....NOT
LIKE THIS
Appeal against the decision of Sklep Okronega sodiča na Ptuju z opr. t. I K 49098/2020 z dne 31.1.2025
DOCTOR WHO
Time moves in a forward direction.
The Police and person issuing the search warrant cannot see into the future.
Yet the Prosecution continues to try
to justify its search warrant with elements only alleged to have been discovered
after its execution. This is confirmation bias.
Furthermore and unequally, elements
disconfirmatory of the pre-warrant bias are ignored. This is also confirmation
bias.
In searching for a way to target the
Defendant, the Police and Court chose to rely upon the evidence of a paid
informant, paid according to results.
The Police and Court ignored his own
drug use, and his criminal activities including his admitted burglary of the
Defendant's home.
The Court subsequently admonished his
death threat against the Defendant in Court - without a trial, without witnesses
being called, and in a manner designed to ensure the victim gained no redress or
satisfaction. These all show bias towards the Defendant, long victimised for his
existence in the very tricky and unpleasant milieu of Slovenia in general and
Ptuj in particular. This is prejudice.
In paragraph 5, the Court alleges in
its reply that there is a "dispute" between the Defendant and the informant. Yet
in his pre-trial evidence Mr T - confessing this was his first sight of the
Defendant - said that he had "nothing against" the latter.
The Defendant is obviously not happy
that his house was burgled while he slept. But this does not prove any
"dispute", since it has not been disputed. Rather this invention by the Ptuj
Court attempts to portray the Defendant negatively, as combative, evidently by
implying some connection with its star witness. Nothing could be further from
the truth. Don't know him and don't want to. This is bias.
The Court's response that the
admitted burglar "complainant's statement about the alleged actions of the
suspect would be to follow" does not make sense either grammatically or
epistemically. Of what does the "complainant" complain? That the second attempt
at burglary, obviously inspired by his first, was unsuccessful? That his career
is threatened by the resulting arson? The Court has strange friends. It is an
assertion without legs by the Court itself. This is bias.
The equally legless informant has
been encouraged to embellish his accusations for the sake of payment. For
instance his claim to have been in a car with Mr egula was flatly denied by the
latter in his evidence at the pre-trial, and Mr egula, who is a scrupulously
honest individual, has nothing to gain from this denial. It is the word of one
witness against another's. The Court has chosen to believe the wrong one for no
argued reason. This is bias.
This is further evidenced by the
grammatical fudge. That the Court has tried to blindside the applicant by
fudging the above issue in vague and meaningless terms further evidences
confirmation bias and Ptuj's jealous plot to "get the foreigner" at any cost.
On balance, therefore, the issue of
the alleged co-visit with Mr egula without entry by the informant, which Mr
egula testified "never happened", is a dispute between them with no relevance
to the case. It is at best equivocal, and on balance appears to be a false
statement to the Police for the purposes of receiving payment, favours, and/or
malicious prosecution.
The assertion "he sold weed because I
stole some" only makes sense to an alcoholic thief on the make. This attests to
the idiocy of government policy and the inevitable creation of vendettas and
officially sanctioned lawlessness. How many other break-ins has he done? Do Mr T
and his employers pay tax and health insurance? They belong in the Duterte
category, and with far less justification than merited by meth.
Notably, El Presidente's supporters
have sprung to defend mass murder in force, which shows how poor, easily
persuaded, and immoral the moral majority must be. And if we look at poor Mr T
we can hardly fail to notice he makes it up as he goes.
Thus there is nothing "hypothetical"
about the claim as there is no credible motivation other than reward. Nor is the
idea that other motives exist any less "unconvincing" than the informant
himself, who is evidently not fully in control of his faculties, who admits to
dishonesty, who is motivated in his flexible relationship with the truth, and is
likely prone to confabulation per the symptoms of alcoholism described in the
Prosecution file on alcoholism-related diagnoses submitted at the pre-trial.
Which the Defendant expects has disappeared as it does not fit the desired
conclusion and could cost a lot.
No witness at the pre-trial was able
to find any redeeming features in the informant and this, again, has been
ignored by the Court to "get the foreigner". And it is the position of the
Defendant that both of them perfectly exemplify the discriminatory basis,
motivated ignorance, and irrational anti-health stance of CaPs prohibition.
Coming to paragraph 6 the claims
about electricity use are not in line with publicly available data. They omit to
take into account a number of variables besides the number of people in the
house and were simply obtained to bolster the allegations of the informant due
to the obvious weaknesses of his involvement.
The Police hoped this would prove the
presence of a farm. The Court did not investigate alternative possibilities. And
when no trace of such a facility was found the Court in its late indictment
ignored the evidence that did not fit. This was bias.
Use of electricity does not evidence
its purpose. In fact the Defendant has struggled to keep his bills low and by
straining every sinew has succeeded. Elektro Maribor is itself under
investigation and knows what the Police want to hear.
No evidence of periodic cycles was
offered despite the company using 15-minute metering when it wants to and then
denying it works when it means it would get paid less.
http://www.cinema.si/slovenianelectricitytariffsthemovie [4925]
Its "statistic" is dubious and
irrelevant. It is nonsensical froth, a factoid with insufficient inputs,
intended to bias the Court into granting a warrant.
The alleged profligacy does not seem to have
interested either the Police or the Court after the event. Why is this? Its
irrelevance had become irrelevant. The suspicion was only useful before, not
afterwards.
Yet - according to the time
travelling briefs - anything only known afterwards can be used to justify what
was only suspected before. It cannot. This is bias.
Discovering what in the house uses
how much electricity would risk this story becoming unsustainable in future as a
routine excuse. It's a lie.
And this will never happen because
the average Slovenian accepts the tyranny of numbers unquestioningly, and would
sooner sit around a candle than be exceptional in his or her unit consumption.
But an atheist household cannot be so
cowed as the Police expect, and its occupants have the right to use any amount
they can afford. This is confirmation bias.
The Police hoped that the three
guilt-indicating qualities of using electricity, owning an electric light, and
becoming the random victim of an alcoholic burglar, would all somehow confirm
each other, and the superstitious and biased Court swallowed this instead of
treating each item as a discrete argument. Like a drunk racist.
"Minutes of the receipt of oral
complaint are qualitatively more weighty evidence from pre-trial proceedings
than collected information (i.e. statements) from a specific person..."
The distinction is unclear. Oral
complaints (about nothing) include hearsay and unrecorded evidence. There is
nothing intrinsically more "weighty" about them. Nor is their weightiness
affected by the warning about a false complaint, since the informant who is
prepared to lie and is encouraged to do so, and led to believe in his protected
status, is unlikely to be dissuaded from his career by a routine tepid warning.
Moreover the assertions of Elektro
Maribor, presumably non-oral, are equally or more easily confirmed, although
there is no evidence the Police did so, nor that this other informant about
irrelevant information - based on a superstitious belief about a light -
received any such warning.
Of course the Police, who have so far
missed no opportunity to change their tune to fit the circumstances, will no
doubt assert that Elektro Maribor were likewise warned.
Thus the Police, conducting a
"routine check" on the "detection of lights" do not say how many other lights
they detected, logged, or whose non-candle-like qualities they particularly
disliked.
None of the three elements enunciated
in the warrant application make for a reasonable cause of suspicion
individually, paired, or collectively.
They are simply a risible ruse in a
tail-wagging-the-dog exercise which could be targeted at any one of thousands of
homes not illuminated by normal Slovenian chandlery products such as turpentine,
tar, pitch, linseed or whale oil, tallow or other traditional triglycerides
related to Ptuj's Town Smell.
Far from the need to provide "a basis
for concluding that the statements of the informant Nejc Teodorovič were untrue"
what was needed was a basis for concluding that they were.
No null hypothesis was exhibited in
the warrant application because, as shown above, as will if necessary be shown
elsewhere in relation to the electricity element (and as stated this should not
be necessary), and as would be shown were the examination not an outcome in
search of a cause, not one of the three elements sought any logical cause to
damage the health or finances of the target, but rather resemble three drunks
leaning on each other in a bar as an exemplar of poise and deportment.
Because that's exactly what they are.
In paragraph 8 the complainant with
nothing to complain about is said to allege the Defendant "sold or cultivated
illegal drugs to him".
Firstly you cannot cultivate anything
plant-wise TO a person.
Secondly, since we are dealing with
hearsay, the Defendant hears that the informant doesn't use marijuana, leading
to the inevitable conclusion that his only motivation for stealing it was to
sell it, which the Defendant also hears he did, while bragging about the
burglary.
Mr T is a little confused about what
he should say, to whom, and when. As evidenced at the pre-trial, which he left
prematurely when things got a little difficult. As relatively low standards of
proof are acceptable, the Defendant hereby makes this known to the Court, which
will now need to extend its bias in favour of Slovenian participants to the
unequal treatment of this evidence. Unless of course Mr T still has his share of
the proceeds of his crime and would like to give it back.
"A large number of circumstances
surrounding the act" does not extend to a string of lies, and it isn't clear
what this means except that the circumstances are themselves unlawful and
therefore exonerative to the Defendant and detrimental to the informant who, by
the way, is certainly entitled to a solution to his medical condition.
In paragraph 9, we return to the
time-travelling. No more needs to be said than to reiterate the first two
paragraphs of this Appeal.
HOW TIME WORKS....
....NOT
LIKE THIS
The statement about the digital scale
with "plant particles" is completely rejected and no forensic proof has been
offered. The item was unused. Scales have many uses. There were no plant
particles. There are many types of plant, which are ubiquitous in the
environment and, as far as the Defendant knows, this claim is false and has
probably been added into evidence, showing the Police know their whole
expedition is founded upon lies of one sort or another and will say anything.
The desperation continues with a
reference to the Defendant's "lifestyle". No contrasts with expectations are
supplied as this is a catch-all catholic-style appeal to the laws of Good
Housekeeping magazine. The Defendant is alive - which is certainly more than can
be said of many adherents of Ptuj's lifestyle pursuits. This really irks them.
Once more, the Court has jumped into
its Tardis and refers to a letter sent after the warrant was executed to justify
the warrant. Again please refer to the beginning of this Appeal. "All of this
also gives the court a reasonable conclusion" - yet the conclusion would have
had to predate the introduction for this to work.
It did not, and this is not just
bias, but a fundamental rejection of the reality of Time itself as popularly
conceived, and is suggestive of why we need more CaPs and less alcohol in the
befuddled dendrites at work in the milieu de vino.
The Court makes no claim to
precognitive dreams, astrological practices, oracles, clairvoyance, distance
viewing, parallel universes, Ouspenskian eternal recurrence, or other
supernatural or supraphysical phenomena as an explanation for its augural
abilities.
So it is assumed it is merely
exhibiting superstitions and small-town bigotries similar to those underlying
the otherwise incoherent and clodhopping ZPPPD as it applies to the substances
in question - and contrary to whatever Mr T and the judiciary have been misled
into believing with respect to glomming certain "recreational drugs" together -
the Defendant supports no others. Obviously.
The future, as predicted by sober and
civilised nations, has arrived. See diagrams.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311234/ [852]
For discussion see www.12v.si/qv
Nor is an opinion, contrary to the
claims in paragraph 9, evidence of anything except itself.
Just because humans have memories it
does not mean time marches backwards. Even the latest findings on opposing
arrows of time in open quantum systems do not support the possibility of human
time travel.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-87323-x [4926]
When it comes to "not following" the Defendant thanks the Court for its whirligig example.
16 April 2025