not understand at all.

In order not to go into everything here, I add to my writing to Oslo District Court that Edvards Os's head does not believe in.

Final submission / documentation to the Oslo District Court, concerning the case against the PBE in Oslo, the State Ministry of Local Government and Modernization Oslo 21 / 11-2018

In legal terms, it is the County Governor's confirmation of the PBE decision we are complaining about and will have turned to us to keep the shed, staircase and wall as it stands today. That PBE decisions about vandalizing our property are not being maintained. But turned to everything to be left without change.

Regards
Jan Kåre Christensen

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

No breach of the duty of supervision after fvl. § 11
The state disputes that there has been a breach of the duty to provide guidance after 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 Administration's letter of 30 January 2017 to the City Department for Urban Development, where it is stated that the case officer referred to has not stated that a wall of this size placed in a regulated road surface is exempt from the obligation to apply. However, it may have been said that repairs / reversals of the original wall along the road would not be subject to application. The existing wall referred to was a low brick wall and cannot be compared to the listed wall.
The administration's duty to supervise must be seen in light of the fact that supervision is mainly conducted orally over the telephone, and that information is given on a general basis on the basis of the information provided by the promoter. Oral counseling by telephone does not have a binding effect on the municipality, and the owner of the initiative must bear the risk of having entered into measures subject to compulsory registration without permission.
(quote end).

Note that this process of the supervisory duty that the City of Oslo believes has been done correctly is confirmed by the County Governor and the Civilian Ombudsman.

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

Yes, I have received guidance several times, here is what faIt happened.

We moved in here in 2012. In 2013 we called down to our then case officer Kaja Lange Aubert. It was called down 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.
And, that the city of Oslo has not been interested in hearing our version at all, they had decided 3 - 4 years ago that we should get everything down.

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

Do you remember remembering that we called down mid-May and August 2013? It is five years back in time, it is a long time ago and difficult to remember in detail every word as it was said, but in my memory she replied like this.
Then I asked about the following, we set up stairs and wanted to set up walls. Trapp I think we set up 2013, when before this we had had a rope that we threw ourselves down on in the Stormyrveien, and believe it or not, it is to this level the Oslo municipality has given us the order to return to that we should use a rope to throw us down on the road with. You do not believe it, but we had it before we built a staircase that the city of Oslo has ordered us to demolish, it can grasp it.

I asked what was needed to build a wall, to which I got the answer that if a wall was built there before, it was not mandatory to build one on top of it. This replied Kaja Lange Aubert.
I said yes, and then Kaja Lange answered Aubert that then it was NOT APPLICABLE WHEN IT WAS BUILT A WALL FROM BEFORE!
THIS GOES GOOD GOOD!

I further said that we foresee a wall of 1.5 meters and 1 meter fence.
This was not a problem she said, as others from before have a higher wall than you.

In 2013, I even called an extra time, for the sake of safety and asked the same, and the same answers were given.
BUILDING UP OLD WALL WAS NOT APPLICABLE.
As long as there was a wall there before, we didn't have to search even though the wall was different. In other words, we got permission in advance of our construction of masonry, the Oslo municipality breaks Norwegian law by contesting this.

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

The Oslo municipality has not missed this conversation.
Only I and Kaja Lange 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 overheard. Then they make two big mistakes here.
First, they lie, and afterwards they fantasize about something 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 can allow themselves to commit such roars. This is also against Norwegian law and regular decency to make things into a document.

Had the fictitious and lying presentation that PBE gives here been true, then of course we had never set up wall.
Of course, it is a question of lies that PBE is doing.
Unfortunately, both the County Governor and the Civil Ombudsman have let this pass, it just says that their credibility in this case is equal to zero.

What has really been done here by the City of Oslo, the County Governor and the Civil Ombudsman? When it can be determined with certainty that all government agencies do not speak true and are not willing to accept that we have received oral approval, it means that their overall credibility is absolutely decisive!
Yes, they do not respond to our inquiries regarding 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 missed or referred back. to Kaja Lange Aubert who gave us oral permission to build.

Final Comment:

Imagine, I'm probably "Norway's" kindest and least dangerous man, but until the court man is pulled. This is something that comes with serving the Lord and living with God.

It is as it says in David it says in one of their hymns.

Psalm 2. Why do the Gentiles lament and bask the people for what is vanity? 2 The kings of the earth shall rise, and the princes shall consult together with the LORD, and with his anointed; 4 He who thinks in heaven laughs, the Lord mocks them.

So they drag me to the courts with false accusations and fictitious notifications etc. There is nothing but the Bible's words that come true.

Matt. 10. 16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; Therefore, be wise as snakes and simple as doves! 17 But watch out for men! for they shall deliver you to the courts and to you scoffing in their synagogues; 18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony to them, and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they surrender you, be not worried about how or howto speak; for it shall be given to you at the same time as ye shall speak. 20 For it is not ye that speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. 21 And brother shall surrender brother to death, and a father his child, and children shall rise up against parents, and cause their death; 22 And ye shall be hated of all for my name's sake; but he who endures to the end, he shall be saved.

Notice what it says: "But watch out for the people! for they shall deliver you up to the courts, and ye shall scourge in their synagogues.

The same thing we meet here at Markus. "9 But beware! They shall surrender you to the courts, testifying to them. "

Mark 13. 9 But beware! They shall deliver you to the courts, and you shall be stroked in synagogues, and set before governors and kings for my sake, for their testimony. 10 And first, the gospel must be preached to all nations. 11 And when they bring you forth, and deliver you up, be not anxious before what ye shall speak. but what is given to you in that same hour, you shall speak; for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.

Even Jacob, the Lord's brother says the same. "Is it not the rich who subdue you, and who bring you before the courts?"

James 2. 6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who subdue you, and who bring you before the courts? 7 Are not those who mock the good name you are mentioned with?

onsdag 13. februar 2019

No. 1472: Government lawyer writes to Borgarting Lagmannsrett and my comments on this to my lawyer!

No. 1472:
Government lawyer writes to Borgarting Lagmannsrett and my comments on this to my lawyer!


As written before, we have appealed the wrong sentence in our opinion from the Oslo District Court.

This is what government lawyer Elisabeth Sawkins Eikeland writes, photo.





Attorney General
Appeal to Oslo District Court

 Oslo, 11.02.2019 2018-0665 ESE / ESE

ANKET SAFETY FOR COLLABORATION LAW COURT
Case No: 18-104017TVI-OTIR / 06

Appeal party: Jan Kåre Christensen Krogstien 2 c 0672 OSLO

counsel:
lawyer Knut Magne Howlid Gyldenløves gate 24 0260 OSLO

Defendant: State Department of Ministry of Local Government and Modernization Postbox 8112 Dep 0032 OSLO

Prosecutor: Government Attorney at Lawyer Elisabeth Sawkins Eikeland Postbox 8012 Dep 0030 OSLO
Attorney General

1 INTRODUCTION Reference is made to the Declaration of Appeal dated 21 January 2019 and the Borgarting Court of Appeal's letter of 21 January 2019 with a deadline for filing a response to an appeal by 11 February 2019. The case concerns the validity of the County Governor of Oslo and Akershus's two decisions on refusal of dispensation by plan and the Building Act § 19-2, respectively, for entry of a supporting wall and outbuilding 10.04.20018, and decision not to change 14.06.2018. The State believes that the district court's judgment is correct in its entirety and that the County Governor's decision is valid. The actual representation in the District Court's judgment (page 2-4) is not contested and, in the opinion of the state, can be unproven, cf. section 29-16, second paragraph, of the Dispute Act. The state cannot see that the appeal reveals new information that can lead to another result in the Court of Appeal.

2 THE STATE'S VIEW OF ANKEN
2.1 Processing errors The State believes that it cannot be regarded as a procedural error in the District Court's treatment or the County Governor and / or the municipality's treatment that there has been no inspection. Both the district court, the county governor and the municipality have, through their assessments of the exemption applications, had access to comprehensive documentation that describes both the word and the image proof the property, applied measures, nearby terrain and neighborhoods. The state does not believe there is a basis for the argument that the case is not sufficiently informed by the fact that documents and witnesses have not been filed. The state reminds here that the plaintiff has had full opportunity to present the documentary and witness evidence he wishes for the district court, and that the witness Aubert who was summoned by the plaintiff first was waived by the plaintiff during the main hearing. The state has never opposed Aubert's testimony. My comment during the main hearing on what knowledge Aubert had or not was intended only as an objection to the accusing party's statement of the party, and that the court, in the view of the state, could not base its explanation on what Aubert knew and not, or what Aubert had given guidance if, especially in the light of more timely evidence that expressed the opposite and that he had dropped this witness earlier in the day. Mtp. The more timely evidence is shown, among other things, to the Plan and Building Administration's letter of 30 January 2017 (Appendix 5 in the Government's reply), which states that the relevant case officer has not stated that a wall of this size placed in a regulated road surface is exempt from the obligation to apply. and that it does not appear from framework permits etc. that Aubert has been the case officer on the case all the way that the plaintiff stated in the party's explanation. The State can in no way in any way see that there are procedural errors in the District Court's ruling that can lead to revocation, and also no procedural errors in the County Governor's decision that can lead to invalidity.
2.2 Violation of the supervisory duty The State disputes that there has been a breach of the supervisory duty pursuant to fvl. § 11 in connection with the listing of the support wall, and in its entirety shows to the District Court's assessment on page 11 (and from the County Governor's decision, page 10 of the judgment).

