fredag 19. juli 2019

No. 1447: Even a 4-year-old had not gone on "Pastor" and narreapostel Jan Aage Torp's lies that he has been molested by my writings, as he is Norway's worst "slugger" in the public space and does not succumb at all to anything!

No. 1447:
Even a 4-year-old had not gone on "Pastor" and narreapostel Jan Aage Torp's lies that he has been molested by my writings, as he is Norway's worst "slugger" in the public space and does not succumb at all to anything!

Picture of Jan Aage Torp in together with Aina Lanton, his former nanny.
May hope that the Oslo police realize the great roaring that they have been fooled by Torp. Now we have reviewed him and his with companions with Reference number 14850575 on the review.




Efes. 4. 25 Therefore, lay the lie and speak truth, everyone with his neighbor, because we are each other's limbs! 26 If ye be angry, sin not; let not the sun go down upon your wrath;

Jan Aage Torp believes that he has been harassed by me.
Torp thinks I write in a dark side of the internet.
There are many things to comment on when it comes up again with more reviews, and the time was "slightly" set back.

But there is no one nearby who has ravaged and beaten so in public space like Jan Aage Torp. He writes this in an article here:

https://janaagetorp1.wordpress.com/2019/07/13/min-mediastrategi/

“In the 1990s, I became a member of mainstream media in Norway, especially national debates and news programs on TV. It was often "Pastor Torp against the smoke".

Jan Aage Torp was and is probably Norway's "largest" slugger in the public space.

Of course, such a man is not harassed about being called for such things without further ado. It was my preaching against remarriage that was the real cause of his fictitious and lying behavior towards Manglerud police officers who were willingly fooled.

When Torp said jump, they jumped. When Torp said, they sat down like some obedient dogs.
This is the police in Norway, here it came to a manipulator and psychopath Jan Aage Torp and they were willingly seduced. Unfortunately, this shows the low level of the Oslo police, where a narreale and adulterer led them right where he wanted them. Talk about being deceived and deceived.
There, Jan Aage Torp hated me for pointing out that he had deceived a Serber for 1.4 million who got right into the account. And that he lived in adultery for God's word to marry again.

Then there was a lawsuit and he popped up numbers and most, and here was an equally willing to jump, sit and give labs like the Oslo police. The whole judiciary was as bewitched and enthralled by Jan Aage Torp's lies, manipulation and distortion of the truth.
Here was the narcissist in action, but an obedient police and the Norwegian judicial system. Convinced that this could never have happened in any country other than Norway, even a 4 year old had not gone on "Pastor" and narreapostel Jan Aage Torp's lies that he has been molested by my writings, as he is Norway's worst "slugger" in the public space and does not mind at all!

Final Comment:

Then came Torodd Fuglesteg with a new review that made the case between me and Jan Aage Torp flare up again.
Of course, I opposed the bird trail, it is the trio Torp, Fuglesteg and the man with the psynonym name Ansgar Braut who are the real crooks here.
I am called for terrorist and Anders Behring Breivik's twin soul and thousands of other things by this trio. It tells us all that I am, not those who have been harassed. In other words. The Oslo police and the courts have been tricked around by Jan Aage Torp.

lørdag 13. juli 2019

No. 1446: What is it that narreapostel Jan Aage Torp has done about criminal matters? And as he should, and hopefully, be charged, convicted and punished?

No. 1446:
What is it that narreapostel Jan Aage Torp has done about criminal matters? And as he should, and hopefully, be charged, convicted and punished?


Picture of Aina Lanton and Jan Aage Torp, who in God's word live in an invalid marriage when Jan Aage Torp has been married before.




Got this question on the Heavenly Blog:

You can't really believe the police should aim and judge Torp for defending himself from attacks from YOU? You are not well preserved.

I answered:

You are writing:

You can't really believe the police should aim and judge Torp for defending himself from attacks from YOU? You are not well preserved.

Do you see so little? You need to be "in need of nuts"?
Jan Aage Torp hated me because I preached against his remarriage.
What did he do then?
He did not report me for what he hated me for, but for having written that he was leper and lived in adultery etc.
This is, first of all, a fictitious review and a breach of freedom of speech and expression!
This goes to glorious victory in the name of Jesus!
(quote end.)

This I want to bring forth is nothing but facts in the case.

What happened? What happened was that I had 2 blogs, an English and a Norwegian. The Norwegian is the heavenly blog, and the English Heavenly blog.

Pastor Jan Aage Torp was mentioned on both of these blogs as a person who had chosen to break with the word of God and Jesus' command to marry after a break. As well, he continued with his ministry and was thus a role model misleading with his life.
There was also another thing that came through what was written on these 2 blogs. It was that Torp had seduced a newcomer and a person whom Torp mentions as ill to sell his apartment and donated all the money straight into Jan Aage Torp's account. This was a considerable sum of nearly 1.5 million.

Jan Aage Tor then found running a game and having removed what had been written about him. He invited me out to the cafe and then tried to roll around his finger without success.

What does Jan Aage Torp do then? He goes straight to the police, leaves and deceives them into thinking that I had written hate speech against Torp. And what they came up with were just some ridiculous statements completely, completely beyond.
That I had called Jan Aage Torp for whore, leper and narcissistic.
First of all, this is true, and secondly, this is miles past the freedom of faith and expression to write about another person and human being. Not least here a public person who profiles himself to the limit!

Then there will be a meeting of the Conflict Council if possible to threaten and push me to get rid of everything about him. Something I obviously will not accept. Then the police had promised me that we would be summoned to meet, talk to each other and the case should be put to death. Monica Lillebakken said this directly to me, but she lied as the police have done in this case many times, just as narreapostel Jan Aage Torp did in the district court.
The trial in Oslo District Court becomes a big farce. They have nothing on me at all, and what is "worst" is without doubt what Torp has called me for about Anders Behring Breivik that I am his twin soul, successor and follower.

This also points to my lawyer Brynjar Meling, that being compared to Anders Behring Breivik is far worse than being called a narcissist, leper and adulterer.

The court "finds" anyway to judge me for circumstances that never stood in the charge or that were in the discussion during the trial. The judgment then sounds to have "written too much". This is the legal word of the times, to be convicted of something that one is neither charged nor has been discussed during the trial in Oslo District Court. This also points to my lawyer Brynjar Meling under the petition for Borgarting Lagmannsrett.

Look here:

The actual side of the case

The facts are largely not disputed, however, so Christensen points out that he has not repeated the terms to such an extent as stated by the offender. It appears in his explanation for the district court that it is the counterpart of the victim to Torp, and people who speak Torp's case that things have been repeated and generated.
It is not disputed that Christensen comes with the statements made in the indictment. Nor is it disputed that this has been going on over time. The details of the period and scope are irrelevant to the legal. The District Court has uncritically added Torp's explanation on this point and placed decisive emphasis on this in his guilt assessment. The correct thing about Christensen is that he has mentioned the relevant conditions considerably fewer times, and essentially this has come as a response to articles that hit Christensen.

Generally about the statements
It is pointed out that the terms used are normative and based on Christensen's perception of rendered. It is emphasized that the terms live in words, "whore" and "whore" are expressions used in Bible translations, as it was reviewed for the district court with specific bible references.
It is pointed out that the term "leper" is also a biblical expression pressures that are meant to be unclean and thus to be hit by society.

The reason for the conflict

It is also pointed out that an element that Christensen "went to" attack "on Torp is a relationship Torp acknowledged in court, where a young person, whom Christensen perceives as" an easy prey "should have given Torp everything he owned and had in the form of selling his house, and by this render a money gift consisting of nearly 1.5 million. These were funds that Torp accepted and used in his Christian, evangelical activities.

Christensen is aware that he does not find Torp's way of life in line with his interpretation of the Bible. He then believes that Torp lives by a form of double standard, where life and doctrine do not match.

Lack of the District Court's judgment

It may be mentioned in connection with the preceding paragraph that a deficiency in the district court's judgment is that the court has not sufficiently emphasized that Torp is a public person, and thus must have a higher tolerance for what he should accept of attacks on his activity .

Furthermore, the court has not given enough emphasis to Torp acknowledging in court that he has called Christensen for "Anders Behring Breivik sympathizer" on a few occasions, and has called him demon, light guide, rumor spreader, etc.. Based on the principle of provocation of retort, this in itself is a circumstance that should be dismissed. The victims' contributions to the debate have not in any way contributed to curbing the level of conflict in the debate, so that in any case there are statements that help raise what Torp must endure by attacks.

Application of the law appeal.

However, it is stated as the central issue - and the principal at the appeal - relates to the application of the Penal Code of 1902 § 390 a. It is stated that applying this to blog posts, regardless of how extensive a blog activity is - in reality means that the provision is made subject for an expanding interpretation.

It is certain that, in the area of ​​freedom of expression, one has to interpret a penal clause restrictively, if the provision conflicts with the convention obligations. In this case, size is coming. § 390 a in conflict with freedom of expression. In addition to being protected by the constitution, more specifically in Grl. Section 100, it is conventionally established in ECHR Art. 10 and SP Art 18 and 19.

In its decision, the District Court takes the right starting point by stating that the provision affects it as "by frightening or troublesome behavior or other ruthless behavior that violates another's peace".

The District Court is using the preparatory works incorrectly. Proposition 41 (1954-55) pp. 20-55 is in itself a legal argument that argues for acquittal with a conviction. Reference is made to the statements mentioned earlier, in conjunction with the fact that the preparatory works say "the decision must be made concrete and circumstances such as time, place and the individual's circumstances will have an impact on the assessment". Furthermore, it appears in the preparatory work that "under the term" troublesome behavior ", for example, harassed telephone calls.

It is a key element in both the preparatory and relevant case law, that it points to activities that are directed directly at a person; that is, calling, sending messages, or seeking out people or its neighborhood. This has not been done by Jan Kåre Christensen.

As it appears from Rt. 2014 p. 669 sections 17-18 are the "integrity of the mind" protected by the provision and "only serious offenses being hit". The court discusses on page 5-6 defense's claims that blog posts are not affected because it is not directed directly against Torp. The court nevertheless arrives at p. 6 that the posts have been published on the internet and that this does not preclude the application of section 390 a. strl. § 390 a) and thus already on this point violates the principle of clarity in ECHR art 7 and the principle of legality in grl. § 96.

It becomes more difficult when the District Court finds support for its view in intelligence practice. Neither the Oslo District Court ruling in 2013-111-859, RG 208-1499, nor THEDM 2004-3964 can be taken to income for the use of money. § 390a on blog posts. It is in both these decisions that talk about actions that are more directly directed towards people.

When the court also emphasizes that the blog posts are open to anyone and indexed so that they get hit on Torps man on search engines like Google, it shows just that one is out of private. It is not that one can interpret that the person who then "hit" can consider having received the message when it has come to his knowledge - since the accused's activity has such scope and intensity as in Torp and Christensen's case.

Here, the court does not merely carry out a broader interpretation of the penal clause but they also "stretch" the fact, which may be an equally strict violation of the principle of legality. The court uses RG 2008 p. 1499 as the basis for its position, without discussing or in any way stating why this is relevant Max. From this it is pointed out that in RG 2008 p. 1499 the convicted person had hung up one hundred posters in the perpetrated community, where the victim was named and given information that he was convicted. The fact in that case is thus - contrary to our case - that the convicted person has approached the offended local community and hung him out in public posts. This is something other than posting this openly in a blog.

