tirsdag 18. september 2018

No. 1706: I'm glad that judgment against myself, even if it is the word of justice, makes me no real punishment!

No. 1706: 
I'm glad that judgment against myself, even if it is the word of justice, makes me no real punishment! 

If you are looking for Jan Aage Torp online, this picture comes up as I had to make myself. Why? Because Torp did not tolerate when I used other pictures of him. Such is hatred and when one belongs and earns the evil, hate never leads to anything good. It only leads to death, destruction and divide!

From Wikipedia:

A verdict is a court decision. In criminal cases, the verdict will determine whether or not the accused is guilty and what punishment he may be required to do. In civil cases, the verdict will confirm the legal situation between the parties. A distinction is made between two forms of judge: conviction judgment which does not do more than establish the legal relationship and enforcement judgment that can determine a duty for one party to the other.(quote ending).In his eagerness to make me judged, the whole whirl of kidding forgot what consequences the sentence would have. I am very pleased with that.We read: "Judgment of Completion which can establish a duty for one party to the other."In fact, I have not received anything, as I write and speak as before, freely and openly!The judgment against me is as follows:The Court's assessment so far is that section 390a of the Criminal Code 1902 has been violated.Penalties The Prosecutor has claimed that the penalty will be set at a fine of NOK 12,000. The court considers that this is an appropriate response, and the sentence accordingly fixes a fine of NOK 12,000, or, alternatively, imprisonment for 20 days.Ruling It is claimed that the accused is sentenced to pay reimburse to the insulted Jan Aage Torp established by the court's judgment. The Attorney General's Attorney General has demanded reimbursement of the order of 30,000 - 50,000 kroner in accordance with section 3-5 (1) (b), subsidiary section 3-6.It is apparent from Section 3-5 of the Damages Act, Section 3-5, first paragraph, letter b) that the person who deliberately has "added offense or misconduct" as mentioned in section 3-3 may be ordered to pay the offender such a lump sum that the court finds reasonable for compensation (redress) for the rage and pain. Section 3-3 of the Damages Act, Section 3 of the Penal Code, refers inter alia to the Penal Code 2005, section 266, which is a continuation of section 1902 of the Penal Code, section 390a. In case law it has been stated that "can" here is to be interpreted literally so that the question of what should be given redress must be undergone an overall assessment including the gravity of the violation must be taken into account.Reward compensation is judiciously based on what is "reasonable". The same applies to the Damages Act section 3-6. Central to this reasonableness assessment is the objective gravity of the offense, the degree of accusation, the insult's subjective experience of the offense, and the nature and extent of the harmful effects of the offender, cf. Rt 2010 p. 1576.The Court considers that, according to an overall assessment, it is not reasonable to award Torp reimbursement. The court shows that Torp itself has helped escalate and prolong the conflict in its statements about the accused, and that he has used roughly rough characteristics of the accused himself. The court also shows that on several occasions he has called him a Anders Behring Breivik sympathizer. Moreover, Torp was aware that he is a famous figure in the Christian environment, and that he has more followers who turn on his statements and, in part, make gross and offensive statements to the accused and his family. The court refers here to Section 5-1 of the Damages Act concerning the injured party's participation.Against this background, and after an overall overall assessment, the court considers that the claim for redress is not required pursuant to section 3-5 of the Damages Act or section 3-6.Costs The prosecutor also claims that the accused is ordered to pay costs. The defendant should as a rule be ordered to replace the costs of the public if he is convicted, cf. section 436 first paragraph of the Criminal Procedure Act. When determining the cost of the costs, account must be taken of the financial capacity of the accused and that costs are only imposed if it is possible to obtain cover, cf. section 437 third paragraph of the Criminal Procedure Act. The Court of First Instance considers that the costs in this case can be appropriately set at NOK 3,000.(quote ending).In fact, Torp did not get into any world's things that the court writes indirectly. Enter as before, you have only received a fine of 12,000, - kr.We are "pleased" to be sentenced to a fine. Even though I was convicted of not being treated in or out of court, talk about an justice word.

Final Comment:When Hate Pastor Jan Aage Torp hated me and the heavenly blog because we pointed out immorality and how little he was with the word of God in his own life. Then there was a huge rage in Torp that he went on fake charges to the police. They participated in Torp liar, after all, these are the children of the world and ruled by dark spirit forces.When the trial came, the police had done everything to get me judged, so d was
ommerne also really bought and paid. The rat was. Today, everything is paid and everything is as before, if not better!

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar