lørdag 27. mai 2017

No. 1567: There is much to say that there will be no case in the Norwegian Supreme Court, because the wrong law is used to trap me and the heavenly blog slay that I will be acquitted after the Supreme Court has looked into the matter!

No. 1567:
There is much to say that there will be no case in the Norwegian Supreme Court, because the wrong law is used to trap me and the heavenly blog slay that I will be acquitted after the Supreme Court has looked into the matter!
Picture an Norwegian Supreme Court here in the center of Oslo.
First of all, thanks for all the prayers, it is overwhelming and of greater importance than any idea.
It's not me who's criminal here, but the Oslo police, Jan Aage Torp and his fellow citizens. Therefore, ask that the Norwegian Supreme Court freed me to be non-criminal, So there will be no new negotiation here.
Pray that they free me because of the wrong law enforcement used against me and the heavenly blog dear Jesus-believing friends and "warriors"!

Following Brynjar Meling's masterful anchorage to the Norwegian Supreme Court, I think it is highly probable that there will be no trial. Simply because the wrong law was used against me and the heavenly blog.
They break the Norwegian law, the Oslo police and the prosecution force to get me.
This I think the Norwegian Supreme Court will see! And then there will be no new bargaining, but I and the heavenly blog will be acquitted.
This writes Brynjar Meling is measuring with his ankeskrivelse:
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) Section 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 the scope of freedom of expression. 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 judgment 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 still be able to prosecute judgments - wisely or unwise - by adopting and putting into effect a new Penal Penal Code, chose 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.
Claim and Processual
If the case is referred to the Norwegian Supreme Court and the court then the accused party is entitled in its view of the law enforcement as far as the scope of strl is concerned. (1902) § 390a, has incomplete judgment grounds in relation to possible grounds of impunity, no longer relevant. It is therefore closed so reverently
P STAND: Principal: Jan Kåre Christensen is fired. In the alternative, the judgment of 27 April 2017 in Borgarting Court of Appeal of Case No 16-086576ST-BORG / 02 is hereby repealed.
(Quote ending).
Final Comment:
Pray for dear friends that the Norwegian Supreme Court is doing the only right here, they free me and the heavenly blog. As well as they set aside the verdict of Borgarting law of law for misuse of law.
This writes lawyer Jon Wessel Aas:
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.
Related links:

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar