There is no justice in this world at all.

At least justice as we know it.

There is no fairness in this world at all.

There is no hope, there is no salvation.

In this parallel world that is very similar to the earth, our protagonist is experiencing the lowest moment of his life, and it is this experience that gives him a deep understanding of the so-called "justice".

To use the simplest analogy, we may have people in reality who have been or will probably be in the same situation.

If you lend someone a sum of money, you need to ask for a voucher, which is what we ordinary people take for granted, which is what we often call an "IOU".

So what do you do if the borrower doesn't pay back the money all the time, or even chases after him and starts to cheat blatantly?

The most effective and appropriate way we know is to go to the court to fight a lawsuit and go to the court to get justice.

So how would you feel when you went to court with an IOU, only to get a rejected judgment in the end?

First of all, we don't consider what is wrong with the IOU itself, which is the so-called word play that you may see on TV, such as borrowing and borrowing.

Let's assume that the IOU itself was written by the defendant himself, and that there is no problem with it from a legal point of view or otherwise.

Then you may be surprised, since there is nothing wrong with the IOU, why can't we win the lawsuit?

Before I go into the details of the case, I would like to ask you a question: What do you think "justice" is? In other words, what do you think is "justice", and do you really have a deep understanding of "justice"?

If you really understand the meaning of "justice", maybe you are no longer an ordinary person struggling with life.

It stands to reason that we take the IOU to the court to seek justice, and the first question you have to face may not be understood by many people, that is, is your most direct evidence IOU still within the legal prosecution period?

The so-called recourse period is easy to understand is the period of protection by law, in which the difference between "IOU" and "IOU" is very large, if there is no provision for the repayment period on the IOU, the recourse period of the IOU is only three years, that is, it is three years from the day when the IOU is established, if after three years, your IOU has exceeded the recourse period, the court can use this reason to refuse to file the case, and the IOU of the recourse period is 20 years.

If a repayment period is specified, it is three years from the repayment period.

I think this question alone may surprise many people, many people may not know that the IOU in their hands has long become a piece of waste paper, of course, it may be too much to say that waste paper, the prosecution period is not fixed, and it is okay to exceed the prosecution period.

As soon as you claim the amount owed from the defendant during the prosecution period, the prosecution period will start to recalculate, simply put, if you claim the arrears from the defendant on the last day of the three-year period, then the prosecution period will be pushed back for another three years from that date.

But there is a very crucial issue involved here, that is, how do you prove that you have claimed the arrears from the defendant during the prosecution period?

In short, if the prosecution period is exceeded, the court may not accept the case in accordance with the law.

If you hire a lawyer, the lawyer can take the materials to the real estate bureau and other places to investigate the defendant's property situation, so as to apply for property preservation in the first place, and the court will respond within 48 hours after the application.

In this parallel world, which is very similar to the earth, the lawyer and the plaintiff will generally strive to preserve the defendant's real estate, because the value of real estate in this world is relatively high, and if the preservation is successful, there is no need to worry about the enforcement stage.

Regardless of whether it is preserved or not, do you feel that you can sit back and relax after the case is filed? No, many people may not understand how difficult it is to fight a lawsuit, and it is really more difficult for ordinary people to defend their rights than to ascend to the sky.

After the case is filed, the judge will issue a summons to the defendant, during which if the defendant cooperates and takes the initiative to admit the fact that he owes money, then everything will be happy and will go smoothly, and the judge will not bother with this case, and will directly ask the two parties if they can mediate, if not, they will directly adjudicate, and everyone will save trouble.

If the defendant is a scoundrel and does not cooperate, it will be very troublesome.

First of all, the defendant can deliberately not accept the summons, because the judge in civil cases is basically not equipped with a service team, so the judge can only text or call the defendant.

Moreover, a copy of the defendant's ID card and the defendant's phone number are all things that you need to issue as the plaintiff.

If the defendant deliberately does not accept the summons, the judge will generally advise the plaintiff to do his best to cooperate, that is, let the plaintiff find a way to find the defendant on his own, and then the judge will issue the summons.

Because judges in this parallel world are very busy, each judge may have to deal with dozens or even hundreds of cases at the same time, and they only work five days a week and have to take a lunch break, how can they have time to serve you wholeheartedly?

