Let's see if I can sum this up. In real-time, if my landlord believed that I had broken the lease-agreement, they could NOT evict me, until they had proved it in court that I had IN-FACT broken the lease agreement, especially in a case where the landlord says that I broke the agreement, but I deny breaking it. This is why there are contract-attorneys and civil-courts: To litigate these kind of disputes. I had agreed that I could be evicted without refund, if I broke the land agreement. I had not agreed that I could be evicted for any reason or false reason. But, let's suppose that the landlord actually had thrown my stuff onto the sidewalk and locked me out - then I could sue him. Not just for the stolen rent-money, but for punative-damages, lost-items, moving-expenses and my legal-fees, not to mention their legal-costs, lost-time from work, $20 parking in the court-garage, security-checkpoints, disease-exposure, et al. These kinds of potential negative consequences deter landlords from taking rash action, and encourage people to negotiate and compromise.
But, instead of a legal-system with a means to seek redress for suffering tortious-offense, this particular-agreement has no clear way to be appealed. Not only does the lessee seem to have no redress, but the landlord knows the lessee has no good form of redress. Therefore, not only is the landlord not motivated to negotiate, or compromise - they are amotivated to do so. The easiest way for the landlord to deal with it, and the best monetary outcome for the landlord is the same thing: Evict without refund, and rerent the parcel. Occam's razor.
In the Homeric Dialogues, the question is posed to Socrates “What should a moral-man do when confronted with a bad or immoral law?” Socrates argues that the moral-man is obligated to break and oppose the immoral law, despite inevitable negative consequences, and personal cost. Only by this method, which Thoreau would later label “civil-disobedience” will immoral-laws eventually be changed. This same logic applies to standing-up for oneself, when one has been wronged, and for standing up to bullies. It's not the $10, it's the principle of the thing, as well as the negative emotional consequences of NOT standing up for myself. One definition of activism is: When their seems to be no way to effectively protest, find a way.
I wish that there had been a nice, polite, friendly, above-board, legal, ethical, and popular way to seek redress for my grievance. Since there is not, I regrettably am forced by Socrates' impeccable-logic, to seek redress or retribution, by whatever means will work. I had paid early for my next-week, and all I asked for was the return of that money, not even recompense for lost no-copy items. It seems a reasonable request, but Katya believed that she had no need to be reasonable, because I had no recourse. So I told her, “I can make it cost you more than 2200 to not repay the 2200, so the wise-course is to repay the money.” She did not agree with my logic, so I was forced to prove my point in a concrete, measurable, and ongoing way.
I regret that this made me do some things that I would have preferred not to do. I regret that some of you feel that I used this forum, which we all value for numerous other reasons, for my own selfish, personal ends. I would have liked it better if more of you had understood the logic of my argument, and agreed with the righteousness of my activism. But, I guarantee you that Weezles Real Estate wishes that they had given me the 2200, and is less likely to misbehave like this in the future. If you want to make an omelet, you gotta break a few eggs.
R:
, if you will.
