mandag 15. mai 2017

No. 1551: The newspaper Norway today and Finn Jarle Sæle are allowed to use the darkest powers and speak false about me and the heavenly blog!

No. 1551:
The newspaper Norway today and Finn Jarle Sæle are allowed to use the darkest powers and speak false about me and the heavenly blog!
This is what Finn Jarle Sæle writes in his newspaper, Norway today:
The state prosecutor in Oslo has once again won an important victory in the fight against netting fights, honorary skating and character killings of all kinds.
It is interesting that the state has brought the case to Pastor Torp for reasons of principle.
This judgment against online hangout is given the precedent and clarifies the press ethics. Senseless media behavior, embezzlement and character killings do not fall under the freedom of expression.
Essentially in this case is that the prosecutor's office in Oslo was a prosecutor on behalf of the Oslo Politics Chamber and the Torp parish.
The judiciary and the press ethics are effectively established on this internet, for which it has long been free from injuries.
Page 5post
(Quote ending).
Here is just a small excerpt of all that weird and how Finn Jarle Sæle is used to use the darkest powers.
Just want to point out two things here, if there are actually twenty-thirty things to point out what he has written.
  1. S æ laugh writes as if the judgment is final. It is not, it has been appealed within its Norges H ø Supreme, who will decide whether they will either acquit me. Allows the appeal squeeze or let judgment be st to end.
  1. S æ laugh writes, rule of law and press ethics is by this ruling effectively established also to p to the Internet - where it has long v æ been full steam ahead for libel.(Quote ending).
Here he is at the core of the matter, but obviously does not understand himself.
This has been done by Brynjar Meling, written and stated that I have not violated section 390 a of the Criminal Code.
As I have never sought or showed interest in Jan Aage Torp but merely written and debated from him as a pastor who does not live in accordance with the Bible's word to marry again after signing in from his first and Right wife.
This writes Brynjar Meling in his appeal to the Norwegian Supreme Court:
Wrong law enforcement, Strl. (1902) § 390a
As the court in the last paragraph on page 6 of the verdict correctly states, the Norwegian Supreme Court has not dealt with matters relating to strl. Section 1902 Section 390a (Repeated in section (2005) § 266) in relation to blog posts or other, widely available material on the internet.
It is stated that the law of law of the court of law is wrong because, through the Internet, making abusers finds offensive to be available to a wide and indeterminate people's circle may be regarded as an offense of honor, not as "by plagiarism or other reckless conduct that has violated another's peace" . Honorary violations are at the commencement of Strl. (2005) - contrary to the continuation of former section 390a - made a sentence of punishment. Correct law enforcement would have resulted in impunity for the accused party, Strl. (2005) § 3, cf. Last section on page 5 of the Court of Appeal's judgment.
Strl. (1902) § 390a and strl. (2005) Section 266 intends, in its wording, to protect the "peace" of offenders, not his sense of honor. Strl. (1902) § 246 struck the one who violated "another's sense of honor" section 247 the one who injured "another's good name and reputation" or expressed something that was appropriate "to expose him to hate, wrongdoing or loss of it for his position Or nutrition needed trust ". Both their own sense of honesty and reputation in the eyes of others is, as the wording clearly shows, something different and different from the "peace" of insults.
By Grl. §§ 96, first paragraph cf. 113 and EMK art. 7 follows a clarification requirement as regards the legal basis for punishment. The law of law of the Court of Appeal is based on a sense of punishment - characterized by being a strongly expanding interpretation of strl. (1902) § 390a. Ie A constitutional interpretation of the Criminal Code and the ECHR, used to be able to affect actions and issues previously affected by strl. (1902) Sections 246 and 247, after these were not continued in the new Penal Code, and according to the provision in section. (2005) Section 3 shall be subjected to penalties by the conviction of elderly relationships after the amendment.
Furthermore, both Grl. § 100 and EMC art. 10 principle of freedom of expression. The abolition of the earlier penalties for erasion crimes must be seen in the light of this: Also, unpleasant, controversial, even offensive and wounded expressions should be punishable as the big and general starting point. When the statements were not directed directly to the insulted - it was true that Pastor Torp had completely failed to read the blog of an obsessive party - and was not forced to him personally in any way, claiming to be a double constitutional and constitutional violation The expressions in Christensen's blog for criminal offenses without being protected by freedom of expression.
Thus, it is stated firstly that it is contrary to the clarity requirement to interpret strl. (1902) § 390a expanding as the Court of Appeal does, and secondly, that the content of the comments Christensen has included lies within what freedom of speech includes. Section 390a, however, may not mean that any perjury that may, but no longer be punishable as defamation, may be punished as an offense of another's peace. Such a practice becomes, after the appellant's view, a caveat and a circumvention of a clear legislative act.
HR-2016-1015-A is not relevant to the case against Christensen. In HR-2016-1015-A, it was a completely different type of punishable relationship, where the wording of the provision in question also clearly aims to cover a majority of conceivable modes, cf. blue. That the wording includes the influence of insulted via third party ("his closest"). Rt.2010 p. 845 applies to actions clearly within strl. § 390a, because it was (an exceptionally large amount) emails directly to insulted.
The other verdict references in the Court of Appeal's judgment do not eliminate the need for a clear assessment of the correct application of justice through a precedent case by the Norwegian Supreme Court.
Controversial expressions about named people, as well as attack on life as a way of life, abound on the internet. The fact that expressions directed to the general public are also referred to as knowledge and may fall too heavily for the breast. Do not be circumvented to be able to prosecute judgments -wisely or unwise - by adopting and enforcing a new penal code with a broad pen chosen to decriminalize.
Should such extravagances be re-punished, according to our legal order, a statutory commission may, if necessary, adopt new provisions for this, in compliance with the requirements of the Constitution, the ECHR and any other relevant conventions. That prosecutors and courts make other arrangements in order to strike something that - rightly or wrongly - finds punishable, is exactly what Rt. 1952 Page 989 - The Phone Challenge - does not mean to take place.
Finally, it is pointed out that as much as (1902) § 390a as Strl. (2005) § 266 is lacking in connection with a provocation and retribution, as in strl. (1902) in relation to sections 246 and 247, in the form of strl. (1902) § 250. Tough expressions of opinion - only two parties in between as in the public space, eg. The internet - often occurring in the form of expression and opposition, is a real consideration that shows how important it is that such conditions as the battle between Jan Kåre Christensen and Jan-Aage Torp are assessed according to balanced legislation intended to regulate precisely such conditions, and Not for a legal basis that has a completely different history. And not least (at least originally) a completely different purpose.
(Quote ending).
I finally bring an article where lawyer Jon Wessel Aas says the same as my lawyer Brynjar Meling. That the law clause they use against me is an abuse. Or incorrect law enforcement, Torp has something against what I'm writing and thinks it's not good. Then there's only one thing he'll do if he's going to use the court. It's a civil lawsuit against me, but he's too cowardly to do it himself!

No. 1534:
Fax smiles from the newspaper Our Country Saturday 29th . April 2017.

This writes the newspaper Our Country:
Yes to the Supreme Court. Freedom of speech expert, lawyer Jon Wessel-Aas believes that the statements to Christensen are not criminal.
  • The special thing in this case is that punishment is used for punishment as in any case, historically and in its core, to penalize the more direct peace crimes, he says.
Wessel Aas believes it is more natural to assess whether blog posts are defamations?
He points out that the Storting has the intention that defamation should be a matter between the parties and therefore must be prosecuted through civil action with claims for compensation.
Such cases are no longer a matter for the police and prosecuting authorities.
In principle, the view of the Court of Appeal also implies that the general publications of the press can be prosecuted in pursuance of the provision on peace crimes.
He would like to see the Supreme Court address the matter.
  • This principle lovtolkningssp ø RSM look b ø r ideally f to its clarification H ø Supreme mean Wessel Aas.
(Quote ending).
Final comment:
The mediator and freedom of speech expert, lawyer Jon Wessel-Aas is absolutely right, I have not done anything or done anything criminal.
It's the nonsense and nonsense that Norwegian law is doing, if one writes one thing one or a thousand times. Then it does not matter if it's punishable or not!
The verdict of Borgarting is the way I see it, fabricated lies and untruths.
But it has now been known that the verdict of the district court based on Jan Aage Torp's presentation of the case.
For at least that is what both judgments are based on!
What they assume that I've written so much about Torp, it's only a fraction of what they're supposed to be true.
What Jan Aage Torp and his friends wrote about me surpass all that I have written and talked to Torp, many, many, many times.
They have written over 20,000 hatred messages to me in the last four years.
Braut and Bird's Cross has sent hundreds of personal mailer to me, my employer, my wife's employer, her job email, her private mailer, my son, document forgery, fake letter +++ much more.
This is not included at all!
Ask dear friends that Brynjar Meling's anchorage is so well written that it passes through to the Norwegian Supreme Court.
And I'm being acquitted, in the end!
The whole verdict, the arrangement and everything is fabricated and staged to "take" me

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar