Waterloo - testimony second
- RFERL Watch
- Jul 23, 2023
- 9 min read
It was the second day of November in the summer of 2021, and after a hard-prayed 15-minute "piss pause" in the ongoing court battle, we headed from the toilet area back to our court benches, to rehabilitate our newly broken positions for its further course. The cacophony of nonsense delivered by her impartial majesty #JH ("Dr. Hustá"), strongly supported by a related species in arms #MV ("Mgr. Prasátko"), was still ringing in our ears, ending with the well-known refrain "in the name of the republic". In the end, all the muttering, carefully and above all "impartially" filmed by the court film crew, was watched from the area reserved for the public with feigned disinterest by their main friend - #LA ("Dr. Leklá Andělka"). Although not directly participating in both of the battles at that time, she generously paid for it all with the money of American taxpayers #UTP ("US Tax Payer").
So what were our prospects for success?
Truthfully, after losing the first stage of the battle, they were very unclear and our self-confidence was greatly dented. We couldn't understand how we could lose! After all, I performed a job for which I was not appointed, trained and there was not even a job description for it, so how can I finally be fired from it due to a gross violation of these duties? We still could not understand that this hand of justice, appointed in 1993 by the President of the Republic, could not accept this evidence and would not be convinced by the defendant's other troubles, consisting of probable violations of Czech criminal law and its own internal regulations by my superior - America's superman.
At that time we were still living in deep ignorance.
At the time, we still didn't know "even the ashes" about the existence and content of the secretly recorded recording of her trial session. As this recording later revealed here, before the start of the next hearing in the sequence, i.e. "on discrimination and unequal treatment", its outcome was decided ahead of time, and even the final one was already drafted in protocol in just 12 minutes.
Simply in the spirit of the familiar - "for reasons of efficiency and economy" - as they often say in the language of the their local tribe.
As it sounded from a later recording:
In fighting for your rights in court, you must rely only on yourself, a lawyer (if you can afford one), and on observance of the fundamental right to a fair trial, which is represented by an impartial and independent judiciary. With this civic certainty in mind, and with something that, given my age, could be humorously paraphrased as "a very large dose of youthful indiscretion", we found ourselves in its orbit.
So what ammo did we go into this second round of battle with?
At the first court hearing on 5/1/2021, the course of which was humorously written about in our block here, as it appears from the audio recordings and actually from the transcript of the recording above, our side was not instructed at all
The obligation to teach is an integral part of Act No. 99/1963 Coll., Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "OSŘ"). In general, this obligation is enshrined in the very introduction of the OSŘ, specifically in Section 5, which requires the court to provide instructions to the participants about their procedural rights and obligations.
I still haven't been given the opportunity to present my claim
Proceedings should be started with the reading or presentation of the lawsuit. This means that the claimant should stand up and briefly state the content of the claim. Until then, the proceedings are not considered to have started. The defendant is then invited to comment on the claim, if he has not done so before. The law imposes an obligation to comment on the lawsuit at the request of the court, if this happens in writing, the court sends a copy of this statement to the plaintiff.
„The effort to change the address of the defendant party so that it was the address of the mother of Radio ГA / ГA in the USA and thus the file was marked as "FOREIGN", which according to the current "work schedule" at the local Circuit Court should have ensured that the lawsuit ended, as many times before, in the fair hands of Judge #JH ("Dr. Hustá"), with whom they had successfully cooperated for many years. The intervention made by the court in the text of the petition so that it was discussed by this judge with regard to labor law and not according to the "anti-discrimination law", as stated by us in the lawsuit, is just another cherry on the cake, carefully baked by them according to proven and tested recipes (you can read more here).“
Probably with the hope that we will not be willing and able to verify the composition of the superior judicial panel "1 Nc", thus rejected this "virtual judicial panel" in its "virtual turbo meeting" about the judge's impartiality. It took them only 4 days for our objection of bias to arrive in the data box of the Circuit Court, then it was sent to the data box of the Municipal Court, where it was carefully documented, the composition of the panel that was to independently decide on this initiative was determined, the independent judicial panel met, sat, then decided independently, prepared the said written opinion and then delivered it to the data box of the Circuit Court, which delivered it directly to the hands of Mrs. independent judge. All this with a small flaw in beauty - the court panel "1 Nc" then, according to the work schedule, consisted of completely different judges than those who signed the decision. And to be properly gender unfair - it should have been signed exclusively by men and not by women.
Even though the court, through my legal representative, it informed us about the date of this stand and according to this information I should have been officially invited to it with a separate invitation. In the end somehow they forgot to invite me to my own meeting.
The judge brilliantly tried to get out of this mess by claiming that she doesn't really need me for this meeting, because she doesn't plan to question me at all and that she is already completely clear about the matter in advance.
Believe me, you will never succeed in your life in order to appear at a court hearing and say, without the prospect of a hefty administrative fine, to the lady "independent" judge the following sentence:
Your Honor, due to the manner in which this hearing was conducted, your overall bias, and your statements in this matter lead me to believe that you are absolutely INCOMPETENT for this court hearing!"
I can still feel the chill and weight of those events.
I sit back and anxiously think about the current balance in my already much decimated account. Now it will happen! It can't be breathless!
The sight of a whitewashed account due to a disciplinary fine for a few words did not leave me calm. Knowing how a few minutes earlier that unknown male voice had urged her to "a few disciplinary fines" against us in an attempt to teach us, I probably wouldn't have embarked on this adventure. But what, the word was spoken and as it is known - "What you let out of your mouth, you can't put back even with a couple of horses", I expected my ortel.
Instead of the fine, there was only a long silence, ending with her familiar "Good!". From the cloud above her head, you could read the film sentence from "Jáchyme hoď ho do stroje!" movie - Just let it go, we're used to it!. So push, push, push!
And so Radio ГA / ГA, represented by the righteous trio, began its then November afternoon counter-offensive.
The motivations of the independent lady judge are perhaps best evidenced by the following transcript of the recording taken during the break before the announcement of the final verdict in the case of "discrimination and unequal treatment, which unfortunately reached us only "ex-post" on the mysterious "flash disk", which we already wrote about in some of the previous articles.
Judge | Here it is. |
Male voice | Well sure. |
Judges and judges | (notify the presiding judge of the room number where he should appear) |
Male voice | I would give them a few fines and it would be settled. |
Judge | What? |
Male voice | That I would give them a few fines and it would be solved. |
Associate | She (the president of the court) said that she will not be at the meeting and you can decide for yourself ..... but she will come here |
Judge | .....Let her come here and tell them |
Associate | I'm also hearing this for the first time... She's never been to a meeting like this, well... |
Judge | (dictating and typing into the computer) |
Judge | So the court, at the request of the plaintiff, interrupted the proceedings in order to request the presence of the chairwoman of the court. |
Judge | (to the others) Look, it doesn't apply ... he cites the law on submission of bias .... and the objection is not justified Well, we are here (and welcomes the chairwoman). Well, good day. Well, I have a problem. She again objected to my bias during the second meeting, I simply said that I would decide on the matter, she started to get very upset that I couldn't do it... |
President | You can! |
Judge | And that he wants you. |
President | Well then, I won't organize it here. |
Judge | However I said you would come, so now I don't know what... She is in that corridor... |
President | Sure. I won't be here, like I'm just like, I'm like, what am I going to be here? I can sit down, it's nonsense, just... |
Judge | So for me, if you would be so kind, I am ready to pass judgment... |
President | Well, you like... |
Judge | Because she'll be here like if you could stay here for 10 minutes (pleading in her voice) |
President | Okay, but like... |
Male voice | But she will want to talk to you (mocking voice) |
Judge | So I don't know what to do with it (with a sigh in my voice) |
President | I don't think it's a very good idea, like... Me, because, of course, she'll probably understand who I am and want to communicate with me... |
Male voice | So if they have a problem with that, then if they want to leave, let them go... |
President | Exactly, so let them go... It doesn't matter. |
Male voice | You declare it and it's settled. I wouldn't mess with them at all. |
President | She doesn't have to be here. |
Judge | So what should I write here? You know, I'm just trying to meet the objections, ... |
President | I sort of understand it, but... |
Judge | So I have the right to interrupt the proceedings here, I simply requested the presence of the chairperson at the plaintiff's request, so what should I put there? |
President | Well, just, like, the presiding judge didn't show up... |
Male voice | Yes, and it is! |
President | And the negotiations continue, and as if, simply, you already have a decision ready...? |
Judge | I have... |
President | So despite the objection of bias, you can pass judgment on her... |
Male voice | Yes! |
President | ...within the presented cases, then in the appeal you state that the bias... |
Judge | ...it's already been decided once |
President | I know, I've studied it... And that's like it's settled! But what will I be like here? It's just, I, I know, but she will attack me, she will want to communicate with me, ... This can only make everything worse... |
Judge | Well, I... |
Male voice | I would repeat that paragraph... |
President | Me too! |
Judge | I repeated it, all wrong, I told her that she has her opinion, I have my opinion, ... |
President | No, I wouldn't argue with her! I instruct her according to the paragraph that, simply, it is possible to make a decision despite the raised objection of bias, period! |
Judge | So I don't have to teach her about tolectom...? (several people talking) |
President | Well, yes, I teach them, but this is... |
Judge | (trying to explain something to her) ...when she's there she has an awful lot... |
President | Then you reject them all, well! Like what...? Those suggestions. I declare it briefly, as if the motions presented orally by the representative of the plaintiff ... are rejected. Period! |
Judge | No, no, no, in my opinion, I reject it as a factual statement, she had concentration, she didn't add it there, so I don't think I need to lecture her? I canceled all the evidence... |
President | Well, I think that according to Article 119, as it were, it is necessary... |
|---|---|
Judge | Because we will never end here! |
President |
|
Judge |
|
President | (leaves the room…) |
Judge | (summons into the room...) So the hearing continues at 15:54 and it is noted that the chairwoman of the court does not appear in the courtroom and the content of section 15b, paragraph 2... is reviewed again, that is, the court considers that it is necessary to apply this provision because the objection of bias against the judge was raised by the plaintiff today during the hearing, that is, during the hearing, and the matter will be decided today and the court considers that this objection is not justified, when he has already addressed the previous objection. The Court of Appeal did not find the objection justified and the court believes that disagreement with the legal assessment in the matter cannot be confused with an objection of bias on the part of the judge. So please, I intend to decide on the matter by, as I said, the court, taking into account the result of the concentration hearing on 5/1/2021 finds that the plaintiff HAS BEEN ADVISED of the hearing on 5/2/2021 and the deadline has passed. But the court received from the plaintiff only an opinion on the appointment of a mediator, not on the substance itself, the addition of factual statements. So you have the opportunity to, ahem, give a closing speech, or appeal to your written decisions, because each of the participants has these rights before the announcement of the decision... |
And so, just like in the 50s, other well-known people, such as the president of the court #RV ("Dr. Veverička"), as well as unknown participants, like the unknown male voice, repeatedly arguing and asking for our harshest punishment, take part in the judgment outside the established court panel "16 C". It is incredible how this unknown male voice organizes and influences the whole thing, even the president of the court. To this day, we have not found out who is that "male voice" on the recordings, so unexampledly fighting for the defendant party, and if he happens to be spoken to, there is always only a long silence and an insincere change of the topic of conversation. Could it be a coincidence?
Interest in this recording, and especially in the male voice on it, it was also expressed by a prominent Czech investigative journalist from an internet newspaper, whose mission is to beat all selected politicians and non-politicians, and whose name must not even be mentioned. This former guardian of democracy and justice subsequently compared the voices from the recording with the voice of the attorney of Radio ГA / ГA #MV ("Mgr. Prasátko"). After allegedly not finding equality between them, he bid us good luck in the dispute with Radio ГA / ГA and said goodbye to us without further explanation. He probably soon "politically assessed" that it would not be for the "Pulitzer Prize" this time, and that the non-standard influencing of the court, which he became as a mute witness, it was just something common in the local "pools and groves".
But one can only speculate about the motives of the remaining righteous duo.
The legal representative of Radio ГA / ГA #MV ("Mgr. Prasátko") always approached this "armed struggle" very personally. Most likely also thanks to pressure from the client, who blames him for a 3-year-old lawsuit, thanks to which he has so far poured a considerable sum of American taxpayers' money into his law firm's account, and which is still developing without a prospect of a satisfactory and with no "light at the end of the tunnel". Those 1,000 US bucks awarded as a pain for a three-jointly won lawsuit, full of "procedural confusions", as he himself admits in one of his emails, together with the tarnished reputation of his client, is only a weak decoction of a strong potpourri, originally cooked according to their proven recipes. You can read more about it here.
And finally there is her, the gray eminence in the background of #LA ("Dr. Leklá Andělka"), suspected of having a personal connection to the same judge of hers, always judging the cases of her former colleagues and employees, trying relentlessly, even against our repeated offers for reconciliation and about which I will inform you in some of the next posts, to continue her personal "jihad". According to an acquaintance - "we don't negotiate with fired employees" - she is trying to please, prove herself and, as a bonus, perhaps even convince her of her ability to fulfil every wish she sees in the eyes of her "superior" headed by #KF ("Kristína Fšetko"). Pulling the right strings, the two above-mentioned are in charge, and from the space for the public, they set the right "undistorted" mirror to this whole "monster process".
So, as can be seen from that recording and from the text of the court protocol written by the judge, the most important decisions in our case were taken in the spirit of deep historical traditions - namely "about us, without us". The impartiality of Judge #JH ("Dr. Hustá") was decided by the non-jurisdictional "1 Nc" court panel, and basically outside her court "courtyard" and the highest one in the local "courtyard", she did not (not) participate or interfere at all in the "secret" proceedings of her court panel. The fact that there were several violations of the "OSŘ" (Civil Court Code) was only an insignificant blemish on the beauty of this truly crystal clear case.
So was she there or wasn't she?
The fact that only our empty court bench and its two chairs listened with interest to the closing speech of the defendant's lawyer #MV ("Mgr. Prasátko"), as well as the verdict of the independent lady judge #JH ("Dr. Hustá") were made clear. The pleas of the independent lady judge towards the defendant's lawyer, as heard in the recording from the courtroom, invoking his opinion on her just spoken verdict, I will not mention it any more due to its unimportance.
So we end the first block of our blogs, concerning the events just after my resignation, i.e. the events in the "covid" year 2021. In our next blogs, we will thus move in time to the events that soon followed this first-instance decision.
But let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Thanks to the limited time for appealing to a superior court, which is a period of 15 days in our our country , we had to mobilise all our forces in a very short time to prepare the necessary documents and, above all, hope that the appeals court will finally have to decide independently. The fact that no Czech Radio ГA / ГA employee has ever gone this far in defending their rights filled us with a certain hope and new determination.
From this our biggest battle so far, we came out defeated, with scars, but certainly not broken. After all, just like HE did on that Sunday, June 18, 1815.
Comments