The Norwegian judicial system appears to me as being directly corrupt in the sense that the judge and the judgment can lie and associate with the truth, but if a sentence man do, he is a criminal!
Picture Adolph Tidemand: "The Haugians", where we might see the best and most credible picture of Hans Nielsen Hauge? The picture shows a preacher holding a meeting - a Christian meeting - where he is later arrested, sentenced and must sit 11 years in prison for meetings without having asked the pastor.
It was Haug's great "sin" and that made him criminal. So it has always been that one is lied to, punished, and persecuted for the most incredible thing only for one having to do with the living God!
Have now been in three court cases, where I really have experienced things that I didn't think were true.
I have thought that in a court case, things would be something solemn, with respect for the court and that the Judge or Judges were interested in shedding a most correct judgment.
Although all three lawsuits I have been through have been really a form of persecution and malice on the part of the government against me and my family. So I / we up in the middle of the whole thought that a trial would after all bring justice. The truth would come forth, and then one would be able to put this behind it and move on.
Legal case 1.
The first trial I / we were in as "accused" we won completely victory, not least because of that we had a very good lawyer, Gullbrand Kjos.
The reason for this trial was as follows.
A late winter day in 2004, I was called to work by my wife.
She was completely out of bed, our kids were taken by the child welfare service while we were at work.
Of course, there were only fake rumors that the child welfare service spared, these dark servants.
If there had been any team in this, then only everything was solved with a simple conversation.
It was all that had been needed.
But here they made an emergency decision, put it into practice to try to break the Christensen family. They didn't succeed at all, I knew who was behind. It was not of good or of God. Of course, Satan was behind those ladies who opposed us. There were probably five pieces with a priest's wife at the head, Marta Elisabeth Åtland Førsvoll. She was rotten through!
Eventually, they tried to negotiate with lying, truing and everything possible. The child welfare service is like this if you admit something. as you never have to do, they use it against you. If you admit nothing, then they freely fantasize about both the one and the other. If you say to them, they say, "I hear what you say!" and do exactly as they want and have decided. The child welfare service in Norway is over-eager for liquidation as it works today!
To avoid trial, but we knew this was behind Satan.
When we had been the world's best and most loving parents!
Fortunately, we had a very good lawyer, the now deceased Gullbrann Kjos from Haugesund.
As well as that the judge and the referee were a man who soon realized that this was madness!
They said if they got a minor, then we should have the two biggest. And other lies and Satan's formulations. The trial then came in early summer 2004 and we won on all points. It has not been in the history of Norway a court case where the child welfare service then until the degrees have been revealed and not won on any points ?!
Case # 2.
Now I'm not going to write so much about this farce trial against me. Have your own blog created for it, see here:
I was charged with one thing and actually convicted of something that was not dealt with in court. What was dealt with in court and which was my lawyer's main focus. It was law enforcement. It turns out now 1 year after the case has ended that Brynjar Meling was right. The fact is that judgment is of no importance, since I can write and speak just as before.
Had it been real, then the other laws had also been adapted to the judgment, which it is not. This was pointed out from day one of other Lawyers as well.
Now having reviewed three courts in Norway, there is a sad feeling about how bad it is possible to be treated in the Norwegian legal system!
And tried to advance to the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg, France, where we were rejected.
When one thinks of Hans Nielsen Hauge then it is what I and my family have gone through as blueberries.
But anyway, what we have gone through and going through is an abuse and not a rule of law worthy of it!
I actually thought about what Hans Nielsen Hauge went through 200 years ago. Hans Nielsen's Hauge name shines today as the most honest and good person Norway has ever fostered. But anyway, he was so badly treated, what I experience is just the same. It is the story that repeats itself, and those who went against Hauge have, for the time being, remained as men who opposed both God and Hauge. As I am convinced, the covenant will also see this matter between me and Meling on the one hand. And the ramp that has welcomed me and the Heavenly Blog will forever remain as some losers and outsiders kudde.
Now, of course, there is no blueprint that can be put on me and Hans Nielsen Hauge. I've really had 53 brilliant years. While Hans Nielsen Hauge died only 53 years, after 10 - 11 years in prison where he had been so badly treated that he never really got completely healthy after the prison stay. But it was as before, such as today, that one tries to stop God's men and women by a law that is most deeply to stop one from preaching and communicating the word of God and the revelations and thoughts that God has given one. Here the story is similar, it was by eg. konventik-kelplakaten. At this time, it was forbidden by law for others than priests to hold edifying meetings. Hans Nielsen Hauge therefore came into the authorities' spotlight. He defied the law and was imprisoned. Revival Christianity was seen as a threat not only to the church but also to the secular power apparatus. Awakening was a form of popular movement that the state had no control over, and therefore there were a number of restrictions on free life for the general; Restricted printing freedom, prohibition of ecclesiastical religious gatherings, and restrictions on people's travels and journeys. Hauge was imprisoned for the first time in 1797. Due to all the prison stays and the poor treatment they gave him, he was ill at a young age. He did not speak to anyone in the prison, he was inactive, and he did not get into fresh air either. This made him have both gout and scurvy, and he lost his teeth and hair. In 1811, Hauge was set free by his influential friends.
What about me?
Here I am condemned for something that among other things. Brynjar Meling and many others believe is incorrect law enforcement. What is so special about my case, is that I am charged with calling Jan Aage Torp for lepers and adulterers. During the discussions in both the Oslo District Court and the Borgarting Court of Appeal, the discussions have almost exclusively been applied by law. Listen from YouTube where Meling explains:
But what happens? I am convicted of having written "too much" about the same thing that the court has not considered or discussed. Only a few loose undocumented figures from Jan Aage Torp and which are not mentioned in the charge. In other words, one can say that the judge in Oslo District Court who was Malin Strømberg Amble. In the Borgarting Court of Appeal, the judge was Øystein Hermansen. Besides, it was team judge Bjørn Edvard Engstrøm and team judge Leiv Robberstad was third man. These are really judges in from "hell" when they are doing a fab-safe and ugly judgment against me and the heavenly blog.
All these judges, especially in the Borgarting Court of Appeal, gave clear expression to Brynjar Meling during the court proceedings that they followed his reasoning.
But what do they do?
What is not in the charge and which has not been the subject of discussion in court.
That it is written a lot, not a little. They are the basis for judging me.
When Brynjar Meling argued for wrong law enforcement.
Used all his time and his entire procedure on this. And the judges expressed their agreement with this. Then, if they had been fairly fair and fair.
So, they had expressed their opinion that they did not fully agree with him, and went on what has obviously been important in this matter. That is why we have used so much space. But they do not, who only prove that in my eyes is the police, the court and Torp are three criminals who stick with each other to take "two righteous"!
My family, who has held this out for now over 5 years, also deserves all admiration and support. They are phenomenal and glorious that have stood with me 120% throughout this process, even though it has been ugly and bad against me and my family!
I want to praise my lawyer Brynjar Meling for having an agenda, a principle he maintains. It is that wrong law enforcement has been used against me, and he does not shy away from that.
Several others have stated this, which means that he is not alone in thinking this. Which again makes the fight that we fight think I have good opportunities to win if both Jan Aage Torp, the Oslo police and the courts have partly been unfinished and kept us ridiculous and made a play out of this case.
The same has been said by lawyer Jon Wessel Aas at several occasions. Here is some of what Wessel Aas has black journalists:
Media law attorney Jon Wessel-Aas reacts to the fact that violation of the criminal code para.
- I cannot comment on the details of the case, but I think in principle that it is especially that this paragraph is used, because this is talk of speeches in a blog. So, Christensen does not seek out Torp by phone, text message or in any other way directly, but writes what he believes about him as a pastor in the blog. It is outside the core area of the relevant provision, says Wessel-Aas, who emphasizes that he only knows the matter through circulation in Vårt Land and by reading the actual decision of the case.
Wessel-Aas refers to at the aforementioned provision in the Criminal Code from the old has been called "the telephony law".
- It is clear that bullying and harassment in social media over time can make people not have the energy to be more. But I still think it is important that the court does not extend the penalty clause to too much. It is a point to be as concrete as possible when limiting freedom of expression through legislation, says Wessel-Aas.
Statements such as "living in adultery" make it more obvious to use the lien, more the lawyer. Libel is decriminalized in the new Penal Code and can thus only form the basis for civil lawsuits. According to him, it seems more relevant in this case.
"I believe there is danger in the journey if the section in the Penal Code is expanded by adding something that is no longer criminal," says Wessel-Aas.
Public person. - What consequences can any judgment have?
- If there is a criminal conviction in line with the charge, I believe much else can be judged in the same way. It will make the boundaries of freedom of speech unclear, which in turn can lead to people avoiding utterance, Wessel-Aas replies and points out that there are any provisions to protect against untrue accusations, violations of privacy, threats and solicitation for violence.
Wessel-Aas points out that Torp is a well-known figure in Christian-Norway and far in the same position as many politicians.
- The room must be larger when it comes to public opinion.
Christensen disagrees with how Torp practices the relationship between life and learning, ie his interpretation of biblical texts, emphasizes Wessel-Aas.
- Also, the ceiling height must be large.
Yes to the Supreme Court.
Media and freedom of expression expert, lawyer Jon Wessel-Aas believes that Christensen's statement is not punishable.
"The special thing in this case is that you use punishment after a penalty clause that in any case historically and in its core will hit the more direct peace violations," he says.
Wessel Aas thinks it is more natural to consider whether the blog posts are defamatory?
He points out that the Storting has an intention that defamation should be a matter between the parties and therefore must be pursued through civil lawsuits with claims for compensation.
Such cases are no longer a matter for the police and prosecutors.
In principle, the Court of Appeal's view also implies that the press's ordinary publications can be prosecuted according to the provision on peace violations.
He likes to see the Supreme Court take hold of the case.
- This principle question of law interpretation should ideally get its clarification in the Supreme Court, Wessel Aas believes.
Now it turns out afterwards that this was right, that the use of law against me was only to get me convicted and try to scare me and like-minded people to silence. Since the Norwegian State has no real power online when I actually write on an American blog that is governed by the law in the US, not Norway.
Legal case 3
It is this matter I am now in. Now this is the third time I have been drawn to court for really nothing. The main point during these negotiations was to make sure that was "waterproof" when I also wrote in advance about this, and talked well and long about it in court. But what does the judge do? This was the dishonest judge Edvards Os. Well, he says in a lie story that I haven't understood what I've been told. It reminds me of what Jesus and his disciples suffered from lies. When Jesus had stood up, the guards who "slept" were paid to pay to say that his disciples had stolen his body. The lies of the guards of the tomb of Jesus and the court judge Edvard's Os are of the same age.
Matt. 28. But at the end of the Sabbath, when it brightened toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake; for the angel of the Lord went down from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it. 3 And he was like a lightning to look upon, and his garment was white as snow; 4 And for fear of him they trembled, and kept watch, and they died. 5 But the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not; I know that you are seeking Jesus, the crucified; 6 He is not here; he is the resurrection as he said; come see the place where he was! 7 And go in haste, and say unto his disciples, that he is the resurrection of the dead. And, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there you will see him. Behold, I have told you. 8 And they hastily departed from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 And, behold, Jesus met them, saying, Peace be unto you. But they went forward and embraced his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then said Jesus unto them, Fear not; Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they must see me. 11 But while they were on the road, behold, some of the guard came into the city and told the chief priests all that had happened. 12 Then they came with the elders and counseled, and they gave much money to the soldiers, 13 and said, You shall say, His disciples came in the night and stole.
him away while we slept. 14 And if the governor should come to the ears, then we shall speak well with him, and make it safe for you. 15 Then they took the money, and did as they were taught; and this reputation came out among the Jews, and has remained to this day.
Jesus had stood up, but that this should not come out. Then there was a counter-action on this. Then with lies that the disciples had stolen his body. This was witnessed by something that slept. In our case there are similar liars as there are people who have not heard my conversation with our case officer, saying that it has never occurred. And if it has taken place, then they know what has been said, but not me.
Here I write about the case:
Edvards Os writes:
DOM from Oslo District Court 11 December 2018
The case concerns the validity of refusal of exemption pursuant to section 19-2, second paragraph, of the Planning and Building Act.
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 plaintiff perceived that he was confirmed that the measure was not required to apply when there was already a wall there, and in any case the municipality should have been guided in a different way by asking questions, and explaining what is assumed and what must be checked. The relevant case manager knew the property well through his dealings with the original building case for the four detached houses and the completed certificate for this measure. The municipality's guidance has been deficient and the plaintiff has therefore been in good faith when he set up the support wall.
In support of the claim, the Defendant essentially states:
Complaints indicate that the wall does not cause any significant inconvenience. We do not agree with this, since it must be regarded as a significant disadvantage that the considerations behind the plan are substantially disregarded. Nor is it an independent argument for dispensation that the disadvantages are small, see the Ombudsman's statement in SOM-2011-1023. There must be clear and relevant benefits from the measure in order for it to be possible to grant exemption. The absence of disadvantages is not enough.
Significance of the guidance from the municipality. 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.
Here is a triad of lies, falsehoods and truths. That a serious judge can write so I do not understand at all.
In order not to go into everything here, I add to my writing to Oslo District Court that Edvards Os's head does not believe in.
Final submission / documentation to the Oslo District Court, concerning the case against the PBE in Oslo, the State Ministry of Local Government and Modernization Oslo 21 / 11-2018
In legal terms, it is the County Governor's confirmation of the PBE decision we are complaining about and will have turned to us to keep the shed, staircase and wall as it stands today. That PBE decisions about vandalizing our property are not being maintained. But turned to everything to be left without change.
Jan Kåre Christensen
1.) The City of Oslo writes this in its decision.
No breach of the duty of supervision after fvl. § 11
The state disputes that there has been a breach of the duty to provide guidance after fvl. § 11.
The plaintiff claims to have received oral approval to erect the support wall from the municipality several times. The state refers to the Planning and Building Administration's letter of 30 January 2017 to the City Department for Urban Development, where it is stated that the case officer referred to has not stated that a wall of this size placed in a regulated road surface is exempt from the obligation to apply. However, it may have been said that repairs / reversals of the original wall along the road would not be subject to application. The existing wall referred to was a low brick wall and cannot be compared to the listed wall.
The administration's duty to supervise must be seen in light of the fact that supervision is mainly conducted orally over the telephone, and that information is given on a general basis on the basis of the information provided by the promoter. Oral counseling by telephone does not have a binding effect on the municipality, and the owner of the initiative must bear the risk of having entered into measures subject to compulsory registration without permission.
Note that this process of the supervisory duty that the City of Oslo believes has been done correctly is confirmed by the County Governor and the Civilian Ombudsman.
A.) "The plaintiff claims to have received oral approval to erect the support wall from the municipality several times."
Yes, I have received guidance several times, here is what faIt happened.
We moved in here in 2012. In 2013 we called down to our then case officer Kaja Lange Aubert. It was called down 2-3 times, to make sure we did the right thing.
It is not easy to reproduce this five years later, and when there were several phone calls it feels like one when it is five years later.
And, that the city of Oslo has not been interested in hearing our version at all, they had decided 3 - 4 years ago that we should get everything down.
What happened to the phone calls we had with our then supervisor Kaja Lange Aubert?
Do you remember remembering that we called down mid-May and August 2013? It is five years back in time, it is a long time ago and difficult to remember in detail every word as it was said, but in my memory she replied like this.
Then I asked about the following, we set up stairs and wanted to set up walls. Trapp I think we set up 2013, when before this we had had a rope that we threw ourselves down on in the Stormyrveien, and believe it or not, it is to this level the Oslo municipality has given us the order to return to that we should use a rope to throw us down on the road with. You do not believe it, but we had it before we built a staircase that the city of Oslo has ordered us to demolish, it can grasp it.
