28.04.
4:22 p.m
My acceptance of fate has always been shaky.
I didn’t make peace with her.
Often defied her, so that every fall made me get up faster.
First of all, it means that I don’t run away from a world that doesn’t mean well. Me and some of my clients.
I did not want to, and will not, accept fate in such a way as to lie down in silence next to it, even when I saw that it, fate, is not from God, but from people.
Especially from an individual. Which was chorused in illegality by some who shouldn’t have. On the contrary.
Elem, for the sixth time the High Court rejects the SDT’s proposal to extend the long-forgotten detention of Vlad Ivanović (soon also for Ranko Ubović) under items 1 and 4 of the CPC.
This time, the new reporter judge directly communicated what I, not accepting the impending fate, have been repeating since 04/14/2024. when it was done to Zoran Lazović by a woman whose names mean nothing, as she said in the program on TV Vijesti.
The judge announced that it is the job of the Appellate Court to extend or not, legally ordered custody, and not to determine it, adding new points, making a boss for some addresses (paraphrase).
Therefore, the courts and the prosecutor’s office of that rank argue about the procedural situation that the student knows when he passes the criminal-procedural law.
Here, people are running around prisons because of the actions of one person, now an ex-judge.
And worse.
Due to the acceptance of her plan by the Supreme and High Courts. The Constitutional Court, for reasons known to me, I do not count in this story.
Because he is in himself – for the story. When it comes to concrete.
And now. The president of the council, who signed the decision for Ivanović, signed the extension of detention for Lazović. Which contains what they justly chopped into legal pieces with this solution.
It didn’t bother him there.
Let him just apply, with the assumed knowledge of this colloquial legal work, what he signed for Ivanovic, in future extensions, respecting the inaugurated legal principle. Which became a principle in the way that the legal determination was not respected.
Whatever it is – it’s good.
But we should know the old legal rule.
In equal things – equal, in unequal – unequal.
In the future, when he (those in the know know who I’m referring to) or any other judge extends those detentions, he should remember how the renamed legal solutions affected someone’s freedom.
PS: The constant “custodial defeat” is still a kind of victory, perhaps because it proves the indestructibility of principles.
Which, unfortunately, does not guarantee the indestructibility of the author, for whom I am writing all this.
