tirsdag 19. mars 2019

No. 1494: We have been completely overrun and discriminated against by PBE here in Oslo, the County Governor, the Civil Ombudsman and the Courts, which show that Norway suffers from a huge democratic problem when a case can go so far!

No. 1494:
We have been completely overrun and discriminated against by PBE here in Oslo, the County Governor, the Civil Ombudsman and the Courts, which show that Norway suffers from a huge democratic problem when a case can go so far!


Lan Marie Nguyen Berg who represents the Environmental Party controls Oslo.
But here we have built something that is also beneficial to eg. environment.
It must be demolished, here it is spoken with two tongues, which only show that there is a world record between life and learning.



I have provided so much documentation, evidence and other things that I can safely say that we are discriminated against by the public agency. (Among other things, we have received oral approval to build, others have received up to 57 times the degree of utilization on the site + 1000 things to which everything is documented to the public agency, without having been willing to get us in meeting at one point).

Then I mean the Planning and Building Administration here in Oslo. As I write PBE, as well as the Civil Ombudsman and the County Governor. As well as a straightforward word of justice of the courts here in Norway, I am aiming for the Oslo District Court and Borgarting Lagmannsrett, who did the same to me with the narreale postle Jan Aage Torp.

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

I have submitted at least 50 cases where others have been granted a waiver, but everything has been overlooked. Here are some examples:
http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/

As well as the guidance we received from our then case officer who is after all the most important point in the whole case. It is totally overlooked and used by us by my lawyer made a bad mistake in the court refusing to come to witness. There was, of course, a deep flaw, but it is human to fail.
When Borgarting Court of Appeal dismissed this case, it became clear that the court never heard our case officer witness in court, Kaja Aubert Lange.

What did she say, and what didn't she say? Blue. This one with small house buildings that has become like a mantra, she never mentioned. In other words, dragging this in is now sought.

There is infinitely more to say and angles. But in these environmental times it may be appropriate to take it with you. After all, it seems to be the "most important" of today's society.

Listen to what the law says:
§ 19-2. Exemption decision


- If the benefits of granting an exemption will be clearly greater than the disadvantages of an overall assessment
- whether (sufficient) emphasis is placed on the consequences of the exemption for health, environmental safety and accessibility.
(quote end).

In our case, there are only benefits, there are benefits to "for health, safety and accessibility."

Blue. when the car came with sirens when our daughter had become acutely ill. Then they used up stairs from Stormyrveien, it just shows that what we have built is required. Tear it breaks the law, all common sense and makes no sense.

The environment before then was the filling mass on our property so that especially during the winter months, the filling mass fell and fell towards the road surface such as single, clay, minor and other.
Now that the wall came up, the road surface is pressed approx. 20 cm further in.
And that no longer of that mass that before flowing and flowing down towards the road during the winter months, does not happen any longer.
Everything has become much better, including this environmental aspect that should be a reason for granting an exemption, ignoring the entire public agency just to get me and my family! This is obviously a difference treatment that surpasses everything I've read before. Think, 57 times the neighbor has exploited the utilization rate of the plot and gets approved. We only need 5 sqm extra on a storage room of 11 sqm1 on a plot of 1,595 m². This is so bad and so unfair that words do not extend!

Final Comment:

Everything we have built there is nothing negative, it has 100% fulfilled what is to be granted exemption, but everyone has such a hatred that we will not do it. This says the law.

"The benefits of granting dispensation will be clearly greater than the drawbacks of an overall assessment."

With us this is 100% fulfilled, but no one wants to meet us!
Marius Vamnes, who rejected this on behalf of the County Governor, gave for example. Kjell Inge Røkke upheld and dispensed to build his solid villa. But he had money and influence, something we didn't have. It is the county governor who is the supreme authority, and he is as bad as everyone else unfortunately!
There is a difference between people, some get everything. Others are deprived of even what one has, but one day these people will also stand by God with their lives, what then?

Heb. 9. 27 And as it is man's lot once to die, and then judgment.

søndag 17. mars 2019

No. 1493: The website Sokelys describes our feud with the Government Attorney and PBE here in Oslo, but does not mention the unfair and meaningless treatment we have received!

No. 1493:
The website Sokelys describes our feud with the Government Attorney and PBE here in Oslo, but does not mention the unfair and meaningless treatment we have received!


What the PBE here in Oslo, with the Government Attorney, the County Governor, the Civil Prosecutor and the courts are up to, is nothing but a level of criminal work for nothing. Their arguments and attacks on us and our property do not make sense or reason. It is a form of criminal work, without any purpose, meaning or content.
Illustration of some criminal workers.
It is at the level this case is.



This writes the Searchlight website.

https://www.sokelys.com/?p=24818

Blogger Christensen cannot try his building case in the Court of Appeal - may have lost more than a million on the project!

Blogger Jan Kåre Christensen has, as previously written, filed a case against the State after he had, without applying in writing, erected a wall, a staircase and a booth on his own site. According to Christensen himself, he had twice what he mentions as an oral permit by his former case officer Kaja Lange Aubert. According to Christensen, this must twice have given him oral permission to erect a wall without applying, since it was a low wall from before. Both the wall and the external booth and the stairs down to the Stormyrveien were thus erected before there was anything other than a slightly unclear oral permit that the former case officer does not remember afterwards. According to the blogger himself, the neighbors must have given him permission to build, but in hindsight, when they saw how the towering wall was in the terrain, they changed their mind and complained to the municipality of Oslo. The municipality then made an inspection without the evangelist being aware of it, and then made a decision that both the wall, shed and staircase that now must be demolished were listed illegally.

Berit and Jan Kåre Christensen erected an 11 meter long and approx. 1.85 meter high retaining wall on their property in Krokstien 2C in Oslo. A little before this, a gear shed of approx. 12 sqm. After first rejecting a defective application in 2014, Oslo municipality received the Planning and Building Administration on July 1, 2016, an application for entry of the support wall and the fine. In the case of the booth, an application was made for an exemption from the provisions on the utilization rate in the house plan and the distance provisions in section 29 of the Road Act. terrain interventions, and the regulatory purpose of traffic area road. The municipality came to the conclusion that the statutory conditions for granting an exemption were not fulfilled, cf. the decision of 14 October and 20 October 2016. The County Governor of Oslo and Akershus declined a complaint against the decisions, cf. no, cf. letter May 30, 2018. The county governor rejected applications for reorganization on June 14, 2018. Subsequently, Christensen sued the case before the district court, whereupon he lost the case and was sent both own and the state's legal costs. Christensen then appealed the case to the Borgarting Court of Appeal, which has now concluded that his appeal is rejected because it is likely that the Court of Appeal will not come to another result. In the district court the result was this: “Oslo District Court passed judgment on December 21, 2018 with such a ruling: 1. The State at the Ministry of Local Government and Modernization is acquitted. 2. Jan Kåre Christensen is sentenced to pay 40 600 - forty thousand six hundred - in compensation for legal costs to the State by the Ministry of Local Government and Modernization. The payment deadline is two to two weeks from the announcement of the judgment.

Not another result in the Court of Appeal

In the conclusion of the Borgarting Court of Appeal, it is stated as follows: "The Court of Appeal finds that the conditions for refusing the appeal pursuant to the Dispute Act § 29-13 second paragraph are fulfilled, and that the appeal should be refused. There is no prospect that an appeal will result in another result. ”Christensen is also charged with an additional NOK 6,000 in legal costs. Since Borgarting's Court of Appeal's rejection of the case cannot be appealed, this sentence is for this case. The blogger must therefore tear everything he has built and at the same time purses out with both his own and the state's costs as well as everything that will cost to demolish. Together, the Court of Appeal's decision means that the blogger incurs a staggering financial loss. On direct questions from Searchlight about how much he has lost on it all, Christensen responds as follows: "Has not counted on it, but somewhere between 1 - 2 million," writes Christensen who assumes that in pure money there is a million in losses plus the loss of the values ​​staircase, booth and wall make up. First, the expenses to build, so expenses to get Paal Løvaas For Ferdigattest Byggesak A / S to write and send an application for exemption in retrospect. Then the blogger has to spend expenses both for his own lawyer, the state's legal costs, the costs of tearing everything he has built up, and the costs of returning things to the way they were in 2013. In one of his many writings about the case, Christensen says this: “Now was this third time i've been drawn to court for really nothing.

HovedpunkteDuring these negotiations, I was careful to be "waterproof" when I also wrote in advance and talked well and long 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's strange, our family and I am probably Norway's nicest man and law-abiding, as the first Christians and Jesus were. But the opposition to our family from the authorities is great, as the scripture says we must count on. 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 Edvards Os are of the same age, "Christensen wrote who has now finally lost the case. Christensen had long hoped that the municipality would grant dispensation (as they have done in some other building issues) but his gambling did not lead and for the blogger it might feel unfair.
(Finally quote).

But there are many things they do not bring, here are some points.

1.) We did not appear in court that the fine is shared with the rental apartment

2.) Our house is built in such a way that we do not have a real storage room as we have to go through several rooms to get to the storage room.

3.) The booth in the basement lane is cramped and impossible to store bike and other things there.

4.) The angle of the judgment is far too positive against what the Government Attorney and the County Governor reject.

5.) That we built the booth in good faith is not mentioned roughly and that we have done the same before is not mentioned.

6.) That the wall gives us a flatter terrain and more green areas is not included.

7.) Our booth is minimal above the utilization of our plot, but others also our neighbors have actually searched several times and have utilized the plot 54 times more than us. Making such a big difference between people in the same living area is not right.

8.) We have been verbally told to build masonry on old wall NOT APPLICABLE.

9.) We have a wall that is no higher than the neighbor's right across the road.

10.) The judgment states the following: “Second, in addition, the benefits of granting dispensation must be clearly greater than the disadvantages of an overall assessment.” In my opinion, only benefits we have built are not ONE ONLY, NON-NON, ONLY ONE !!!!

11.) Neighbor has got in house b has been approved both wall and staircase, which we have not received, even our staircase will the tear that is not mentioned in the judgment? Should it be torn or not?

12.) The judgment is not based on the fact that what we have built is not a single negative thing with. There have not been problems for the bus, not for the view of traffic, there are only advantages, not some disadvantages and something negative with what we have built. Not even aesthetic.

13.) That we should tear this and neighbor's approval, appears to be pure and happens vandalism and completely unnecessary.

14.) "In the case of the fine, the municipality considered the benefits and disadvantages of the measure against each other, and thought there was no clear predominance of benefits in granting exemption". They have never justified this, and neither does the court. Only reason for rejection and that we do not reach out here are the rule riders who control the bay and both ends. The fact that we have accepted a paragraph even though then should and should we receive an exemption is totally ignored.

15.) When others simultaneously apply as us, for 2 or 3 times about exemption and get it. While we get blank no appears as a huge democratic problem that neither the court, the county governor nor the PBE here in Oslo want or want to decide on.

16.) This is written in the judgment: “In the case of the support wall, the municipality believed that a dispensation would entail a substantial breach of the considerations behind the regulatory provisions. Nor was there a clear predominance of benefits in granting exemption. ”

I strongly dispute this, there are only benefits, no drawbacks to what we have built and done, no one mentions backs except that we have broken a paragraph, that is the only negative with everything we have built.

17.) The road in Stormyrveien is also one-way, so that no traffic will be met. Then a possible wall of 1.5 meters and 2 meters of no significance as it does not prevent visibility when the Stormyrveien where we live a flat stretch without turning. After we built the wall, the road surface has become approx. 20 cm wider and it does not fall down the filler and dirt as it did before and makes the road surface dirty and soiled.

18.) In the judgment it says so well: "In reality, there are no drawbacks to the wall. You really only face benefits. Then it can be granted exemption. The wall does not mean that any provisions have been substantially violated. "

This does not appear at all in the judgment, for me the whole judgment appears to be a form of rational argument and rhetoric, sad!

19.) It is stated in the judgment: “Before the wall was set up, 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 can't excluded that in the conversation there were misunderstandings or ambiguities. "

This is not right, I understood very well what Kaja Aubert Lange said, that there should be misunderstandings is something the court puts into the verdict which for me appears to be actually lying, not good in a judgment this.

20.) The verdict says: "The actual excess of 0.64% is also very modest."

Here we are 2 families who share this minimal small booth, that it should be demolished so that it exceeds the utilization rate minimally by just about, 7 sqm2 seems so bad that I do not weigh which words I should use another totally meaningless!

21.) When I read the judgment, it is only for one reason that we have to tear down walls, stairs and stalls. This is because the rules must be followed to the letter when PBE thinks so. No one over, no one next to the state, and those who decide.

There is nothing for everyone in the world that we have built. Neither the store, the staircase nor the store, that one they write the following as this one there are more advantages than disadvantages for tearing what we have built experienced as just as a hypothesis without root in reality!

22.) This judgment states: "The plaintiff therefore argues that there is grossly unreasonable discrimination and that the result is arbitrary. Furthermore, the decisions lack the understanding of fact on the spot. The county governor's legal application pursuant to section 19-2 of the Planning and Building Act has thus become incorrect. ”

But when the judge goes on, he writes: "The relevant measures require dispensation pursuant to the Planning and Building Act § 19-2"

In other words, no matter what we state as long as a dispensation is required, PBE is actually allowed to do anything and then, if one is to follow the judge here, all argumentation is wasted. This is not democratic but as it is in totalitarian countries and courts. Is this Norway or a dictatorship state? The verdict here is I totally disagree, we must appeal!

23.) Sorry strong wording, but after reading the verdict twice it is as I see it horrible to me as all of our arguments are set aside for PBE having after all made no obvious mistakes. Is it not wrong not to grant an exemption in this case where everything we have built is only positive!

24.) The small house plan they refer to is also partly misleading when we live in an old established field with houses around us which are as rules much smaller and lower than ours. They have walls and other things that are in many cases larger than ours, even though we have a house that is bigger and not least higher. Everything that is to our advantage is not mentioned, and at least not taken into account. Here, paragraphs apply more than anything else.

25.) It is obviously suggestive when neither PBE, County Council and court have been on inspection here. Imagine, no one on the inspection and even though I have written mail to both the County Governor and the PBE to come for inspection, and my lawyer urged the court to come on inspection, no wish and will come.

26.) The judge writes so confidently this: "In the case of the support wall, the considerations behind the relevant regulatory provisions will be substantially disregarded if an exemption is given. Furthermore, the benefits of giving dispensation are not "clearly greater" than the disadvantages. "

I disagree with 120% and he does not give any reasons either, not credibly what he then writes?

27.) It is undisputed that both measures - both the wall and the fine - require exemption according to section 19-2 of the Planning and Building Act. Both parts are to be regarded as "measures" in the sense of the Planning and Building Act, and they are in violation of the current zoning plan "Regulation plan for small-house areas in Oslo's outer city, S-4220, adopted on 15 March 2006, with revised regulatory provisions adopted 12.6.13. writes the judge.

Instead of trying with a "counter attack" with paragraphs and examples that we have come up with in divergent terms on difference treatment etc. Then it's what he just "gives up" and says that the race is run when there is a dispensation here. Yes it does, and here one can with advantage and easily give it without coming into conflict with neither the roadway, the bus company that runs here or general traffic or the view of neighbors or anyone else. It is quite incomprehensible that no dispensation has been granted in this case when others receive it up to X times more than ourselves from 2006 and beyond since the house plan is from.

28.) Judgment is not based on what is actually true when it is called "clearly greater than the disadvantages" does not have relevance only to follow paragraphs. Here are a thousand reasons why the thing should stand as they are built, and only one reason why it should be demolished. The one reason is that it must be applied for and get dispensation as this is beyond the limits of a few millimeters and cm. While others are metervis outside and receive exemption. If exemption is not to be used in this case here, then it becomes incomprehensible that others can get what has violated the regulations actually by just what we have found of the largest example 54 times more than us, and it only 50 meters in the airline from us and the case ended in 2018. In other words, after we applied.

29.) The truth is that before we built the wall, the slope was steep, not flat as PBE raised there. And especially when it was raining, it was soft and mold and other things went down and the bedridden on the road. Mur was required, and then I mean required. The fact that this does not appear in the judgment is certain because the PBE and County Council, or the court, have been on inspection. Looking back in hindsight, that when one has not been willing to come to the inspection, the statements are partly misleading and misleading as in the judgment.

30.) Judge Edvard Os writes the following: In his refusal dated 14 October 2016, the Planning and Building Authority assessed the measure against the considerations behind the provision as follows: “A wall with height from 1.75 m to 1.85 m, in 11 meters length, and with accompanying terrain fulfillment, is considered a comprehensive terrain change. The wall leads to an unnatural transition between land and road, and that the green slope between the house and the road is lost. ”(Quote end).

In court, I argued that this was misleading and also referred to the picture where the neighbor who has not done anything that the terrain they state here is not right. When he then writes this into the sentence, it is clear that one in a way writes false that one should get the judgment to fit in with the result than wishes. All the judgment I am 120% unequal with in all paragraphs, at least large parts.
Not my conclusion!

Here are other things I have also written, bring it along.

1.) These phone calls between me and Kaja Aubert Lange will downplay them and believe they have no value. This will be completely wrong.
No wall had ever been built without these phone calls, where she guided me and made it clear that it was not necessary for us to build our wall above the old wall. That would have been a good 1.5 meters with a fence of 1 meter on top there as our wall would not be higher than its neighbors who have walls of over 2 meters with a fence of 1 meter on top of it.

2.) This also confirmed indirectly by our responsible applicants Ferdigattest AS, who writes this in our application to PBE here in 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 cannot see that any cases have been registered in the Stormyrveien which concern explicit walls over the past 100 years. ”

If one goes in and reads on PBE homepages here in Oslo, it looks like this is right. No one has applied for walls here until almost 2016 when it seems that PBE had a "rassia" here and approved "everything". Apart from what we have built.
The small house plan was supposedly established in 2006, but never communicated to us that it was here at Hellerudtoppen. Then this is also a service error not to inform about this when we called and talked to them (Kaja Aubert Lange, our then case officer) several times before construction.

3.) Reads through the legislation on exemption. So it clearly shows that dispensation should be given if it is positive for the environment, security etc.
With us before we built the wall, the filling mass ran out towards the road, now it does not. Only the little thing here shows that PBE violates Norwegian law and the intention of what the law really says.

This says the Act: "When dispensing from the Act and regulations to the Act, special emphasis shall be placed on the consequences of the exemption for health, environment, safety and accessibility."

Here it is quite obvious that in our case it is advisable to grant dispensation, then one is in harmony with the law, something one is not today with the harsh and unnecessary square treatment of us.

4.) It is PBE guidance that has created problems.

And what is "the problem" is reinforced by the fact that one does not want to get in touch in any area or add "gods" that should not be difficult in our case. Since it is only benefits, in fact, not a disadvantage of what we have built. They obviously break Norwegian law.

Violation of the duty to provide guidance after fvl. § 11

5.) Our neighbor on the same site has also applied for PBE for exemption as you wall is actually higher than ours, then with the fence.

The actual blocks with masonry and fence on top are also 1.3 meters + fence of 1 meter. There is just one waiting for some additional information where it is clear that PBE wants to meet our neighbor. Read about the case yourself:

Building case 201011373

https://innsyn.pbe.oslo.kommune.no/saksinnsyn/casedet.asp?direct=Y&mode=&caseno=201011373

6.) Includes as I have described the telephone conversation between me and Kaja Aubert Lange, and that PBE here in Oslo has violated Norwegian law.

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 l 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 masonry, the Oslo municipality breaks Norwegian law by contesting this.

7.) When can the dispensation be granted?

The municipality's access to granting exemptions is limited. It is required that the considerations behind the provision to which it is dispensed are not substantially disregarded. In addition, an interest weighing must be made, where the benefits of the measure must be assessed against the disadvantages. There must be a clear predominance of considerations that speak for exemption. This means that it will normally not be possible to grant an exemption if the considerations behind the provision for which an exemption is sought continue to apply with strength.
The assessment of whether the statutory conditions for being able to dispense are a law enforcement practice that can be reviewed by the courts. The Public Administration Act's rule on emphasizing the municipal self-government will thus only be taken into account when weighing the interest if an exemption is to be granted when the formal conditions of the Act for granting an exemption are fulfilled. It will apply in the same way in dealing with complaints and judicial control.
(quote end).

Here is clearly the following:

1.) It is required that the considerations behind the dispensation from which it is exempt are not materially disregarded.

Answer. In our case, nothing is significantly neglected, on the contrary, living environment and everything is much better.

2.) an exemption is sought from which still applies with strength.

Answer. We have built a booth that only "bounces" the border with a few sqm2 on a plot of more than 1500 sqm2. The wall is actually lower than its neighbor across the other side. It is not something that will have a negative effect on giving us dispensation, we are really only left with positive things.

8.) We have received a clear rejection from Borgarting Lagmannsrett, why?

It is angled and fabricated only with the aim of hitting us. Here they have jumped belly over so many facts in the case that it appears to be almost on the verge of being written with an overly subjective purpose of defending PBE here in Oslo that should not be walked in the seams in some areas.
Everything that can be used against us is used. What can speak to our advantage is completely proven omitted. In my opinion, the rejection from Borgarting Lagmannsrett is not held or credible. It is angled too negatively against us.

9.) The Court of Appeal finds that the conditions for refusing the appeal pursuant to the Dispute Act § 29-13 second paragraph are fulfilled and that the appeal should be denied. There is no prospect that an appeal will result in another result.

This is what the Court of Appeal writes, and we dispute that. It's just really a problem here that everything gets angled IMOT US! FACTS IN THIS CASE IS THAT WE HAVE BUILDED, NO PROBLEMS OR REASONABLE WITH, ONLY POSTIVE.

According to the law this: the benefits of granting exemption must be clearly greater than the disadvantages of an overall assessment. It cannot be exempted from case processing rules.
(quote end).

When the PBE, County Council and Civil Ombudsman use this, there are clearly more disadvantages than advantages of having to demolish masonry, stairs and storerooms and not mention one thing. The only thing they can mention as "benefits" is that we have conflicted with some paragraphs and so little. But only this can be negative to us. Otherwise, it is only positive things with what we have built. Mention someone to show clearly that in our case, dispensation and that we will keep the wall, staircase and shed are the only correct ones.

It is positive with masonry that we get a flatter outdoor area. With stairs we get a safe access and with the booth we do not have to use presses and other things about our things. There are a thousand things to mention if soneeded.

10.) The Court of Appeal writes: Nor is it a mistake that the case officer Aubert was not taken as a witness. The witness was dropped by Christensen during the main hearing. (quote end).

This is about the only sentence in which I agree with what the Court of Appeal writes. But this was a miss on our part when my lawyer and I were so different on the case. The reason for this was probably howlid got into the case late and we made this slip. But we can do that "good" again by Aubert Lange being told next time. It must be allowed to do anything wrong, until it is used to us for all its worth.

11.) The Court of Appeal sees completely proven in that it is a very skewed differential treatment of us. It may well be that the law does not fully take this into account, but then there is something wrong with the law and the wording.

It is obvious when one reads through the Dispute Act and otherwise all Norway's laws, so no one should take precedence or someone be neglected. Here we are neglected, while others get priority.

Blue. Our neighbors just outside of us at Stormyrveien 9 c have exceeded the utilization rate of the plot 54 times more than us, and the case ended in 2018. Thus, the same period that PBE and the public agencies have been doing with us. This is obviously a service error that also violates Norwegian law.

§ 171. Service error.

12.) The Court of Appeal completely ignores the fact that we have had an oral agreement and received oral guidance from PBE here in Oslo. Will remind you that an oral agreement is as binding as a written agreement according to Norwegian law.

King Kristian the law of the fifth.
(Who says that verbal agreement is the same as the written agreement.)

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.Everyone 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.
(quote end).

13.) That we should be assessed on the basis of the house plan is incorrect.
It should actually be set aside in our case when our case officer did not guide us according to it, but after the settlement that was in and around our residence and in here in Stormyrveien. In many ways one can say that the court "operates" with the wrong set of laws when they assume that the house plan is valid in our case. It is not, but what Kaja Aubert Lange conveyed. Nothing else. And that it is really against the law to be as hard and square as PBE here in Oslo is, confirmed by the County Governor. If one goes into the law, it speaks of being generous in small deviations which after all apply to us.

Listen to what the law says:
§ 19-2. Exemption decision

- If the benefits of granting an exemption will be clearly greater than the disadvantages of an overall assessment
- whether (sufficient) emphasis is placed on the consequences of the exemption for health, environmental safety and accessibility.
(quote end).

In our case, there are only benefits, there are benefits to "for health, safety and accessibility."

Blue. when the car came with sirens when our daughter had become acutely ill. Then they used up stairs from Stormyrveien, it just shows that what we have built is required. Tear it breaks the law, all common sense and makes no sense.

Final Comment:

The judgment against me and my family is deeply unfair.
When the neighbor just outside of us gets the exemption to utilize the utilization rate of the plot 54 times more than us.
Our excess is minimal on a plot of 1,595 m², the excess is only a few m²
This was just one of many arguments.
It is obviously wrong, undemocratic and totally meaningless.
What we have built does not actually have a negative thing or effect. In fact, it has only positive, appropriate and environmental benefits.
Tearing this makes no sense!

fredag 15. mars 2019

No. 1492: Our case rejected Borgarting Court of Appeal, and we will not appeal to the Norwegian Supreme Court!

No. 1492:
Our case rejected Borgarting Court of Appeal, and we will not appeal to the Norwegian Supreme Court!


Here in Eastern Norway there was one who cut the neighbor's outbuildings in two. It is at the level that the public agency is against us, we must be taken.
Others even in our neighborhood receive exemption during the same construction period as us 54 times more than us. Here there is so much discrimination that one has to call the public agency for criminals.



Unfortunately, our case was rejected, totally incomprehensible and it just shows that we have been and have been treated unfairly. Here is the reasoning and what I think about this.

COLLABORATION LAW COURT
DECISION

Delivered: 08.03.2019

Case number: 19-024795ASD-BORG / 02

referees:
Judge Agnar A. Nilsen jr.
Lawyer Kjersti Buun Nygaard
Lawyer Thomas Chr. Poulsen

Appeal party Jan Kåre Christensen
Lawyer Knut Magne Howlid

Anke Counterparty
The State / Ministry of Local Government and Modernization Attorney Elisabeth Sawkins Eikeland

The case concerns the validity of refusal of an application for exemption pursuant to section 19-2 of the Planning and Building Act.

Berit and Jan Kåre Christensen erected an 11 meter long and approx. 1.85 meter high retaining wall on their property in Krokstien 2C in Oslo. A little before this, a gear shed of approx. 12 sqm.

After first rejecting a defective application in 2014, Oslo municipality received the Planning and Building Administration on July 1, 2016, an application for entry of the support wall and the fine. In the case of the booth, an application was made for an exemption from the provisions on the utilization rate in the house plan and the distance provisions in section 29 of the Road Act. terrain interventions, and the regulatory purpose of traffic area road. The municipality came to the conclusion that the statutory conditions for granting an exemption were not fulfilled, cf. the decision of 14 October and 20 October 2016.

The County Governor of Oslo and Akershus declined a complaint against the decisions, cf. the decision of 10 April 2018. Nor did the complaint to the Civilian Ombudsman lead, cf. letter May 30, 2018. The County Governor declined applications for reorganization on June 14, 2018.

Jan Kåre Christensen filed a lawsuit against the state w / the Ministry of Local Government and Modernization, claiming that the county governor's decision of 10 April 2018 was invalid and that Christensen had to keep the wall, staircase and storage room as it is today.

Oslo District Court passed judgment on December 21, 2018 with such a ruling:

1. The State at the Ministry of Local Government and Modernization shall be acquitted.

2. Jan Kåre Christensen is sentenced to pay 40 600 - forty thousand six hundred - in compensation for legal costs to the State by the Ministry of Local Government and Modernization. The payment deadline is two to two weeks from the announcement of the judgment.

Jan Kåre Christensen has declared an appeal against the judgment. The appeal concerns the district court's evidence assessment, legal application and case processing. The State Department of Local Government and Modernization has objected and believes that the District Court's judgment is correct in the result and that no procedural errors have been committed.

The appellant was notified by the court's letter of 15 February 2019 pursuant to section 29-13, fourth paragraph of the Dispute Act, that the court was considering refusing the appeal. The Appellant has responded to the notification by Proceedings March 1, 2019.

The Court of Appeal finds that the conditions for refusing the appeal pursuant to the Dispute Act § 29-13, second paragraph, are fulfilled, and that the appeal should be refused. There is no prospect that an appeal will result in another result.

The Declaration of Appeal states that the case has not been adequately informed by the fact that documents and witnesses have not been conducted, at the same time as no bodies have carried out inspections. Christensen applied for preliminary guidance in the City of Oslo on two occasions before the support wall was erected, and he believes that he was accepted for the entry of the wall without having to seek prior permission. It is stated that there is a service error with regard to the guidance / advice. It was wrong of the district court not to emphasize that Christensen had been in good faith with regard to the duty to apply.

For the Court of Appeal, a new document is presented from the neighbors in Krokstien 2 a, b and d approving the support wall and the booth. It is also a new fact that the booth on the lower floor of the dwelling is impractical.

Furthermore, it is stated that it was wrong of the district court to take as a basis what the extent of terrain interventions that can be allowed, 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 contact conflict with the conservation of existing terrain.

It is stated that the formal basic conditions for exemption are fulfilled and that it is, in fact and legally, a basis for dispensation, and that in this case it must be possible to give room for the use of exemption.

It is also stated that it was wrong of the district court not to emphasize the differential treatment that Christensen believes has taken place in his favor in relation to other properties in Oslo.

The Court of Appeal agrees with the State that it is not wrong with the district court, county governor or commander Unens treatment that there has been no inspection in this case. It is assumed that all agencies have had extensive documentation describing both the word and the pictures the property, applied measures, nearby terrain and neighborhoods.

Nor is it a mistake that case officer Aubert was not taken as a witness. The witness was dropped by Christensen during the main hearing. What applies to the allegation of breach of the supervisory duty pursuant to section 11 of the Public Administration Act is referred to the municipality's letter of 30 January 2017:

"According to the case officer referred to, she must not have stated that a wall that is placed in a regulated road area, on the order of magnitude listed, is exempt from the obligation to apply. On the other hand, she may have stated that remediation / reversal of the original wall along the road would not be subject to application. This wall, however, was a low brick wall, partly covered with green, and this cannot therefore be compared with applied measures. "

And the Court of Appeal can endorse the District Court's assessment on this point:

"Nor can the court see that the telephonic guidance provided by the municipality's case officer can lead to the decision being invalid. The county governor's remarks on this statement are reproduced above, and the court accepts these. It is added that, in the view of the court, the owner of the measure cannot be considered to have been in good faith with regard to the obligation to apply. Oral guidance by telephone, with the sources of error and notoriety deficiencies this naturally entails, does not set aside regulatory provisions and does not give the plaintiff a legal claim for exemption, when - as here - it is necessary for the measure to be legal.

It appears to the Court of Appeal that the administration and the district court have had a fully satisfactory basis for assessing whether the legal conditions for dispensing have been fulfilled.

The Court of Appeal agrees with the various bodies that have dealt with the case, that the conditions for dispensation pursuant to section 19-2 of the Planning and Building Act are not fulfilled. It is not an incorrect understanding of regulation plan S-4-220 (the small house plan) § 6.5 second paragraph that the entire landslide's direction of fall shall be used as a basis for assessing how high terrain interventions may, exceptionally, be permitted, cf. the wording of the provision. Furthermore, reference is made to what the state has cited from on page 22 in the guide to the house.

As regards the fine, the Court of Appeal may conclude the following assessments of the District Court:

"According to the County Governor's assessment, the advantage of dispensing the fine was not clearly greater than the disadvantages. One of the two cumulative conditions pursuant to section 19-2, second paragraph, was thus not fulfilled.

The court agrees with this and can, in essence, give its consent to the County Governor's assessment. The court does not see that the legal and factual premisses of the decision or the sub-provision are wrong.

The Court notes that the requested fine will obviously provide more concrete benefits to the promoter, including more storage space and staircase access. Nor can the court see that the booth is a significant shyness for neighbors or others. Furthermore, it will incur a financial loss if the fine is to be removed. However, these are conditions of limited weight.

Contrary to the relevant drawbacks, which are exceeding the maximum allowed BYA, the principle that any changes should be made through changes to plans and not through exemptions, possible precedent effects and enforcement considerations, it is clear in court's view that the benefits are not clearly greater than the disadvantages . "

What is now stated that one has to go through several rooms to put things off in the bottom floor and that Christensen needs more space for storage space, does not indicate another outcome.

The fact that neighbors have given consent to the support wall / booth is not relevant in the dispensation assessment.

It cannot be doubtful that the two cumulative conditions of the Planning and Building Act section 19-2 second paragraph in order to be able to use the free administrative discretion pursuant to the first paragraph ("cancels"), provide guidance on a law enforcement practice which the courts have full competence to review. . When the legal conditions for granting an exemption are not fulfilled, Christensen can also not win with a statement about unlawful discrimination / abuse of authority. The things Christensen has invoked can otherwise not be seen as suitable for doubting that the jus has been used correctly in this case.

The state has in the anchor response laid claim on legal costs. The requirement is accepted, cf. the main rule in the Dispute Act § 20-2 first and second paragraphs. The amount is set at a discretion of NOK 6,000.

The decision is unanimous.
(quote end.)

Here are my views on this if we could have appealed this further. Something we were not allowed to do. A regular word of justice again.

Reasons to appeal to the Supreme Court.

1.) These phone calls between me and Kaja Aubert Lange will downplay them and believe they have no value. This will be completely wrong.
No wall had ever been built n these phone calls, where she guided me and said clearly that it was not mandatory for us to build this wall on top of old wall. That would have been a good 1.5 meters with a fence of 1 meter on top there as our wall would not be higher than its neighbors who have walls of over 2 meters with a fence of 1 meter on top of it.

2.) This also confirmed indirectly by our responsible applicants Ferdigattest AS, who writes this in our application to PBE here in 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 cannot see that any cases have been registered in the Stormyrveien which concern explicit walls over the past 100 years. ”

If one goes in and reads on PBE homepages here in Oslo, it looks like this is right. No one has applied for walls here until almost 2016 when it seems that PBE had a "rassia" here and approved "everything". Apart from what we have built.
The small house plan was supposedly established in 2006, but never communicated to us that it was here at Hellerudtoppen. Then this is also a service error not to inform about this when we called and talked to them (Kaja Aubert Lange, our then case officer) several times before construction.

3.) Reads through the legislation on exemption. So it clearly shows that dispensation should be given if it is positive for the environment, security etc.
With us before we built the wall, the filling mass ran out towards the road, now it does not. Only the little thing here shows that PBE violates Norwegian law and the intention of what the law really says.

This says the Act: "When dispensing from the Act and regulations to the Act, special emphasis shall be placed on the consequences of the exemption for health, environment, safety and accessibility."

Here it is quite obvious that in our case it is advisable to grant dispensation, then one is in harmony with the law, something one is not today with the harsh and unnecessary square treatment of us.

4.) It is PBE guidance that has created problems.

And what is "the problem" is reinforced by the fact that one does not want to get in touch in any area or add "gods" that should not be difficult in our case. Since it is only benefits, in fact, not a disadvantage of what we have built. They obviously break Norwegian law.

Violation of the duty to provide guidance after fvl. § 11

5.) Our neighbor on the same site has also applied for PBE for exemption as you wall is actually higher than ours, then with the fence.

The actual blocks with masonry and fence on top are also 1.3 meters + fence of 1 meter. There is just one waiting for some additional information where it is clear that PBE wants to meet our neighbor. Read about the case yourself:

Building case 201011373

https://innsyn.pbe.oslo.kommune.no/saksinnsyn/casedet.asp?direct=Y&mode=&caseno=201011373

6.) Includes as I have described the telephone conversation between me and Kaja Aubert Lange, and that PBE here in Oslo has violated Norwegian law.

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 masonry, the Oslo municipality breaks Norwegian law by asking tride this.

7.) When can the dispensation be granted?

The municipality's access to granting exemptions is limited. It is required that the considerations behind the provision to which it is dispensed are not substantially disregarded. In addition, an interest weighing must be made, where the benefits of the measure must be assessed against the disadvantages. There must be a clear predominance of considerations that speak for exemption. This means that it will normally not be possible to grant an exemption if the considerations behind the provision for which an exemption is sought continue to apply with strength.
The assessment of whether the statutory conditions for being able to dispense are a law enforcement practice that can be reviewed by the courts. The Public Administration Act's rule on emphasizing the municipal self-government will thus only be taken into account when weighing the interest if an exemption is to be granted when the formal conditions of the Act for granting an exemption are fulfilled. It will apply in the same way in dealing with complaints and judicial control.
(quote end).

Here is clearly the following:

1.) It is required that the considerations behind the dispensation from which it is exempt are not materially disregarded.

Answer. In our case, nothing is significantly neglected, on the contrary, living environment and everything is much better.

2.) an exemption is sought from which still applies with strength.

Answer. We have built a booth that only "bounces" the border with a few sqm2 on a plot of more than 1500 sqm2. The wall is actually lower than its neighbor across the other side. It is not something that will have a negative effect on giving us dispensation, we are really only left with positive things.

8.) We have received a clear rejection from Borgarting Lagmannsrett, why?

It is angled and fabricated only with the aim of hitting us. Here they have jumped belly over so many facts in the case that it appears to be almost on the verge of being written with an overly subjective purpose of defending PBE here in Oslo that should not be walked in the seams in some areas.
Everything that can be used against us is used. What can speak to our advantage is completely proven omitted. In my opinion, the rejection from Borgarting Lagmannsrett is not held or credible. It is angled too negatively against us.

9.) The Court of Appeal finds that the conditions for refusing the appeal pursuant to the Dispute Act § 29-13 second paragraph are fulfilled and that the appeal should be denied. There is no prospect that an appeal will result in another result.

This is what the Court of Appeal writes, and we dispute that. It's just really a problem here that everything gets angled IMOT US! FACTS IN THIS CASE IS THAT WE HAVE BUILDED, NO PROBLEMS OR REASONABLE WITH, ONLY POSTIVE.

According to the law this: the benefits of granting exemption must be clearly greater than the disadvantages of an overall assessment. It cannot be exempted from case processing rules.
(quote end).

When the PBE, County Council and Civil Ombudsman use this, there are clearly more disadvantages than advantages of having to demolish masonry, stairs and storerooms and not mention one thing. The only thing they can mention as "benefits" is that we have conflicted with some paragraphs and so little. But only this can be negative to us. Otherwise, it is only positive things with what we have built. Mention someone to show clearly that in our case, dispensation and that we will keep the wall, staircase and shed are the only correct ones.

It is positive with masonry that we get a flatter outdoor area. With stairs we get a safe access and with the booth we do not have to use presses and other things about our things. There are a thousand things to mention if needed.

10.) The Court of Appeal writes: Nor is it a mistake that the case officer Aubert was not taken as a witness. The witness was dropped by Christensen during the main hearing. (quote end).

This is about the only sentence in which I agree with what the Court of Appeal writes. But this was a miss on our part when my lawyer and I were so different on the case. The reason for this was probably howlid got into the case late and we made this slip. But we can do that "good" again by Aubert Lange being told next time. It must be allowed to do anything wrong, until it is used to us for all its worth.

11.) The Court of Appeal sees completely proven in that it is a very skewed differential treatment of us. It may well be that the law does not fully take this into account, but then there is something wrong with the law and the wording.

It is obvious when one reads through the Dispute Act and otherwise all Norway's laws, so no one should take precedence or someone be neglected. Here we are neglected, while others get priority.

Blue. Our neighbors just outside of us at Stormyrveien 9 c have exceeded the utilization rate of the plot 54 times more than us, and the case ended in 2018. Thus, the same period that PBE and the public agencies have been doing with us. This is obviously a service error that also violates Norwegian law.

§ 171. Service error.

12.) The Court of Appeal completely ignores the fact that we have had an oral agreement and received oral guidance from PBE here in Oslo. Will remind you that an oral Agreement is as binding as a written agreement according to Norwegian law.

King Kristian the law of the fifth.
(Who says that verbal agreement is the same as the written agreement.)

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.Everyone 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.
(quote end).

13.) That we should be assessed on the basis of the house plan is incorrect.
It should actually be set aside in our case when our case officer did not guide us according to it, but after the settlement that was in and around our residence and in here in Stormyrveien. In many ways one can say that the court "operates" with the wrong set of laws when they assume that the house plan is valid in our case. It is not, but what Kaja Aubert Lange conveyed. Nothing else. And that it is really against the law to be as hard and square as PBE here in Oslo is, confirmed by the County Governor. If one goes into the law, it speaks of being generous in small deviations which after all apply to us.

Listen to what the law says:
§ 19-2. Exemption decision

- If the benefits of granting an exemption will be clearly greater than the disadvantages of an overall assessment
- whether (sufficient) emphasis is placed on the consequences of the exemption for health, environmental safety and accessibility.
(quote end).

In our case, there are only benefits, there are benefits to "for health, safety and accessibility."

Blue. when the car came with sirens when our daughter had become acutely ill. Then they used up stairs from Stormyrveien, it just shows that what we have built is required. Tear it breaks the law, all common sense and makes no sense.

Final Comment:


It is obvious that we are located for miles within the area it is natural and right to be granted exemption and look with goodwill on what we have built.
That PBE does not want this to us, makes them offenders in my / our eyes!
The fact that they make us "criminals" is really because they themselves are poorly behaved in such a way as to have broken several of Norway's laws and driven by clear discrimination! Unfortunately, they are defended by the judiciary, this is bad!

onsdag 13. mars 2019

No. 1491: The most important message for non-believers in today's end time!

No. 1491:
The most important message for non-believers in today's end time!


Let a drop of blood touch you now! It will make you happy and happy. It will solve from sin, from sickness and horror. Give you access to the city of heaven.
We sing this in the song, and that's true. Only one drop of Jesus Christ, the blood of God's Son, is enough to save and salvage every human being for time and eternity, Hallelujah!



1 John. b. 1. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

If I had an opportunity to proclaim a message to all non-believing people, then it would have been the focus of one thing only; Jesus' Blood!

How bad Buddha was, he was a …… ..
How bad Muhammad was, he was one
Hinduism and all other religions have in common that they are dead religions with dead religious founders who failed to save themselves, much less others!
All of this is of subordinate importance, since only Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, no one else.

The Bible says in Acts 4. 12 And there is no salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given among men, by which we shall be saved.

But what does the Bible say - God's own word?

First, the Bible speaks that it was God who created man and he clearly told what to do and did not. Listen to what God's word says:

Genesis 2: 15 And the Lord God took man, and set him in the garden of Eden to minister and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded man, You shall eat of every tree of the garden freely; 17 But thou shalt not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; for in the day you eat of it you shall surely die.

Adam, and later Eve who was created as No. 2 out of the man, could actually do everything.
Apart from one thing; "You must freely eat all the trees in the garden; but the tree of knowledge of good and evil, do not eat it; for in the day you eat of it you shall surely die. "

Why would people die? The scripture clearly states the following:

Romans 6. 23a For the wages of sin is death;

The wages of sin that came because of our disobedience to God was dead. Both a physical and a spiritual death. First, a spiritual death, then a physical death.

The problem with us humans is not a lack of deeds. Good or bad.

But when Adam sinned, all mankind sinned.
All people from the first to the last among us.
Our problem # 1 is that we are born in "wrong" family, and have no opportunity for improvement or to save ourselves.
God's word speaks very clearly about this. Blue. in the Romans more places.

Room. 5. 12 Therefore, as sin entered the world by one man, and death by sin, and death thus penetrated to all men, because they sinned all - 17a For death came to rule by one because of one's fall 18a: So, as one's fall became condemnation to all men, 19a for as many have become sinners by the disobedience of one man.

Here we see that because Adam sinned, he became a sinner.
All who are born out of the Adam genus, they are like their Father sinners.
Therefore, there is nothing more "wrong" with you than it is with others.
You just like all other people, "wrong" origin.

But you, like me, have a problem realizing that we have come to "short" to God.
We are sinners who have lost their lives, therefore God gave us the law - the Ten Commandments by Moses.
First to the people of Israel, but really to all of us people. Since we all need to see that we are sinners, who are not "good" enough to embrace God in ourselves.

Here are the 10 commandments of God that show that we are all short.

Exodus 20. 3 You shall have no other gods besides me. 4 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, nor any image of that which is in heaven, or that is in the earth, or that is in the waters beneath the earth. 5 Thou shalt not worship them, nor serve them; For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, who punishes the iniquities of the fathers upon children unto the third and fourth paragraphs, unto them that hate me; 7 You shall not abuse the name of the Lord your God; for the Lord will not keep it innocent who abuses his name. 8 Remember the day of rest, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall work and do all your work. 10 But on the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; then you shall do no work, neither you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your servant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor the stranger that is in your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it. 12 Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be multiplied in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 13 You must not kill. 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15 Don't steal. 16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his servant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing of thy neighbor's.

These commandments require God to keep - all the commandments - every day throughout the year. If we have broken one of them once, then all hope is out and we are left as someone who has not fulfilled God's requirements and commandments.

James 2. 10 For whosoever keepeth the whole law, but stumbleth in one thing, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, he also said, Thou shalt not kill. If you do not commit adultery, but kill, then you have been a criminal.

The law was and is given for two reasons, one being that it should show us all that we are short and are sinners. The second reason is that Jesus came to fulfill the law in our place. So he could die on the cross instead of us.

Matt. 5. 17 Do not believe that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For verily I say unto you, Before the heavens and the earth pass away, the least letter or the tittle shall not pass away from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jesus fulfilled the law, and then became the only one who was perfect and worthy, the man and the person who died in our place.

2 Cor. 5. 18 But all this is of God, who reconciled us to himself by Christ and gave us the ministry of conciliation; . 20 Then we are messengers in the place of Christ, as though God himself admonishes us; we pray in the place of Christ: Be reconciled to God! 21 He who did not know sin, he made sin to us, that we might be righteous before God in him.

The law was necessary, then by the law we became aware that we were sinners, and lost in vain. This does not apply to anyone in among us humans, but we all!

Room. 7. 7 What should we say then? is the law sin? Far from it! but I did not know the sin without the law; for covetousness I did not know if the law had not said: Thou shalt not covet. 8 But sin commanded the commandment, and seemed to me all desire in me; for without law sin is dead. 9 I lived for a time without law; but when the commandment came, sin returned, 10 but I died; and the commandment that was alive, it was found to be unto me death; 11 For sin commanded the commandment and the fool, and slew me. 12 So then the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good. 13 Is that what is good become death unto me? Far from it! but it was sin, that it should appear as sin, causing me death by that which is good; that sin might be overcome by sin by the commandment. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual; however, I am carnal, sold under sin; 15 For what I do I know not; for I do not do what I want; but what I hate, I do. 16 But if I do that which I will not, I testify with the law that it is good; 17 But now I am not the one who does it, but the sin that dwells in me.

The law is good and holy, but not we. Therefore, there is only one way to salvation, and one way to God. It goes in and through Jesus, no one else.

1 Tim. 2. 5 For there is one God and one intermediary between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a ransom for all, a testimony in his time,
Jesus is God's sacrificial lamb, the only one who fully satisfies God, no one else.

Heb. 7. 23 And by their priests there have been many, because they were prevented from abiding by death; 24 But he hath an incorruptible priesthood, because he abideth for ever, 25 and therefore he may also save them that come unto God with perfectness, as he always liveth to intercede for them. 26 For such a high priest we must have, holy, innocent, pure, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens 27 one who does not every day need, as the high priests, first sacrifice for his own sins, then for the people; for this he did once and for all when he sacrificed himself. 28 For the law establisheth to the high priests men that have infirmity; but the word of the oath which came after the law inserteth the Son, which is perfected for ever and ever.

For such a savior, we needed, who were "holy, innocent, clean, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens, one who does not need every day, like the high priests, to first sacrifice for their own sins, then for the people; for this he did once and for all when he sacrificed himself. "

But it was Jesus' blood that was crucial. When he carried his own blood over the Father. Then God saw and acknowledged this is perfect.
Salvation was a fact, all because of this blood.

Heb. 9. 24 For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made with hands and was merely a picture of the true, but into heaven itself, now to be revealed before the face of God for our sake, 25 nor for several times. should sacrifice himself, as the high priest goes every year into the sanctuary with foreign blood.

In the True Tabernacle and in the True Sanctuary, the blood of Jesus became crucial.

Heb. 9. 11 But when Christ came as high priest for the things to come, he went through the greater and more perfect tent, which was not made with hands, that is, which is not of this creature, 12 and not of blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, once entered the sanctuary and found an eternal redemption.

With his own blood, Jesus found salvation, salvation, and eternal life for us all. By believing in him, all this becomes part of us, all through the blood of Jesus.

We sing in a Gospel song the following:

The blood that Jesus once gave to me at Calvary, the blood that gives me strength from day to day, will never lose its power.

It reaches me when I'm at the height, and it reaches me when I'm in the deep.
The blood that gives me strength from day to day will never lose its power.

It sinks my sin, gives the soul peace, wins forever.
The blood that gave me strength from day to day, it should never lose its power.

It reaches me when I'm at the height, and it reaches me when I'm in the deep.
The blood that gives me strength from day to day will never lose its power.
It should never lose its power.

Final Comment:


The blood is essential to God, because it is through that blood that God is "satisfied" and satisfied.

Heb. 9. 22 And almost everything according to the law is cleansed with blood, and without blood being shed, there is no forgiveness. 23 So it is necessary that the images of the heavenly things be purified by this, but the heavenly things themselves by better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made with hands, and was merely a picture of the true, but into heaven itself, now to be revealed before the face of God for our sake; itself, as every year the high priest enters the sanctuary with foreign blood; 26 otherwise he would have had to do several times from the world was founded; but now he is revealed once at the end of time to take away sin by his sacrifice. 27 And as it is man's lot once to die, and then judgment, 28 so and Christ, after being sacrificed once to take away the sins of many, shall second time reveal himself, without sin, to the salvation of those waiting for him .

Notice what God says. That "without blood is shed, does not happen remission."

It is in and through that blood is forgiveness. Want to be clean? And cleansed of your sin?
We sing in the song the following:

Will you be free from your burden of sin?
In the blood is power, saving power.
Do you want to be clean for your worldly ministry?
In the blood is wonderful power.
Choir:
It is power, power, power that underneath
In his blood, in his blood.
It is power, power, power that underneath
In the Savior's expensive blood.

Do you want to free your arrogant mind?
In the blood is power, saving power.
Release Jesus' gentleness and love!
In the blood is wonderful power.

Do you want to be cleansed, yes, white than snow?
In the blood is power, saving power.
It through grace in Christ can happen.
In the blood is wonderful power.

Do you want to glorify Jesus on earth?
In the blood is power, saving power.
Do you want to preach his love great?
In the blood is wonderful power.

There are two exits on life, it is either salvation or perdition. Therefore, our choice is to put our trust in the work of Jesus at Calvary. Then we will be saved for time and eternity. If you don't, you have to bear the consequences for it.

For my own part, I am overjoyed and excited that Jesus became my salvation one day. I have not regretted that, neither will you, I am convinced!

Includes in the end from my Bible commentary Hebrews that I can also recommend you to study and read.

Hebrews 4. 14 Now that we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to the confession!

The priests and the high priest worked in the temple and in Jerusalem for a period of approx. 1500 years. The priest service began in Siloa and after King David, Jerusalem took about. 1000 years BC the service in Jerusalem until the year 70 AD was when the temple was leveled with the earth. But Jesus does service in heaven itself for our sake.

15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot have compassion on us in our weakness, but one who is tried in everything in the same way as we, but without sin.

The fact that Jesus was fully human means that He fully understands us and is capable of being our spokesman and intercessor in the Father. But the reason it was that he was and is without sin!

16 Let us therefore, with boldness, come before the throne of grace, that we may have mercy, and find grace to help in due season.

In the old covenant everything was dependent on the priest and the supreme priest. What they did for you past God's face. But in the new covenant, everything depends on what Jesus does to the Father and that we do not shatter the opportunity we have in the blood of Jesus and come to the Father with all things and receive prayer answers and help in the right time.

Heb. 10. 19 So then, brethren, by the blood of Jesus we can boldly hot tree into the sanctuary.

lørdag 9. mars 2019

No. 1490: We as believers have an appetite over all people who are invaluable and whom God encourages us to use, that is to pray, expect prayer answers and thanks!

No. 1490:
We as believers have an appetite over all people who are invaluable and whom God encourages us to use, that is to pray, expect prayer answers and thanks!


Devoted woman in prayer, covered, hugely important. When we believers are together, there are more angels than humans. Therefore, prayer with cover is hugely important.



Psalm 6. 9 Turn from me, all ye that do wrong; For the Lord hath heard the voice of my cry, 10 The Lord hath heard my petition, the Lord receiveth my prayer. 11 All my enemies shall be ashamed, and shall be greatly troubled; they should return, be ashamed at a moment.

The Lord welcomes my prayer, it is wonderful.
At the same time, it says that God puts the ear to a righteous man's / woman's prayer.

1 Pet. 3. 12 For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are turned unto their prayer; But the face of the Lord is upon them that do evil.

But we as believers are not righteous in ourselves, but only because of the blood of Jesus. It is in this blood that we have the boldness, the opportunity, and the opportunity to invade God with our lives on a daily basis.

Heb. 10. 19 So then, brethren, in the blood of Jesus, we have the confidence to enter into the sanctuary;

It is that boldness - in the blood of Jesus we shall not cast from us but avail ourselves of.

Heb. 10. 35 Therefore do not cast away your boldness, which hath great reward.

It is because of Jesus' work on Calvary that Jesus both overcame Satan and the army of darkness. But what is even more important and bigger is that Jesus' blood fully satisfied God. Therefore, when we pray in the name of Jesus, we pray as if "we were Jesus,"
Don't mess it up.

What does Jesus' blood tell us?

It's like a shield that covers us, but it's something even bigger and more important than this. It is that Jesus' blood fully satisfies God, which allows us to look up to Him and not blush.

Psalm 34. 5. They looked up to him and shone with joy, and their face never shuddered.

Before Calvary and without Calvary, we never had the opportunity to enter God. But in the GT, by various ordinances, a "temporary" permit was granted that was confirmed each year by the Great Day of Atonement. But this was not perfect, but it is now through Jesus' sacrifice, death and resurrection.

Here from my Bible commentaries Hebrews 9. 11 But Christ has come as the chief priest for the salvation goods we now have. He has gone through the tent which is bigger and more perfect, and which is not made of human hand, that is, who does not hear this created the world.

Jesus entered the very original temple in heaven. This he did shortly after the resurrection. Then in the tent that is bigger and more perfect, and which is not made of human hand, that is, who does not hear this created the world.

12 Not with blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood he entered into the sanctuary once for all, and thus he gained an eternal redemption.

Blood of the goats and calves had since Moses until Jesus been sacrificed in millions of animals. It had provided a temporary forbearance from God's side.

In the basic text and the 1930 translation it does not say that he won. But: 12 and not with the blood of the goats and calves, but with their own blood, once entered into the sanctuary, and found eternal redemption. The right thing is that he found.

13 True, the blood of the goats and the oxen is holy and pure in the outside, as is the water of the ashes of an heifer, when it is sprinkled on the unclean.

That it provided a temporary and a forbearance from God's side when he was merely waiting to send his own Son as a perfect and unloving sacrifice is what God's word says. But after Jesus, it is a mockery of God himself to sacrifice something that might be after the old covenant.

14 How much more then shall the blood of Christ cleanse our conscience from dead works, that we may serve the living God. Christ, by virtue of an eternal Spirit, has carried himself out as a ruthless sacrifice to God.

Notice the wording: How much more and other places do the authors say how much better etc. Jesus is both much more an all that was brought before God after the sacrifices of the old covenant, and he is infinitely better when he is a perfect and unloving victims whom God the Father himself has acknowledged and approved.

15 Then Christ is the intermediary of a new covenant. He died, and it was redeemed from the transgressions during the first covenant, that those called may receive the eternal inheritance promised.

When the Old Testament sacrifices were determined to be time-limited and they were imperfect, they were removed and gone for the Calvary work to apply and the covenant that is in His blood is applicable.

16 It is with the covenant as with a will: it must be proved that the one who created it is dead.

At the death of Jesus, a new covenant was created which is a zero percent human being involved in.

But a hundred percent only God. No human being can embellish or replace the Calvary. It is only a work of God and Him alone.

17 Only when he is dead is it valid; It does not come into effect as long as he lives.

There are some who claim that Jesus did not die at Go lgata. But the scripture teaches that he also physically died and was dead for three days and three nights. Do not spend time documenting it, but this is not a matter of course for everyone. Many rumors have been put out among people that Jesus descended from the cross and that he was among others a must have married Maria Magdalene as he had driven 7 evil spirits out and who was a former prostitute and moved to India, and had children and died a natural death there. This is purely spun and pimples from end to end.

18 Therefore, even the first covenant was not consecrated without blood.

Here Paul refers to what Moses did. Exodus 24 3 And Moses came and preached unto the people all the words of the Lord, and all the laws; And all the people answered with one voice: All the words which the LORD hath spoken we will observe. 4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and built an altar under the mountain, and twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 And he sent there a certain young men of the children of Israel, and offered burnt offerings, and offered sacrifices of oxen for a sacrifice unto the LORD. 6 And Moses took half of the blood, and poured it out into bowls; and he sprinkled half of the blood on the altar. 7 Then he took the book of the covenant and read it to the people. And they said, We will do all that the LORD hath spoken, and obey. 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it upon the people; And he said, Behold, this is the blood of the covenant, the covenant which the LORD establisheth with you in all these words.

19 When Moses had declared to all the people all the commandments that were in the law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, then sprinkled the blood on both the scroll and the people.

This was right after the laws of Sinai and after those commandments were announced as none of them could and were able to follow, it needed Divine grace to create equilibrium and balance. By shedding blood someone declares guilty and must die. Therefore, there was always an animal sacrificed in someone else's place.

20 And said, "This is the blood of the covenant which God hath set for you."

A covenant is a conclusion for two or more people who agree on something. The inclusion of blood here signifies that the Sinai Pact is imperfect as opposed to the perfect Calvary covenant.

21 At the same time he sprinkled blood on the tent and on all the vessels used during the service.

Now it becomes too extensive to go into detail. But I draw the readers' attention to either reading in the books of Moses or even studying the Bible commentaries on the books of Moses.

22 By virtue of the law, almost all things are cleansed with blood, and sin is not forgiven without blood being shed.

The blood was essential all the time because in the blood there is life and life is in the blood. By constantly being a bloodshed between God and man, he carried over with the children of Israel even when they had sinned. But the condition for this was that one lived and practiced this.

23 So the earthly images of the heavenly things must be purified in this way. But the heavenly sanctuary itself must be purified by sacrifices that are better than these.

When we talk about Moses and the whole of the old covenant, it is a model of what Jesus did and what he represents in the living God in the heavenly sanctuary. Jesus is our great priest and high priest.

24 For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by human hand and is merely a picture of the true sanctuary. He entered heaven itself; now, for our sake, he should come before the face of God.

What the High Priest exemplified on the Great Day of Atonement really made Jesus real and real after the resurrection. Then he brought forth his own blood and found eternal redemption and salvation. All this was for our sake.

25 He did not go in to sacrifice himself several times, as the high priest enters into the sanctuary year after year with blood that is not his own.

We see constantly that the models are lame and deficient. But they are there telling us what happened and telling them that God the Father required perfection that only Christ alone is.

26 In that case, he must have suffered many times since the foundation of the world. But now he has manifested himself once and for all at the end of time to annihilate sin by his sacrifice.

We understand that the high priest's sacrifice was never good enough for God the Father, therefore, God had to have a new sacrifice each year because of the infirmity with us humans. But Jesus' sacrifice was so perfect and the blood was without any trace of sin in it!

27 Likewise, as it is man's lot to die once and then come to judgment,

It is a fact that every man must admit, death catches up with him sooner or later. But then there is a judgment if one does not accept Jesus and is saved and born again!

28 So also Christ is sacrificed once to take away the sins of many, and after that he shall appear again, not for the sake of sin, but to save those who wait for him.

Jesus took away his sin by his sacrifice on Calvary and after the resurrection he bore the blood in the Father in heaven and there he found and found an eternal fo redemption and salvation for all of us. Just as sure he came into the world, he wants to come back into two departments.

1.) but to save those who are waiting for him.

2.) 2.Tess. 1. 7 But as for you, you need to have peace with us, when our Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with the angels of his power, 8 with flames, when he takes revenge on those who do not know God, and on those who are not obedient to ours. The gospel of the Lord Jesus, 9 who will suffer punishment, an everlasting perdition from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his power, 10 when he comes in the day to be glorious in his saints and marvelous in all believers - for believed ours testimony to you.
(quote end).

Final Comment:


Since we have these promises, which are quite huge. Scripture says:

2 Pet. 1. 4 And thereby having given us the greatest and most expensive promises, that ye might partake of them in divine nature, as ye flee from the ruin of the world, which cometh from desire;

We have said the scripture "the greatest and most expensive promises." Then we should and should have used this every day.
For every occasion we need and want it.

Everything knows and through Jesus' blood and His atonement and resurrection.
Everything is made available to us, can we get better and have better?
Have glorious and greater opportunities? No, therefore pray to God in the name of Jesus every day!

torsdag 7. mars 2019

No. 1489: Hans Rustad and document.no/ do not want to write about us as the case is too small, but it is after all what life is most about, such "small things" where one has to decide whether this is important or not!

No. 1489:
Hans Rustad and document.no/ do not want to write about us as the case is too small, but it is after all what life is most about, such "small things" where one has to decide whether this is important or not!


The brothers Arvid, Lars Peder and Magnus Holøyen were first told that they had earned too much to get free legal aid. The county governor in Nordland has now granted the application. But all newspapers, online newspapers and others should also have pointed out that this is the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of us like us have to bear all the desert costs themselves.
This is also a very important aspect of our case, and what we experience is making such "small" cases anyway "big"!
The Tolga brothers who have been exposed to us by an assault by the authorities, but they receive free legal aid and lots of positive media coverage.
I love them. But others who are in our situation actually have to spend both a minimum of hundreds of thousands, and when this case is finished if we lose it is talk of million amounts actually. Then in lost values ​​and what we have to pay to lawyer, government lawyer, judges, fees, workers to remove what we have built and money to rebuild it as it was before we were then imposed. We do not live in a healthy democracy when the authority has such excessive power and can do virtually anything they want and they get away with it!

Picture of money, taken by Jan Kåre Christensen, the picture you can use for free and free, I do not require any money to use the picture or other pictures that you can find on our website. Everything for free!



I sent this email to document.no/:

Tip! Oslo 6 / 3-2019

It is strange how much difference there is to people.
We have built in good faith and received guidance orally from the City of Oslo, and they want us to demolish everything even if there is a minimal "violation".

The same people have approved Kjell Inge Røkke's construction projects where he has eg. dragged tons of stone onto their own property which is so much that one could almost have built a "pyramid"!

Talk about making a difference between people, see here for more information:

http://blog.janchristensen.net/2019/03/nr-2419-marius-vamnes-som-representerte.html

http://blog.janchristensen.net/2019/02/nr-2389-atter-en-ny-rettsrunde-da.html

http://blog.janchristensen.net/2019/03/nr-2414-regjeringsadvokat-elisabeth.html

http://blog.janchristensen.net/2019/02/nr-2402-regjeringsadvokatens-skriv-til.html

http://blog.janchristensen.net/2019/02/nr-2408-hyt-utdannende-kaja-lange.html

http://blog.janchristensen.net/2019/03/nr-2416-tilleggsdokumentasjon-sendt-til_91.html

http://blog.janchristensen.net/2019/03/nr-2417-tilleggsdokumentasjon-sendt-til.html

http://blog.janchristensen.net/2019/02/nr-2405-da-dommen-imot-megoss-bryter.html

http://blog.janchristensen.net/2019/02/nr-2403-norsk-rettsvesen-fremstar-for.html

http://blog.janchristensen.net/2019/02/nr-2411-programleder-og-pinsevenn-line.html

http://blog.janchristensen.net/2019/02/nr-2399-var-klage-til-fylkesmannen-med.html

http://blog.janchristensen.net/2019/02/nr-2400-var-klage-til-sivilombudsmannen.html

Best regards
Jan Kåre Christensen

I got this answer from Hans Rustad and document.no/

I have an understanding of everyone who is fighting with the public bureaucracy, almost. but it exceeds our effort to go into a building case

sorry but that's how you hope you understand

h (Hans Rustad)

I answered this:

Not really when the public can do what they do in Norway. Wanted me to tear something that is built on our property and not to shame anyone.
And that for example. Rkke can actually draw lots of tons of stone onto her own property.
The same man says it's okay, man, Marius Vamnes who represented the County Governor in Oslo, wants us to demolish wall, staircase and storage room on our property.
But he approved everything that Kjell Inge Røkke has built if there were a thousand times more "overruns" than ours!

We point out Turkey and other countries as totalitarian and who intervene in people's lives that are completely beyond.
Norway is not better many times, here you can document this!

Have a nice day still!

Regards
Jan Kåre
(Finally quote).

Here, Hans Rustad writes that it is not so important what is happening in Norway indirectly, but document.no/ has kilometers of column space what happens abroad. Not least the Muslim part, where there is war, misery and rebellion.

This is important and necessary to illuminate, but what happens in Norway and our part of the world. It is also necessary to elucidate and how the State tries to crack people here in Norway?

I think that what has emerged through these so-called Tolga brothers highlights very well how the State and the authorities, here with the municipality, settle. Do they empower more people within a family, do they make a diagnosis and raise 7 million and certainly more on this?
Such disclosures are then more exciting and relevant than very much happening in the world. Why?
That's because this is related to ours teams that we live in Norway our lives.
We need to hear and see what are relevant problems for us who live here in Norway, not just outside the country's borders.

Here we have experienced an assault by the state authorities that are completely without meaning and beyond. This should be really relevant, or?

It is clear that a human life if it is in Syria is infinitely more worth than a wall, staircase and storage room here in Norway. But what is the problem in Norway by and large?
There are more such "little things" that we experience than there are such things happening in Syria. That is why it is so important, necessary and good that one writes, debates and addresses such issues that we have come up with. Where the authorities are running a campaign against us, trying to break us and win over us.
Absolutely without meaning and purpose, it really is just to show their power and they control everything through a law and paragraph to push the people to be subjugated by those who have the power and the positions that give them that power.

That is why the case is not really welcomed to us so small, but here the Government Attorney, the City of Oslo, the County Governor and the Civil Ombudsman ravage and hold together almost as a "team" to try to win over us.
If we assume that the courts are also on the way to this "team", then we begin to understand how bad this is.

Back to the Tolga brothers, which is really very interesting.

Why is this such a very exciting thing? For several reasons, I mention a few that are really the same when it comes to our case.

1.) This has happened in Norway.

2.) Those who would help them, the authority really became their enemy.

3.) The municipality benefited from this with money, "work" and "honor".

This is also the case with our case, that it is necessary to elucidate both to our part that we must be free of the state yoke that we have received or decisions that are without goals, meaning and purpose.

This also makes it so important to show that this can and will hit others. We have been subjected to an assault, but it can happen to anyone if one comes out with the authorities. It's almost like a lottery game.
What we have built would have been approved several years ago, when we have built under the guidance of the authorities. But what do they do? Inserts everything on if possible to break us and win the case.

The Tolga brothers received free legal aid, but it is just as expensive for us to fight against the state as it is for them. We don't get a penny, we all have to look up ourselves.
Only this, how important it is with free legal aid for really 90% of the population in Norway, as it costs hundreds of thousands and millions for such "small cases" faster than you know!

Final Comment:

I believe that this matter we stand in is the much relevant and important substance that should have come out.
I can quickly mention something, as there are already many things that have emerged that apply to many in Norway both in the past, present and future that we experience much of the same. There are many in the same "boat" as us.

1.) We have built according to the guidance of the public, and then had to tear as long as there is no problem for anyone, it is against all common sense.

2.) We do not get money to run this case, but have to pay hundreds of thousands and before the case is finished if we lose it is a million worth.

3.) The same people who have approved eg. Kjell Inge Røkke's solid palace wants us to demolish what we have built. It is so bad and meaningless that words do not extend.

Yes, this is very interesting and highlights how it really is in Norway, that rules and paragraphs mean more than people and fixed values. Then one is really out to drive if a paragraph is more important than anything else, as it is in this case.
And that we do not get free legal aid or help in any other way to fight this great system and the yoke that the Norwegian state is about to become!
Well, "small things" are many times "big-cases", even though we in Norway have very good things and fortunately cannot compare ourselves to large parts of the world. Then our case does so relevant, because it is in such cases that most people can recognize them!