Money or justice?

The year came together and the old COVID year 2020 continued freely with the COVID year 2021. I successfully passed the trial period in a new company that was so modernly different in terms of size, work content and management leadership. I suddenly had the opportunity to work with technologies and systems that I could only read about on the web until then. My son, when he found out about where I was accepted after the "selection", just commented dryly - "Dad, if you don't like it there, you can leave at any time, now is the time, but I would stay there at least because of the CV". And so I ended up staying there for exactly one year.

But what about our fights with windmills?

After the last meeting with Judge #JH ("Dr. Hustá") in June 2020, we understood that the fight to clear one's name will be a tough and merciless fight. I was willing to accept at the time that our legal views might not logically coincide with those of the opposing side, but still armed with our naive belief in elementary fairness, we embarked on another year of fighting Radio ГА / ГA and its associated "independent" legal machinery .

As mentioned in previous posts, we invoked justice in two independent actions, referred to for simplicity as the "nullification of termination" action and the "anti-discrimination" action, each with its own unique number and associated docket. In particular, the latter lawsuit visibly broke the prepared script (described as template here) of this righteous trio, and therefore they decided to keep silent from the beginning. A possible proof of their efforts is the fact that the burden of proof is different for each of the above-mentioned types of lawsuits (once on the defendant and once on the plaintiff) and it is not permissible to combine them. But we are already getting on very fragile professional legal ice.

A typical example of their collaboration was a summons for a court hearing in the matter of a discrimination claim on 5/1/2021, which was marked with the number of the claim for the invalidity of the notice and, of course, as already has become customary in "anti-discrimination" lawsuits, with the address of the defendant modified. This is only so that both cases can be decided by the same court panel, i.e. the same judge #JH ("Dr. Hustá") (described in detail here). Visibly, this brilliant idea was gratefully accepted by the defence attorneys of the defendants #MV ("Mgr. Prasátko") and #LA ("Leklá Andělka"), who copied this system in their next communication with us, even though we unsuccessfully protested against it "on all stations". They just didn't give up the idea of merging both lawsuits into a single one and traditionally crystal clear to "win" in the resulting dispute.

But let's first devote a few sentences to the dry theory, which I will refer to in my post today and which I will try to explain without paragraphs.

During the court proceedings, the judge announced a 30-day period for concentration, which is a certain statutory "stop status" ", in which the parties to the proceedings can enter decisive facts about the matter itself and mark the evidence to prove them. The court (with exceptions) does not consider the evidence and facts mentioned later.

But the funny thing is that after announcing the concentration of proceedings, the judge suddenly decided to mediation meeting, which actually logically interrupted the concentration, we thought. We believed that in preparation for mediation and while waiting for its date, neither party would offer additional evidence to the opposing party in order to additionally prepare for mediation. So, if you end up in a similar situation, think of this tactical move of theirs, which they subsequently used with another unlucky judge against Radio ГA / ГA.

Another principle is that an audio recording and finally a protocol are taken from the meeting, which become an important item of every court file. After all, there is one more to the party after that, and she is the recorder (that is, if the judge herself does not take notes during the hearing). However, one rule applies here – if there is a contradiction between the audio recording and the written protocol, the audio recording logically takes precedence as evidence.

One of the most important things in all court proceedings is the issuing of instructions by the judge to individual parties to the dispute, especially in disputes where one of the parties is represented only by a representative, and not by a lawyer, thus a priori pulling the short rope . This representative can be anyone in this type of dispute, and it's up to you whether you choose your favorite bricklayer, butcher, or feisty lady from your favorite shop for these purposes. Probably the most important lesson is the possibility of objecting to the bias of the judge(judges) to whom the case belongs according to the work schedule. In order to prevent the abuse of objections of bias only for delays in the proceedings, the participant is obliged to file an objection at the latest at the first meeting attended by the judge whose exclusion is in question, or even at the next stage of the proceedings, but no later than 15 days from the day when he learned about the reason for the judge's exclusion. At any time during the proceedings, a party to the proceedings may raise an objection of bias, if the court did not properly instruct the party about the right to comment on the persons of the judges who, according to the work schedule, discussed and decided their case.

As it can be seen from the audio recording, this instruction was presented only for the party #MV ("Mgr. Prasátko") and only he did not apply his objection for its bias. In the written protocol, however, there is "not a single word" about this, on the contrary, it is stated that no one objected to the bias of the judge. The importance of this omission of hers is also evidenced by his effort to fight for the judge at the Court of Appeal to the point of tearing his body apart with the argument that it was not the case and, waving a protocol from the file, figuratively asked her to scratch behind her ear. That it would rely on the fact that no one will just get involved in listening to audio recordings?

So the question arises - did we expect a different scenario?

Actually, not back then.

So let's address the discrepancies between the audio recordings, presented in this post of mine as their textual transcriptions, and the official written protocol that became part of the files. Since Judge #JH ("Dr. Hustá") creatively and out of the blue, as was her custom, expanded the original topic of the court proceedings to include discrimination and proceedings on the invalidity of the statement, we present both transcripts.

So please be lenient with me and if you want to make me happy, please at least "like" my several hours of work listening and transcribing the events as they happened on that January day. It wasn't a pleasant listen at all, even after so long, believe me. Therefore, let my mother tongue be heard here, at least in a few sentences, performed by my sister, who fought hard here in an unequal battle for the purification of my name.

So far, we were still fed bread and we were even offered the prospect of a sweet candy to go with it.

The fact that we did not want to see or taste this sugar of theirs at the time resulted in a whip in the form of "speak Czech" and "we are in the Czech Republic, so Czech will be spoken here". When my sister subsequently tried, quite successfully, to speak Czech, she got the answer - "speak Czech slowly to write it down". As a result, I think that this whole "monster process" and the way it was conducted by this peripheral arm of justice ultimately led to my decision to apply for Slovak citizenship additionally.

After the initial introduction of the performers

so let's go to the individual transcripts.

1. Action against discrimination

Prepis - diskriminace - 05.01.2021.pdf

Download PDF • 144KB

As can be seen from the audio recording, I did not attend the court proceedings and was excused by the nurse, which is true, as I was sitting at work on the afternoon shift. In the protocol in the file, however, it is stated that I was there.

With the passage of time, it is thus possible to see the main reasons for their efforts to change the address of the defendant in a lawsuit against discrimination. This was a lawsuit that none of them had had experience with in the past and they desperately needed to catch time. Actually, it wasn't so much about time as it was about "making it difficult" for us. Even though #MV ("Mr. Prasátko") was equipped with power of attorney figuratively "for everything", he could always buy time by waiting for approval from some fictional boss in Washington. It was easier with us - the nurse had my power of attorney and my full trust.

Another common colour of all negotiations was again the inexorable effort of the two justices to combine the two lawsuits into a single one. It was a small satisfaction when listening again, to hear their inexpert floundering about a problem they do not understand at all and how they are trying to rewrite my lawsuit in their image at the last minute. The fact that a would-be impartial judge feels the immense need to help the professional lawyer of the defendant against the common "scumbag" and their proxy is exactly the parody of justice that we always perceived from this meeting until the last judgment.

As a beautiful example of expertise in this matter was her claim that the plaintiff in particular finds discrimination in the different approach of competition and lobbying between Barracuda Networks and Microsoft. Honestly, when I first heard this, I just rolled my eyes and said, "God, can you see that?" and tried not to think about it. She probably understood it in the way that Barracuda threatened me in the form of a predatory fish, and that made me feel discriminated against as a Microsoft administrator. Otherwise I can't explain it at all. Our 30 pages of reasons and attachments didn't work at all?

I will definitely come back to this "bright idea" of hers in one of my next posts. To make you believe that it actually happened and that it appeared in her final judgment. Every time I read or listen to it, I think of the well-known replica of MUDr. Štrosmajer "about a dove" from the popular series from a hospital stories.

Since we live in the Czech Republic, and even though I don't believe that any of you would envy me to go through this "martyrdom" and not take the "grumpy 10 salaries" for it after 15 years of work at the end of my productive life, I present this well-known argument, when OKD employees walked away after signing the agreement with 11 salaries according to the duration of their employment.

2. Action for annulment of notice

Prepis - proti vypovedi 5.1.2021.pdf

Download PDF • 122KB

The fight in the spirit of "we will trample the nasty worm" and get rid of it, continued from the run and at a fast pace to the next point discussed, until the moment when the recording was forcibly stopped by the judge. If things don't go well, we will figuratively wring his neck as during "Bolshevik" era, especially let it be with his blessing and only from the seemingly distant "Washington". At that time, we still naively believed it, and to be honest - after personal experiences when important management decisions were avoided or delegated to someone "else" (whether in reality or only in appearance) - we were not surprised by this delegation of responsibility to someone else at all.

Apropos, to this day there is a rumour going around in Radio ГA / ГA that no one knows who actually fired me from my job. If I ignore the fact that miracles simply don't happen after a certain of a person age and that normally an ordinary woman is not able to give birth without conception, in my case the notice was signed by #KF("Kristina Fšetko").

However, the efforts of #MV ("Mgr. Prasátko") not to seek consensus through a fictitious approver led to one of their very important kicks.

The last of the trio of righteous #LA ("Leklá Andělka") already accompanied the lawyer to all other meetings, who took the whole thing as her "party task", one would say in the terminology of the previous regime. Perhaps this was her way of increasing her visibility in the "food chain" of Radio ГА / ГA, where until then, thanks to her abilities, she was rather pitiful to the other employees and was taken as a backup third-fiddle choir member. Let this be confirmed by the fact that the parallel legal proceedings with another employee of Radio ГА / ГА are already taking place outside of her interest.

And so, in the role of a useful idiot, she declared her "jihad" against us from this day on.

Will it be done or will it be undone? How many people have had to deal with the same dilemma in this case, do you remember the previous posts?

As you can see from the audio transcript, it was an uneven fight from the beginning and I am still grateful to my sister for putting up with them and teasing me properly.

I always told her that I couldn't imagine ever sitting there alone against them. They would probably have taken me out of the courtroom after a few minutes, with a financial account burdened with several fines for contempt of court, which they apparently relied on, according to one of the next audio recordings, and for bodily harm to those sitting closest to me. Although I bravely attended other meetings in the spirit of "you have to live through your own hell", I did so only thanks to heavy doses of magnesium and Lexaurin. And also thanks to the fact that I was motivated by a simple rule - because it's not done and they just can't get away with it that easily.

We were only at the beginning of the pivotal year 2021.

We were waiting for the answer from "Mrs Columba" from Washington, i.e. from #MV ("Mgr. Prasátko"), we were preparing for possible mediation, as #JH ("Dr. Hustá") might order for the next her scheduled court hearings - and most importantly, to fight with other windmills.

We felt more and more intensely, that something interesting was waiting for us in the files (even between the lines), in the audio recordings that no one listens to, in the monitoring of the website and in the information obtained according to the law on free access to information.

We were still prepared to meet, come to a reasonable agreement and honor our commitment to refrain from any public publicity.

So let me conclude by borrowing one thought from a certain unnamed attorney with whom we met later that year and discussed possible representation. It was at a time when we were already exceptionally losing the remnants of illusions and were preparing our "appeal" to a superior court.

This little man was sympathetic to me because of his sense of reality, and especially because, as one of the few approached, he "had time" for our possible legal representation against Radio ГA / ГA. Unfortunately, he demanded money for his representation, unlike the representative of the opposing party with their unlimited resources from the money of American taxpayers #UTP("US Tax payer").

Even now I get chills at those words:

So do you want money or justice?

Then sometime next time, if there is one.