lørdag 7. oktober 2017

No. 1606: A big thank you to my family for their patience in the fight against Jan Aage Torp, Oslo Police and Norwegian Courts, and Attorney Brynjar Meling for his professional skill that surpasses the police and the courts several times!

No. 1606:
A big thank you to my family for their patience in the fight against Jan Aage Torp, Oslo Police and Norwegian Courts, and Attorney Brynjar Meling for his professional skill that surpasses the police and the courts several times!

Now that you have reviewed three courts in Norway, it's a sad feeling about how bad it is possible to be treated in the Norwegian justice system!

When one thinks of Hans Nielsen Hauge, that's what I and my family have gone through as blueberries.
But anyway, what we have gone through is an assault and not a rule worthy! (Stained glass of a person imprisoned as Hauge).

I have actually thought about what Hans Nielsen Hauge went through 200 years ago. Hans Nielsen's Hauge name is still today the most honorable and good person Norway ever grew up with. But anyway, he was so badly treated, what I experience is just the same. It is the story that repeats itself, and those who opposed Hauge has subsequently been standing as human beings who were both God and Hauge contrary. So I am convinced that afterlife will also see this matter between me and Meling on one side. And the ramp which has gone against me and the Heavenly blog, will forever stand as some losers and outcasts.

Now, of course, there is no blueprint that can be put on me and Hans Nielsen Hauge. I've really had 53 brilliant years. While Hans Nielsen Hauge died only 53 years old, after 10-11 years in prison where he had been so badly treated that he never really got well after jail stay. But it was as before, as today, that one tries to stop God's men and women by a law that is deepest in stopping one to proclaim and communicate the word of God and the revelations and thoughts that God has given one.Here is the story similar to that k onventikkelplakaten. At this time, it was forbidden by law for others than priests to hold constructive encounters. Hans Nielsen Hauge therefore came in the authorities' spotlight. He married the law and was imprisoned. Awakening Christianity was seen as a threat not only for the church but also for the worldly power apparatus. Revival was a form of people movement that the state had no control over and there were therefore a number of restrictions on free living for the general public; Restricted freedom of the press, Prohibition of non-religious religious gatherings, and limitations on people's travels and travels. Hauge was imprisoned for the first time in 1797. Because of all the prison stays and the poor treatment they gave him, he received ill health at a young age. In prison he did not speak to anyone, he was inactive, nor did he get into fresh air. This caused him to have both gout and scurvy, and he lost his teeth and hair. In 1811 Hauge was set free with the help of his influential friends.

What about me?

Here I am judged for something like Brynjar Meling and many others believe is incorrect law enforcement. What's so special about my case is that I'm aiming to call Jan Aage Torp for leper and horseman. During the discussions in both Oslo District Court and Borgarting Court of Appeal, discussions have almost exclusively been law enforcement. Listen from YouTube where Meling explains:
But what's up? I am judged to have written "too much" about the same thing that the court has not discussed or discussed. Only some loose undocumented numbers from Jan Aage Torp and not mentioned in the sentence. In other words, one can say that d Ommeren in Oslo District Court that was Malin Strømberg Amble. In Borgarting Court of Appeal there was judge Øystein Hermansen. Besides, it was team leader Bjørn Edvard Engstrøm and team leader Leiv Robberstad was a third man.These are really judges from "hell" when they're on a fabricated and ugly accusation against me and the Heavenly blog.

A ll these judges, particularly in the Court of Appeal gave clear expression to Brynjar Meling at trial that they followed his reasoning.
But what are they doing?
That which is not in the trial and which has not been the subject of the discussion in court.
That it's written a lot, not a little. They base their judgment on me.
When Brynjar Meling argued for wrong law enforcement.
Spent all his time and all his procedure on this. And the judges expressed their agreement with this. Then, if they had been reasonably fair and fair.
Then they had expressed that they did not fully agree with him and went on to say what has obviously been important in this case. That is why we have used so much space. But they do not, which only proves that in my eyes is the police, court and Torp are three criminals who hold each other to take "two righteous"!

My family who has held this out for now over 3 years also deserves all admiration and support. They are phenomenal and lovely who have been with me 120% throughout this process, although it has been ugly and bad to me and my family!

Final Comment:

I would like to praise my lawyer Brynjar Meling for having an agenda, a principle he adheres to. It is that wrong law enforcement has been applied to me, and he does not deviate from it.
This has several others commented on, which means that he is not alone in thinking this. As a result, the fight as we fight, I think, has good opportunities to win if both Jan Aage Torp, the Oslo police and the courts have in part been unclean and fooled us and made an act out of this matter.

The same has been said by lawyer Jon Wessel Aas on several occasions. Here's 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 violating 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 current provision, "said Wessel-Aas, emphasizing that he only knows the case through circulation 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," says 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 for protection against untrue accusations, violations of privacy, threats and invasion of 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.

Medierts - and free speech expert, attorney Jon Wessel-Aas believes that the statements of Christensen is not punishable.

"The special thing in this case is that punishment is used for punishment as in any case, historically and at its core, to penalize the more direct peace crimes," he said.

W essel Aas believes it is more natural to consider whether your blog posts is defamation?

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 matters 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 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).

As said, it was very sad and incomprehensible that this case did not come before the Norwegian Supreme Court.
Pray that the case will go through the needle eye of the Strasbourg Human Rights Court and we will win a victory over Jan Aage Torp, the Oslo police and all the courts here in Norway, who in this case really have dreaded a healthy and good state!

Related links:

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar