No. 1513: More and more people agree with me that District Court Judge Edvards Os was "seized! Revealed as a liar in the judgment against me when he described a phone call he has never heard!

No. 1513:
More and more people agree with me that District Court Judge Edvards Os was "seized! Revealed as a liar in the judgment against me when he described a phone call he has never heard!

When in a lawsuit, only one has described a phone call.
And one who not only opposes, but also invokes to know what has been said in this conversation.
Where he reproduces almost verbally what has been "said" while the person (me).
Saying what he writes and comes with is a lie.
And that the other person (Kaja Aubert Lange) does not contradict this, just saying she does not remember.
Then I believe that District Court Judge Edvards Os is acting in many ways as he is over both God and people, it is actually a rickety lie and fiction he comes with.

Blue. he writes this:
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.
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.
(Quote end.)

Think, here lies, ravages and manufactures the court judge lies on lies.
Enters things that have never been communicated.
There were absolutely no misunderstandings or ambiguities.
On the contrary, everything was clearly presented to us through several phone calls that TO BUILD UP OLD MUR WAS NOT APPLICABLE!

This I say is also confirmed by clear indians who say that what I say is true. While what Judge Judge Edvards Os maintains as "truth" is nothing but fiction and ambiguities that are lies.

Seems it is very serious and lying when Os writes this without any kind of coating and reference in a judgment: "It cannot be ruled out that the conversation arose misunderstandings or ambiguities."

This is so far from the truth it is possible to come. It has never, under any circumstances, been near any form of misunderstanding or ambiguity. This is taken from the loose air, it is fabricated lie.

District Court Judge Edvards Os also appears as a little professional in the verdict against me as it is almost a transcript of the County Governor's decision against us. Here he does not put any emphasis on what emerged in the trial. This is too bad.

This is stated, among other things. in the judgment against us:
There is no basis for establishing a breach of the supervisory duty pursuant to section 11 of the Public Administration Act, or case processing errors. Furthermore, in this case there is no room for any assessment of whether there is abuse of authority.
(quote end.)

This is also nonsense. When neighbors in the same area as us get dispensation 57 times more than us, then with regard to the utilization rate of the plot, and we have to demolish. Then there is government abuse.

Furthermore, Edvards Os writes that there is no breach of the supervisory duty when we built in good faith on the advice and recommendations of PBE here in Oslo. And that the authorities encouraged to build things of less than 15 square meters that should not be applied for. That we did this, and came a little over the degree of exploitation of the plot, and we are punished the hardest possible by returning the plot to the way it was before, is completely horrific.

Further, Edvards Os writes in the judgment:

In the case of the fine, the municipality considered the advantages and disadvantages of the measure against each other, and felt that there was no clear predominance of benefits in granting exemption.
(quote end.)

Oslo municipality by plan and the building agency believed this writes Os. But why doesn't he write the truth? They haven't come up with a single negative thing with what we've built, it doesn't exist.
Therefore, this is a trick and lie that the entire public agency is doing to us. They are constantly lying in the decisions against us. Whether it is from PBE here in Oslo, County Council or Civil Ombudsman. As well as from Norwegian law that is communicating these lies that they have not yet come up with any negative things with. There are only positive things and benefits with what we have built, so the decisions and judgment are against us, nothing more than the fact that they must justify everything.

Final Comment:

This is from what my lawyer saw in court, which is right and true:

There is a bus route through Stormyrveien. There has been no feedback from the bus company that the wall has hindered traffic. Nor has it prevented maintenance or snow skiing.

In reality, there are no drawbacks to the wall.
You really only face benefits. Then it can be granted exemption. The wall does not imply that any provisions have been substantially violated.
(quote end.)

The key point here is that it has been one or more phone calls between me and our then case officer, who allowed us to build our wall on top of the old wall. This agreement is fixed today, we mean as long as this is not tin hindrance, shyness or is something "different" than what others have built. So that it does not seem offensive, it is certainly not, then the neighbor's wall that is at the same height level as us. They have a wall of 2.5 meters, while spring is over half a meter lower, of 185 cm.

Here is an example of how our then case officer then 2 - 3 rabid neighbors started complaining about us with regard to rental, building of storage room, staircase and wall we were defended by our then case officer Kaja Aubert Lange.
See Screen shot here:

It is not a testimony to the conversations between me and Aubert, but one of many indications that then was PBE on our side and was "normal" in its conduct towards us. For the past five years, they have been rabid in our opinion, and lying and "the beasts", not worthy of a public agency!

My lawyer has had conversation with Kaja Aubert Lange where she claims today that she does not remember any of these conversations. I cannot contradict this even though I believe and am convinced that it is a blank lie. She even described how everything was up with us, and if we built a wall of 1.5 - 2 meters and with a fence of 1 meter our wall was not higher than the neighbor's. That she does not remember this is for me nothing but a solid "if" lie and a bluff.
Everything to get out of this situation!
Look for more here: http://blog.janchristensen.net/2019/02/nr-2408-hyt-utdannende-kaja-lange.html