top of page
Search

Honorific in "American"

  • Writer: RFERL Watch
    RFERL Watch
  • Apr 19, 2023
  • 10 min read

Honor (from the verb to honor, in this post from the phrase "affidavit", or "word of honor") is a quality of a being (that is, an entity that uses natural intelligence), most often a human, that can be characterized as moral credit, respectability, trustworthiness, or good name. Honor can be expressed as the potential to gain trust or show respect and as honor increases, this probability increases.


This is what public sources say about this phenomenon.




At the time, we had no idea that this team of the righteous had imperceptibly expanded to include an independent lady judge of the local circuit court, #JH ("Dr. Hustá").

I left my work equipped with curiosity, patience and with charged cell phones and notepad with several pencils we both set out on Mičánky.


Here we were greeted by a huge room with long tables, at the top of each an implacable corpulent lady sat with a large shopping basket from TESCO. After the necessary check of our documents and after apologising to us for our 30 minute delay (to understand from the beginning who is here for whom), we went to our free place at the table.


We were accompanied only by the rustling of files, the quiet talk of other colleagues watching the documents and the clicking of their cameras.


I was surprised that even though neither side had presented anything in court yet, the files for both of our lawsuits were getting pretty thick. I know, I also contributed with my several dozen pages of lawsuits, but the extent of both court files really surprised me. That's why I rushed to find out in detail what the other several dozen pages of Radio ГA / ГA have about me.


As we leafed through the files, we couldn't help but notice that in addition to the judge's many notes, mostly unfortunately in the documents of the opposing party, a handwritten telephone number of # MV ("Mgr. Prasátko") appeared here in the power of attorney supplied by him, or errors in the numbering of individual pages and attachments. These were mainly numerical duplications, or, on the contrary, gaps in their ranks. Later, this time for the third time, we shared our findings with the superior lady judge, Mrs. #RV ("Dr. Veverička").


It should be noted that to no avail, although it did have some success – increase in numbering of files, and even and summary overview started slowly closer to the ideal strong defined by the office rules.


Here is one of the previews where you can see (re)numbering in the file with the "affidavits in place" of Mr. #RC ("Remotely Controlled") and #JS ("Joints Smoker”), delivered to superior court in one of my many complaints.

 




 

For the sake of completeness and correctness, I am adding the answer of Mrs. Judge #RV ("Dr. Veverička") dated 17.10.2021, regarding the above-mentioned objection - in the familiar style now – everything is in order and in accordance with the law.


Do you remember her "truthful" statement to the text transcription of the audio recording in another matter here?


So I leave her response below uncommented. Something to think about would be – what those 30 pages probably contained and how they were added to the file? When and at what time and in what way were they inserted here?

 


 

All these findings and events led us to believe that with the impartiality of the independent judge #JH ("Dr. Hustá") it would not be completely "kosher". That's why we several times asked the superior lady judge to be excluded from both hearings due to bias.


Unfortunately to no avail.


And so, instead of a legal battle between the plaintiff and the defendant, we also dealt with legal battles with a related lady judge.

But about these findings and suspicions some time later.


Here is the response of the court management to another complaint dated September 3, 2021. Again, in the spirit of tradition, everything is perfectly fine. By having the opportunity to review the files several times and compare them over time, we could at least verify that each of our complaints led for additional additions to the file. Whether that really happened and whether I was really out of my depth to complain about something that has been on file all along, I respectfully leave to each of you to consider.

 


 

At the end of this response to the complaint, I present the part where the court management tries to explain the strangeness with the allocation of the discrimination suit to the hands of the same judge #JH ("Dr. Hustá ").


In this context, one true and funny saying comes to mind:


There is only one letter difference between all the doctors. Do you know of any example where a doctor wouldn't keep a doctor?

 


 

So it will be interesting to see how the lawsuit against discrimination in Radio ГA / ГA, according to the above opinion (Specialisation in anti-discrimination lawsuits is not established in this court.”), is handled by the local court. How will it probably decide on the lawsuit especially after its superior Prague Municipal Court of Appeal decided at its meeting on 31/08/2022 about its return and renegotiation right here, this time without the universal "independent judge"? More information is provided here.


Perhaps it would be worth considering to bring up some such judge at the local district court for Prague 10, given similar cases and the local affiliation of Radio ГA / ГA to the local court, don't you think?

In conclusion, let me say a few sentences about the "affidavit" of #RC ("Remotely Controlled") and #JS ("Joints Smoker"), allegedly written by one of them on 06/04/2020, i.e. at the time when he was no longer even an employee of the defendant, and the latter, probably a few days after my criminal complaint for a security incident committed in relation to my privacy and personal data.


According to all the judgments of the first-instance courts, led by Judge #JH ("Dr. Hustá") and on the basis of which I have lost all court cases with her so far, Mrs. "independent judge" emphasises their importance as pivotal in the description of events as they allegedly happened. In addition, the second statement is presented only in electronic form in an MS WORD file, and even without a signature.


The reasons for the rejection of lawsuits in the judgments of the courts of both levels have developed differently over time over the past two years.

In the beginning it was for the loss of trust. When the defendant was unable to elaborate, they came up with the version that I did not report something. When I proved to her that I should officially report it to myself since I was the only one responsible for the system, she came up with an "affidavit". She responded to my claim and evidence that my superior was informed about this incident and also to the interest of the police resulting from my criminal complaint against my superior. Looks like she finally accepted proof from the monitoring system that I actually recorded it there. Then the defendant came up with a theory, I note that together with the judge, that I should have turned off something and prevented the spread of the attacker, where she clearly did not understand the laws of the "cloud" infrastructure of the "SaaS" type. When I pointed out this fact and its technical impossibility of implementation, she came out during the next meeting with the version that I grossly violated my work duties. When I proved with my employment contract that I had held a job position for 5 years without defined job duties, i.e. essentially "spoken form only", she changed the reason for dismissal to definitive at the last appeal hearing version, namely that I grossly violated discipline.


And this is where the "affidavit" came in handy.


A similar method was used for the second lawsuit. It is said that my superior did not discriminate against me, he trained me regularly, gave me a salary, even some small reward, they made several entries from the attendance list for some kind of training outside the content of the lawsuit, where, in addition, some of the names are entered 3 times on the same day, and even some of the same ones at the same hour (probably those in question have reproduced). That among them there were trainings that related to something completely different, for example "harassment", after all, it also means that I was trained, right? Due to the fact that the documentation in the file was copied from the intranet, the trainings are presented here in their current form, while at the time of the lawsuit they existed on the intranet only in a "beta version", which I tried to prove with an extract from the email communication.


I believe that there is something different between the annual training about not slapping colleagues on the bottom, holding the door for them and not making any sexist remarks towards them, than the training on how to secure O365, or lessons on deploying applications in Microsoft Azure's cloud environment.


These are the trainings he refused to send me to, arguing that there was no money for it.


And now some dry legal sentences, relating to the phenomenon of the "affidavit, as I found them on the web.

 

New administrative order No. 500/2004 Coll. with effect from January 1, 2006, the institution of the sworn statement is almost completely abandoned, when § 53 paragraph 5 stipulates that the sworn statement can be used only as a substitute for documents (i.e. no longer as a substitute for other means of proof), but even then only in in the event that a special law so stipulates, under the conditions established by that special law.


With this amendment, sworn declarations as a substitute for documents are completely outside the regime of general administrative proceedings and, if they are not established by a special law for some special proceedings, they cannot claim. Special laws then usually allow sworn declarations to certify some characteristic of a person or traded item under a special regime, especially in cases where the country of origin of the participant in this special administrative procedure does not issue extracts from the criminal record or other documents about the criminal integrity of its citizens, but Czech law requires this integrity for the granting of some special authorisations requires; there are only rare cases of affidavits admitted by special law.


According to 2021 statistics, it is reported that almost 25% of people lied on their affidavits about their COVID-19 test results.

It offends me as a person, if someone like my former superior decided with his "honorary statement" that I was fired from my job according to the law, or that I was not discriminated against by him. And I'm not even talking about that it was not an administrative proceeding.



So let's finally look at the affidavit of my former supervisor #RC ("Remotely Controlled").


Certainly each of us, although it is sad, at least once in our life, lied. Whether it was in childhood in relation to your parents, friends or unfortunately also later on to your partners. Since I don't consider myself a holy man, I know what I'm talking about.


The basis of successful lying must be a credible story, at least some minimal evidence, and above all there must be in some time frame.


I will keep quiet about the story "on the water" and the evidence in this particular "affidavit" so as not to violate the GDPR, but the time frame in those three versions of the statement I will focus on "fest".

So let's go to those versions:


  • Version 1 – the original English version, certified by a "Vinohrady notary" dated June 4, 2020 and according to the paper written as the writer probably intended to write it. The document contains 4 pages, with the first 2 pages appearing to be copied verbatim from my termination letter. The last fourth page is exclusively dedicated to his "development" in the "cyberstalking" I exposed and my criminal complaint against him. Why is the third page, which is visibly inserted here and moved horizontally by about 3 cm higher, remains unanswered, because the court refused to summon a witness and thus rejected evidence in this matter.


 


 

So here #RC ("Remotely Controlled") actually admits that it has been on my computer for more than a year for various reasons.


  • Version 2 – Czech translation, provided by Radio ГA / ГA to both files for my lawsuits for Judge #JH ("Dr. Hustá"), where the original date is still kept.

 


 

  • Version 3 – modified Czech translated version, really modified by Radio ГA / ГA for Police of the Czech Republic for purpose of the investigation of my criminal complaint on #RC (“Remotely Controlled”) for “Suspect of committing criminal issue listed in Act No. 40/2009 Coll. - Criminal law against the rights to the protection of personality and paper secrecy"

 


 

Our well-known trio of the righteous probably did not count on the fact that we would order to look at the files in police criminal department.


It will also certainly be interesting to see how the professional association of "Advocate Chamber" will react to this manipulation of evidence, where the external advocate of Radio ГA / ГA #MV ("Mrg. Prasátko") is a member and who is paid by American taxpayer.

The stakes were visibly higher for the police, and above all, there was no independent judge who could sweep this evidence off the table.


In the end, this fit nicely into the original statement of the legal department of Radio ГA / ГA, which downplayed this whole criminal misconduct of #RC ("Remotely Controlled") and finally in the end, his act was even highlighted.

It's all about perspective.

 


 

In general, in both my cases and in the "honest statements" of the key figures involved in them, there were always big problems with the dates.

So, let's conclude with the preamble of the affidavit #RC ("Remotely Controlled"), written suddenly on 6/4/2020, apparently after I asked the District Police Department about the status of the investigation of my criminal report.


 



 

And since my post today lacked a bit of that fable, let me fix that in its conclusion.


And so #RC ("Remotely Controlled"), gifted with boundless loyalty to Radio ГA / ГA, in a touching attempt to save this long-time breadwinner and protector, despite the fact that he no longer works for them, in a sudden movement of the mind, seasoned with an irresistible urge to open the eyes of justice for good, in the middle of the feverish packing of his family and household before a long journey behind the puddle, he writes "in American" those 4 pages of the "duster's" sworn statement.


Subsequently, driven by an unrelenting desire to do justice, he visits a notary in Vinohrady, where he honestly signs all his truths. With the feeling of a savior, i.e. mainly his own, he hands over everything according to the "remotely controlled" instructions immediately to the legal department of Radio ГA / ГA.


That there would be some damn money in it???


Then just have it quickly translated and put in the file. But "they" will take care of that when he is safe and in his native lump.


As one of the investigators revealed privately – “do you know of any case where someone like that would be extradited back (from US) here to testify?”


Simple and genius, right? Two birds with one stone! And do you see? Not even two affidavits were needed!

The dice have been cast! And because the ubiquitous COVID was attacking, he did not forget to wash his hands thoroughly after returning home at the end of his righteous mission.



That it wasn't like that?


Honorable "American" word that it was!

 

The rest again sometime next time, if there are any...

Comments

bottom of page