When the municipality, county governor, court and civil ombudsman engage in military engineering, lie and fabricate their own history as in our case, the public agency is on a par with what it was in the old Soviet Union!
It is those who believe that we as believers should accept everything in blind obedience.
This I cannot see is straight out of the word of God, as the scripture clearly states that we should also point out what is wrong.
But at the same time, we should not, of course, engage in violence, harassment, harassment or other unfriendly methods or actions. Killing and calling for such misdeeds is also wrong, as God himself will in the future "arrange for the end" when the scripture states that "revenge belongs to God!"
Heb. 10. 30 We know him who has said, "I am avenged of revenge, I will repay, and again," The Lord will judge his people. 31 It is terrible to fall into the hands of the living God.
I think these people who are here are doing a rubbish game against us. They have to answer for this, then I think they are very bad when they lie, do abuse of authority and exaggerate everything against us in order to subdue and to tear the nice we have built. This is obviously a misdemeanor as here the public authorities carry over us as a family.
Picture of a demonstration against abortion that shows that it is entirely appropriate to say also to the authority when they are wrong. As they promote the evil deed, rather than the good. It is quite obvious, among other things. from Salem 139 and many other places in the word of God that taking abortion is killing and killing a human being, just taking the time to read for yourself, it is right!
There are several who believe that we must only accept this judgment and do as the public agency says and wants. When the word of God says, among other things. that we should subordinate ourselves to the governments.
Room. 13. 1. Every soul is obedient to the guardian authorities! for there is no authority except of God, but those who are, they are ordained of God, 2 so that whoever opposes the government opposes God's order; But those who oppose will get their judgment. 3 For the rulers are not afraid of the good work, but of the evil one. But will you not have to fear the government? Do what is good, and praise it; 4 For it is the servant of God, good for you. But do what evil is, then fear! for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is the servant of God, a vengeance of punishment upon him that doeth evil. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to be obedient to it, not just for the sake of punishment, but also for the conscience. 6 Therefore you also pay taxes; for they are God's servants, who just take care of this.
But here in our case, the governments do what is evil and we what is good, then a case turns on lying to someone who is engaged in a reindeer game. Something that is being driven here against us. It is really a "change of role", then and it is right to resist the evil deed, not accept it.
We have been promised that it is not mandatory to build a wall as we did by building on an old wall. Then this was promised at least twice, and the entire government agency denies this. Makes her own lie story that I have misunderstood etc. Then it is the public agency son doing the evil deed, we do the good with relate to the realities of this matter. The truth and the lie cannot be mixed together, as the government agencies here do. This is fully legitimate to say in favor of and not accept in blind obedience.
My lawyer Knut M Howli writes in his statement to Borgarting Lagmannsrett the following:
Support Wall - Advance guidance
Christensen applied for advance guidance in the Oslo municipality on two occasions before the support wall was erected. Christensen has argued that in both inquiries he described the wall and that he was accepted for the entry of the wall without having to seek prior permission.
In the two telephone calls in 2013 that Christensen had with case officer Kaja Lange Aubert, who knew the area years back through the development period at Krokstien 2, he asked whether it was okay to record a new and higher wall on the former old wall along the Stormyrveien in order to get a bigger and much better outdoor area southwest of their home on Krokstien 2 c.
On both occasions, Christensen thinks that by the municipal case officer he got clear answer that the wall was not subject to application as he described it. He himself perceived it as a binding acceptance and agreement. It appears to be clearly unreasonable whether it is Christensen who in a case like this should have the risk of a possible misunderstanding.
It is stated that there are service faults in relation to guidance / counseling. If there had been any basis for any form of doubt on the part of the officer regarding what the request was, she should have requested to receive a sketch and / or written presentation of the construction measure to ensure that her guidance / advice was correct.
Thus, the municipality's duty to proper guidance and / or counseling has failed and in any case not been properly clarified vs. an action owner like his committed to the municipality's planning and building agency with a very specific question about the prior permission in a concrete building case.
The case officer was dropped off as a witness to the district court. But it turned out later during the main hearing that the prosecutor for the state had no knowledge that the relevant case officer who Christensen approached, had also been case officer in connection with the planning and development of Krokstien 2 a b c and d.
The person was thus locally known in the area, knew about the terrain heights and the formations, as she had followed the development of Krokstien from A to Å as far as Christensen has knowledge. The person in question will therefore, as a witness, supply the necessary information so that it becomes much better and more properly informed.
In the guidance Christensen received, no mention was made of the consideration of the housing development, only that Christensen's wall would be like the other walls in the immediate area. Aubert Lange guided out from other people's house in Stormyrveien.
Against this background, it is wrong of the district court to not assume that the owner of the measure has been in good faith with regard to the obligation to apply. Only thing that has taken place by negligence is the case handler handling Christensen's inquiries. It is wrong of the district court not to see this as a significant breach of the duty of supervision after the FvL. § 11.
(quote end).
When Judge Edvards Os writes this in his judgment in Oslo Tingrett on 11 December 2018 the following:
Before the wall was erected, the plaintiff was in contact with the case officer Lange in the municipality. They had two phone calls. He asked on the entry of the wall on the old wall. It cannot be ruled out that in the conversation there were misunderstandings or ambiguities.
The initiative owner has perceived the municipality's guidance so that the support wall was not subject to application. Such guidance is given on the basis of the information provided by the promoter, and oral counseling by telephone does not have binding effect on the municipality. In this case, there is a large discrepancy between what is allowed by the regulations and what is listed. We cannot see that it is probable that the municipality has given consent to a wall of this size, placed in a regulated road surface. The owner of the measure must bear the risk of having entered into measures subject to compulsory registration without permission.
(quote end.)
Here, judge Edvards Os really says straight out that I have both misunderstood even the simplest thing, and otherwise I have taken care of myself.
This is to turn everything on the head and convey the lies and factories into here which is not true.
First of all, this with so-called house-building is also something that is silent, it has never been a matter of talking about this from the PBE. This is something that has come afterwards. I myself have written about this in my letter to the Oslo District Court that I have not at all misunderstood anything. But that I have understood everything that has been said to me when it was clear to clear. It is not obligatory to apply for an old wall if it should be on a 1.5 - 2 meter fence on top. This also fits in with what other buildings are in here from before. That PBE, the County Governor, the Civil Ombudsman and now the judge in the Oslo District Court want to convey lies and falsehoods. Can't I see is the fault of me as a believer to get along with and not accept!
When all instances also behave badly, fraudulently and lie otherwise when they are to get out of situations. Also with regard to booths and stairs which are supposed to be some sqm2 above the utilization rate of a plot of more than 1500 sqm2. If we read through PBE other similar cases here in Oslo, then dispensations have been given largely on the whole. If there is no dispensation, it is for the person in question not taking the trouble to apply. We have had even professional applicants inside, but get rejected. Can't see that it is unchristian or infinite then to oppose such decisions based on almost direct malice and malice. Hot rules and paragraphs must be followed, although it is quite obvious that this leads and leads wrongly!
Final Comment:
I began this article with the following: "There are several who believe that we just have to accept this judgment and do as the public agency says and wants. When the word of God says, among other things. that we should subordinate ourselves to the governments. "
The Bible says the opposite in some cases that we should not accept what is wrong, lies and the deed of darkness as this is.
I realize that in the end, one must bow to the authority in the sense that even when they choose the wrong one, we cannot, as individuals, win over them.
Take this with abortion that is killing small people in the mother's stomach. That so many have said about this, but the Norwegian State still kills people in the mother's stomach. Then we believers cannot set up a revolver or gun to shoot these abortion doctors who kill small innocent people. But that we say, that's right. But then we must leave the rest to God, that they too must answer for their barbaric misdeeds - sooner or later!
That's how it is here. I / we go the legal way, meet those who want that we should tear, destroy and eradicate the beautiful, aesthetic and functional we have built.
Although in Oslo District Court, the judge wrote out in our opinion a "lie judgment" so we just have to pray to God. Hope and believe in justice that the appeal will pass through Borgarting Lagmannsrett and we will win by keeping wall, staircase and storage room as it stands today! It is unreasonable, wrong and unfair that we should tear.
While others are allowed to stand, and what is done is far beyond that dispensation that bears to others in general. Apart from us, there is unreasonable difference treatment as well. Here, a completely proven obvious difference.
Ask for the dear friends that we get through that we will keep everything that is built. And that the authorities' vandalism of our property is not being carried out!
Everything is left untouched, as it is not something wrong, unethical or ugly with what we have built. In fact, just pluses and not obstacles or shyness to anyone!
The fact is that we are only left with benefits, not a single part of what we have built. The fact that this is to be torn is obviously not of the good, but of evil. We know what that evil's task is, it's stealing, murdering and destroying!
Joh. 10. 10 The thief comes only to steal and murder and destroy; I have come to have life and abundance.
It is obvious here what is what, so just pray and proclaim dear friends in the name of Jesus that God's will is happening and the good victory eventually, amen!
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar