lørdag 24. juni 2017

No. 1561: NarreApostel Jan Aage Torp and the forty robbers remind me of this verdict, as it is like an adventure in lies and manipulation!

No. 1561:
NarreApostel Jan Aage Torp and the forty robbers remind me of this verdict, as it is like an adventure in lies and manipulation!
We know that Ali Baba taught by the robbers "SESAM, CLOSE YOU UP!"
That's how the police and the appeal force blindly trust Jan Aage Torp's version, which is both lying, fabricated, lying and false.

In many ways, Jan Aage Torp appears like Ali Baba and the police and prosecution force as the 40 robbers who blindly trust what lies and factual claims!
The judgment against me and the heavenly blog is both an attack on freedom of belief and expression, and a regular justice word!
Picture of Brynjar Meling who wrote an anchorage that the Norwegian Supreme Court overlooked in total. But the bluffs of Jan Aage Torp they think blindly. Even Kim Jong-un had not believed in Torp I am convinced, but the Oslo police and all courts in Norway are allowed to bluff!
Yes, yes, and we'll just take it all with a big smile in the name of Jesus!

I am no bad loser, but here there are more and more battles under the "belt stage" than what made me judge. It was not what I've written, but the amount of it all. This has not been the subject of any discussion, except for the lies reported by Jan Aage Torp in Oslo District Court.
The use of law against me is also wrong, it is sad that it will be the case in Norway. As it is in Congo, North Korea and Saudi Arabia, legal certainty is obviously very low here in Norway. On par with those states sometimes, it's sad and alarming!
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 unpleasant behavior 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 penalty trial. 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) § 266 intends, according to 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 would be appropriate "to expose him to hate, wrongdoing or loss of 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 clarity requirement as regards the legal basis for punishment. The law of law of the court of law is based on a sense of punishment - characterized by a highly expanding interpretation of strl. (1902) § 390a. Ie A constitutional interpretation of the Criminal Code and the ECHR, used to nevertheless 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, also in the event of conviction of older conditions after the amendment.
Furthermore, both Grl. § 100 and EMC art. 10 principle of freedom of expression. The abolition of the older penalties for erasion crimes must be seen in light of this: Also, unpleasant, controversial, even offensive and hurtful expressions should also be a punishment as the general and general starting point. When the statements were also not directed directly to the offender - 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, firstly, it is stated 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. § 390a can not, however, imply that punishments that may, but no longer be punished 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, this was a completely different type of punishable relationship, where the wording of the relevant provision also clearly aims to cover a majority of imaginable modes, cf. blue. That the wording includes the influence of offended by third party ("his closest"). Rt. 2010 p. 845 applies to actions clearly within strl. § 390a, because it was (an exceptionally large amount) emailing directly to the 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 of 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 judicial performance - wisely or unwise - by adopting and enforcing a new penal code with a broad pen chosen to decriminalize.
Should any such extravagances be re-imposed, it is our legal order to legislate, if necessary, to 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 - rightly or wrongly - finds punishable, is exactly what Rt. 1952 Page 989 - The Telecoms Disorder - implies not to take place.
Finally, it is pointed out that as much as (1902) § 390a as strl. (2005) Section 266 lacks attachment to a provocation and retribution, as in Strl. (1902) in relation to sections 246 and 247, in the form of strl. (1902) § 250. Strong sentences of opinion - only two parties in between as in the public space, eg. The internet - frequently occurring in the form of expression and oppression, 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 in accordance with balanced legislation intended to regulate 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 is something of what Wessel Aas has answered journalists:
Media lawyer Jon Wessel-Aas reacts that violation of Penal Code's section 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, who emphasizes that he only knows the case through circulation in our country and by reading the actual appeal decision.
Wessel-Aas indicates 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 speech 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 a possible 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 to protect 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 roof height must be large.
Yes to the Supreme Court.
The mediator and freedom of speech expert, lawyer Jon Wessel-Aas believes that the statements to Christensen are not punishable.
"The special thing in this case is that punishment is used for punishment, which in any case, historically and at its core, is intended to hit the more direct peace crimes," he said.
Wessel Aas believes it is more natural to assess whether blog posts are defamation?
He points out that the Storting has the intention that defamation should be a matter between the parties and therefore must be pursued 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 accordance with the provision on peace violations.
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:
I do not think the judges and the Norwegian judiciary are corrupt. But they are simple, incompetent and fraudulent even though they are well educated and have a great responsibility.
Imagine, I've gone through the entire legal system in Norway. What I have been judged for, amount of what I have written and spoken. Is not taken care of at all!
The whole judgment against me is fabricated and lying.
Do not appreciate the paper it's written on!
What I have been convicted of, both in the district court and the court of law, and now rejected by the Norwegian Supreme Court. Is not what I have written, but the amount.
This has not been dealt with except for a fantasy number that Jan Aage Torp joined the district court.
In other words, this verdict is actually on par with judges in Congo, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and resembled countries!
Why? It is nothing but Christian persecution!
Please pray for me and the heavenly blog, one in Satan's homicide that will end in the fire!
Join me and all the saints to the new Jerusalem where no one has returned and others who live in sin may come in!
Here they have both used the wrong statute of punishment against me and will not treat what they have judged me for the crowd, which is actually a backing strike when it was not included in the review in Torp, the verdict or during the trial!
In other words, the whole thing is a scandal!
They do not see it when their hearts are obviously cured for God and the truth!
Scripture says, beginning to wisdom is to fear God. We see here, as it does not help to be both judge and studied for many years.
When the powers of darkness and the spirit of lies grasp and wonder both one and the other.
2 Tess. 11 And therefore God sendeth them a great error, that they believe the lie, 12 that all shall be condemned, who have not believed the truth, but rejoiced in unrighteousness.
Related links:

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar