COURT REPORT: PURGE THE PERJ
On 18 February 2026 the Defendant arrived at Ptuj Court to
discover 0 of 3 witnesses had turned up. After a chat in the foyer
about different types of
gypsies
the proceedings began, and 40 minutes later one Witness, concerned
citizen and Police informant Mr T, arrived.
The Defendant asked Mr T if he agreed about a problem with the
use of informants. This was that they end up doing illegal things
on behalf of the Police which the Police cannot do themselves
without jeapordising the prosecution.
It was put to the Witness that this encourages vigilantism and
unequal treatment under the law. The Witness had no substantive
defence to this, did not refer to some greater good, solve the
Riddle of Rookmaker [5935], or
offer any of the other opinions you might expect of an ideological
opponent of psychoactivity.
The Witness was told Officer L had, at the Dec 4 2025 hearing,
testified that all reports of crime are treated equally.
The informant was asked why he thought his previously admitted
burglary was ignored by the Police even after he reported himself
in earlier testimony. It was suggested the Police had promised him
immunity in return for his cooperation against their common
victim, the Defendant.
From that point the Witness denied participation in the burglary
which he had boasted about to other witnesses, and had in a
preliminary hearing testified to participating in, (truthfully,
according to the principle of in vodka veritas). He now
claims only H and B took part.
Despite his plainly contradictory evidence, Slovenia must find a
way not to prosecute for perjury as the Witness has pure Slovenian
blood, is only trying to defend his homeland from categories of
enemy, and has not made fun of the Town Smell.
Happier times: Ljubljana alleviating PTSD instead of causing
it, 1915
Logically, "I took part in the burglary, [next postulate: stole his weed and sold it]" and "I did not take part in the burglary [next postulate: and did not steal his weed and sell it]" are mutually exclusive statements in Court.
Both cannot be true. The only way a witness claiming both could
not be guilty of perjury is if he were not of sound mind. Or
ultimately, as they exist inside a shared delusion, if the Court
was not.
Nor is this a perjury which can be apologised away. While his
answer on any fact is that which seems most advantageous to the
Witness at the time, his credibility bears upon whole
investigation, acquisition of the warrant, and the case itself,
which cannot be founded upon informants' evidence.
Will the Court start believing in time-travelling policepersons
again to elude this iniquity? [5989]
Emotionless logic and facts are poor relations in this word-bound
scenario. However, evidence and proof are the same thing in
Slovene [5990], making all
judicial proceedings somewhat suspect.
Here despite the language problem, we do at least have a clear
contradiction about the burglary: "I was there" (with implications
for the fruit of the poisoned tree) vs. "I was not there" - with
implications for the Witness in either case: if he was there, he's
a burglar, if he wasn't there, he's a perjurer.
Except he must be let off somehow, according to the Slovenian
rules on the hierarchical classification of Homo sapiens.
With themselves at the top, naturally. In case it slipped past the
Court unnoticed as intended, he is only reporting the Defendant
because the Defendant reported him first.
Asked why he had only reported facilitation of the Benedictions
in 2020 after knowing for "years" Mr T only mumbled and no
translation was received.
Keeping it sporty, he is now on his third offence related to the
Defendant's single case, with two now unattended and only a
conditional discharge for the third: threatening to stab me, at
our first meeting, a preliminary hearing arranged by the
Prosecution Service to stop the Benedictions.
Even at a ratio of 3:1 - and we've hardly even started - this Witness is a one-man lawyer employment machine who will generate exponential legal work for the Ptuj community, having already clocked up a theoretical 11 years' worth of jail time for "helping" it in this case alone. He should win an award from the Bar Association.
So that Mr T can be treated equally with other true-bloods and
avoid five years in jail, the Court will have to say it forgot to
warn him he should tell the truth or something.
He's a witness in how many trials? Mr T is just the latest in a
series of alcoholics and other addicts Ptuj Police have been
exploiting to collect scalps, whose owners I hope will all get
together with thousands of similar victims whose convictions need
to be quashed. Which will probably employ more staff definitely
more usefully than running around after the likes of this
character. [5956]
What is the Ptuj Court's thinking behind this unbalancing act?
On what basis did Slovenia's equality focus on the burglar's
allegations at the Defendant but not the reverse?
The basis for this important difference is the Great Slovenian
Offendedness. You want stereotypes? It is something like, "We
thought we'd just take a wander around this stranger's house. How
dare this foreigner who does not even speak our language report a
Slovenian burglar in his own country!" [1559]
Slovenians, besides, are so inexperienced at the market economy
they often think they can sell something and still own it [5980]. And who has not had a sentimental thought about some former
property?
The Great Slovenian Offendedness is the galactic version of this, with the sentiment expanded to include everyone else's property, past and present. Are the legal services using cannabis to arrange some kind of accommodation swap for their unfortunate park-dwelling cousin? Mr T will have to be believed or they will all look bad. [5982]
This is all speculation, but surely the homeless Witness would
have taken any opportunity to go into any kind of building at 2
a.m., be it the Defendant's home or the Police Station.
Homelessness and disability do not necessarily qualify someone
for a career volunteering unpaid in undercover Police work. If you
lived in a park, would this be at the top of your list of things
to do?
FAS as a blanket diagnosis is not wrong as a category, but insufficient as a clinical endpoint [5981]
Although heretical to the national religion, the Defence draws
the Court's attention, as if it needs reminding, to the previous
submissions on alcohol-related confabulation, already demonstrated
in the first two appearances of the Witness. [5978] A vast panoply of evidence shows cannabis reduces alcohol
problems in populations, whether Mr T decides some of them should
be stopped or not. [5676
5983]
Asked whether he agrees with the testimony of Officer G that all
drugs are the same, or with that of Officer T, both on Dec 4 2025,
that drugs are not all the same, the Witness mirrored Officer G's
non-reply about alcohol - in some kind of terminological or
categorical paralysis. Symptoms of Prohibition Paralysis are a
fixed gaze staring into the middle distance and aphasia.
Why can't he agree with both? No price tag. G and T were unsure
what they were meant to say. Neither answered. There was a
gaping hole in their indoctrination and they were trying not to
fall into it.
The same thing happened when the Witness was asked if he had
considered using cannabis for his pain and stiffness.
Although he did not answer audibly it is evident from his actions
and statements that this Witness is strenuously opposed to the
Benedictions of CaPs, even for his own symptoms, sometime
addiction problems, and lack of impulse control.
In this second appearance the Witness was again evasive regarding
the true origin of his white powder story, this time by throwing
in the names of two other witnesses P and Š as the source - again
unlikely and, they may say, defamatory and additionally
perjurious.
The Court wanted to eliminate witnesses who might testify that
they didn't say that. And what are two men, against the gospels of
Mr T? The Court wanted to ignore the white powder motivations of
the Witness because there wasn't any white powder.
This Court is mostly busy doing the job of the Prosecution, who do not need to do much. It is "going to find how much money the Defendant made" - although it is they who made all the Defendant's money theirs, and the trial has yet to begin. These characteristics confirm the process is a plunder machine with no interest in health outcomes, in contravention of ECHR 6(2).
Not questioning the Witness's motivation means one less lie for
their quantum protagonist.
Whose drives are probably rooted in his own misinformed teenage
drug hell. Perhaps he chose the wrong ones for him, such as speed
and wheel cleaner. Just a hunch.
Wheel cleaner's not illegal so it must be ok. More Prohibition Paralysis.
And now he's so unpopular he's figured it doesn't matter to him
what he says or does, wasting thousands of taxpayer euros on his
village vendettas, taking all the risks while the Police take the
credit for their success against a word, useful at this point as a
thought-terminating cliche.
And now they are all the same, those drugs. Everyone from
glue-sniffer to cokehead can get offended about CaPs in this great
conflatory flattening.
It seems probable on balance that Mr T agrees with Officer G and
not Officer T, namely that all drugs are the same but not alcohol,
tobacco, caffeine, and the ones you get from the doctor, which are
"different".
This is the minimal, unsophisticated pharmacotoxicological
assessment needed to propel lawfare against the "enemy". Ample
research shows drugs are not all the same. Many not from Ptuj must
be tired of seeing this over and over again.
But constant forgetters need constant reminders.
Nine drugs in the chart should be higher, not lower than
cannabis. The proof is that the Defendant hasn't used them for all
of his life and it hasn't done him any harm.
The average harm of the lab drugs has been eased downwards: it
wouldn't look good to have nothing but the safest, most popular
illegal ones at the bottom. Still, CaPs have come out of it pretty
well...
With its deep abiding love of injury, family adversities, and
economic costs, Slovenia remains in the dark on whether alcohol is
a drug at all.
Witness Officer G had succumbed to Prohibition Paralysis. For how
can there be good things about the bad thing, drugs which are all
the same? And how can there be bad things about the non-drug,
alcohol? Which, the Court should consider, is different because
Slovenia is an alcoholic.
Thinking of more than two variables at once is
clearly out of the question.
The Court is only pretending to be dealing with a sciencey thing on
behalf of others. Stereotypes, epithets, stigma, and traditional
addictions are the currency here.
Slovenians - who voted to legalise in Europe's only referendum to
succeed on both recreational and medical cannabis - are now
incapable of controlling their own judiciary. So far the trial
evidence suggests a rule of thumb to spot the minority people: if
they "hate drugs", a phraseology exactly parroted by Officer G and
Witness Mr T, then they are all the same. The drugs too.
And who, hearkening to their advice, wouldn't think hey, I think
I'll pass on the weed tonight in favour of something more rapey
and incapacitating? Everyone. If you are mug enough to believe the
legal ones are intrinsically safer than those other drugs which
are all the same, you will believe your preferences are not drugs.
You will believe anything.
These legal drugs don't know they're legal. Their main advantage
over the all-the-same drugs is they are relatively useless as
kompromat or in lawfare against you by your self-appointed
Slovenian enemies, be they familiar or strangers. Maybe one of
them doesn't like your light.
You could become the victim of a biased selection the Witness
admitted is administered not even-handedly, but preferentially at
his discretion alone. How about a law against people who can't
mind their own business? An election winner in Slovenia,
surely.
The solution is to retire the Witness and his ilk from their
Duterte-esque role by ending the prohibition of drugs which are
safer and better than the presently legal alternatives, and
increasingly popular because of it.
The Court has failed to answer Ms Rookmaker's question, which the
Defence extends to classical psychedelics. Namely is there any
rationale for any prosecution for CaPs, posited by opponents of
the Benedictions as among drugs which are "all the same" (in their
respective schedules)? Spoiler: they're not. The Defendant doesn't
need drunks and cokeheads deciding otherwise for him.
Yet the ranking of Nutt et al is not above suspicion. In the
Defence view pharmacological bias is the reason cannabis isn't
near the bottom. For instance Buprenorphine, the "better
methadone" is involved in around 1000 deaths a year in the US
alone, mostly in conjuction with other opioids. [5986] GHB, at 200-400 deaths annually worldwide, claims fewer lives
than falling out of bed. But safer than cannabis??
Ptuj's Court is unaware Slovenia's government wants to legalise
home cultivation and recreational cannabis. Firstly it
inexplicably handed the matter to the medical profession, who are
among the authors and beneficiaries of the erroneous unempirical
drug categorization hypothesis. They support the conflatory,
flattening, othering concept of "drugs".
They are therefore supporters of stigmatization of cannabis and
psychedelics based on a meaningless word and, far from their
gilded cages, of the burglaries, arson, Duterte-ism, death
threats, perjury, and hate speech and hate actions such as those
of Mr T which their propaganda inspires.
With no recourse for the victims of Slovenians' hypocritical war
on themselves, or the Defendant. To teach them a lesson. For
reasons neither the teacher nor anyone else knows.
Little by little, the Trial is turning into social research about
reality at the Defendant's expense, with no clear endpoint, even
as the Witness demonstrates some of the most compelling motives
for entheogen normalisation.
What is the danger of words such as entheogen and nutraceutical?
If CaPs are called these instead of "drugs", middle class people:
judges, lawyers, policemen, bureaucrats, will be facing cutbacks
unless they can find something else to prosecute. They will have
to think. They will have to be nuanced, accurate, and clever.
Being unable to put it all away in a box marked "drugs" threatens having to become responsible for their decisions and actions. They might have to confine their opinions to things they actually understand from an experiential not bourgeois standpoint. So these egos find a very strong incentive biased in favour of, and financially dependent on, the word "drugs", making unbiased proceedings impossible.
What are the dangers of this word, "drugs"? The pig-ignorance. The
nonsensical category errors. The constant turning from one
scaremongering story to the next. The not-racist-but. The double
standard. The exploitation. The extortion. The power trip.
Opportunities to do down rivals in any sphere, people to whom the
vigilante owes money, anyone that looks at Mr T funny. The
thought-terminating cliche. The argumentum ad populum. The
violent rage in search of an outlet. And importantly, he doesn't
like the Defendant's hair.
"Informant" Mr T will take all of these and more. With
legalisation, whom could he threaten? With what? And as at
present, why? The paralysis returns. You are too small to decide.
The Defendant could not be more appreciative to Ptuj Police for
their gift of this exemplar of the anti-Benedictions fraternity.
On the other hand, they are encouraging him to get himself
killed.
In the international context to which Slovenia does not belong, it
took Missouri
87 days (Dec 8 2022 to February 3 2023) to go from legalisation
of recreational cannabis use to full retail availability.
Arizona was second fastest to recover from the psychic epidemic,
making a full recovery in under two months (from vote to retail
sales: 80 days Nov 3, 2020 to Jan 22, 2021; from legalization to
retail sales: 53 days Nov 30, 2020 to Jan 22, 2021).
The winner was Canada, with a time of exactly 0 seconds from obediently
mimicking 1920s racist eugenicist bunkum to full adult access to
the Benedictions, on Oct 17 2018.
Majorities in these and other places have realised what they
previously believed were lies. Now the lie is like Mr T going to
steal some weed; sometimes (if you are in Slovenia) the lie is
active and enshrined in law, and sometimes (e.g. in Canada) not.
The Master Race is still ignoring these inferior types of
Homo sapiens. The bureaucratic paradise is treading water
and lying ignorantly away, 7 years 4 months and 1 day since Canada
stopped lying, and 35114 days since the lie became official in the
present territory on 1 January 1930.
The Defendant's other lawyer Claude has some tips for anyone in a
similar situation, including other victims of Ptuj Police ft. Mr
T. [5981] The Defendant
therefore requests the Ptuj Court eliminates the testimony of this
perjurious Witness per
Article 284 of KZ-1
and adjourns the process for fifteen years.
Mr T has testified that in his de facto employment as a drug vigilante he chooses who to incriminate, and who not. His various positions, e.g. "He sold drugs because I stole some" are a step removed from Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal (1998), but raise the same issues. In paragraphs 35/36:
"The Convention does not preclude reliance, at the investigation stage of criminal proceedings and where the nature of the offence so warrants, on sources such as anonymous informants. However, the subsequent use of their statements by the court of trial to found a conviction is a different matter.
"The use of undercover agents must be restricted and safeguards put in place even in cases concerning the fight against drug trafficking..." [5988]
And there it is, that flattening word again. They're not drugs.
They're entheogens and nutraceuticals. Cannabis is not heroin or
cocaine and there is nothing equal about equal treatment for both.
Undercover agent or not, Ptuj Police are hiding behind Mr T, thanking
their lucky stars someone is soaking up their unpopularity with
Slovenia's pro-nutraceutical majority, and much of the risk which
ought properly to belong to them as professionals in their already
unpredictable selections.
As Mr T testifies that he has been going around screwing up dealers, paragraph 38's "essentially passive manner" test applies even if Mr T is a civilian rather than a police officer or employee. Did he actively shape, incentivise, or direct the investigation in ways that compromised its fairness? He has already said he does.
The abuse is particularly egregious given that it cannot be excluded
his own admitted criminal activity was and still is being overlooked
as part of the arrangement. After all, Ptuj Court has had years to
report my burglary (again) and investigate his role in the other
burglary attempts and arsons. But these are events about which Mr T is
not so public spirited.
Legal aspects of medical violations by Mr T, Ptuj Police, and the Court against the Defendant shall be evaluated separately. Denial of each of the Benedictions shall be counted as torts. All terms repeatedly repeated that vilify nutraceutical and entheogenic use and users - "drugs", "abuse", "disorder" etc. - shall be counted discriminatory violations and hate speech.
It's a small step from "all drugs are the same" to "all druggies are the same". And punishing drugs rather than users would be so unsatisfying, especially as the worst ones are legal and you'd be punishing yourself (more).
Only those whose drugs are not all the same are allowed to decide whether "all druggies are the same" is legally distinct from "all gypsies are the same". Since the Benedictions are illegal, they must be the exception that proves the rule, like the hardworking, bill-paying Slovenian gypsies we seldom hear about.
Someone impersonating Slovenian Police ally and concerned
citizen Mr T taking deadly addictive drugs on FacebookTo prevent wrangling later and save hearing time it, together with Ptuj Court and ODT are invited to agree in advance on a methodology consisting of criteria and power analysis parameters for defining not-Slovenian-enoughness, to see if Slovenia's court records are half full with cannabis-toting outlanders, or if the MoJ's accounts are fully full of their wrong type of money.
Like obsessed bigots who think they are normal everywhere, Ptuj is now presumably saying it's ok to steal illegal marijuana, but not the type its doctors won't get you. And that the pharmacists' receipts would be the right type of money, if there were any prescriptions for them to fill.
Hey Slovenia, it's not what they do but why not try legalising yourselves [5987] for a change, and take the heat and violence out of village heroism? Because rentierism can't resist creating a massive licence fee is why. Slovenia literally can't help itself.
Merely possessing a Slovenian ID is an inadequate real-world test of Slovenian-enoughness. The Defence proposes surnames, including those containing suspicious letters such as Ć and Đ, use of court interpreters, skin colour, residency status, and country of birth, to demark the indicted test population.
As the Defence contends that in Slovenia, other people having anything is a motive for piracy for the insanely jealous, property owners vs. renters would be another interesting statistic.
Alternatively the Prosecution and Court could agree not to dispute the methodology if/when a distended proportion of not-Slovenian-enough homeowners is found, at either local or national levels.
Expect a lot of the Great Slovenian Offendedness on this topic. If Slovenia has nothing to hide then there's nothing for it to worry about. Let's count!
Submitted this Trial day one thousand nine hundred and seventy
nine,
20 February 2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Englishman stands for the rights of everyone disadvantaged,
discriminated against, persecuted, and prosecuted on the false or
absent bases of prohibition, and also believes the victims of
these officially-sanctioned prejudices have been appallingly
treated and should be pardoned and compensated.
The Englishman requests the return of his CaPs and other rightful
property, for whose distraint Slovenia has proffered no credible
excuse or cause.
The Benedictions represent both empirical entities as well as
beliefs. Beliefs which the Defence evidence shows may be
reasonably and earnestly held about the positive benefits of CaPs
at the population level, in which the good overwhelmingly
outweighs the bad. Below, the latest version of this dynamic list,
which you can use when asking your doctor to get you CaPs on
prescription, although they won't have any.