Therefore, you can only put pressure on the plaintiff, and if you are helpless, the judge's final resort is to serve the notice, which is to post the notice at the door of the court, and after 60 days, if the defendant has not yet received the summons from the court, it will be deemed to be automatically served.

However, this is generally a measure taken by the court without avoiding exceeding the time limit.

After the matter of the summons is resolved, it is finally time to go to trial, many people may think that after the prosecution is completed, it will be a trial, but they did not expect it to be so troublesome, but this is the reality, many things can only be known if you have experienced it.

When it comes to the trial, if the defendant does not attend, it will be very passive, so as long as there is no special reason, the defendant will generally attend, then the most critical problem arises.

Why can't you win a lawsuit with an IOU alone? Because you also need another key piece of evidence, which is the bank's transfer record, and you say you gave it in cash?

So I'm sorry, you basically can't win this lawsuit.

Because the defendant can explain that "this IOU was indeed written by me, and I did borrow money from the defendant at that time, but I did not get the money, and the plaintiff first asked me to write the IOU and then said that he would go to the bank to withdraw the money from me after writing the note, but he never gave me the money"

What should you do if the defendant argues like this? The judge theoretically needs to be fair and impartial, and the defendant's explanation is reasonable.

At this time, you need to provide bank transfer records, and you say that you gave cash, then the problem is big, the legal principle in this parallel world is.

Whoever asserts, who adduces.

If you assert your point of view and you have to produce corresponding evidence to support your point of view, if you assert a point of view but cannot produce strong evidence to prove it, then the judge can consider your statement to be untrustworthy.

At this point, I believe that many people have finally seen it.

You may argue with reason, how can the defendant agree to write an IOU if he doesn't get the money?

Unfortunately, in the judge's case, the most you can do is prove that the defendant may actually owe you money, but you can't prove that you actually gave the money to the defendant.

This kind of private lending case is very common, and many people have also suffered losses in this matter, and generally when this happens, you need to provide a lot of supporting evidence.

For example, is there a withdrawal record of your withdrawal from the bank on the same day?

Or is it audio evidence that the defendant admits to owing you money?

You even have to prove that you can actually lend the defendant the amount of money, such as selling a house or something?

No matter how much evidence there is, it is only auxiliary evidence, and in the final analysis, it is impossible to tell whether you gave the money to the defendant at that time.

You might say that I have witnesses, and that my friend accompanied me when I was given the money?

Unfortunately, in civil cases, the legal effect of witness testimony is basically the same.

The lawyer entrusted by the protagonist of this book said one of the most objective words: "Witnesses have no legal effect in civil cases, because they can be found all over the street"

You may say that you are legally responsible for perjury, and indeed, if you find out that it is indeed perjury, you will definitely be legally responsible.

But the crux of the matter is that no one is going to pursue civil cases so clearly.

The biggest difference between a civil case and a criminal case is that a criminal case requires a conviction of one party, so the facts must be clear, and the public side will try their best to investigate the matter for you.

In fact, civil cases are not so rigorous, as long as they are generally in the past.

This is the sorrow and darkness of this parallel world.

No one cares about the facts, if you have evidence, you can win the lawsuit, if you don't have evidence, you can't win the lawsuit, who cares what the facts are?

This is our protagonist, standing at the door of the courthouse, depressed and frowning, lighting a cigarette and taking a hard puff, letting the smoke roll in his body.

At this time, he finally had an epiphany.

Justice refers to the principle of the public, and the ruling made by the public must be irrefutable no matter where it goes.

He doesn't care what you really are.

He doesn't care whether the defendant owes you money or not, he only knows that he can't sentence you to win, because if you win, the defendant can go around shouting on the grounds that he didn't receive the money, and when the world sees it, it will only say that the public is not rigorous.

So the public will never sentence you to win, because he doesn't care what the facts are, he only cares about his verdict No matter where you go, no one else can find fault.

A puff of smoke exhales

Look up at the blue sky

Bai Yujie understood that the fundamental function of the court was not to seek justice for the poor.

The fundamental purpose of the court's existence is to preserve the dignity and image of the public.

"There is no justice in this world at all"