Here it can be mentioned that the court has ignored the fact that Torp's own activities have contributed to spreading the information. It can be pointed out that the first person who referred to the Oslo District Court's judgment against Christensen was Torp in his blog. It shows that there is no privacy Torp is committed to protecting by notifying Christensen, but he does this as part of their "fight". It is stated here that the judiciary must be cautious about being used. It is therefore, in isolation, correct when the police have dropped Christensen's reviews against Torp, but it is therefore wrong to maintain the other way.

The court also brings in issues related to Torp's spouse. As pointed out by the defendant in the district court, Torp's spouse's privacy might have had a greater protection requirement than Torp himself. Torp's spouse is not a public person, it's Torp. However, this is outside the presentation.

Relationship to the freedom of expression in Grl. § 100 and ECHR Art. 10, SP Art 18 and 19 are also not properly assessed by Oslo District Court. The District Court refers to LB - 2015 - 24004 where it is stated that "it is indeed clear that utterances that, in isolation, are not punishable, can be affected by the Penal Code 390 a. The premise is that they occur in a number and at times that make it especially troublesome to the recipient ".

This once again shows that the starting point is wrong. When the Borgarting Court of Appeal in that case points out the number and times of making it "particularly troublesome", it once again shows that the basic premise is that the inquiries must be directed directly towards a person. Reference to Rt. 2010 p. 845 in the relevant law court case shows that this is a direct contact. In Rt. 2010 p. 845 we are faced with a case where the head of the Immigration Appeals Board repeatedly sent SMSes with offensive and threatening content.

More about the legal

It follows from size. § 1, 2nd paragraph, that criminal law applies with the limitations that ensue from agreement with foreign state or otherwise by international law. Christensen therefore has protection of both EMC Art 10 and SP Art 18 and 19.

His statements are also protected by Section 100 of the Constitution. 1976 p.1. The provisions of the Constitution that regulate the individual's personal freedom must have a significant impact.

It is stated that the District Court's interpretation of the statements implies that the verdict results in violation of the principle of legality, the principle of clarity and that the judgment result violates Jan Kåre Christensen's freedom of religion and speech.

In several decisions, the Human Rights Court has emphasized that freedom of expression is one of the absolutely fundamental elements of the foundation of a democratic society. It is emphasized that this freedom includes not only the right to make statements which are positively received or considered harmless, possibly insignificant, but also statements that appear offensive, shocking or disturbing.
In Oslo's district court's decision, the strict requirements for justification for limitation of freedom of expression have not been met. Although it is only a fine, it is not proportionate between the procedure and its purpose.
According to EMD practice, exemptions from the freedom of expression must be subject to a restrictive interpretation, cf. A key element of the necessity assessment is whether there is an urgent social need for the intervention - "pressing social need". Reference is made to the so-called "Spycatcher" judgments, Serie A No 216, paragraph 60 of the judgment, and 217, paragraph 50 of the judgment.
In Christensen's case, this must be considered against the fact that all the condemned statements are his view of theological questions, or provocations made against either him or his faith.
When the Supreme Court's majority in the Judgment Rt. 1997 s 1821, finds that the statements are not protected by the freedom of expression, this is eg. based on the following:
"I cannot see that the right to form a political party can deduce that groupings that do so, and place their positions in the form of a party program, should be free to agitate for any view, no matter what intervention it may have on others people."
For Christensen - who tuffs his right to make the statements, protected by both religious freedom and freedom of speech, this becomes different. He advocates a vision that - if it is rare now - has been standing for centuries and does not indicate that "he casts his stand on the form of a religion."
It is also stated that the statements have come as part of a public debate. A debate like the one in which the statements hit has also participated, and reciprocated. Such a debate is protected by the freedom of expression pursuant to section 100 of the Constitution which weighs very heavily. Allowing the expressions of a party and depriving the person affected by the utterances, the right to object will in itself conflict with the freedom of expression
If section 390a is to be used in this case, this can only be done by an expanding interpretation, by the law - something that is excluded, cf. the principle of legality in the Constitution § 96.
It is clear from case law that the interpretation must not only be based on how the general audience will perceive the statements, cf. the plenary ruling in Rt-1997-1821 (Kjuus). But man
"Must also see the statements in light of the context in which they have come".

Here it is shown that the statements are normative, emerged in a blog word shift between people who share faith, and with references to the viewer's perception of a common belief.

About interpretation of the statements says Eggen Lov and Rett 1998 s 263:

"For the public, the application of justice is as unpredictable whether one" relieves "the conditions of punishment or whether one interprets the statements freely so that they are in line with these terms. One of the main reasons behind the principle of legality in Norwegian law, and at least the legal requirement for the ECHR, is to ensure predictability in the legal application.

He continues later on the same page:

"When the principle of legality puts pressure on how far in contextual interpretation of the Criminal Code it is acceptable to go, it would be inconsistent if the courts were to be completely free in contextual interpretation of speeches"

The considerations of both the principle of legality and freedom of expression indicate that there are clear limitations on how far one can go in interpreting a meaning content and circumstances in the statements that are not directly stated or acknowledged.

For reasons of legal certainty, in particular the consideration of predictability, is emphasized in Rt. 2002 p. 1618. the consideration for freedom of expression implies
"That no one should be able to risk criminal liability by saying statements are given a meaningful content that is not explicitly stated nor can it be deduced from the context with reasonable certainty"
It is also shown here to Eggen, Law and Law 1998 p.

"A free interpretation, besides less predictable legal application, also means greater opportunity for censorship by the court's side of utterances they dislike, perhaps for reasons other than those behind the criminal offense"

Interpreted as religious utterances and interpretations of the Bible's view of remarriage, utterances cannot be judged. When the district court disregards the interpretation alternative, the statement is "pushed" outside the core area in section 100 of the Constitution on freedom of expression.

Rt 2002 p. 1618 The Bootboys judgment is thus relevant. ”Bootboys” was a neo-Nazi fighting organization, which one Saturday morning at the square in Askim presented an appeal with support to Hitler on the occasion of Rudolf Hess's 100th day.

"Every day, immigrants rob people, rape and kill Norwegians, every day our people and land are looted and destroyed by the Jews, who suck our land empty for riches and replace it with immorality and unseen thoughts." The appeal ended with "Sieg Heil- and Hitler greetings. "

Bootboys' leader Terje Sjølie was acquitted. The statements were found to be derived from a political program rather than being concrete threats. Several of the attendees were dressed in Finnish hats, and the demonstration was of a militaristic battle fascist nature. The statements fell in front of immigrants who did their errands in Askim. Christensen's statements come in response to actions that he believes are contrary to God's word. The statements fall into Blog where most of the statements are answers to indictments by persons whom Christensen perceives as the mouthpiece of Torp. Sjøli's statements fell unprovoked against innocent people.

clarity requirement

Whether one extends the wording of the law, or the meaning of the statement, one violates the clarity requirement and the principle of legality. The Supreme Court has issued a ruling on 02.08.2012, where the clarity principle is discussed:

The clarity requirement has been expressed in several decisions by the Supreme Court, including in the ruling in Rt-2011-469, where the question was whether the provision in section 219 of the Penal Code also applied in relation to former cohabitants, even though the law text only concerned former spouses. Section 9 states:

'Such an extension of the criminal liability, compared to what follows from the wording of § 219, must have legal basis.

I refer to Section 96 of the Constitution and to article 7 of the ECHR, cf. Rt-2009-780 section 21. Criminal law, or other real reasons that may speak to equate former cohabitants with former spouses, is not sufficient. '

Then comes something that is central to the Christensen case, which is not sufficiently emphasized by the district court

The Court of Appeal will, for its part, note that the requirement for clear statutory authority for criminal liability will not least be of importance in cases where the criminal code imposes a restriction on the freedom of expression

Under Section 18, the Supreme Court comes with its view.

As the Court of Appeal points out, the point of departure in the assessment must be the requirement for clear authority that applies in criminal cases, cf. ECHR Article 7. Reference is made to Rt-2011-469 section 9, which is cited in the Court of Appeal's ruling.

This is elaborated on in Rt-2012-313 section 29, where it is called:

"No matter what the legislator intended, it is not decisive when a legislature's intention has not been clearly stated in the law. I refer to the statutory requirement in section 96 of the Constitution and in article 7 of the ECHR, as this is understood, inter alia, in Rt-2011-469. Of particular interest are paragraphs 9 and 12 of the judgment, which emphasize that the offense must follow the law and that the lack of support in wording is not remedied by the fact that the relationship is clearly punishable and that the legislature undoubtedly wanted to hit it. "

In the alternative - restrictive interpretation of the provisions

In the alternative, it is stated that if the Court of Appeal were to find that the statements violate privacy, following a general interpretation of the statutory provisions in size. § 390 a, and that the district court has not extended the interpretation of the statements in a manner that comes into conflict with ECHR art 7 and Grl. Section 96, then it follows from size. § 1, subsection 2, that the consideration of Christensen's rights - and our obligations - according to the ECHR and SP regarding the safeguarding of the individual's freedom of religion and expression, means that size. § 390 a) in cases where religious and free speech is violated, must be interpreted restrictively.
(quote end.)

Final Comment:

https://janaagetorp1.wordpress.com/2019/07/13/min-mediastrategi/

Jan Aage Torp writes:

Great effect

My media strategy has great effect.

The sum of social media, various web pages, TV Vision Norway, international media coverage, and more, means that we reach out with the message to the Norwegian people as well as to the people, Christian tops and decision-makers throughout Europe and in "The Global Village"
(quote end.)

Here we see that Torp prides itself on having fooled the media in Norway, the police and the courts. He prides himself on his own excellence!
Torp writes that his "strategy has great effect."

He rounded off the police at Manglerud, he circulated the Oslo District Court and most of it otherwise.

What did Torp hate me for? That I pointed out that he was disqualified as a preacher of living adultery with being married as a believer while still living his first and right wife.

Everything else that Torp has brought to "square" to get me convicted is fabricated when the case between us two is solely about this topic, divorce and remarriage, nothing else!

mandag 8. juli 2019

No. 1445: My answer to the review, which is fortunately left by Jan Aage Torp's poodle and the loath to Torodd Bird Bird!

No. 1445:
My answer to the review, which is fortunately left by Jan Aage Torp's poodle and the loath to Torodd Bird Bird!


Picture of Ansgar Braut (Arnt Arnesen from Stavanger), who has operated next to Torodd Fuglesteg against me and my family at the roughest.
Where I do not want to reproduce everything they have written, not least on Searchlight and the fake Smyrna blog. https://smyrnamenighet.wordpress.com/




This they write in Searchlight, which I answer here in this article.
Where I write Searchlight first and my answer afterwards.

Searchlight:


On Thursday, a letter appeared from the Oslo Politics Chamber to blogger Jan Kåre Christensen. The Evangelist and Bible Teacher are, as is known, condemned to have harassed and incarcerated pastor Jan-Aage Torp because he is divorced and married again, was mildly surprised by the writing that told him he had been notified and the case closed. In connection with the much-discussed case about Torp and Christensen, a relatively tough verbal exchange between Christensen and readers who responded to Christensen's opinions was exchanged. One of those who was involved in the discussion with Christensen was Torodd Fuglesteg, who in retrospect has been stamped on Christensen's blogs "as Norway's worst nettroll." Christensen has even well so far that he has repeatedly claimed that Bird's Nest wants him dead and buried. Birdcutters in April were tired of finding their name and picture featured on Christensen's blogs with these statements published in public, and then went to the step of police notifying blogger Jan Kåre Christensen for cybercrime. A notification that has been dropped by the police due to lack of capacity. However, Fuglesteg refuses to accept the cancellation and now considers complaining to the public prosecutor and demanding that the Oslo police be ordered to investigate the harassment against him.

Answer:
I have never claimed this in such a way as described here by Kjell Andersen. But that Torodd Fuglesteg uttered goals with the feud between me and the evil trinity (Ansgar Braut, Torodd Fuglesteg and Jan Aage Torp have been that I shall either be hanged or hang myself, which TF has written repeatedly).
Torodd wrote this:
"The purpose of these records is to give JKC enough rope to dangle in. Thus, the mission is complete."

Look here:
http://justismord.janchristensen.net/2017/12/nr-107-torodd-fuglesteg-sender-mailer.html

I am not convicted, but have been given a copy that the court has confirmed. And it wasn't for the harassment, but a form of persecution when I had written "too much" about Torp. This claim and the judgment I disputed in Borgarting Court of Appeal. Fortunately, I picked it up so that judge Øystein Hermansen was revealed as a liar because when he wrote the verdict he claimed that no one disputed the number that was the basis of the judgment against me from Oslo District Court.

Searchlight:

I have been told that my police report by Jan Kåre Christensen on April 29 has been dropped due to lack of capacity at the police.
The review was made after Jan Kåre Christensen has for a long time harassed me on his blog with claims that I want him to be killed and that is Norway's largest and worst online control.

Both of these claims by Jan Kåre Christensen are pure lies. Something he knows very well though. Despite knowing this, he continues in his blog to perform these lies. I myself have a clean record and I actively contribute to spreading joy as well as I can through the Internet and elsewhere. Something that is facts based on the websites I run and the websites I contribute. It is the fact that I do not engage in trolling and cyberbullying.
Jan Kåre Christensen is one of Norway's very few, a handful, sentenced online troll who have the habit of harassing everyone who comes his way (unless they are convicted of sexual abuse or associated with such pitiful behavior). It is his neighbors and the Christian leaders who have tried to be objective, friendly with him. It is fact that Jan Kåre Christensen has not contributed anything to the Internet and to his neighborhood. His only contribution is harassment and terror.

Answer:

One thing no one can say about me is that I'm doing terror. Never visited a single person, much less driven by terror.

Searchlight:

Blogger Jan Kåre Christensen received a message from the police on Thursday that a reported case against him was dropped due to lack of capacity. This decision can be made by the public prosecutor.

Answer:

So nice, the big hooder here is above all Torodd Birdies himself.
Enter here and search for Torodd Birdcage, you find quite a lot:
http://justismord.janchristensen.net/

Searchlight:

Despite the verdict against him as the review from Jan-Aage Torp entailed, this proven internet troll Jan Kåre Christensen has continued as before with an activity that is criminal. As a law-abiding citizen, I do not want to put on the lies that he has spread about me, and that I want the legal community to again mark Jan Kåre Christensen that his activities are not acceptable. The police have left valgae to see the other way and let this convicted nettroll Jan Kåre Christensen continue as before. That's okay. But then, as law-abiding citizens, one has to ask themselves what kind of protection one has against an uninhibited criminal web control such as Jan Kåre Christensen, who totally lacks any moral and ethical standards. I conclude that law-abiding citizens do not have protection against terror and harassment from such criminal individuals.

Answer:

The description that Torodd Fuglesteg here gives to himself and to me is to change us. I am the law-abiding and run a serious blog and website. Whilst bird-pecking is engaged in harassment and satire that is evil on the fake Smyrna blog.

Searchlight:

More than that, it is not to say about this matter on my part, even though the proven criminal web control Jan Kåre Christensen will probably continue to spread his lies. His life is nothing but harassment and terrorism. Something I take note of. Sad, but this is the life of this web controller. So we who, in poor capacity, live in joy over life, continue to spread joy and knowledge to our fellow human beings and our society.

Answer:

When repeatedly saying I am engaged in terrorism, then one quickly realizes that such people cannot be taken seriously.
Then everything but also writing must be taken with a "pinch" of salt. Such a thing as being online and everything else. I am anything but web control, when I write with open profile and anyone who can contact me.
But Torodd himself, is exactly the net control he himself describes me as.
Searchlight:

Facts speak for themselves, writes Fuglesteg in an utterance after it became clear that Oslo police station has dropped his review. However, the State Attorney risks getting the deposited case on the table, if Fuglesteg and his lawyer choose to appeal the decision. Christensen, on his own, writes on his own blog that "Torodd Bird Bird only follows his" teaching father "who, according to Christensen, is Jan-Aage Torp who is also awarded the title" The Origin of Evil. "- A title which according to Scripture is reserved for the devil himself.

Answer:

That I compare Torp with the Devil is not badly observed. When I consider that Jan Aage Torp is the origin of all this misery that has spread between me and Jan Aage Torp and his poodles and lackies over the past 5 years. Bird climbing is just like a "demon" to count!
Well, those people who ravage, hold on and actually do net terror and have managed to stir up both the police and the courts against me and the heavenly blog. That there are dark forces behind, it is safe and certain.

From my blog I take the latest that I am accused of having reviewed the website Searchlight and Kjell Andersen. As far as I can remember and know per. today without saying with 100% certainty I have only mentioned Searchlight and Kjell Andersen.
I believe that Randi Ingwersen reported Searchlight and Kjell Andersen when he allowed eg. Ansgar Braut (Arnt Arnesen from Stavanger), Torodd Fuglesteg and Jan Aage Torp write freely what they believed and thought that was nothing but bullying and harassment!

Final Comment:

This writes Kjell Andersen referred to Torodd Fuglesteg's statements:
"A review that has been dropped by police due to lack of capacity. However, Fuglesteg refuses to accept the cancellation and now considers complaining to the public prosecutor and demanding that the Oslo police be ordered to investigate the harassment against him. "

This is the very last thing I fear, since tomorrow I will come up with a counter-notification against Torodd Fuglesteg.
Want to see what they say in Greenland police station when they have holiday resort at Manglerud police station which is the police closest and best in terms of where we live.
Pray for us, me and my family who have been subjected to this untimely and evil pressure from those people who are only engaged in a purity game where they really want to kill my preaching of the word of God. Not least my preaching of the marriage that Jan Aage Torp hates me for having pointed out in the word of God, he has no right to enter into a new marriage as long as his first and then right wife lives!

Related links:
http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2019/07/no-1442-another-new-police-review-closed.html
http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2019/07/no-1444-article-from-spotlight-that.html
http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2019/07/no-1443-it-was-torodd-fuglesteg-who.html
http://justismord.janchristensen.net/

lørdag 6. juli 2019

No. 1444: Article from Spotlight that sheds new light on the rude and nasty person this "right hand" of Jan Aage Torp is!

No. 1444:
Article from Spotlight that sheds new light on the rude and nasty person this "right hand" of Jan Aage Torp is!


We are probably talking about Norway's largest and worst online control. Will answer in the next article that I will probably post on Monday when I work this weekend.

Picture of Torodd Fuglesteg.






Article from Sokelys.


https://www.sokelys.com/?p=25509#more-25509

Blogger Christensen reviewed again - police dismiss the case with the victim will appeal to the public prosecutor!

On Thursday, a letter from the Oslo Politics Chamber appeared to blogger Jan Kåre Christensen, who was previously convicted of harassing and hating pastor Jan Aage Torp for several years because this is divorced and married again. In connection with the much-discussed case, a relatively tough verbal exchange between Christensen and readers who reacted to Christensen's repeated writings was exchanged.

One of those who was involved in the wording with Christensen was Torodd Fuglesteg, who in retrospect has been stamped on Christensen's blogs with claims that he is Norway's largest online control and that he wants Christensen dead. In April, Torodd Fuglesteg got tired of finding his name and picture with these statements published in public, and then went to the step of police notifying blogger Jan Kåre Christensen for webjikan. A notification that has been dropped by the police due to lack of capacity. However, Fuglesteg refuses to accept the cancellation and now considers complaining to the state lawyer and requires that the Oslo police be ordered to investigate the notification.

I have been told that my police report by Jan Kåre Christensen on April 29 has been dropped due to lack of capacity at the police.

The review was made after Jan Kåre Christensen has for a long time harassed me on his blog with claims that I want him to be killed and that is Norway's biggest and worst nettroll.

Both of these claims by Jan Kåre Christensen are pure lies. Something he knows very well though. Despite knowing this, he continues in his blog to perform these lies. I myself have a clean record and I actively contribute to spreading joy as well as I can through the Internet and elsewhere. Something that is facts based on the websites I run and the websites I contribute. It is the fact that I do not engage in trolling and cyberbullying.

Jan Kåre Christensen is one of Norway's very few, a handful, sentenced online troll who have the habit of harassing everyone who comes his way (unless they are convicted of sexual abuse or associated with such pitiful behavior). It is his neighbors and the Christian leaders who have tried to be objective, friendly with him. It is fact that Jan Kåre Christensen has not contributed anything to the Internet and to his neighborhood. His only contribution is harassment and terror.

Despite the verdict against him as the review from Jan-Aage Torp entailed, this proven internet troll Jan Kåre Christensen has continued as before with an activity that is criminal. As a law-abiding citizen, I do not want to put on the lies that he has spread about me, and that I want the legal community to again mark Jan Kåre Christensen that his activities are not acceptable.

The police have again chosen to look the other way and let this convicted net controller Jan Kåre Christensen continue as before. That's okay. But then, as law-abiding citizens, one has to ask themselves what kind of protection one has against an uninhibited criminal web control such as Jan Kåre Christensen, who totally lacks any moral and ethical standards. I conclude that law-abiding citizens do not have protection against terror and harassment from such criminal individuals.

More than that, it is not to say about this matter on my part, even though the proven criminal web control Jan Kåre Christensen will probably continue to spread his lies. His life is nothing but harassment and terrorism. Something I take note of. Sad, but this is the life of this web controller. So we who, in poor capacity, live in joy over life, continue to spread joy and knowledge to our fellow human beings and our society.

Facts speak for themselves, writes Fuglesteg in an utterance after it became clear that Oslo police station has dropped his review. However, the State Attorney risks getting the deposited case on the table, if Fuglesteg and his lawyer choose to appeal the detention bill.

fredag 5. juli 2019

No. 1443: It was Torodd Fuglesteg who reported me with a fictitious review, the same as his "teaching father" Jan Aage Torp did when they got these charged, convicted and punished for false charges?

No. 1443:
It was Torodd Fuglesteg who reported me with a fictitious review, the same as his "teaching father" Jan Aage Torp did when they got these charged, convicted and punished for false charges?


 http://justismord.janchristensen.net/



Numbers 32: 23 But if ye do not, ye shall sin against the LORD, and ye shall know that your sin shall find you.

Jan Aage Torp hated me and my preaching when I preach what the word of God says about marriage. It is that as Christians, only death gives rise to remarriage.
Now this is coming back. Look here, an old article, the scripture says, "Sin shall find you!"

Why it's a fictitious review and false accusations that Jan Aage Torp has welcomed me with!

Picture of Jan Aage Torp, who is the evil of origin. Jesus says it himself:

Joh. e. 8. 44 You have the devil's father, and you will make your father's lusts; he was a murderer from the beginning and is not in the truth; for truth is not in him. When he speaks lies, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and the father of lies.




Who is behind such things as this? It should not be so difficult, the devil does not stand in truth and those who can be used for such things have the wrong connections.
Have been challenged with this by justifying why it is a fictitious review and false accusations that Jan Aage Torp has welcomed me!

Section 168 of the Penal Code states:


"Anyone who, by false accusation, notification or explanation to the court, the court or other public authority, or by misrepresentation or deletion of evidence or the provision of false evidence or against any other evidence, seeks to impose another charge or conviction on a criminal offense or who is contributing to it is punished if a crime is committed, with a prison sentence of 6 months up to 8 years and, if a misdemeanor is acted, with imprisonment for up to 4 years. "

This is what Jan Aage Torp has done. He hated my preaching of remarriage, especially that I was so "popular" with Google. Then he would sort out this relationship by getting a verdict against me and the Heavenly blog, something he himself has repeated several times both in Our Country and in Searchlight. Notice the wording here that fits 100% to JAT: "The one who, by false accusation, notifies, the prosecution against better knowing in another way seeks to impose another charge or falsification for a criminal offense".

He has himself said that he has charged another charge etc. This just proves one thing we face a criminal crook!

Here I have a lot to say, but since I have written more than enough about Torp and the case, I stop here. This time it only gets this, that I have hereby proved what Torp has done. And you can read here yourself what he uttered to Vårt Land which only proves that here we have to do someone who has said himself that he has a different charge etc. It is me it!

The first thing Torp did was to account for both our Land and Searchlight that his goal was to get a legally enforceable judgment to go to Google to delete me from the search engines. So the case itself is not based on Torp's alleged harassment where he surpasses both me and the vast majority in harassing.

"Pastor" Torp tries to distort the police and prosecution against me, it is false accusations that are at the bottom of everything, and Torp's own sin and sin! - "Pastor" Torp has now openly stated what his agenda is, it's twofold: Get me penalized and removed the blog. He writes and says this now and again.

Here from his own blog: I am very pleased with this. Nothing is better than if Christensen shut down his down-to-earth blogs and end up with personjikan, bullying, defamation and ecstasy - against everyone.

From VL: -

«What do you expect from Christensen, Torp? - I expect him to delete everything he has written about everyone, I'm going to go to Google and ask that they remove all this material from their search engine. But then there must be a final judgment. (quote end). "

If we also take what Torp has called me, we realize that it is all staged by a man, a liar to use Torp's own words!

Pastor Jan Aage Torp has staged it all with a fake police review to try and stop the heavenly blog behind it all!

Jan Aage Torp came with a police review of me. But it's all staged there to try to stop the heavenly blog that's behind it all! It is a sham for me not to claim that remarriage is sin for the believer!

No. 1442: Another new police Review - closed!

No. 1442:
Another new police
Review - closed!

Got a letter in from the police again, yesterday!
Then there was a police report, happened April 29 this year and the crime scene Krokstien 2 c.
This was Monday, 1 week after Easter, it's really all I know.

I rushed to the police and they said I could know all about the case if I came down on guard at the police.
Manglerud police chamber is closest to us, but they have the summer conference.
Then I was down at Greenland police station and talked to guardians.
Then I got the counter message, I had to apply for access to the case.
There is the case now, I do not know more about this matter than you who read this.
I have been reported to the police. This happened on Wednesday, April 24, this year, and the scene is Krokstien 2 c where we live.
The relationship is ruthless behavior, but who does it mind I don't mind?

The positive thing about the case being that the police for the first time reject a review of me. Unfortunately, they usually always believe in the thugs and lies to me, then it's not easy!
But here's the case at least not something they go on with without the anchor in question. What it is for, who etc. I have now requested access to, and it will be exciting to hear what this is about this time!

Still pray for me and my family, it is obviously the Evil One who is behind all that has come against me and my family in recent years.
But it is good to know that we have one with us that is stronger than he who is in the world. Therefore, we also experience victory, joy, and strength in all that comes to us in the name of Jesus!

1 Joh.b. 5. 4 For all that is born of God overcomes the world; And this is the victory that has prevailed over the world: our faith. 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?


The picture of the review.




tirsdag 2. juli 2019

No. 1441: Theologian and Bible Teacher Øyvind Gaarder Andersen is completely, completely at will, in his Bible interpretation of remarriage when he believes that it is free to divorce and marry - but calls for a new wedding ritual for the married people, that will probably be needed!

No. 1441:
Theologian and Bible Teacher Øyvind Gaarder Andersen is completely, completely at will, in his Bible interpretation of remarriage when he believes that it is free to divorce and marry - but calls for a new wedding ritual for the married people, that will probably be needed!


Picture of Ludvik Karlsen and Emanuel Minos who are both dead now. But was about to open up most of what is wrong in PB today. Be it remarriage, the faith movement and most of it otherwise. Here, the "door" was set up, for the flesh, Satan and the world.
And the theological reflection group with Øyvind Gaarder Andersen continues this.

Ludvik Karlsen.




Emanuel Minos.

 



Here from the newspaper Vårt Land's interview with Øyvind Gaarder Andersen, who here thinks it is free rather than remarriage for believers, is contrary to God's word.

27.6.2019 Our Country
"It must be possible with a new start"

A guiding marriage document from the Pentecostal Theological Reflection Group opens up a separate marriage ritual when one remarries after divorce.
Øyvind Gaarder Andersen is the leader of Theological Reflection Group in the Pentecostal movement. In a new document, they elaborate on their understanding of the Bible in the manner of cohabitation ethics.
- Sometimes you show more grace to a murderer than to someone who has broken the marriage on the wrong level.
https://www.vI.no/nyhet/det-ma-vere-mulig-med-en-ny-start-1.1545377 1/4 27.6.2019

It gets skewed, says Øyvind Gaarder Andersen, head of the Pentecostal Theological Reflection Group.
Due to the development of society, they have seen the need to clarify their point of view in cohabitation ethics. After the Pentecostal Theological Reflection Group has published a document that addresses this particular. Divorce and remarriage have been treated very carefully.
- On the one hand, we must preach the importance of marriage and that it is meant to last a lifetime. Particularly because of developments in society where people think too easily about divorce. On the other hand, there must be room for those who experience that the marriage breaks down, says Gaarder Andersen.

May allow remarriage

In the Pentecostal movement, each church is independent, but committed to a common belief that maintains that the Bible is the supreme authority for life, doctrine, ethics and morality. The fresh cohabitation document is an account of what the Pentecostal movement believes the Bible says about the subject and how the scriptures are interpreted.
The point of departure for the reflection group is that marriage is meant to be lifelong and monogamous. While some conservative Christians believe that divorce cannot be allowed to remarry, the Pentecostal Reflection Group believes that remarriage is fine if the divorce is legitimate. This applies, for example, to adultery, when someone is abandoned by the spouse or by various forms of abuse and violence.
- It is difficult to pronounce square and categorical about personal relationships. There are situations where one can be physically and mentally destroyed by living in the relationship and where it becomes irresponsible with regard to the children. It is not always easy to say where the border goes, says Gaarder Andersen.
- What if you simply lose interest in each other?
- Then one has to be encouraged to take care that love can be revived, for example by giving birth to party therapy. We will encourage to stretch as far as possible to preserve marriage.

Own wedding ritual

Even where a divorce is not legitimate according to the Bible, a new marriage should be possible, the Reflection Group believes.
- It must be possible with repentance and new start. We must emphasize the seriousness of divorce and consider what legitimate reasons for divorce are according to the Bible. But at the same time, the possibility of being married again to someone who broke out on a wrong mate is not depreciated. On the basis of sincere remorse And repentance one must be able to begin again.
The theological reflection group asks if one should have a separate marriage ritual for those who are remarried. Such a ritual can have a moment that allows for forgiveness and a new start.
- If you yourself know that mistakes are made and experience guilt because of it, it may be good to receive God's forgiveness and put it behind it. It is, however, not a draft of such a ritual, but we ask a question for consideration.

homosexuality

| The document from the Pentecostal movement is also treated as cohabitation, homosexuality and gender identity. The Reflection Group believes the Bible speaks clearly that marriage is meant for man and woman, and not for genders.
- | The question of equal-sex marriage, the Norwegian Church has two views and practices. Recently, the Norwegian Methodist Church has said that they will go in the same direction. Do you think there may be changes among Pentecostals in the future?
- When Pentecostal pastors, preachers, and leaders slowed down in November, there was full agreement on standing on the classic view of marriage. It is difficult to spa about the future, but the Pentecostal movement's beliefs say that marriage is for man and woman. If this changes, I think the resistance is so great that the Pentecostal movement is split - it is unthinkable to accept two
sight.
(quote end.)

Pentecostal movement and Øyvind Gaarder Andersen, leader of the Pentecostal movement's theological reflection group. Make a total "disc boom" here with opening up for remarriage among believers. There are at least two things they miss.
One is that they do not historically present what Christianity has been for 2000 years.
Secondly, they do not present what the word of God says, especially the New Testament with Jesus and the Apostle Paul.

This writes Atle Mork Bednarz

This is a document that will create much trouble for the Pentecostal movement in the years ahead. That it is theologians who wrote this is amazing to me - they do not have the power to relate to their own terms.

It begins with a good principle - that the Bible should be read and understood as it is written. The Bible is the supreme body for explaining how we as Christians should live and relate to what is happening in society and in the churches.

But then this is not followed up when the topic itself is to be discussed and it is subject.

Matt 19
"9 I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife for any reason other than adultery, and marry another, committeth adultery."
10 Then the disciples said to him, "Is it so between man and woman, it is better not to marry." 11 But he said, "This is something not everyone can accept, but only those who are given. 12 For some are eunuchs because they have come so from the womb, others because humans have made them eunuchs, but there are also some who have made themselves like an eunuch for heaven's sake. Let the one who can, take this to himself. ""

What is Jesus saying here? In verse 9, two different words are used which are important in the context but which are not taken into account in the document.

Jesus says that "adultery" provides the basis for revoking a marriage and thus giving it the right to marry again. If this is not the case, the person who remarries will commit "adultery".

Here it is important to go to the basic text where Jesus uses two words that mean completely different things.

In the first part, Jesus speaks of "porneia" (translated with adultery) and then uses a word that is most easily explained by the English word "fornication" which means having had a sexual relationship where neither party is married - neither with each other nor with others. .

Porneia means that two single people have sexual intercourse.

In the latter part of the verse, Jesus uses the word "morcheia" which is best explained by the English word "adultery", which means that at least one of the participants in the sexual intercourse is married, but with someone else.

This must be understood in the light of the Jewish tradition in which a woman was to be a virgin by the marriage and where the husband had the right to have the marriage annulled if the marriage night showed that the woman was not a virgin. He then had the right to go to the leaders of the area, present evidence that she was not a virgin and the marriage pact would then be considered as canceled.

The cancellation meant that it was seen that there had never been an marriage since this was entered into on erroneous premises and thus they both were free to marry others.

It will then mean in our day that if one differs for some reason other than that "fornication" has been committed, all new marriages will enter into meaning that both those who enter into marriage live in sin and thus cannot inherit The Kingdom of God.

Jesus is also in this in Mark 10
"10 When they came home again, the disciples asked him about this. 11 He said to them," Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against the first. 12 And if a woman divorces from her husband and marries another, she breaks the marriage. ""

This must therefore be the starting point for any theological interpretation of this topic.
(quote end.)

Atle Mork Bednarz, you write:
This is a document that will create much trouble for the Pentecostal movement in the years ahead. That it is theologians who wrote this is amazing to me - they do not have the power to relate to their own terms.
(quote end.)

Final Comment:

I've already written an article, this article is the other.
What amazes me is how shallow PB is in relation to this question.
In fact, through the ward 2000-year history, the doctrine of a homogeneous marriage has been extinct. That one doesn't mention this shows just how far out there is to drive. Even the story is not correct.
Can one expect then that the teachings are right? Here it is simply unbiblical doctrine, it is seductive spirits and the doctrines of demons that are based here.