Attorney General

The court has fully tested whether the cumulative conditions for exemption pursuant to section 19-2 have been fulfilled, so that any procedural errors will in any case not affect whether the conditions for exemption are fulfilled or not, cf. § 41.
2.3 The support wall The state in its entirety refers to the district court's assessment in the judgment on pages 10-11, and maintains that the conditions for exemption pursuant to section 19-2 are not fulfilled. New in the appeal is that the appellant states that it is wrong to interpret the zoning plan S-4220 (the small house plan), section 6.5 second paragraph so that it is the whole plot's direction of fall that should be used as a basis for assessing how high terrain interventions that, exceptionally, can be allowed, ie. If section 6.5 second paragraph letter a, b or c is applicable, see the judgment on page 9. The appellant party has not legally justified why the County Governor and the District Court's interpretation is incorrect. The State believes that the County Governor and District Court's assessment is correct. The wording in section 6.5, second paragraph, is:
"The following exceptions are allowed:
a. On flat and gently sloping plots, the total height of support walls, fillings and / or cuts in buildings shall be a maximum of 0.5 meters.
b. For sloping plots with fall 1: 6 - 1: 3, height of support walls, fillings and / or cuts overall not exceeding 1 meter.
c. For steep plots with terrain falls more than 1: 3, the height of retaining walls, fillings and / or cuts should not exceed 1.5 meters overall.
The wording itself indicates that it is the plot as a whole that is to be considered. It also follows from the guide to the small house plan page 22 that:
"The slope of the plot is measured as the average fall on the property. On properties with large terrain variations, one can calculate the slope within the part of the plot where the measure is placed, but not for very limited parts of the plot. ”
The site of the appellant does not have large terrain variations, and the slope shall in any case not be calculated on the basis of very limiting parts of the plot - as stated here only between the house and the road. The District Court's assessment is correct. The state is also briefly noted that the consent of the neighbors is not relevant in the exemption assessment.

2.4 The Booth The state in its entirety refers to the district court's assessment in the judgment on pages 12-15, and maintains that the conditions for exemption pursuant to section 19-2 are not fulfilled. The state cannot see that the aforementioned conditions in the appeal - that one has to go through several rooms to put things down in the booth on the lower floor, or that the appellant needs more area for storage space - may indicate another assessment according to pbl. § 19-2. The state is also briefly noted that the consent of the neighbors is not relevant in the exemption assessment.

Attorney General

2.5 Submissions on discrimination etc. The state shows in its entirety to the district court's judgment in the judgment on page 11. The state maintains that the authority abuse teaching is not applicable since the court has full competence to test whether the two cumulative conditions for exemption are fulfilled, cf. 1983 pp. 1290, SOM-2017-1231, SOM-2014-3266. In all cases, there is no unlawful discrimination and the decisions are not grossly unreasonable.

3 ANKEN SHOULD BE SUCCESSED FORWARD JF. TVL. § 29-13 OTHER MEMBERS The State believes it is clear that the appeal will not take place, and that it should therefore be denied in accordance with section 29-13, second paragraph, of the Dispute Act. The state shows, among other things, the statements made by the appeal committee's majority in case HR-2015-987-U section 15-16, and most recently Borgarting lawyer's decision LB-2018133876. These cases did indeed apply to immigration law, but the general statements have the transfer value. The state believes that the district court has taken the correct legal starting points for the assessment of the case in the judgment on page 7-8. 10-11 and 12-15. The fact of the matter is not disputed. The property and the relevant measures, the booth and the support wall, as well as the surrounding terrain are well described in the documents brought before the district court. The state cannot see that neither inspection nor witnessing from Aubert will be able to change the subsumption and the specific outcome of the case.

4 OTHER MATTERS If the case is brought forward, the state will carry the same documentary evidence as for the district court. The state believes it is sufficient that one day be set aside for the appeal. Case officer Lise Marie Sundsbø from the County Governor of Oslo and Akershus will make the party representative on the case, cf. section 24-6 second paragraph.

5 DEPOSIT 1. The appeal is rejected. 2. The State by the Ministry of Local Government and Modernization is awarded legal costs for both agencies.

Oslo, 11 February 2019 THE GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT

Elisabeth Sawkins Eikeland lawyer
(quote end.)

This I write to my lawyer who shows my view.

To Knut Howlid! Oslo 11 / 2-2019


Nice you are good in Bergen. Responds to emails within a few days.

Read over, but she "jumps" over the most important thing about the wall is that we have been given oral approval to build on top of old wall.
The quotation she mentions is not relevant as this has never been mentioned before than now in retrospect. Can't make provisions into the case that hasn't been mentioned before, the only thing that is said to be that it is not mandatory to build on top of the old wall and what we have built is no higher than what others are. Maser about the same up and up again that small house buildings apply to us, this is boiling soup on a nail argument.

And the booth is set up in good faith and after having gone through so many cases here in Oslo. Then it is "normal" practice that so little exceedance as what we have on the utilization rate of the plot, then get an exemption. Here they have a practice for us, than for others here in Oslo, just to set an example.

