søndag 20. mai 2018

No. 1667: Attorney Øystein Hermansen appears as a simple liar when he bases things that the court has contested!

No. 1667:Attorney Øystein Hermansen appears as a simple liar when he bases things that the court has contested!
Picture of lieutenant Øystein Hermansen who builds the verdict against me on lie in from Oslo Tingrett where narreapostel Jan Aage Torp came with some numbers that were both undocumented and lying numbers that I said clearly in Borgarting Law Court were completely beyond!

This writes Hermansen in the judgment against me and the heavenly blog:The appeal proceedings were held on April 5, 2017 in Borgarting Law Court's house. Jan Kåre Christensen gave no explanation, but took advantage of his right to give a final note. (quote ending).

I did, I both explained that the Torp has received is something he has to endure as a public person. And that the numbers underlying the judgment against me and the heavenly blog are neither documented, debated in court and they are completely beyond!
Furthermore, Hermansen writes:The case's actual background that the District Court had found proved was based on the appeal case. (quote ending).
This is lie, lie and again lies. I strongly disputed this in Borgarting Lagmannsrett and said clearly and clearly it is possible to say that the figures that Torp and Oslo Tingrett are based on are beyond and shall not be used as the basis for the verdict. When Hermansen completely proves to overlook so clear facts in the case he is a liar and fraudulent!
Listen here what I said:

This writes my lawyer Brynjar Meling tin Norway's 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).
Hear yourself from Borgarting Court of Appeal where I say that Narreapostel Jan Aage Torp's numbers are completely beyond and they are not documented either.
When judge in this case Øystein Hermansen writes in this case that I did not comment on anything and the figures are not contested. Then just listen to YouTube and Hermansen is "trapped" in lies and again more lies!


Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar