Cui bono, who benefits?

[Moderatorin Moderatorin Alle Beiträge durchsuchen Profil ansehen Schließen Moderatorin]

The question of cui bono, who benefits, also arises in neighbourhood disputes.


A case from practice: A man buys a mill as an investment property. Based on false information, he believes he can wrest a few rights from his neighbour. These rights concern water, passage and the transfer of wastewater over a property.

He is informed by certain people that the neighbour is old, sick and does not understand the language.

So the buyer of the mill starts to put pressure on his neighbour with reports to the authorities and intrigue.

But the neighbour fights back!

What initially looked like an easy game turns out to be a lengthy, tough legal battle.

The neighbour, an editor by profession, has conducted several lawsuits in the course of his career and is therefore not afraid of legal disputes. Even lawsuits lasting for years do not scare him.

Now the buyer of the mill does not understand the world anymore. One complaint after the other is rejected. There is no prospect of success in any of his actions.

Why?

Well, a simple question that the expert / woman in every legal matter first asks is: who benefits?

Cui bono?

If the buyer of the mill had asked himself this question at the beginning, then it would have become clear to him that the neighbour is not his enemy. The neighbour, a little older and more interested in his hobbies than in buying a mill.

Who is interested then? Well, for example, people from the area who would like to buy an affordable home for their children.

The current buyer of the mill is not particularly financially successful. With a few unsuccessful but costly actions, he may be forced to sell the mill at a low price. This is the possibility on which his ‘advisers’ speculate.

Sometimes you have to make an effort, think about things and, above all, ask the question:

Cui bono?

[von Klarenfeld besonders erfahrenes Mitglied Alle Beiträge durchsuchen Profil ansehen Schließen von Klarenfeld]

Sometimes you have to think a little more deeply. Blaming the neighbor is easy. But is he always to blame? The question of who benefits is just as important.

[Leihduddle Forumsmitglied Alle Beiträge durchsuchen Profil ansehen Schließen Leihduddle]

More and more people are going to court. The result is overburdened courts. Other authorities are also inundated with complaints and reports. The result of the overload is that quick, often wrong decisions are made. Neighborhood disputes often go unattended.

Many people know this and try to use it to their advantage.

[Schlomi Forumsmitglied Alle Beiträge durchsuchen Profil ansehen Schließen Schlomi]

A man buys a mill as a speculative object. Based on incorrect information, he believes he can wrest a few rights from his neighbor. This involves water rights, rights of passage and the transfer of wastewater across a property.

Speculation in real estate is really strange. The reason for this is that it usually involves large sums of money. The larger the sum, the more moral values are simply forgotten.
The idea of using fakes, rumors, false accusations, threats of lawsuits, reports to the police, etc. to induce particularly impressionable people to take certain actions, such as the "cheap transfer" of a property, is new. But it crops up from time to time as an "insider tip".
However, these speculations are rarely successful. The speculator who has bought a junk property is more likely to have problems, because older people also go to court. And they have the age bonus there. The same goes for disabled and sick people.
Even the manipulations of municipal employees are not always successful, but often enough end up on the internet.

[Translatorix besonders erfahrenes Mitglied Alle Beiträge durchsuchen Profil ansehen Schließen Translatorix]

I find this “Cui bono?” post extremely interesting!

You could be forgiven for thinking that there is a blind spot in the legislation when it comes to bullying. In other words, it seems that scaring, displacing, and driving away people using suitable methods, where the motives are difficult to prove, is apparently “okay”. At least it seems that way, otherwise this forum would not exist!


The fact that the elderly are increasingly being targeted by fraudsters or property speculators and, due to a decline in their strength, may have little opportunity to defend themselves, is rarely discussed, only in very blatant cases, which then also end up on television, but only if they remain politically correct.


In the case I am looking at, the state seems to be involved in the bullying. Influential neighbors seem to have desires with regard to new building land. In order to achieve their goals, they stage a neighborhood dispute according to the German Civil Code (BGB), with the state going along with it and participating. The protection of the senior citizen, a relative, is defamed, also by the opposing lawyer, and even physically attacked by various actors. Although the aggression demonstrably did not originate from the old people or their relative, in this case the proceedings are discontinued in favor of the bullying neighborhood. That's an upside-down world, isn't it? In any case, it is known from victimology that narcissistic “perpetrators” in particular have no sense of guilt at all and think that they are somehow entitled to someone else's property.


In the case of the mill example, the mill owner would be proven right and the harassed editor of advanced age would have to give up some rights to the property speculator.




In the case I am familiar with, it is precisely the protective shield of the elderly, the relatives, who are being harassed, and so far without consequences for the bullies! The judge passed a one-sided verdict and ignored the evidence in favor of the very elderly defendants - other state bodies excelled at omission and did not help the seniors in areas where they were actually responsible.




In view of the election debacle, one does not have to ask oneself why extreme parties are gaining popularity when democracy itself is undermining itself!




In the example I am familiar with, the resistance of the very elderly seniors was also underestimated. Nobody reckoned with their relative and also not with the fact that he had a certain amount of experience of conflict situations that he had already suffered through.




Nevertheless, it remains a mystery to the two senior citizens and their relative how, in this day and age, it is possible to dispense with a correct presentation of evidence in court! Possibly it is related to the fact that the courts are overburdened and the “Cui bono?” side hopes for a quick victory, which would have occurred even without resistance. Worse, however, would be the insinuation that the court deliberately played into the hands of a particular side, comparable to a referee who manipulatively whistles games.




Conclusion: Without resistance, the two old people would have been financially ruined and morally completely disillusioned by now, probably they would have been forcibly committed to a home and would now be dead due to the grief.




Bullying against people who cannot defend themselves should no longer go unpunished for much longer! It is a cowardly act because it avoids a dispute between equals.




It would be great if legal protection could be provided specifically for legal disputes involving old or impaired people! There is certainly an immense “need” for this!

[Schlomi Forumsmitglied Alle Beiträge durchsuchen Profil ansehen Schließen Schlomi]

Correction: The idea of using fakes, rumors, false accusations, threats of lawsuits, reports to the police, etc. to induce particularly impressionable people to take certain actions, such as the “cheap transfer” of a property


is not new.




In court, especially in the first instance, there are sometimes wrong judgments. Judges are only human.


If you have the time and, above all, the money, you should work with experts and not be afraid of the second instance.


I had a trial in which a “soft verdict” was pronounced against me in the first instance. In the second instance, my opponent lost “with a bang”.


But older people in particular shy away from going to court or give up very quickly. I agree with “Tanne / Translatorix” on that.


But there are also older people whose children are lawyers, or even judges. Most speculators inquire about their surroundings and drop the “hot potato”.


But sometimes they are deliberately misinformed by those around them. It then takes years to resolve the matter and costs a lot of money. For both parties!




But I am in favor of civil courage and the law must remain the law!