Highly educated Kaja Lange Aubert who was our case manager no longer remembers more phone calls I had with her, but I remember them very well!
Taking the "white" lie when one comes in difficult situations that one "does not remember!" Is a well-known and well-used trick to getting out of trouble. If so, then you disclaim your own responsibility, and in this way you avoid having to settle. The bedridden is it, but well-used.
King Carl Gustaf says in the interview that he cannot remember that he has been on strip and porn clubs and criminal environments.
- No. No. I don't think so, says the Swedish king in the interview. Maybe I was in a place in Paris once many years ago when there were easy-to-wear ladies, says the Swedish king.
On direct questions from the news agency TT's reporter Tomas Bengtsson whether there can be compromising pictures of the King, he answers
- No, it can't. It is also difficult to comment on something one has not seen and which no one else has seen either.
Personally, I think this is just a lie that she doesn't remember. She then remembers that there were phone calls for rental, which is right.
But that there were also other things, at least two things. It was completed and she said it was not mandatory to build on the old wall.
Here is some of what the mailer I have sent between me and my lawyer only takes with what I have written. Want to keep others out of this matter as much as possible.
Hi again Knut! 19 / 2.2019
Have been up in Kviteseid in Telemark all day in funeral. But, of course, should answer as well as I can.
You ask the following:
You have told that you called the case officer Kaja Lange Aubert first and foremost to call for a certificate of completion, then to ask about the erection of a wall along the road. It was the first conversation about the wall you wanted to build.
Answer: So longer I remember, yes.
A few months later, you say, you called the same case officer Aubert first and foremost about the certificate of completion, then about the wall you wanted to build.
Q1: Regarding 1. telephone call attest / wall. Why did you call Aubert? Was it a little coincidence that she answered, or did you ask for her by name, or asked for responsible case officer without saying a name, did you state a case number?
Do you have time, date or week or month in which year?
Answer: She was our then case officer. Then you ask her and as she said she knew about the property and missing it. Not least, this was not a completed certificate at the house that first came in 2015?
Then she was no longer a case officer. But a lady named Østhus if I don't remember mistakes. Or was it Østerhus, something in that street. I remember very well, so it is innate.
Our second-last case officer has been Lena Catrine Amdal, Tel: 48068647
We have now got a new one, which is our 4 or 5 case officer, where Kaja was our first.
Here is our very latest and latest:
Case manager Nils-Henrik Henningstad, Tel: 90027615
Department for construction projects
Q2: Regarding 2. phone call attest / wall. Did she know Aubert again from the 1st phone? Did you have her direct fixed line number or did you have her mobile phone number?
Do you have time, date or week or month in which year?
Answer. I called the Oslo Municipality their number the first time. Other times I think I had her internal number. But this is something I think, and whatever. I knew who she was the 2nd time I called. But as I said, I have built masonry also on Karmøy, higher than this one. Then we didn't apply either. Will emphasize that it has not been sought to build masonry here at Hellerudtoppen in the whole of Oslo's history, after Ferdigattest AS writes.
That said, I guess I called the first time mid May 2013 and the second time in mid-August 2013.
Since then I mean that I have not talked to her, but I have inquired about her reply. But we never got that.
Q3: had you been in contact with her before, prior to 1. phone ang certificate / wall? If so, what then?
As far as I know, I have only been in contact with her in 2013. Perhaps in retrospect it may have been about a certificate of completion, but I cannot say 100%
You must understand that this matter has become as it has been due to that PBE has made nausea, as we all the time before this became a so-called illegality. The phone calls with her were "normal" to me. It is only afterwards that they have become "important". Since they have disputed that we have not received oral permission.
Q4: Was she involved in the Building Application approval of the four houses in No. 39 or some other in the years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012? Framework permit? Etc?
Answer: I expect it. But the developer took care of everything in relation to the Oslo municipality.
It was only when we moved in, November 2012 that we assumed responsibility for everything. Before that, it was the developer.
These are my own thoughts, that they took her off the case as they would not acknowledge that we had been given oral permission to build the wall.
We did not ask anything about the shed, as this was a "matter of course »That we could build a store of less than 15 sqm out of having to apply for it. As the rules were at that time.
See here for extra:
You write this to Borgarting Lagmannsrett:
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 conversations 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 initiative owner who addresses the municipality's planning and building agency with a very specific question about 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.
On this basis, it is wrong of the district court not to 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.
What does Norwegian law say? Listen:
King Kristian the law of the fifth.
By Decree 14 Apr 1688, the law came into force from Mikkelsdag (Sep. 29, 1688). Here, only the provisions that are believed to remain in force are included. If repeal of different provisions and if any provisions that are supposedly lapsed, please refer to older editions of Norway's Law.
Fifth Book. About Access, Gods and Gield.
In Cap. About Contracts and Obligations.
1 Art. Every one is obliged to comply if the hand with mouth, hand and seal promised and entered gardens.
2 Art. All contracts made by the volunteer by the volunteer, and come to the age of them, be they jealousy, hall, gift, alternation, pledge, loan, rent, obligation, forerunner, and other things by what name the name of the name of the man who is not against The Law, or Honor, should be kept in all its words and punctures, as the entry is.
1.) The City of Oslo has violated § 11 Supervisory duty.
2.) PBE in Oslo has violated section 171. Service error since they have guided us really well and rightly, as they subsequently call for illegality when they themselves have both made gross service errors, and supervised in all possible directions as and when.
3.) The City of Oslo has violated Kong Kristian's Fifth Law, which states that oral agreement is as binding as in writing.
Edvards Os writes in this judgment:
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.
When he writes that "this is not probable that the municipality has given consent to a wall of this size, placed in regulated roads.
Then this is the lie of the century, that's the crazy frenzy he writes.
Of course, I was told that it was not mandatory to build on top of an old wall. Finished work!
Imagine, in this case, I called down to our case officer at least 2 times to get guidance.
I was clearly told to build on old wall, was not required to apply.
The wall that stood there from before was enough so that in our case we should not build a wall that was higher than that of others.
We then built a wall that is actually lower in the terrain than the neighbor's over on the other side.
But a wall that doesn't stand out or seems inappropriate.
Stairs and a small storage room were also built, as it was allowed to build at that time a shed under 15 sqm without applying.
If one enters the PBE's pages, then finding out that such small deviations will be granted a dispensation for if they apply. Not least in our case where all other neighbors have signed. But what does PBE do to us? They run almost a campaign against us, which is obviously abuse of authority.
In our case here with the public prosecutor, we have gone through so many cases here in Oslo. Where everyone in our similar situation does not do anything about negative aspects. But we are hit and punished as hard as they can get.
Hi again Knut! 20 / 2-2019
That she took that bluff was not surprising to "save her own skin!"
After talking to her, she was taken off the case when I heard from others that she was like a "loose cannon!"
What should we do then?
It helps very little to reproach ourselves or anyone else.
You just have to write such a good answer you can only with the moments you think are best, right and right!
Good luck, we have to be positive, happy and count on it going well!
If it does not go well, then we will make the best of it as well.
Just do your very best, no more can demand.
Agree with you in complaining about others, one should do as little as possible.
But I know 100% that in this case it is only now a fight against us, not for what is best.
The best thing is, of course, that everything should stand as it stands, wall, staircase and storage room.
It's to WIN THE CASE!
HAPPY THAT YOU HAVE DISCONTINUED WITH HER, IF WE KNOW WHERE THEY HAVE!
Hi again Knut! 20 / 2-2019
Have met Kaja Lange Aubert who could state the following:
She didn't remember any of the two phone calls you claim to have had with her. She does not say that you have not talked to her, but she says she does not remember it, and that it has her completely natural explanation because she received very many phones daily during the period - if anything - she says she worked on the plan. and build the agency with eg. this area in the years 2013 -2015. In particular, there was a lot about illegal rentals that were asked.
Have now read your email to my wife and talked to her.
She thinks like me that Kaja Lange Aubert is a perfect witness in Borgarting Lagmannsrett.
I remember everything very well, although it is now several years back in time.
Also looks at the mailer and other things that I have kept on the same version all the time and have requested answers from PBE here in Oslo and not received it.
The fact that PBE has switched to several case officers does not tell anything about my credibility negatively when I am able to remember them as well, it tells again that my mind is very good as opposed to Kaja Lange Aubert.
It is written about illegalities, and this is where we mean that the public agency that does this when looking at others compare matters. So the "thumb rule" is that one gets an exemption in similar cases like us. Even those who have applied for an exemption in the same period as us just down the street have actually already mentioned before applying for a dispensation in Stormyrveien 9 c and not only received it once, but several times. In other words, there is only a strong unwillingness towards us, which means that we do not get a dispensation, not a reasonable reason.
As there are only benefits to giving us dispensation, not actually a back part.
Found this online:
The famous Clinton quote
- Take the example of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. He said; “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”. It must be said to be a subtle lie, under the guise of what the definition of what a sexual relationship is, says Magnussen.
There are many ways to lie, when one says that one does not remember.
Then it's my version that I remember very well.
Then one only remains with my version, for the simple reason that I remember.
That said, I think this is better for us saying she doesn't remember than making her own version or saying the conversation has never taken place, as Edvard Os says in the judgment against me.
Hear from you.
Hi again Knut! 20 / 2-2019
Thanks for the phone call.
This is what Attorney General Elisabeth Sawkins Eikeland writes.
«My comment during the main hearing on which cow the company Aubert had or was not intended to be an objection to the accusing party's explanation of party, and that the court, in the view of the state, could not base its explanation on what Aubert knew and not, or what Aubert had given guidance, especially in light of more timely evidence that expressed the opposite and that he had dropped this witness earlier in the day. "
As I read this and the whole paragraph I do not reproduce. It is that Aubert has said what I am saying, but that no one is bound by it.
Furthermore, they claim that our wall is a colossus I do not understand when the neighbor's wall / garage across the other side is higher and more dominant.
This merely shows that you were absolutely right that the inspection is required, but I have also wanted all the bodies to come to the inspection.
That I eg. Remember the case manager and everything else in this case just shows that I have very good memory. I can tell you that you experienced Aubert completely different from the other case officers.
Hear from you!
Must greet from the wife and say that you still have to stand, it is totally pointless that we have to demolish wall, staircase and storage room.
Hi again Knut! 21 / 2-2019
I have been trying to think of things that may be important that have not come to date. Mention only a few things in key words.
1.) The fact that building a store as small as we have done is something that the state really does win because it is not mandatory to build less than 50 sqm2.
When we built it was 15 sqm2. If one goes through similar cases here in Oslo, then it is "common" to give exemption such as in our case.
2.) We have built masonry at Karmøy, and storage room at Karmøy and a storage room before here in Oslo without applying. They stand today, showing that we built in good faith. It holds "water" our argumentation-
3.) That PBE calls what we have built for a colossus when several others only here in the Stormyrveien have higher, larger and more bulky walls than us. Witnesses that they will cause problems for and around us. We assume that they have been on hidden inspection and taken pictures and do not want to come on "regular" inspection testifying that they have actually neglected their job in total. It is both service error and abuse of authority towards real.
4.) We have built everything on our property, have not "betrayed" us any other property.
5.) This with a 0.5 meter height of wall is artificial, as the terrain here indicates something completely different. We live in a "mountain land" where it is better to build after the terrain, not later to come up with any paragraphs like never mentioned by Kaja Aubert Lange to us. She said that building on old walls was not subject to application. And mentioned that if we built on top of old wall 1.5 - 2 meters and fence of 1 meter then it went very well in our case. The neighbor (s) right above us have fence of 1 meter like us and, higher wall / garage.
6.) The positive thing about everything we have built, it has not come out strong enough, mentions something. Actually, everything is positive, nothing negative.
1.) After we built the stairs we avoid using ropes to climb in. It is awesome and positive.
2.) After we built the wall, there is no shit that runs down the road of mold, mud and clay as it was before. And that we have got a much nicer, flatter and user-friendly plot.
3.) After we build booths, we do not have to put so much under tarpaulin and leave things open. Very positive and it is built so that it is hardly seen by anyone before entering our property and it is pretty.
That said, this is just some of what is good about what we have built.
Don't think you should have too many hopes to get that much out of the Government Attorney. When they've talked together and agreed that Aubert should say she doesn't remember. She only remembers that she had many phone calls, this is a game to win the case.
The truth is, Aubert remembers very well if she wants to.
She is then not stupid, but highly educated and when I am a bus driver and low educated in relationships, and remember. Then we know that it is not right, they are not stupid than me, I certainly do not think so.
Have a nice day, we're talking!
Knut, this I don't think at all. Oslo 22 / 2.19
But at the same time, I can't disprove it.
Aubert then remembers that she had been asked questions about rental conditions, but not about walls.
I'm just a simple bus driver, these are high educated people.
They only remember a part that is not essential in the matter while I remember everything. It says that they are not honest in this matter in my opinion.
Then it falls for its own unreasonableness, I know I was allowed to build upon the old wall.
Regardless. I have begun to look at so-called illegalities, where we find that PBE makes a big difference here.
Must send someone to you during the day, some next week and one or two later of cases.
The truth is probably coming, finally! Sometimes the truth has little bones, but it comes for days, sooner or later!