fredag 19. mai 2017

No. 1558: I am particularly pleased with Brynjar Meling's ancestry, as it means that the Norwegian Supreme Court has to decide whether the wrongful use of the law and the police against me and the heavenly blog has been used!

No. 1558:
I am particularly pleased with Brynjar Meling's ancestry, as it means that the Norwegian Supreme Court has to decide whether the wrongful use of the law and the police against me and the heavenly blog has been used!
Ask dear friends about this tragic, unnecessary and factual case against me and the heavenly blog.
That the Norwegian Supreme Court freed me because of improper law enforcement and the whole case is put in a drawer to never be brought back!
I have never ever done anything criminal or punishable, as the police and the prosecution force are a witch hunt against me and the heavenly blog, nothing else! But by prayer and faith, what is negative and evil turns into something posetive and good. This is God's opportunity - all negative is always God's opportunity!
Psalm 30. 1. A hymn, a song at the dedication of the house, by David. 2 I will exalt you, Lord, for you have drawn me up and did not let my enemies rejoice over me. 3 Lord my God! I cried to you, and you healed me. 4 Lord! You have brought my soul out of the kingdom of death, you called me alive from those who descend into the grave. 5 Sing unto the Lord in his pious, and praise his holy name. 6 For a moment his wrath lasts, his life is mercy; In the evening we will cry as a guest, and in the morning there will be joy of singing. 7 But I said in my confidence, I will not be shaken forever. 8 Lord! By your grace you had established my mountain; You concealed your face. 9 I cried unto you, Lord, and I humbly pleaded with the Lord: 10 What profit is there in my blood, that I go down into the grave? Mon the dust will praise you, will it proclaim your faithfulness? 11 Hear, Lord, and be merciful to me! Lord, be my helper! 12 You changed my complaint to dance for me, you redeemed my suits from me and made me happy, 13 that my glory should bless you and not be silent. Lord my God! I will praise you forever.

If Norway is a healthy democracy and the rule of law is intact, I am sure that after lawyer Brynjar Meling his excellent and amazing appeal to the Norwegian Supreme Court.So the Norwegian Supreme Court really has one of two choices.
  1. Take a new negotiating round, taking in Norwegian H ø Supreme.
  1. Or to absolve me because of an error in law welcomed me and the Heavenly blog.
This writes lawyer Brynjar Meling 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).
The same has been said by lawyer Jon Wessel Aas on several occasions. Here's some of what Wessel Aas has answered journalists:
Media lawyer Jon Wessel-Aas reacts that violation of Penal Code's Paragraph 390a, "in case of unlawful conduct or other reckless conduct, has violated another'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.
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.
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, which in any case, historically and in its essence, will punish the more direct peace crimes," he said.
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 fundamental issue of law-making should ideally be clarified by the Supreme Court, Wessel Aas believes.
(Quote ending).
Final Comment:
Dear friends, by the confederate of our believers, this will affect everyone, even the Supreme Court.
Ask them to do the right thing, free me because of improper law enforcement!
This is my simple and great desire to do, such as we as true Jesus believers stand together.
Matt. 18 19 Again, I say to you, All of you on earth agree to pray, that shall be given to them by my Father in heaven.

Related links:

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar