Jan Šinágl angažovaný občan, nezávislý publicista

Moto: 14 months of incarceration for organizing a march that never took place, and for posting political stickers.  Actions that are not illegal and, on top of it, never proven! To imprison and punish innocent citizens like some “murderers” with an excuse that they could become ones. This is another proof that the Czech justice is fully under the spell of political interests. We can ask - what else can be expected from the post-Communist justice of so called “Velvet Revolution”?

Question 1 - You have been released from jail after fourteen months of incarceration. Can you tell us in few words why have you been arrested and sentenced?

Patrik Vondrak - I was arrested on October 21^st 2009 and charged with alleged posting of so called “illegal” stickers that pointed to a certain web page. What this web page is I cannot reveal, because condition of my bail release was not to discuss this point. If I did, I would loose my bail and go back to jail. This sticker posting was the reason for my arrest. Later on, in January, I was charged as an organizer of some public meeting in city of Jihlava. I have nothing to do with this event, I did not, nor wanted to, participate in it, and anyway as far as I know, this public meeting never took place because it was cancelled way before the start. After eight months in custody I finally received an indictment. It was more than clear to me that I was locked up for deeds I did not do, nor participate in, in any way, shape, or form. But what really surprised me was the fact that some of the charges were even more absurd that one can expect in cases like that. The trial itself was, and still is, clearly conducted below usual standard. For that reason, some people started to protest our imprisonment, and for that I am very grateful. This was probably the reason that on December 21st 2010, after posting bail of 400.000 crown, I was conditionally released. Few days after my release the judge Bartova excused herself from the case. She felt that because of her membership in former ruling Communist Party (KSC) she could be considered prejudiced. New judge, Presiding Court Judge Libor Vavra took this week over the trial even when this is against the established rules. This shows that the end justifies the means. We are filing protest to Constitutional Court for this blatant violation of the rules.

Question 2 - Can you point out something you consider absurd in this case?

P. V. - I will give you one example. Prosecutor Zdenka Galkova used in the case so called transcript of an intercept of one of my cell phone calls. In this transcript are quotes that I never said. Question is - is this by the innocent neglect of the prosecutor Galkova who is known for an honest conduct, or is it designed on purpose. I myself am leaning to the second alternative. During the trial my attorney presented the actual recording of the call in question (the prosecutor Galkova protested the playing). When I pointed to the obvious discrepancies between what’s in the transcript and what’s actually said, judge Bartova’s reaction was “All right” - and that was all. This is just one example of many.

Question 3 – Let’s go back to the beginning. What happened after your arrest?

P.V. – I was taken to the police station in Bartolomejska Street and put to the cell already full with other so called “extremists” arrested during the same day. There were about twenty of us. My lawyer told me that those arrests are continuation of the police raid called “Power” that was aimed toward organizers of so called “objectionable” concerts and that there is a possibility that those charged with only one offense will be released the same day. He also told me that as far as I am concerned, the police have “high interest” in my person. It was clear from the start, that since I have nothing to do with those so called “objectionable” concerts, I was picked up for something totally different. Eventually, the charge was posting those web page anti-state stickers. Despite the fact that I was charged only with this single and quite bizarre crime, procurator Zdenka Galova asked for my incarceration. I was moved to the District Court for Prague 1 and there, by the order of judge Blanka Bedrichova, taken into custody. Judge Bedrichova commented, that it is true that the posting stickers by itself is not sufficient for locking me up, but in my case she considers other crimes I will be charged with later during additional investigation. In other words, I was taken into custody for crimes that have yet to be discovered. At that moment it was clear to me, what is really going on. French writer Marcel Pagnol once said: “Why bother to look for the guilty ones when we can simply make them up”. And on the same principle stands further investigation. Czech courts, at the moment, are willing to play this game. When my lawyer spoke during the break with judge Bedrichova outside the courtroom, she told him that from her point of view she cannot excuse my criminal activity. She could understand, she said, if someone “goofs off” and commits armed robbery, but my deeds cannot be tolerated. Needless to say, my lawyer was by the comment of the Mrs. Bedrichova quite shocked.

Question 4 – It was said that you had information about upcoming police raid before it happened. Can you confirm that?

P.V. – Yes, I can, but from obvious reason, I am not going to betray the source. There are still some people on the right places who knows the difference between right and wrong and that is why some information can “get away”. We did know and discuss the planned raids ahead of time. Information about them was even posted on some web pages. Director of UOOZ Slachta vehemently denied posted information. Among other things he said: “Of course we are taking extremism into account, but what is published on their web pages is total nonsense.” Two months later it was more than clear that he was lying. To confuse the case the police renamed planned raids, from Power II to Power III. More about this police ridiculous attempt can be found on the server Novinky.cz (http://www.novinky.cz/domaci/176622-neonaciste-se-navzajem-varuji-pred-dalsi-policejni-razii.html).

Question 5 – What were the exact reasons for your lock up and the condition of the incarceration?

P.V. – Judge Blanka Bedrichova used the par. 67, Articles B) and C) of the Penal Code. Article “C” is standard to prevent person to continue in his/her criminal activity. In my case, the court tried to prevent me from posting additional stickers. Article “B” is used in cases when prosecutor did not yet interrogate all the witnesses or codefendants. This reason, in my case, was also absurd. Charged with me was only Miss Dupova, and both of us were already interrogated, and no additional witnesses were proposed or suggested. Nor they do exist till today. We raised objection against my incarceration, and the court took notice. Reason under the Article “C” was vacated, but Article “B” was left in place. Under this, my custody should have expired, according to the law, on January 21st 2010. I did not believe that I will be let go then, which proved to be the case. On January 15^th 2010 I was visited by investigator of the UOSS Zlata Palfiova, who informed me of additional charge, the mentioned organization of public meeting, and on January 19^th 2010, two days before expiring of the term of my custody, the judge Bedrichova started new custody under the Article “C”. My objection that I have nothing to do with some supposed public meeting somewhere were refused by the comment that court is not interested at all.

Question 6 – Was there, as is common knowledge, any scheming on the side of police at the closing of the investigation?

P.V. – Closing was also quite unorthodox. According to the law, my custody should have lasted maximum eight months. If by the end of that term the investigation was not finished, I should have to be released. Because investigator of UOOS Zlata Palfiova prolonged all to the last moment, our rights to acquaint fully with the indictment were violated because there was no time for that.  We had altogether only 17 hours to study the charges. I spent ten hours without a break reading the documents and eventually I totally lost attention and was unable to concentrate any further. When, after eight hours of study, which is the legal length of a work day, I asked to continue the next day, my request was denied and on top of that, I was accused of maliciously trying to prolong the lawful investigation. So, in the seventeen hours that were available to me, I should have to fully study 2.500 pages of written charges plus to listen to and watch ten hours of audio and video recordings. For illustration, that means to “study” 150 pages per hour without a break for seventeen hours, not to mention watch and listen to those recordings. Of course, my lawyer and I did not make it. On top of that, we had available only part of the documents, because other defendants and their lawyers had to study the same documents, too.  None of us was able to see and study complete documentation. This, according to the ruling of the Constitutional Court, is not permissible. We raised objection to the conduct of the police.  But who got to decide this complaint?  Procurator JUDr. Zdenka Galkova, the same person who put me into custody, so I do not have to tell you how the complaint ended. This procurator “by coincident” is for a long time called to prosecute all political cases such as Action Power, arrest and expulsion from the Czech republic David Duke, or prosecution of anti-Communist activist Petr Cibulka for alleged slander. Petr Cibulka characterized her as a “former(?) member of criminal organization” (see Law 198/93, that describes former KSC, Communist Party of Czechoslovakia as a “criminal organization worthy of condemnation”, note JVJ). When the trial began, we raised objection because we were not able to fully study full indictment. Judge Bartova overruled our objection with a comment, that we will have enough time to study all the charges during court proceedings. In an effect we went to trial without full knowledge of all the charges, details, witnesses and so for. So here you are, in a situation to face something you know nothing about and told to find out what you need only during the trial. Of course, in such a case one cannot call any witness of his own or prepare defense that otherwise one can and should do. This is an ideal case for the prosecution, but for the defendant it is quite difficult position.

Question 7 – Did you offer anything for your defense?

P.V. – We, I and my codefendants, proposed witnesses that could have proved, in some cases, our innocence. But all witnesses that were not suggested by the prosecutor were in the preliminary proceedings summary refused. We will try to present them during the trial.

Question 8 – How about the controversy about the trial expert Svoboda and his expertise?

P.V. – Mr. Ivo Svoboda is called a trial expert concerning extremisms. His findings quite baffle other experts, those who are long time involved and study this subject and who we asked to prepare new expertise. Svoboda has been designated by the District Court Brno as a trial expert on October 23^rd 2009, two days after our arrests and immediately appointed to our case. Purpose of such action is obvious. For example in his findings we can read such jig that red-white flag with Czech lion is a symbol of neo-Nazis movement. If you go with such a flag on any public meeting, you can be, according to Svoboda’s finding, put to prison for up to ten years. What is really interesting, Svoboda likes to quote French philosopher Michael Foucault, who was a member of the French Communist Youth Organization. Later on, he did some study of Marxism and Maoism. During my incarceration, I read some work of an American left-wing writer Noam Chomski and found some interesting quotes from a polemic between Chomski and Foucault, where Foucaut defends dictatorship of proletariat. Well, as a food for thought, take a case that some left-wing extremist is for his believe brought to court (absolutely absurd idea in this country, of course) and a court expert starts to quote some Nazis, or fascist philosopher, such as Carl Schmitt, for example. Can you imagine the scream and howl that would explode? But in our case, all is acceptable.

Question 9 – Your custody had been periodically prolonged. How was this justified?

P.V. – Well, I will quote to you two arguments that were repeated all the time:

“Judging by the past behavior of the defendant we can easily deduct, that he will again behave in such a manner in the  future, because the aim of his conduct for which he is in court today is to destabilize our institutional and judicial system”. Judge Bartova.

“…. freedom of thought (!) and freedom of expression, guaranteed by the Declaration of Human Rights, and freedom and right of personal opinion on historical events are not infinite” Prosecutor Galkova.

Well, I say that the freedom of my thought is infinite, no matter what the prosecutor thinks even if it irks her, and despite of that I was not able to figure out how posting few stickers or similar such activity would be able to destabilize our institutional and judicial system. Here the court publicly proclaims that my incarceration is strictly and only for my opinion. My lawyer called my custody an “attempt to re-educate” me. Assertion that I have to be incarcerated because otherwise few stickers that I may post shall destabilize our system is not worth any sensible comment.

Question 10 – How do you look and judge court proceeding?

P.V. – I did not expect to have a right to a just trial. Court itself never even pretended to be objective. Any objective and non-biased court would indictment as presented in our case return to the prosecution for revision. I mention another interesting example. During the last hearing we were shown video recording of our surveillance, which supposedly shows postings of those stickers. This video was said to be the key proof of the whole sticker crime. According to the police report (which was said by the defense to be fraudulent) video shows will show me taking out of a backpack stickers, distributing them to my buddies and after that all of us are going to be seen posting stickers. In reality, video shows, in darkness, four darkened figures just standing around that seems to be talking. There is seen no pulling of anything by anyone from any backpack, nor supposed sticker posting. And even if video did show that, there is no way to recognize any one present because all what is seen is an outline of four dark figures. Court and procurator nevertheless intensely watched whole silly video. Situation revoked the story Emperor’s new clothes. Defense, after the showing of the video, made only one comment: “Emperor is naked”. Question is, did the court see it this way, too? About the second video presented as a “crime scene investigation”, defense pointed out that police went out the second day and only then recorded posted stickers all over the Prague. The three hour video was edited to few minutes that were shown at court. Time recorded on video is the same on distant places that is not realistic. Only explanation is, this “proof” was faked by the police.

Question 11 – 14 months of detention means that you have quite a lot of interesting experiences. How did you pass the time? What kind of people did you meet there?

P.V. – I tried to use the time as well as I could. Not many people for some useful conversation were there. I really did not look for company, but occupied myself with study of foreign languages and I did a lot of reading. I read many interesting books, political, history, philosophy and classical literature. I sure do not have time to do this at home, at “freedom”.  I did meet few interesting people, thought, with interesting stories. Also, I found out that there are quite a few innocent people there. According to the statistic, in the Czech prisons there are about 10 percent innocents. In detentions, there must be many more. Most of those were locked up for an economic conviction, probably because they were in a way of somebody more powerful then them. Interesting was a case of a German citizen who often traveled to the Czech Republic to visit his Vietnamese girlfriend. Her Vietnamese friends were dealing with marihuana. Police surveillance video showed this German guy taking a sport briefcase from his girlfriend. So, as a part of a drug raid, he was picked up somewhere on a highway on his way home. In briefcase, according to police, were drugs, but it contained only his clothes. During the search of his car, even his home, no drugs were found. Despite of that, on the basis of the video where he is seen carry a sport briefcase, he spent two years in Pankrac prison. This is one case of many.

Question 12 – Do you have any idea why police arrested specifically you, M. Dupova and R. Lang?

P.V. – Here I agree with activist Tomas Pecina who on similar question (reply was sent to me to detention) replied as follows, quote:

“In the case of first two, it is a clear punishment for their opposition activity. The indictment as presented is absolutely absurd; one has to ask, does procurator thinks straight – nine months of detention (eventually, it was fourteen, note by the reporter) for posting some stickers and for organization of some public meeting that never took place?”

“Richard Lang is a different case: police attempted to gain a witness, someone who may under the stress of the detention agree to collaborate with police and eventual testify – even false – against his friends. It is unethical, but it is a way it is, especially in politically sensitive case like this.”

Question 13 – court documents say that last two years you were under close police surveillance, your cell phone was taped, and so for. So, if you really did commit some crime, logically, police should have everything fully documented and could charge you with all kind of “most heinous crimes”. But instead the worst crime that you are now charged with is posting some stickers and even for that police doesn’t have reliable proof.

P.V. – All I did was always fully legal and to look on this tragic-comic case, I would hope that I won’t be charged anymore with something I did not do. They still could try to charge me with something I did and make it a crime. That is a case of Michela Dupova, who is charged, among other things, with lending a drum that was to be used on one of our public meeting, meeting that was dutifully announced and permitted. Later it was found that she did not lend a drum, and that she even do not own any drum. She supposedly only told interested party where they can borrow one. So, this type of charge can still be thrown my way, I wouldn’t be surprise if that happen. I could have lent someone a harmonica last year, maybe.

Question 14 – Do you have any idea how this tragic-comical trial eventually ends? Do you expect prison term?

P.V. – According to one of my trustworthy source, my sentence is “written”, I should get 3.5 years no matter what happens during the trial. Second information says that I will never get out of detention. Information like this I got before the trial started. From this point of view and from the whole evolution of the case, preparation of the defense was quite dispirited. On the other hand, I was already released from detention. From this I can deduct, that the whole scenario of the case is falling apart. Whole situation seems as getting out of hands for court, or maybe they changed the strategy.

Question 15 – Do you think that this case is about those stickers or something like that, or it is only the ruse and the real reason is something totally different?

P.V. – Whole nature and conduct of this trial clearly shows that those web page stickers have nothing to do with the real reason why we are here.  Politically inconvenient people, when arrested, must be charged with something. In my case, they used posting some so called “illegal” stickers. The political intervention in our trial acknowledged former Prime Minister Jan Fisher during interview on the Jan Kraus’ TV talk show “Uvolnete se, prosim” on June 25^th 2010. Quote:

Jan Kraus: “… I would like to ask you, do you think that this quite interesting trial of yours could express view that your administration decisively intervened against those neo-Nazi Parties because till now, all we could hear was lots of talks and no action, but now under your rule…”

Jan Fisher: “Of course it does, I would lie if I said no. It irked me a lot as a citizen, and irked me for other reason, too; it is also true, that my little Jack reminded me my Jewishness …”

I am not going to elaborate and explain meaning of words like neo-Nazism, fascism, extremism and such, because such name calling is today used against any dissenting voice, and labels like that are stamped on anyone deemed inconvenient to the regime. Such labels can be easily and arbitrary interpreted as needed. Here is quite interesting one fact, Mr. Fisher involuntarily acknowledged what many people already knows – in the Czech Republic the state legislative, executive and judicial powers are not independent of each others.

Question 16 – Finally, would you like to add something at the end?

P.V. – I would like to thank all the people who are standing up against new attempts to use totalitarian practices in the contemporary post-democratic regime, to thank people who refuse to follow political correctness and support and defend freedom of speech and expression. I am sure that those who are involved in personal contacts discovered that groups with labels like “neo-Nazism”, “fascism”, and “extremism”, in reality are not as such as presented by our media. Thanks to today’s oppression of any opposition, a new cooperation among many different groups took root. Activists from whole political spectrum are expressing solidarity with each others; they are followers of Voltaire’s maxim. I see this in very positive light. To use Alain de Benoist, in the time of peaking normalization, it is important to appeal to all freedom loving souls and rebels in heart more then ever.

Reporter: Jan Sinagl, 5 th February 2011, Czech republic, www.sinagl.cz

P.S.

….What is really quite frightening is a high degree of arrogance and impudence presented in this case by our judicial mafia. Does anyone still doubt that what we are seeing here is anything but the state and political powers manipulating show trial?...  

Komentovat články mohou pouze registrovaní uživatelé; prosím, zaregistrujte se (v levém sloupci zcela dole)