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 Šegula was flatly denied by the latter in his evidence at the pre-trial, and Mr Šegula, 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 Šegula without entry by the informant, which Mr Šegula 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