No 1650: Has been in contact with several newspapers - but the evasion is great even though many agree that I have been exposed to an justice word and this is unworthy of a democratic country like Norway!

No 1650:
Has been in contact with several newspapers - but the evasion is great even though many agree that I have been exposed to an justice word and this is unworthy of a democratic country like Norway!
Picture of my lawyer Brynjar Meling as the court has led to the light that he has "fought" for law enforcement for several hours, but they did not care at all about it. Having a lawyer was just a game for the gallery that it would look "normal" and "pretty" when the outcome was given in advance that I would be judged if there was nothing to judge for!

Have been in contact with the editorial staff in several magazines such as Resett and others. They feel far away that I have been subjected to an justice word and this is unworthy of a democratic country like Norway!But they come with many apologies for not writing about this.It is that they have little editors, do not prioritize and much else.This is sad, because my case is completely substandard.
This wrote my lawyer Brynjar Meling to the Norwegian Supreme Court.
Case handling error, provocation and retribution
As it appears 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 judgments had to be subjected to punishment or poorly judged by 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 contradictory opposition by the accused party'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 retribution in relation to reciprocal verbal attacks presupposes both a quantitative and qualitative comparison of the arguments put forward on 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 to determine the significance of the "balance of payments", either for the sake of guilt or punishment.The above-mentioned inadequacy of the premises of the Court of Appeal 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.(quote ending).
When I have never been defended against it I am convicted of being charged with something completely different from what I was convicted of. In court, one was not on this subject the hello that there was "the crowd" of a printer that would fend me.This is deeply tragic, and not a rightful verdict.
I wrote this to the newspaper the day:
March 19th. 2018 at 19.08 wrote Jan Kåre Christensen <jk.chris@online.no>:
Hi Tarjei Gilje, editor of the day!
 You wrote this article: http://www.dagen.no/dagensdebatt/lederartikkel/Lederartikkel/Heie-p%C3%A5-dem-man-liker-mistro-den-man-lik-liker-590390
 Hello to those you like, mistrust you do not like!
 As I have experienced a judgment against me, which is the right of justice today in Norway, and that is also a Christian persecution!That you will not, consequently, write about this, I do not understand.
 See here for more: http://justismord.janchristensen.net/
Or is it that you will be able to have theoretical knowledge of things? After all, I've experienced this literally and concretely.
 RegardsJan K Christensen
I got this answer:
Dear Jan Kåre Christensen
Generally speaking, it's rare we can go into individual cases. I do not see now that we are going to write more about your case than we have already done. But I will not rule out anything.
All good,Tarjei Giljeeditor of the daytarjei@dagen.no+47 906 34 120
I answered this:
Hi Tarjei!
Thanks for reply!
I mean my case has very much in public to do!Here to mention something!
1.) I have only written online, and the court says that I have written "legal".But because there has been a word shift that the court has not taken into account, the amount has become a lot. Then I'll be punished. In other words, you start a word shift and not only have a simple article, so one can be punished!
2.) We also see Sylvi Listhaug. That the "real" battle between people takes place online. Nowhere else today very often!
3.) By the way, it is a form of Christian persecution, I think. What I and Torp have written about each other are like "baby food" against what I read online with regard to killing threats, description of others who are completely beyond.
4.) Those who have really crossed the line here. Are Torp's employees who have written with psynonymous names and one also left in the UK and write. As among other things, You can find described in this article by FriTanke:http://fritanke.no/kommentar/satirebloggens-morke-side/19.10643

http://justismord.janchristensen.net/2018/02/nr-248-kort-redegjrelse-og.html
http://justismord.janchristensen.net/2018/02/nr-249-kort-redegjrelse-og.html
5.) Will also call this a justism in the sense that I am aiming for one thing. The court mainly dealt with law enforcement etc.When I was sentenced, I was convicted of a lot of writing as it is a word shift that underlies all of it. In other words, what I am convicted of has not been dealt with by and in court.
In my opinion, the matter with me is very much to write about, as there are so many "skeletons" in the closet and other things to grab.That's why I've created a blog where I've posted documentation about this too, see here:http://justismord.janchristensen.net/
Suppose that the case with me is also a teasing of freedom of speech, as the court thinks I'm writing in, but the amount makes it a criminal offense.In other words, you go into a store and buy 1 liter of milk. It's in front, but 10 l, it's punishable.This is also such an "unprofessional" judgment that it is possible to come along with.They can not sit and look like they do here. Hope you see this, as I mean the whole sentence against me is at such a low level that I would call it "home secret"!
Have a nice day still!
RegardsJan K