Without giving any incriminating details…I work for the government, not the US or Australia. About a week ago, I had a court appearance over a matter I got involved in. There was a small sum of money, a stipend paid into my bank account during 2015, but on January 1, 2016, the work was finished. I informed the department. They immediately cut off other moneys involved in the project, and I went back to my normal shit salary.
I did not notice that they did not cut off a small sum, a payment for incidental costs like photocopying, of about $50 a week. I get paper bank statements, but did not do more than glance over them to check that things looked ok. Over that time, I did not find anything wrong.
Then after a year, I got a letter of demand from that government department saying that I owed them money. I was shocked by this, and then did check my bank statements. There had been payments, unnoticed by me. The next thing I did was make use of the one-time only free legal advice that is one of the few benefits of living in a socialist shithole. I found out that there was law covering these debts, so I put in my case. The department eventually replied that even though the error was solely due to them, and was their fault entirely, I still had to pay because I lacked “good faith,” because I was aware of the payments. And if I was not aware, I should have been, and in any case, once I was aware then I was guilty anyway! What the fuck! Talk about a Catch 22. Even in our corrupt system, surely outright fucking absurdities should not be tolerated, that there should be at least a token nod to rationality?
Anyway, I read up on the law over many months, and decided to fight them in a special court dealing with these matters. The case law looked pretty clear, with lots of cases like mine all decided in favor of the applicants. So, off I went ready to flood the court with my legal knowledge. I even looked into the law of other common law countries such as Australia and England, to get material.
When I got to the trial, the opposing party was not there. The proceedings were not held in the normal adversarial fashion with a neutral judge, but more like in Germany, with an inquisitorial judge. There was no opportunity to cross-examine the opposing party about their confession of error.
On the day of the trial, I got a phone call two hours before I had to appear, asking for a printout of my bank records. I did not have internet banking so I went to the bank and paid to get these. Surprise attacks like this are normally not tolerated by courts operating in an adversarial way, but these special courts have a law of their own.
In the trial, rather than talking about the law, the entire proceedings was about why I should have found the error. I referred to cases that said that given the department had put it in writing that the error was solely due to them I did not have to. The judge at one point said, why should that be a factor to consider! I replied because that is what the law says and you are supposed to be administering the law, not acting as a debt collection agency. Look, it is written down as law! Why are we not talking about the law! Why can’t I speak about the confession of error by the department? My first strike before being imprisoned for contempt.
I was criticized for not using internet banking. I replied that I don’t trust it, and asked for the law that said that one had to. No reply.
Then the judge rolled out records of a phone call I allegedly made to the department sometime in 2016, questioning whether I should still have payments. I said that I made no such call. Further, that was never raised by the department before. If I did make the conveniently incriminating call, then surely the department would have stopped payments. It made no sense whatsoever I said and I believe that the record is a fraudulent, and that a criminal offence has been committed. Overruled! Let the court play the tape of the alleged conversation. Overruled! Hearsay became evidence!
At this point, I realized that this was not a trial but just an act of intimidation to get me to pay up. I spent the rest of my time, making statements about the bias and injustice of the proceedings, just for the tape recording. My parting words were that it is the injustice of the system, as seen today in a small way, that has led people to Trump, and I hope that there will others after him millions of times stronger. The fat feminist judge, of an ethnicity you can guess, waddled away with that happy thought.
The legal system is not about justice and fairness, but the administration of the system. Crazy conservatives here, think that once they have their day in court that they will be able to change the unjust system, merely by the strength of their reason. That is total bullshit, because the legal system is not for producing just results, but social control. Yet, because of bullshit pc overload, it too is collapsing across the West:
Across the West, our system, including the legal system, the universities, schools, the churches, you name it, are full of the sorts of people just like the one who fucked me over. It is like moving the carpet and finding that white ants (termites) have silently eaten all of one’s floors. Things have been left go for so long that there is simply no way to repair the rot. The essential cognitive infrastructure of the West has now decayed. The ongoing battle against these dark, evil, essentially anti-Nordic male genocidists, will pull down the tent of civilization, as some of your writers have noted.
The small, personal attacks are the clearest indication that the system is rotten, and decaying from within. The corruption goes from the roots of the tree to the top leaves, and is terminal. It is finished. The only real question is when it falls, and what, if anything survives.
Ancient Rome, here we come! And, this is a good thing. Bring it on, oh barbarians!
A Fighter’s View of Predatory Aggression: The Forever Autumn Press Edition