Seems what she came up with arguing was very thin, only paragraphs that one must ignore when I / we have been verbally promised to build masonry against the road as it was required due to strong slope down the road. The fact that there are only benefits to what we have built means that the only sensible and correct thing in this case is that the County Governor's decision is invalid. So we can keep wall, staircase and storage standing as it stands today.

Aubert hasn't been on the case all the time, she was taken off after she gave us permission to build wall. As far as I know, she was was our case officer in 2013 when we received oral approval.

Your bill was exquisite. To the Government Attorney it seemed partly confusing when she argued both to follow paragraphs and that Aubert had not intended what she had said when she was not on the case anymore.

Regards
Jan K

Hi again Knut! 13 / 2-2019

Have read through the Government Attorney and here is something that you can possibly include in your reply.

1.) In many ways, the actual case between us and PBE in Oslo is "storm in a water glass" in my opinion. Since we have built everything in good faith and the small amount that is above the utilization rate on the site is minimal. If one goes through similar cases here in Oslo, then one finds that dispensation is "always" given in similar cases as true that one seeks in a good and right way that we have done. The "normal" is to get exemption in such cases as we have done, not the way we are met. At least matters that are like our 5 years back in time.

2.) The Government Attorney reads in paragraphs again in the case and how important it is to follow the housing regulations.

This is not relevant for this case as we have been guided out on the basis of building on an old housing estate where it was not required to build a wall on an old wall. Then our DOCTOR COMPLETE GUIDED US TO !!!!!

Once that has been done, a wall built on old wall that fits perfectly into the terrain. On our own property, it becomes a powerful exaggeration to impose that we should demolish this wall that is built at the same height with other walls here at Hellerudtoppen. All walls largely follow the terrain, even are probably in the height of the Stormyrveien at also between 5 - 10 meters.
The reaction does not correspond to our so-called "illegality" which is nothing but following the guidance given.
When we have got the MESSAGE THAT IT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO BUILD UP THE OLD WALL.

3.) It has also been sought that one should place such emphasis on following paragraphs and rules, when our responsible applicants point out that in our living area it is not sought to build masonry here in 100 years.

This is what our responsible applicants are writing Ferdigattest Byggesak AS, Pb 9385 Grønland, 0135 Oslo:
"By the way, not all the walls in the area were established before the house plan became applicable. Several of the walls in the area appear to have been established after 2006. From the point of view of the case, we can not see that any cases have been registered in the Stormyrveien which concern explicit walls over the past 100 years. We assume that some walls are considered in sc. other buildings, but notes that it may nevertheless seem that the owner of the measure is right in saying that several of the walls have not been subject to a material assessment. "

4.) When it comes to the booth, it is also timely to remind that neighbor a few meters away in the road built booth etc. at the same time as us. Where they got an exemption to utilize the plot's utilization rate 54 times more than us. Then it is not just discrimination, but the deviation is so great in our disfavor as night and day. Such difference treatment is simply unheard of, unreasonable and a difference treatment that surpasses the vast majority.

This is what our responsible applicants are writing Ferdigattest Byggesak AS, Pb 9385 Grønland, 0135 Oslo:
"With respect. Continuous green areas then perceive the owner of PBE's argument, which has been applied a bit in excess. Again, reference is made to virtually all the sites in the immediate area where this green area is broken up with some form of terrain work - primarily the establishment of walls. All properties of the complaining neighbors end up on the road with what PBE refers to as an unnatural transition that breaks the green contiguous areas towards the road.

The owner of the measure is wondering that residents in the immediate area must have been granted an exemption for a listed booth (case 201316839 - Stormyrveien 9C). Whether or not there are major differences in this case and the present case, we are somewhat uncertain, but at least we note that here too there is talk of an illegal list and that in the case,% BYA was reported up to 60%. We also record that this site is covered by another regulation, without us being sure of how it affects the assessment criteria. We also assume that PBE has an overview of the fact that no corresponding exemptions have been granted with regard to. % BYA for similar measures in the scope of the Small House Plan. "

5.) The Government Attorney believes that the case is probably enlightened. This also becomes "rail argument."
There is no one who has been visiting here once, except for PBE here in Oslo on a hidden inspection where they took pictures to use against us (it is also out on the net to really get us). The whole thing is perceived as a struggle against us from the public agencies so that for an incomprehensible reason we should tear everything that is built. That really only has advantages and not disadvantages.

This is what our responsible applicants are writing Ferdigattest Byggesak AS, Pb 9385 Grønland, 0135 Oslo:
“In its decision on the custody of the PBE, PBE emphasized the outdoor living areas. The initiative owner experiences this argument to some extent to be contradictory then the agency in fm. booths emphasize the outdoor area a lot, while in fm. the improvement of the outdoor area associated with the wall does not add to this significant weight. We understand the agency with regard to that bail to some extent seizes area set aside for outdoor stays, cf. given permits for housing. We also understand that the agency has assumed that sloping terrain (up to 1: 3) is considered usable (outdoor living areas to the west if one does not establish a wall). Mht. allocated outdoor area, we will point out that due to changed provisions with regard to calculation of outdoor living area, the actual outdoor areas of the dwelling have actually increased in computational terms, cf. given permission for housing, even after the estab- lishment. Previously, PBE did not consider areas in sc. roof terrace to be "usable", while according to. changed provisions so they do it. Thus, requirements for outdoor areas are fulfilled regardless of whether the fine is established or not. Mht. the outdoor areas to the west we will once again point out that flat areas provide better opportunities for varied outdoor stay than sloping areas. On this occasion, it is requested that the municipality looks to the neighboring plots, and most plots down the Stormyrveien (where trapping of terrain is relatively widespread) in its complaint assessment. It seems obvious that it is not only the initiative owner who has had a desire to flatten the hilly terrain with a desire for a flat outdoor area. ”

6.) The Government Attorney writes:
"The actual representation in the District Court's judgment (page 2-4) is not contested and, in the view of the state, can be unproven, cf. Section 29-16, second paragraph, of the Dispute Act. The state cannot see that the appeal reveals new information that can lead to another result in the Court of Appeal. "

This is so wrong it can then remain that we have disputed then most? Not least all the paragraphs and rules that should be followed that only lead to confusion and that we have to tear down what is not for the sake of a single person or for the traffic passing by our house every day. Even the route bus that passes by has never made any objections to what has been built.
Why? Because the property is now far better than it was before the development. When tearing this goes against all common sense.

7.) The Government Attorney writes:
"In any case, there is no unreasonable discrimination and the decisions are not grossly unreasonable."

This is by mouth and measure what a must say is a lie according to my terms as others have received up to 54 times larger in percentages granted exemption than us. When saying that it is not "unreasonable discrimination and the decisions are not grossly unreasonable" is simply the "greatest" of the century as I have heard and read.

8.) If one goes through the attachments that have been sent and compares with our case, it is grossly unreasonable that we must tear everything down and have not received an exemption. When I read the verdict and the lawyer's arguments, they basically argue that they have never heard, believed or reflected on what we think is right and true in this matter.

9.) When our then case officer has guided us to build on the old wall, and she is then taken off the case. Then it becomes wrong to point out that we have not had the same case officer. We have never claimed that, but when we built the wall we were guided by Kaja Lange Aubert in advance. Here is what I write to Oslo District Court regarding this conversation:

“We moved in here in 2012. In 2013 we called down to our then case officer Kaja Lange Aubert. It was called down 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.
And, that the city of Oslo has not been interested in hearing our version at all, they had decided 3 - 4 years ago that we should get everything down.

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

Do you remember remembering that we called down mid-May and August 2013? It is five years back in time, it is a long time ago and difficult to remember in detail every word as it was said, but in my memory she replied like this.
Then I asked about the following, we set up stairs and wanted to set up walls. Trapp I think we set up 2013, when before this we had had a rope that we threw ourselves down on in the Stormyrveien, and believe it or not, it is to this level the Oslo municipality has given us the order to return to that we should use a rope to throw us down on the road with. You do not believe it, but we had it before we built a staircase that the city of Oslo has ordered us to demolish, it can grasp it.

I asked what was needed to build a wall, to which I got the answer that if a wall was built there before, it was not mandatory to build one on top of it. This replied Kaja Lange Aubert.
I said yes, and then Kaja Lange answered Aubert that then it was NOT APPLICABLE WHEN IT WAS BUILT A WALL FROM BEFORE!
THIS GOES GOOD GOOD!

I further said that we foresee a wall of 1.5 meters and 1 meter fence.
This was not a problem she said, as others from before have a higher wall than you. She's going Not to mention that such a low wall, which was no higher than that of others, should be ignored as it was a wall from before. The wall that stood there made it impossible to retry again. In other words, it was "normal" on the Hellerudtoppen not to seek more than necessary.

In 2013, I even called an extra time, for the sake of safety and asked the same, and the same answers were given.
BUILDING UP OLD WALL WAS NOT APPLICABLE.
As long as there was a wall there before, we didn't have to search even though the wall was different. In other words, we got permission in advance of our construction of masonry, Oslo municipality breaks Norwegian law by contesting this. "

10.) After reading through countless cases here in Oslo where there is a dispensation. So, in fact, our case is one that stands "strongest"!
See Appendix.
Can't see that in our case we had a rope that we threw ourselves down the road before we built the stairs. That it should be demolished is senseless.
We had a dangerous slope where minor and other occasionally fell out towards the road before we built a wall. It is also much prettier and we have a flatter and better plot, that we should tear this up perceived meaningless.
Our house is built so that the 2 small booths that are in the house are inside several rooms and are not really stalls in that sense. They are too inaccessible and this has been approved by PBE, as it turns out afterwards that an external storage room is also required for that reason. But the booth we now have works perfectly and is perceived as much better to have than to have tarpaulin over things that are not preferable. That our booth we shall tear as we share with the rental apartment is senseless.

11.) This is not in her reply, but after thinking about the matter, it is perceived as being a little democratic and right both the judgment and the treatment we have received.
In reality, the judiciary and the public are, in some cases, so well-timed with us, and they protect each other that it is not understandable and understandable.
Where the County Governor protects PBE here in Oslo.
Again, the Civil Ombudsman protects the County Governor and PBE here in Oslo.
Taking a case to court, the justice system defends / protects absolutely everything and everyone, even here in our case, they write false and distort the sentence several places. It is not a fair treatment we have received so far in our opinion and opinion.
A decision like PBE is like a "locomotive" that runs through everywhere, even into the courtroom as here. Although it is obvious that it has not been and remains in it. Why this goes on, I believe that lack of empathy and thoroughness is essential. After all, they have not been on a visit here on our property if I have asked both PBE here in Oslo, the Civil Ombudsman, County Council and the court.

12.) The reason why we built is not included in the judgment either, that we did this in good faith after the PBE guidance and that it was allowed to build bids of less than 15 sqm without applying for it. Something we have done both at Karmøy and Mortensrud here in Oslo. As well as stairs were necessary and all properties with access down into the Stormyrveien have either stairs or access to this road as it is the main road here in the area.

13.) Hope you realize that if we get a fair treatment in Borgarting Lagmannsrett, then we win guaranteed. But if treatment is as bad as in Oslo District Court, then we lose.

I feel we are far better equipped now than in Oslo District Court. That is why we are guaranteed to win if the judges will investigate the matter and see the case not only on the part of the authority. But also from our side, this is what they have not been willing to do yet. It has something to do with the system I mean, that it does not work unfortunately after having been through any court cases. But we are trying to win this case if we have been met with a lot of injustice. It never solves anything to just focus on what is not right done to us etc.

14.) Will start again finding new cases next week where dispensation is given. It has been good with a little "holiday" from this case.

Regards
Jan Kåre Christensen

søndag 10. februar 2019

No. 1471: Such cases are very difficult when the state agencies behave worse than children in a "sandbox", but at the same time they sit with greater power than one!

No. 1471:
Such cases are very difficult when the state agencies behave worse than children in a "sandbox", but at the same time they sit with greater power than one!


Illustration picture with children playing in a sandbox.



1 Cor. 14. 20 Brothers! Do not be children in the sense, but be children in evil; on the other hand, you must be mature!

In the sense we should not be like children, but when the public agency with the municipality, county council, civil ombudsman and the courts operates both with a "law" for us. And a "law" for everyone else, and they say something one day.
The next day, it's something completely different, and it doesn't just make it difficult. But completely impossible to relate to such people, agencies and decisions.

We get to have eg. With regard to the wall we have built, at least three different messages have been received from Oslo Municipality's Planning and Building Agency, PBE.

1.) The one message was that it is not mandatory to build on top of old wall, as we did.

2.) Then we were told if this was not right, but we had to apply to build what was built. We are law-abiding citizens, and got some professionals to apply when we applied for so the application was rejected. This did not result.

3.) Then came the message that everything was "illegal" and had to be removed. They popped up a whole lot of things that there was a nice hill down and there was no need for a wall once. We proved that their arguments were incorrect. They never realized this. The fact is that even in Oslo District Court they ran the same argument based on lies and not facts.

This also pointed out to our lawyer Knut Howlid on several occasions.


Blue. in his report to Borgarting Lagmannsrett. But all public bodies hold out lies and lies and once again lie as they are never seen in the "cards". As well as having "all" power they behave like. They have not, before or since the lie (s) will catch up with them as it did in the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries. Lying systems will sooner or later always collapse as unfortunately Norway is about to become, I am scared of unless more people wake up and demand and demand change.

Authoritarian leaders know that a free civil society, free media and an independent judicial system are a threat to them, states Secretary-General Bjørn Engesland of the Norwegian Helsinki Committee.
Then one warns against Hungary in today's news.

But here's the opposite, the entire public agency is authoritarian and protects one another. It is bad in Norway because in many ways we do not have a person who is authoritarian, but in fact almost the entire public agency. Fighting against one there, you fight against the whole agency. It's like it was in old Soviet and it's now in North Korea today. One for everyone and everyone for one, although it is quite obvious that one is wrong and then everyone else protects him or her!

Howlids write to Borgarting Lagmannsrett:

New about the wall


In the District Court's judgment on page 9, it is written that both the City of Oslo and the County Governor have taken into account the fact that the whole plot's land direction is to be used as a basis for the question of how high terrain interventions can allow, cf. § 6.5 second paragraph letter a-c - not the terrain fall between the house and the road. This interpretation of the provision believes that the appellant is wrong, because it implies that one gives a wrong picture of the situation on the spot. The slope down the road was not an easy slope but steep and dangerous.

Christensen's wall is also lower than for example. next door over on the opposite side of the Stormyrveien without being annoyed or obstructed by anything or anyone.

Against this background, it is wrong of the district court to assume that the deviation is proportionally significant with respect to the height of the wall, and the error of the district court to assume that the entry was an intervention that is in direct conflict with the preservation of existing terrain.

It is argued that the formal basic conditions for exemption are fulfilled here, that it is in fact and legal grounds for exemption, and that in this case it must be possible to grant room for the use of exemption.
(quote end).

Final Comment:

When I just point out that again and again the public agency here in Norway that we have experienced in this case and similar cases at an almost childish level in the sense. They mean something "new" every day, and unfortunately they always leave the result that is most negative. Without empathy and feeling for others than themselves, they seem to be!
Then it's bad!

lørdag 9. februar 2019

No. 1470: When the municipality, county governor, court and civil ombudsman engage in military engineering, lie and fabricate their own history as in our case, the public agency is on a par with what it was in the old Soviet Union!

No. 1470:
When the municipality, county governor, court and civil ombudsman engage in military engineering, lie and fabricate their own history as in our case, the public agency is on a par with what it was in the old Soviet Union!


It is those who believe that we as believers should accept everything in blind obedience.

This I cannot see is straight out of the word of God, as the scripture clearly states that we should also point out what is wrong.
But at the same time, we should not, of course, engage in violence, harassment, harassment or other unfriendly methods or actions. Killing and calling for such misdeeds is also wrong, as God himself will in the future "arrange for the end" when the scripture states that "revenge belongs to God!"

Heb. 10. 30 We know him who has said, "I am avenged of revenge, I will repay, and again," The Lord will judge his people. 31 It is terrible to fall into the hands of the living God.

I think these people who are here are doing a rubbish game against us. They have to answer for this, then I think they are very bad when they lie, do abuse of authority and exaggerate everything against us in order to subdue and to tear the nice we have built. This is obviously a misdemeanor as here the public authorities carry over us as a family.

Picture of a demonstration against abortion that shows that it is entirely appropriate to say also to the authority when they are wrong. As they promote the evil deed, rather than the good. It is quite obvious, among other things. from Salem 139 and many other places in the word of God that taking abortion is killing and killing a human being, just taking the time to read for yourself, it is right!




There are several who believe that we must only accept this judgment and do as the public agency says and wants. When the word of God says, among other things. that we should subordinate ourselves to the governments.

Room. 13. 1. Every soul is obedient to the guardian authorities! for there is no authority except of God, but those who are, they are ordained of God, 2 so that whoever opposes the government opposes God's order; But those who oppose will get their judgment. 3 For the rulers are not afraid of the good work, but of the evil one. But will you not have to fear the government? Do what is good, and praise it; 4 For it is the servant of God, good for you. But do what evil is, then fear! for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is the servant of God, a vengeance of punishment upon him that doeth evil. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to be obedient to it, not just for the sake of punishment, but also for the conscience. 6 Therefore you also pay taxes; for they are God's servants, who just take care of this.

But here in our case, the governments do what is evil and we what is good, then a case turns on lying to someone who is engaged in a reindeer game. Something that is being driven here against us. It is really a "change of role", then and it is right to resist the evil deed, not accept it.

We have been promised that it is not mandatory to build a wall as we did by building on an old wall. Then this was promised at least twice, and the entire government agency denies this. Makes her own lie story that I have misunderstood etc. Then it is the public agency son doing the evil deed, we do the good with relate to the realities of this matter. The truth and the lie cannot be mixed together, as the government agencies here do. This is fully legitimate to say in favor of and not accept in blind obedience.

My lawyer Knut M Howli writes in his statement to Borgarting Lagmannsrett the following:
Support Wall - Advance guidance

Christensen applied for advance guidance in the Oslo municipality on two occasions before the support wall was erected. Christensen has argued that in both inquiries he described the wall and that he was accepted for the entry of the wall without having to seek prior permission.

In the two telephone calls in 2013 that Christensen had with case officer Kaja Lange Aubert, who knew the area years back through the development period at Krokstien 2, he asked whether it was okay to record a new and higher wall on the former old wall along the Stormyrveien in order to get a bigger and much better outdoor area southwest of their home on Krokstien 2 c.
On both occasions, Christensen thinks that by the municipal case officer he got clear answer that the wall was not subject to application as he described it. He himself perceived it as a binding acceptance and agreement. It appears to be clearly unreasonable whether it is Christensen who in a case like this should have the risk of a possible misunderstanding.

It is stated that there are service faults in relation to guidance / counseling. If there had been any basis for any form of doubt on the part of the officer regarding what the request was, she should have requested to receive a sketch and / or written presentation of the construction measure to ensure that her guidance / advice was correct.
Thus, the municipality's duty to proper guidance and / or counseling has failed and in any case not been properly clarified vs. an action owner like his committed to the municipality's planning and building agency with a very specific question about the prior permission in a concrete building case.

The case officer was dropped off as a witness to the district court. But it turned out later during the main hearing that the prosecutor for the state had no knowledge that the relevant case officer who Christensen approached, had also been case officer in connection with the planning and development of Krokstien 2 a b c and d.

The person was thus locally known in the area, knew about the terrain heights and the formations, as she had followed the development of Krokstien from A to Å as far as Christensen has knowledge. The person in question will therefore, as a witness, supply the necessary information so that it becomes much better and more properly informed.

In the guidance Christensen received, no mention was made of the consideration of the housing development, only that Christensen's wall would be like the other walls in the immediate area. Aubert Lange guided out from other people's house in Stormyrveien.

Against this background, it is wrong of the district court to not assume that the owner of the measure has been in good faith with regard to the obligation to apply. Only thing that has taken place by negligence is the case handler handling Christensen's inquiries. It is wrong of the district court not to see this as a significant breach of the duty of supervision after the FvL. § 11.
(quote end).

When Judge Edvards Os writes this in his judgment in Oslo Tingrett on 11 December 2018 the following:

Before the wall was erected, the plaintiff was in contact with the case officer Lange in the municipality. They had two phone calls. He asked on the entry of the wall on the old wall. It cannot be ruled out that in the conversation there were misunderstandings or ambiguities.
The initiative owner has perceived the municipality's guidance so that the support wall was not subject to application. Such guidance is given on the basis of the information provided by the promoter, and oral counseling by telephone does not have binding effect on the municipality. In this case, there is a large discrepancy between what is allowed by the regulations and what is listed. We cannot see that it is probable that the municipality has given consent to a wall of this size, placed in a regulated road surface. The owner of the measure must bear the risk of having entered into measures subject to compulsory registration without permission.
(quote end.)

Here, judge Edvards Os really says straight out that I have both misunderstood even the simplest thing, and otherwise I have taken care of myself.
This is to turn everything on the head and convey the lies and factories into here which is not true.

First of all, this with so-called house-building is also something that is silent, it has never been a matter of talking about this from the PBE. This is something that has come afterwards. I myself have written about this in my letter to the Oslo District Court that I have not at all misunderstood anything. But that I have understood everything that has been said to me when it was clear to clear. It is not obligatory to apply for an old wall if it should be on a 1.5 - 2 meter fence on top. This also fits in with what other buildings are in here from before. That PBE, the County Governor, the Civil Ombudsman and now the judge in the Oslo District Court want to convey lies and falsehoods. Can't I see is the fault of me as a believer to get along with and not accept!

When all instances also behave badly, fraudulently and lie otherwise when they are to get out of situations. Also with regard to booths and stairs which are supposed to be some sqm2 above the utilization rate of a plot of more than 1500 sqm2. If we read through PBE other similar cases here in Oslo, then dispensations have been given largely on the whole. If there is no dispensation, it is for the person in question not taking the trouble to apply. We have had even professional applicants inside, but get rejected. Can't see that it is unchristian or infinite then to oppose such decisions based on almost direct malice and malice. Hot rules and paragraphs must be followed, although it is quite obvious that this leads and leads wrongly!

Final Comment:


I began this article with the following: "There are several who believe that we just have to accept this judgment and do as the public agency says and wants. When the word of God says, among other things. that we should subordinate ourselves to the governments. "

The Bible says the opposite in some cases that we should not accept what is wrong, lies and the deed of darkness as this is.
I realize that in the end, one must bow to the authority in the sense that even when they choose the wrong one, we cannot, as individuals, win over them.

Take this with abortion that is killing small people in the mother's stomach. That so many have said about this, but the Norwegian State still kills people in the mother's stomach. Then we believers cannot set up a revolver or gun to shoot these abortion doctors who kill small innocent people. But that we say, that's right. But then we must leave the rest to God, that they too must answer for their barbaric misdeeds - sooner or later!

That's how it is here. I / we go the legal way, meet those who want that we should tear, destroy and eradicate the beautiful, aesthetic and functional we have built.

Although in Oslo District Court, the judge wrote out in our opinion a "lie judgment" so we just have to pray to God. Hope and believe in justice that the appeal will pass through Borgarting Lagmannsrett and we will win by keeping wall, staircase and storage room as it stands today! It is unreasonable, wrong and unfair that we should tear.
While others are allowed to stand, and what is done is far beyond that dispensation that bears to others in general. Apart from us, there is unreasonable difference treatment as well. Here, a completely proven obvious difference.

Ask for the dear friends that we get through that we will keep everything that is built. And that the authorities' vandalism of our property is not being carried out!
Everything is left untouched, as it is not something wrong, unethical or ugly with what we have built. In fact, just pluses and not obstacles or shyness to anyone!

The fact is that we are only left with benefits, not a single part of what we have built. The fact that this is to be torn is obviously not of the good, but of evil. We know what that evil's task is, it's stealing, murdering and destroying!

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

It is obvious here what is what, so just pray and proclaim dear friends in the name of Jesus that God's will is happening and the good victory eventually, amen!