I asked what was needed to build a wall, to which I got the answer that if a wall was built there before, it was not mandatory to build one on top of it. This replied Kaja Lange Aubert.
I said yes, and then Kaja Lange answered Aubert that then it was NOT APPLICABLE WHEN IT WAS BUILT A WALL FROM BEFORE!
THIS GOES GOOD GOOD!
I further said that we foresee a wall of 1.5 meters and 1 meter fence.
This was not a problem she said, as others from before have a higher wall than you.
In 2013, I even called an extra time, for the sake of safety and asked the same, and the same answers were given.
BUILDING UP OLD WALL WAS NOT APPLICABLE.
As long as there was a wall there before, we didn't have to search even though the wall was different. In other words, we got permission in advance of our construction of masonry, the Oslo municipality breaks Norwegian law by contesting this.
However, PBE says something else now, namely:
b.) "However, it may have been said that repair / return of the original wall along the road would not be subject to application. The existing wall to which was shown was a low brick wall and cannot be compared to the listed wall. "
The Oslo municipality has not missed this conversation.
Only I and Kaja Lange have Aubert, no one else.
When the City of Oslo sets out to explain what has been said in a telephone conversation that they have not overheard. Then they make two big mistakes here.
First, they lie, and afterwards they fantasize about something they think has been said. This in itself means that neither the City of Oslo, the County Governor nor the Civil Ombudsman have any credibility when they can allow themselves to commit such roars. This is also against Norwegian law and regular decency to make things into a document.
Had the fictitious and lying presentation that PBE gives here been true, then of course we had never set up wall.
Of course, it is a question of lies that PBE is doing.
Unfortunately, both the County Governor and the Civil Ombudsman have let this pass, it just says that their credibility in this case is equal to zero.
What has really been done here by the City of Oslo, the County Governor and the Civil Ombudsman? When it can be determined with certainty that all government agencies do not speak true and are not willing to accept that we have received oral approval, it means that their overall credibility is absolutely decisive!
Yes, they do not respond to our inquiries regarding this, and when they do, they have either fabricated either a "truth" or speak false and dictate what could and may have been said in several phone calls they have never missed or referred back. to Kaja Lange Aubert who gave us oral permission to build.
Imagine, I'm probably "Norway's" kindest and least dangerous man, but until the court man is pulled. This is something that comes with serving the Lord and living with God.
It is as it says in David it says in one of their hymns.
Psalm 2. Why do the Gentiles lament and bask the people for what is vanity? 2 The kings of the earth shall rise, and the princes shall consult together with the LORD, and with his anointed; 4 He who thinks in heaven laughs, the Lord mocks them.
So they drag me to the courts with false accusations and fictitious notifications etc. There is nothing but the Bible's words that come true.
Matt. 10. 16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; Therefore, be wise as snakes and simple as doves! 17 But watch out for men! for they shall deliver you to the courts and to you scoffing in their synagogues; 18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony to them, and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they surrender you, be not worried about how or howto speak; for it shall be given to you at the same time as ye shall speak. 20 For it is not ye that speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. 21 And brother shall surrender brother to death, and a father his child, and children shall rise up against parents, and cause their death; 22 And ye shall be hated of all for my name's sake; but he who endures to the end, he shall be saved.
Notice what it says: "But watch out for the people! for they shall deliver you up to the courts, and ye shall scourge in their synagogues.
The same thing we meet here at Markus. "9 But beware! They shall surrender you to the courts, testifying to them. "
Mark 13. 9 But beware! They shall deliver you to the courts, and you shall be stroked in synagogues, and set before governors and kings for my sake, for their testimony. 10 And first, the gospel must be preached to all nations. 11 And when they bring you forth, and deliver you up, be not anxious before what ye shall speak. but what is given to you in that same hour, you shall speak; for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.
Even Jacob, the Lord's brother says the same. "Is it not the rich who subdue you, and who bring you before the courts?"
James 2. 6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who subdue you, and who bring you before the courts? 7 Are not those who mock the good name you are mentioned with?