No. 1511: Although PBE will now meet us, we get no "compensation" or "redress, all we have to pay ourselves as the rules in Norway overprotect the public Norway!

No. 1511:
Although PBE will now meet us, we get no "compensation" or "redress, all we have to pay ourselves as the rules in Norway overprotect the public Norway!

Picture of District Court Judge Edvards Os who believes I lie when I claim that PBE at our then case officer gave us permission to build wall.
Next door, they have walls of 2.5 meters as Kaja Aubert Lange said. As I said, she was well known here and when she gave us permission to build our wall we were agreed that if we built our wall at 1.5 - 2 meters it was lower than the neighbor's. That I lie about this is nothing else a lie from court judge Edvards Os for his lies against us to "fit" into his totally erroneous judgment against us!

District Court Judge Edvards Os who lies in judgment against me

There are several who have made contact, and otherwise others who have asked about the economy up in the whole. What about it?

To that it is just to say that this "guild" we have to pay ourselves.
It is not that there is help, except in the Lord.
That's what is so wonderful about God and the faith we have.
It "provides" help and assistance, though it goes through mostly human channels etc.

When Jan Aage Torp lied to the police and managed to distort them to go to court against me and the Heavenly Blog with the pretext that we had called Torp for narcissist, leper and a whore. Then I covered everything except what we sent to Strasbourg in France to the Human Rights Court there.
The $ 50,000 we spent on that matter was, in a certain sense, well spent money because through this case it became known all over Norway what the word of God said about the Christian marriage. It is lifelong and Torp is now known all over Norway as a whore and adulterer, a bit of a status to get among the Norwegian people.

In this case against the whole public apparatus there has been a lot of work, we have paid everything ourselves and until now there has only been loss of loss!

Anyone who thinks this has a lot to do must believe again. For an unfair system the Norwegian judicial system is.
They distort everything that you want and get the judgment they want.
The fact is that in this trial against the Government Attorney, court judge Edvards Os lied several places in the verdict against me.
Here I write about this in another article:

http://blog.janchristensen.net/2019/02/nr-2393-fra-oslo-tingretts-dom-imot-meg.html

Edvards Os writes:

DOM from Oslo District Court December 11, 2018
 
The case concerns the validity of the refusal of an 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 anyway the municipality should have guided it in another 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. Moreover, it is not 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 a 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.

The conditions for exemption according to pbl. Section 19-2 is not fulfilled.

The court agrees with the county governor that the considerations behind the regulation provision are substantially disregarded by the measure. The deviation between the permitted total height according to the zoning plan (0.5 meters), and the relevant support wall (1.85 meters) is approx. 1.35 meters. This is proportionally significant deviation. The measure also involves an intervention that is in direct contradiction with the intention in the zoning plan for the conservation of existing terrain, and the measure itself is dominant. Nor can the court see that the alleged benefits of the support wall are complaining rt bigger than the disadvantages. In particular, it is shown that the circumstances invoked by the plaintiff, including that the property has a better outdoor area, that the measure ensures against run-off into the road, aesthetic considerations, and the costs become significant if the measure is not approved, after a proper understanding of the law has limited weight. In court's view, clear, relevant and weighty benefits have not been demonstrated by granting an exemption to the measure. On the other hand, the disadvantage is that the considerations of the zoning plan are to be disregarded if a dispensation is granted, heavily.

The Court's conclusion is therefore that the conditions for granting an exemption to the support wall pursuant to Section 19-2, second paragraph, of the Planning and Building Act are not fulfilled.

Nor can the court see that the referenced telephone guidance from the municipality's case officer can lead to the decision being considered invalid. The county governor's remarks on this statement are reproduced above, and the court accepts these. It is added that, in the view of the court, the action holder cannot be considered to have been in good faith with regard to the obligation to apply. Oral counseling by phone, with the sources of error and notoriety deficiencies this naturally entails, does not set aside regulatory provisions and does not give the plaintiff a legal claim for exemption, when - as here - it is necessary for the measure to be legal.

According to the County Governor's assessment, the advantage of dispensing for the fine was not clearly greater than the disadvantages. One of the two cumulative conditions pursuant to section 19-2, second paragraph, was thus not fulfilled.

The court agrees with this and can, in essence, give its consent to the County Governor's assessment. The court does not see that the legal and factual premisses of the decision or the sub-provision are wrong.
The Court notes that the requested fine will obviously provide more concrete benefits to the promoter, including more storage space and staircase access. Nor can the court see that the estate is a significant shyness for neighbors or others. Furthermore, it will incur a financial loss if the fine is to be removed. However, these are conditions of limited weight.

Contrary to the relevant disadvantages, which are exceeding the maximum permissible BYA, the principle that any changes should be made through changes to plans and not through exemptions, possible precedent effects and enforcement considerations, it is clear in court's view that the benefits are not clearly greater than the disadvantages .

Consequently, there is also no basis for the fine to give an exemption pursuant to section 19-2, second paragraph, of the Planning and Building Act. This means that the County Governor's refusal of the application for exemption for the measure is valid.

In summary, this means that none of the objections to the County Governor's decision have resulted. The state must therefore be acquitted.

The state has been fully upheld and has therefore, in principle, a claim for compensation for its legal costs pursuant to the main rule in the Dispute Act § 20-2 first and anticipated. The court has considered, but has not found reason to release the plaintiff for this liability in accordance with the provision in section 20-2 third paragraph of the Dispute Act. The case has not been questionable, and although the relationship between the parties is unequal, this case does not consider sufficient weighting reasons to release the plaintiff for the cost liability according to the main rule of the dispute law.

The state has submitted a cost statement with claims for NOK 40 600 in compensation. The requirement applies in its entirety to fees. The counterparty has not had any comments on the size of the claim, and the court considers the requirement to lie within the framework of the Dispute Act § 20-5. Compensation for legal costs is therefore awarded with NOK 40 600.

DOMS CONCLUSION

1. The State at the Ministry of Local Government and Modernization shall be acquitted.

2. Jan Kåre Christensen is sentenced to pay 40,600 - forty thousand six hundred - in compensation for legal costs to the State by the Ministry of Local Government and Modernization. The payment deadline is two to two weeks from the preaching of the judgment.
(end of quote).
Here is a triad of lies, falsehoods and distortions then the truth. That a serious judge can write so I do not understand at all.

In order not to go into everything here, I add 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.

Regards
Jan Kåre Christensen

1.) The City of Oslo writes this in its decision.

No violation 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 Plan- and the building agency's letter of 30 January 2017 to the City Department for Urban Development, which states 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 guidance on the telephone does not have a binding effect on the municipality, and the owner of the initiative must bear the risk of having entered any measures subject to compulsory registration without permission.
(end of quote).

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 Civil 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 actually 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 a wall. 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 until this level that the Oslo municipality has given us an 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, to grasp the one who can.

I asked what was needed to build a wall, to which I got the answer that if a wall had been 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 see a wall of 1.5 meters and 1 meter fence.
This was no problem, she said, as others from before have higher walls 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 obvious 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 critical!
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 phones talks they have never missed or referred back to Kaja Lange Aubert who gave us oral permission to build.

§ 171. Service errors

With imprisonment or imprisonment for up to 2 years, the person exercising or assisting in the exercise of public authority is punished and grossly violates his duty of service.

c.) "The administration's duty to provide guidance must be seen in light of the fact that supervision is mainly conducted orally over the telephone, and that information is provided on a general basis on the basis of the information provided by the promoter."

This also becomes false and wrong to write. We have not received general guidance, but specific guidance on several occasions. Therefore, to write such, then they neglect their duty of service again. The lies will if no end take for various bodies we have been in contact with. They lack impulse control completely. One day this is law, the next day it is illegal.

d.) «No breach of the duty of guidance under fvl. § 11 »

This claims the municipality of Oslo, but it is not just a breach of the supervisory duty. There are also violations of Norwegian law. This says Norwegian law.

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 various 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.Everyone 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, such as those entered.
(end of quote).

Final Comment:

Through what we have gone through both towards the public administration and in the legal system. So our confidence is minimal.
That we have to purse hundreds of thousands and meet a management and a legal system that distorts, manipulates and lies is unbelievable!
But there is something to bring with it, it is after all instructive to go through such things.
Then one thing looks in a completely different way, it is only the Lord, and the Lord alone that it is worth putting his bit to. Not some people, no matter what title or position they have.

Psalm 118 5 Out of the tribulation I called on the Lord; The Lord answered me and led me out into free space. 6 The Lord is with me; I fear not; what should a man do to me? 7 The Lord is with me, he who is helping me, and I will be pleased with those who hate me. 8 It is better to trust in the Lord than to trust in people. 9 It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in princes.