torsdag 30. november 2017

No. 1632: The appeal in Strasbourg in France, Norway's largest justice word becomes standing, now the case has been terminated in the most unfair manner!

No. 1632:
The appeal in Strasbourg in France, Norway's largest justice word becomes standing, now the case has been terminated in the most unfair manner!

Had the case been dealt with in the Norwegian Supreme Court, then this would have been a judgment and a matter of building. The Norwegian Supreme Court rejected this, they did so in France too!

Letter from France!

The whole trial and case against me appear like a good father!

Once we've lost in each court of law, I have to say that my lawyer Brynjar Meling has once pointed out the wrong law enforcement has not been heard. What Brynjar Meling has pointed out is that the law they have judged me is not a criminal offense section 390a on the violation of peace to another.

Here's an article I wrote for a time back that's more up to date than ever!

No. 1584:
Picture of the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg in France for which this case is being tested.
Since, in my view, this case has not been dealt with in Norwegian justice system in a worthwhile and good way, since the whole judgment against me and the heavenly blog is the way I see it a big big dad!

  1. Brynjar Meling is a conscientious man, therefore I am convinced that his fronting that it is wrong lovanv ending that is used against me.
That's something he thinks is legally correct, not to "win" forward. Meal is the way I see it, a man with great integrity and "love" jus. In other words, he is not lightweight, so it's sad to see how he has been treated my mind. He has been treated almost like a fool, it is abuse of power against another man and towards me and my family.
  1. He has f to tt full st ø support of many, including media law judge Jon Wessel-Aas.
  1. A dvokat Brynjar Meling who in my opinion have been used by the Oslo District Court and Court of Court of Appeal to make it look nice, although they have kept us for fun.
As I said, it is fairly sought as they hold on. What I have been convicted of has been used by the court for a minimum of minutes. But hours on everything else. And they have not asked me about anything in the judgment that I almost have a personal vendetta against Torp as far from the truth as it is possible to come.
Torp I have never impressed, just because he says he is a pastor and apostle, and lives just the way it suits him. Only thing I've had interest with Torp, it's his double standard or double, nothing else!
I have proved never to seek him or make personal contact with him in any way.
The whole assertion against me is ridiculous, fabricated and lying!
  1. After the session the Court of Appeal, cutting ø nth Brynjar Meling that we were f carr ied behind "the light" and wrote a too crass appeal letter to Norwegian H ø Supreme.
This is his inscription, and now he wrote that what I'm convicted of has not been dealt with in court. His "tunnel vision" of focusing on law enforcement was now gone, and other moments he emphasized. This he wrote:
Facts of the case
The District Court has made the district court's description of fact to its own by citing the three most important sections in the District Court's reproduction of the fact on pages 3 and 4 of the Court of Appeal's judgment. As far as it goes, this description must therefore be taken into account, str.prl. § 306, second paragraph.
Case handling error, provocation and retribution 
As stated at the bottom of page 4 and at the top of page 5 of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the defendant stated in his defense that his oppositions had to be subjected to punishment or to be judged mildly from the principle of provocation and retribution.
In spite of this statement, the Court of Appeal has, in any case, ignored the extent to which abusive and alleged opposition by the accused's verbal assault has been or what characteristics of the convicted person had to withstand in return for his verbal assault against Pastor Torp.
As meaningful assessment of possible impunity or reduced punishment due to provocation and rhetoric in relation to reciprocal verbal attacks presupposes both a quantitative and qualitative comparison of the arguments put forward from both sides, it is stated that the decision of the Court of Appeal is insufficient.
The Court of First Instance has - see first full section on page 8 of the judgment - in the present context limited to finding that Torp's counterattack against Christensen has helped escalate and prolong the conflict between convicted and insulted. This is insufficient in order to eliminate the meaning of the "balance of payments", either for the sake of guilt or punishment.
The above-mentioned inadequacy of the Court of First Instance's premises is further related to Strl. (1902) § 250 is not mentioned at all in the court's premises, which in itself is also an additional inadequacy given the questions relating to the law of the court of law, see below.
Litigation, legitimate resentment
From the majority of the characteristics through which the convicted person has expressed the conduct of insults, it appears that Christensen has been moral - or moralizing if you want - upset over certain aspects of pastor Torp's way of life and behavior, things that purely objectively appear to be in contrary to the words of the Bible.
Although literal and unconventional use of moral bans in religious allegedly sacred texts is no longer a common phenomenon in Norwegian social reality, especially when it is not a criminal offense in the secular sense, and even to attack others in such a way public opinion is eventually even more unusual than simply to hold condemnations on religious grounds, one must ask it about it - within the narrow circles where fundamentalist attitudes to such issues are still widespread and considered fully legitimate - may be the basis for considering Pastor Torp's conduct as a basis for "justified harms", cf. strl. (1902) Section 56, No. 1, point b)? 
Can Christensen be considered to have acted in justified anger, given that the special theological con text is both convicted and insulted?
The fact that the Court of Appeal in its premises does not discuss the issue at all, is alleged to mean that the ruling grounds in the judgment are insufficient. This even though strl. (1901) Section 56, No. 1, point b), was not explicitly invoked by the defense: The Court of Appeal is ex officio abiding by the law enforcement.
  1. Øystein Hermansen, Malin Str ø mberg Amble and all other judges holding really Brynjar Meling and me for a fool. Then I can not say that it was Meling's mistake that we lost. They left Meling mess for several hours, totally dribbling in what he says. What I say is blaming all the judicial authorities in.
Lets some unpublished statements from Jan Aage Torp, who I am in charge of, saying that the court must ignore this as it is undocumented and the claims are completely beyond. This puts Hermansen into account for the verdict, no one can blame Brynjar Meling. He can not because he is being fooled by Øystein Hermansen and everyone else.
  1. It is lawyer Brynjar Meling to take care of the appeal and, if necessary, continue negotiations with the Strasbourg Human Rights Court.
This tells me that Meling has a great deal of involvement in the matter, and he has gone all the way and continues. Although in my opinion he was fooled by the court here in Norway. They have simply drowned in what he has argued, even though he has great support, and lay on a lie-line. This is the court in Norway, or is it Congo or North Korea? That's how it feels like that! 
Final Comment: 
As said, one can not blame a man for whom the court has held "breath."
When he is done, they completely ignore what he brings, as they have "right to do." But it's fraudulent, and no one's way to go.
At least they could have asked both me and Brynjar Meling why I have discussed Torp as much as we have done.
That's because I've received a 30,000 hatred sign against me over the last 4 years.
And an approx. 300 blog posts addressed to me and the heavenly one that I have responded to. That it has become "big" amounts if not close to that Torp writes. First and foremost aimed at me and my family, much worse than what Torp has received. In other words, it also makes the verdict against me a super judicial sentence. The pure father and it is a disgrace in Norwegian legal history as a judgment that is so totally wrong and wrong it is possible to stay in all ways!
This is not Brynjar Meling's fault, but Jan Aage Torp, Oslo police and the courts!

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar