All that I have been in contact with give a coherent testimony that I will be acquitted. Whether now in court, but guaranteed in the Court of Appeal!
Lawyer Brynjar Meling says it bluntly, that either I become 100% exonerated now. But surely the Court of Appeal when the things which may create problems for a 100% acquittal, they know we possibly weed out. And that the things that the police prosecutor had to come by all this we will document does not match at all!
This says Media law Attorney Jon Wessel-Aas when he asked in Our Country as essentially absolves me 100%. Which also will certainly happen now on Friday the 29th of January when I get the verdict. Everything else will be and be a big surprise acquittal than 100%.
But it should not be there, then it becomes an appeal to the Court of Appeal. And if we lose there, then it becomes Supreme Court. And on to Strasbourg, which I do not think we will ever need. But give me? Never!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The criminal here is Jan Aage Torp, we receive come back to.
This says Media law Attorney Jon Wessel-Aas in Our Country:
Media law Attorney Jon Wessel-Aas reacts to violation of Penal Code Section 390A 'for the troublesome behavior or other reckless behavior to be violating another's peace "underlie the case against Pastor Jan Kåre Christensen.
- I can not comment on details of the case, but I think in principle that it is specifically that this clause is used, because we are talking about the remarks in a blog. Christensen seeks therefore not Torp by phone, text message or otherwise directly, but writes what he thinks of him as a pastor in the blog. It lies outside the core area that provision, says Wessel-Aas, stressing that he only knows the case through circulation in Our Country and by reading the indictment.
Wessel-Aas points out that the aforementioned provision of the Criminal Code since ancient times has been called "telephone harassment law."
- It is clear that bullying and harassment in social media over time can do that people can not bear to be there more. But I still think it is important that the Court did not expand penal provision to include too much. There is a point to be as specific as possible when to restrict freedom of expression through legislation, says Wessel-Aas.
Statements such as "living in adultery" makes it more natural to use defamation law, says the lawyer. Defamation is decriminalized in the new Penal Code and can therefore only be the basis for civil action. It seems more relevant in this case, according to him.
- I think there is danger if clause of the Penal Code will be expanded by adding something that is no longer a crime, says Wessel-Aas.
Public person. - What impact can an eventual judgment make?
- If there is a punishment in line with the indictment, I believe much more can be judged the same way. It will make the limits of free speech little obvious, which in turn can lead to people avoiding expressing themselves, responding Wessel-Aas and points out that whatever is provision for protection against false accusations, violations of privacy, threats and incitement to violence .
Wessel-Aas points out that Torp is a familiar figure in Christian-Norway and largely in the same position as many politicians.
- The room must be greater when it comes to statements about public persons.
Christensen disagrees with how Torp practice the relationship between life and doctrine, that his interpretation of biblical texts, highlighting Wessel-Aas.
- Also there will be great headroom.
(end of quote).
Brynjar Meling said at least five things for me to be acquitted. It was this:
1) Incorrect application of the law, this section has nothing to do with harassment and this as the police claim.
2.) Jan Aage Torp has even gone much, much further than Christensen in their statements with, inter alia, calling him too many ugly and terrible things, and his blog, he has condemned in the most crudest and violated Christensen.
3.) Torp has encouraged nettrolene to continue with flaming of Christensen, when he himself has been silent.
4.) Torp has sought out MY BLOG THAT HE COULD dissociate themselves from SINGLE NEVER clicked on IT! What I have done him no a violation of § 390 a. One can not use a § as a self-will, then we are North Korea or Saudi Arabia.
5.) Christensen has used only the Bible and Canaan language, it is not punishable, but legal.
6.) The sixth and final point that I would mention, there came the lawyer to Torp, police prosecutor who changed almost 180 degrees during the trial. From being challenge negative to me, and be fighting posetiv. He, Dag Paulsen said Christensen has not written anything illegal. I've really only hurt feelings Torps something very when he himself has chosen to click onto my blog!
Bring to end an article I have written before the trial which is a home run: