No. 1697: Both editor Alf Gjøsund in the newspaper Vår Land and editor Finn Jarle Sæle in the newspaper Norway today defend the verdict against me as they both really do not want to understand that the sentence against me is an abuse of Norwegian law!

No. 1697:Both editor Alf Gjøsund in the newspaper Vår Land and editor Finn Jarle Sæle in the newspaper Norway today defend the verdict against me as they both really do not want to understand that the sentence against me is an abuse of Norwegian law!
Picture of Alf Gjøsund who tries to be a judge, a prosecutor and a lawyer for Torp in the case between me and him, not bad.But Alf Gjøsund only shows here with Finn Jarle Sæle's Christianity.Only one who has supported me in the sense that he believes it is not a criminal offense to write to a writer, ala Jan Aage Torp, is editor of the newspaper Dagen Vebjørn Selbekk (photo), if he supports your partial lukewarm!

Once I have been judged, the greatest justice word in Norway is in several ways.
1.) What I'm convicted of, "crowd-writings" has never been dealt with by the court. It was not even in the trial.
2.) The law that is used to me talks about completely different relationships than what it is used to against me. Therefore, the case is against me both a father and a justice word.
This writes my very good lawyer Brynjar Meling.
Under section 18, the Supreme Court comes with its view.
As the Court of Appeal points out, the starting point for the assessment must be the requirement for clear legal authority in criminal cases, cf. the Constitution Act 96 and the ECHR Article 7. Reference is made to Rt-2011-469 Section 9, cited in the Appeals Court's ruling.
This is deepened in Rt-2012-313 section 29, which is called:
"It is nevertheless not decisive what the legislator might have meant when any legislator's intentions have not been clearly expressed in the law. I refer to the statutory requirement of the Constitution § 96 and in Article 7 of the ECHR, as understood in, inter alia, in Rt-2011-469. Of particular interest are sections 9 and 12 of the judgment, which emphasize that the punishment must comply with the law and that lack of support in the wording is not remedied by the fact that the relationship is clearly punishable and that the legislature undoubtedly wanted to hit it.
Subsidiary - restrictive interpretation of the provisions
In the alternative, if the Court of Appeal claims that the statements violate privacy, after a general interpretation of the statutory provisions in force. § 390a, and that the district court has not extended the interpretation of the statements in a manner contrary to Article 7 and Article 8 of the ECHR. § 96, it follows from strl. Section 1, second paragraph, that the consideration of Christianity's rights - and our obligations - according to the ECHR and SP on the preservation of the individual's freedom of religion and expression, imply that strl. § 390 a) in cases where religious and expression freedom is violated, must be interpreted restrictively.(quote ending).
The judgment against me is like Meling writes an abuse of law enforcement.
Here is what editor Alf Gjøsund writes in the newspaper Our Country.
Sensible judgment about online violations
We can not expect people who fear unwarranted online attention to emerge from the digital reality.
A COURSE case of great importance has reached its end station in the Norwegian judicial system. The Supreme Court has ruled the verdict of the Court of Appeal against Jan Kåre Christensen, who for several years has shed pastor Jan-Aage Torp on his blog. Borgarting Court of Appeal ila Christensen a fine of NOK 12,000, and this verdict is now enforceable.
CHRISTIAN'S RESPONSIBILITIES Brynjar Meling believes that there should never be an accusation under the Criminal Code, as no-one has forced Torp to read what is on the blog. Instead, Torp should have gone to court action if he felt violated by the statements, according to the lawyer. The Penal Code only affects "The one who, by frightening or disturbing behavior or other reckless conduct, pursues a person or otherwise violates another's peace (...)".
However, by virtue of his rejection of Christensen's appeal, the Supreme Court states that the relevant section of the Criminal Code may apply even if the statements are not addressed directly to the said. This is a reasonable approach and signals an updated understanding of a text that has roots back to a time when no one had heard about computers.
"USING blogs is common and there is a need to provide protection against ruthless behavior through the use of the Internet," the judgment states. "The Court of Appeal emphasizes that a blog is publicly available on the internet for everyone. Christensen's blog was intended to be spread within a particular religious environment. It must be assumed that Christensen was aware that his statements came to Torp's knowledge, as Christensen also wanted. "
"NEVER need to worry about what is online, regardless of how low it is," Meling lawyer said when the case went for the district court. Technically, he is right, but the reality is that what's written about you online will probably reach you sooner or later. We can not expect people who fear unreasonable publicity on blogs, Facebook or other online editorial sites to come out of the digital reality. Nor should it be that, for good reason, it finds itself bothered by the massive bribery
The mention in the unregulated part of the net must go to litigation instead of the prosecutor's charge. This is what editor Finn Jarle Sæle wrote in the Norwegian newspaper today. Closure of the Persecution of Persecution! The Supreme Court, in its appeal committee, rejected on June 21 The appeal from a blogger who went hard and persistent with personal prejudice. Thus, unanimous judgments in Oslo Tingrett and Borgarting Court of Appeal will be held for years long by the pastor Jan-Aage Torp and his wife, confirmed by the Supreme Court. It is wise to go up frontiers here before it is too late. The Supreme Court ruled that the blogger's overall blog production is not a matter of factual and religious criticism, but rather "harassing and harassing persecution of Torp." The magazine Kapital presented on the first page the convicted blogger's battle against Jan-Aage Torp, and Torp said: - The District Court judged the blogger unanimously 3-0. The Court of Appeal confirmed the verdict 3-0. It is not allowed to pursue prosecution and harassment! - An almost 3-year battle to stop the blogger's shaman has led to a ruling in all courts in Norway. Other people who are being harassed in the same way can now show a unique sentence that can be used to stop online roaming and NRK focal points. You can also demand that the search engines remove this schan from their search algorithms. We can all thank you for this. Final comment: Per Sandberg and his boyfriend Bahareh Letnes have been writing so much for several weeks that what I have written and talked about Torp, even though it has been a word shift. Is like a drop in the ocean. The contrary, just shows how absurd, wrong and misleading it is. The thing against me is ridiculous, primitive and erroneous. I have never threatened Torp ever, or sought him in somebody's way. Anyway, it's which is the basis for the verdict as if I have done this. It merely shows that the verdict against me is totally wrong, false and a fairyword! Think, Per Sandberg has it been written over the last few weeks and spread what VG, Aftenposten, Dagbladet and everyone else what they think of him. Read the comments, what I have written about Torp, who is also a public person, is like "peanuts" against what Sandberg is called. Is this law? Is that what I have written law? Even though it's like a drop in the ocean, what does it say about Sandberg? Yes, everything is law. But I'll be judged and taken, but not anyone else. Why? It is religious and Christian persecution against me and the heavenly blog!