fredag 28. april 2017

No. 1532: If the wrongful and substantiated verdict from Borgarting lagret retts, freedom of speech is restricted in Norway and the Christian prosecution started in Norway!

No. 1532:
If the wrongful and substantiated verdict from Borgarting lagret retts, freedom of speech is restricted in Norway and the Christian prosecution started in Norway!
Image of media lawyer Jon Wessel-Aas who reacts to violation of Penal Code 390a "for inadvertent conduct or other reckless conduct that has violated another's peace" is the basis of the case against me as this is total misuse of law.

As well as what I have written and written, there are millions of people in front of freedom of belief and expression. It's just that I've written too much about the same thing that makes it punishable, this is "monkey jus" you ask me!
This underpinned the verdict, which merely shows that Borgarting law of law with the three men, well-grown adults, fully respects freedom of belief and expression. They obviously do not know what they are doing!
According to the Court of Appeal's opinion, Christensen's conduct is subject to section 390a of the Criminal Code. The concrete statements and accusations against Torp were clearly capable of violating his peace. Particular emphasis is placed on the large number of offensive statements and statements in the case, the intensity of blogging activities and that Christensen's business has taken place over a relatively long period of time. The Court of Appeal agrees with the district court that the statements in general have moved away from actual religious and religious criticism, and have also taken the form of harassment and harassment of persecution by Torp. Christensen has acted unnecessarily recklessly and strongly blamed on this matter. Christensen has used unnecessarily offensive words and expressions to express his dissatisfaction with Torp and his way of life.
(Quote ending).
It is then me and nobody else who will set those limits when they think my words and concepts are invert what is legal and acceptable. 
It is that they say I write is in front of freedom of belief and expression.
But if one repeats one thing too much, then it's no longer possible to imagine freedom of speech and expression!

See for yourself you go to the Seven student, buy a coke. You do it again, ten times you buy a cola, then the police come and pick you up.
In other words, Borgarting's law of law sets itself apart from the freedom of belief and expression that if one repeats things often enough, it is punishable.
And why have I repeated this?
Because I have responded to what Jan Aage Torp's friends have written to defend their teacher!
I have received hundreds of articles written to me on the theme of Jan Age Torp. And I have received over 20,000 hate speech messages against me that are not included.Then the whole picture of the case will be completely distorted and erroneous!
No, I do not see that this sentence is right any way.
In other words, Judge Øystein Hermansen, team judge
Bjørn E. Engstrøm and lawyer Leiv Robberstad take care of both Norwegian law, freedom of belief and expression. What is it then? Christian persecution they pursue!
What I'm reading online - daily! So, what I have written as peanuts against what others give expression to what they believe and believe. Why do not the police and the courts spend time, money and effort on it? And why are there few if there are any Christians who defend me?
In other words, we are now where the first Christians were persecuted because of their beliefs!
Ap.gj. 8. On the same day, there was a strong persecution against the church in Jerusalem. All but the apostles were scattered around Judea and Samaria.
The judgment against me is a big buzz!
Media lawyer Jon Wessel-Aas says, is the same as my lawyer Brynjar Meling has been working.
In Borgarting lawyer he used approx. 1 ½ hour on this.
Attorney General Guro Hansson Bull spent less than 1 minute, but she spent a quarter of a quarter saying the same as police attorney Dag Paulus said in Oslo district court, only "improved" version.
But with the same lies and distorted reality with Jan Aage Torp's lies as the only reference point! Not much to brag about!
What was media lawyer Jon Wessel-Aas saying? Here from the interview that was made with him in the newspaper Our Country:
Media lawyer Jon Wessel-Aas reacts that violation of Penal Code's Paragraph 390a, "in case of unlawful conduct or other reckless conduct violating someone else's peace", is based on the case against pastor Jan Kåre Christensen.
Furthermore, Media Attorney General Jon Wessel-Aas says the following when he is interviewed in the newspaper Our Country:
"A horebukk-dom can lead to fewer appearances
Lawyer believes a verdict in the case against pastor Jan Kåre Christensen will make the limits of freedom of expression less clear.
In the autumn of 2014, pastors and bloggers accused Jan Kåre Christensen pastor Jan-Aage Torp of being "horebukk" and "old pig". Wednesday they met in court.
Christensen is prosecuted pursuant to section 390a of the Criminal Code for violating Torp's "peace", for example by asserting in a large number of blog posts that the pastor lived in horror because he has married again. 
Media lawyer Jon Wessel-Aas reacts that violation of Penal Code's Paragraph 390a, "in case of unlawful conduct or other reckless conduct violating someone else's peace", is based on the case against pastor Jan Kåre Christensen.
"I can not comment on the details of the case, but in principle, I think it is special that this section is used because it is a matter of expression in a blog. Christensen does not seek Torp by telephone, text message or otherwise directly, but writes what he thinks about him as a pastor in the blog. It is beyond the core area of ​​the relevant provision, "said Wessel-Aas, emphasizing that he only knows the case through publishing in Our Country and by reading the actual appeal decision.
Slander. Wessel-Aas shows that the aforementioned provision in the Criminal Code from the old of has been called the "Telecommunications Act". 
"It is clear that bullying and harassment in social media over time can cause people not to be there anymore. However, I think it is important that the court does not extend the sentence to cover too much. There is a point to be as concrete as possible when one is going to restrict freedom of expression through legislation, "said Wessel-Aas. 
Proposals like "living in horror" make it more common to use the right of injuries, the lawyer believes. Injuries are decriminalized in the new Penal Code and can thus only form the basis for civil litigation. It seems more relevant in this case, according to him.
"I think there is a danger of fears if the section in the Criminal Code is being extended by adding something that is no longer criminal," said Wessel-Aas.
Public person. - What consequences can any judgment have?
- If there is a criminal conviction in line with the accusation, I think much else can be judged in the same way. It will make the limits of freedom of speech unclear, which in turn can prevent people from appearing, says Wessel-Aas, pointing out that there are nevertheless provisions for protection against untrue accusations, violations of privacy, threats and violence .
Wessel-Aas points out that Torp is a famous figure in Christian Norway and far ahead in the same position as many politicians.
- The room must be bigger when it comes to expressions of public figures.
Christensen disagrees with how Torp practices the relationship between life and learning, ie his interpretation of biblical texts, emphasizes Wessel-Aas.
- Also there the ceiling height must be large. But, of course, there is a limit to what one can blame someone for
(Quote ending). 
It is strange that both judgments against me build unilaterally on Jan Aage Torp's fables with figures about what and how much I have written about him, none of which is documented. In other words, both sentences against me and the heavenly blog are in my eyes a miracle when nothing is documented! Tragic!
I feel that at least I've been taken to bed, and this kind of thing really is. Has not arrived.
Just want to say that a separate blog has been created to swear me and my family, if much has been deleted from that blog.
There they say I have a relationship with the politician at Manglerud, if it's not punishable, I do not know:
Jan Kåre Christensen has, both sexually and in other ways, harassed and terrorized the judge Malin Strømberg Amble in the previous case trial. Malin Strømberg Amble will probably also be involved in the new litigation case against Jan Kåre Christensen. Therefore, it is very likely that his lawyer Brynjar Meling has passively or actively accepted this terror and the trafficking of Malin Strømberg Amble. Here he has broken good law and Norwegian law.
Jan Kåre Christensen has sexually and in other ways harassed and terrorized police service women Monica Lillebakken, Oda Karterud and Lena Fjalestad from Manglerud Police Station. These have participated in the investigation of Jan Kåre Christensen's terror by Jan Aage Torp and his family. These three will also play a central role in the upcoming issues of the matter. Therefore, it is very likely that his lawyer Brynjar Meling has passively or actively accepted this terror and the traction of these three policy winners. Here he has broken good law and Norwegian law.
(Quote ending). 
Why did I mention Torp often? Not as much as he claims, that's because I've probably answered 20,000 hate speech from supporters to Jan Aage Torp.
This forms the basis for the verdict both in the Oslo district court and Borgarting lagret:
The circumstances of the case are blog posts in the period January 2012 to March 2015. Torp has made a record of his posts and found that he has been mentioned in the blog over 3,000 times. His wife is mentioned around 900 times, including her name as a "whore" 167 times. Furthermore, Torp is referred to as an "old pig" over 30 times, "horebukk" over 110 times, "narcissist / narresist" over 30 times, "psychopath" over 200 times and "false pastor / prophet / apostle" over 400 times.
First of all, Torp is often mentioned by name, because I have responded to 20,000 hat reports from his supporters.
Horebukk have I mentioned 2-3 times, but his supporters who have also written on my blog have mentioned this rest anyway?
The wife of Torp both his first and second wife is not mentioned about, just as complementary comments. This is taken almost out of the loose air and fabricated untruths like everything else with Jan Aage Torp. 
Psychopath is mentioned, I count on a fraction of the times of me, the rest of his supporters when they so-called have rendered me. 
On the false Smyrnablog, my son is also referred to as a lie, which is a direct lie, if most are deleted. Then it has come to the conclusion that this is not punishable, neither I nor my family does anything out of it even though we have police it! 
The case against me and the heavenly blog are three elderly gentlemen who embrace both God, Norwegian law, freedom of belief and expression, as I see it! 
Ask dear friends that the appeal goes through to the Supreme Court and that I will be acquitted! For all of me, both in the district court and the court of law, are manufactured!
But anyway, I live well and dignified with the injustice committed to me, my family and supporters! Do not get rid of this, anyway!

The verdict is uncharted, primitive and slightly reflected, as the case was about law enforcement. But here we conclude that there is a judgment that attacks freedom of belief and expression, and it has a fierce Christianity pursuit!

Related links:

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar