It all boils down to communication: in writing and in person, speaking legalese and using common sense. But the playing field is far from being fair:
- when Police force you to leave your home, something must be ‘fishy’
- when you discover one fraudulent act after the other, you wonder about the difference between law and ‘law enforcement’
- when you end up not only made homeless, but also being bankrupted, you need to become a Nelson Mandela to transcend your emotions of pain and fury
- while trying to be rational, you study the law, but you are not being heard, for “they” are not interested in acting according to The Rule of Law: neither the judiciary, nor the Police or court staff
- the ‘establishment’ is sticking together, protecting each other in their jobs with their pensions and perks.
So what remains is: to accept twelve weeks imprisonment of which six are to be served. That was the judge’s intention. That’s what he carried out. Who is Mr Ebert to dare to challenge him and his colleagues in their positions of power? Why should they admit to mistakes or short-comings, if their ‘institutional power’ allows them to get away with ‘white collar crimes’ – unchallenged, unquestioned, unaccountable? Go figure…
For in his smartness, Mr Ebert sprayed his name on his house, thus putting the onus of ‘proof of ownership’ on the CPS. Of course they couldn’t provide. But who cares?…