|
Bolshevik Inquisition, Part 1
Editor's
note: Hana just sent word that Vladimir Hucin has been freed by the higher court
and is out of prison. Details will be forthcoming. -- JRN
By Hana Catalanova
I am of the opinion that the public should be present at this hearing because it concerns
a problem which might be described as 'the penetration of the state
administration by communist structures,' which has been effected in a treacherous way. Under the present government of social democracy it is unbelievable, and it is extremely cunning.
-- Vladimir Hucin
More than 12 years have passed since the "Velvet Revolution" took place in 1989 in the Czech republic, but very little has changed in the judicial system, and the same goes for the political scene. Lies, frauds, corruption and
"former" communists and StB agents holding the highest positions in the Czech republic today are
hardly noticed by the Western world; a world that was so enthusiastic over the
make-believe fall of communism behind the Iron Curtain.
Unfortunately, the true face of this post-communist "democracy" should have been unveiled much earlier, in times when negotiations about the acceptance of a new partner into NATO were being
held. There should have been in-depth checking up on the situation in the country,
before the equal partnership in NATO was so generously given and additional economic advantages were offered. Yet another reason to condemn the Clinton Administration. It is not a secret that Clinton
has a leftist orientation, and that during his studies he had a lot of friends in the former USSR and Czechoslovakia who he used to visit during the time of the Cold War while these countries were still ruled by
a totalitarian regime, when all the power was held by communist hardliners.
Clinton had many friends among communists (and still has). He identified himself with communist ideology and promoted it then.
The consequences of his administration are shocking – and we are not aware of everything yet! Let
us hope president G. W. Bush will take all the steps necessary in making the USA the pillar of democracy and liberty again – the oasis of a dignified and prosperous life worth living, worth fighting for. It is
our duty to fight for our freedoms, and to be very persistent in it. We all came into this world as free individuals, and nobody has the right to deprive us of
a God-given gift.
We are witnesses of the fact that basic human rights are still being denied to some people in the
Czech Republic, and not only here. The Constitution of the CR is still only a worthless set of articles – articles not intended to be respected.
We follow the Hucin case, which serves the "former" communists as a
probe stone thrown to the public. This probe stone shows to what extent the public is prepared to accept the growing power of communist structures. These structures have never really given up
power; they have been pulling the strings from behind. If these structures are
allowed to win, more fabrications would follow – fabrications so well remembered from the past.
The whole case against Vladimir Hucin is based on fabricated evidence where the principal and
"concealed" witness is one Josef Dvorak (according to earlier information, he is Jiri Metelka from
Prerov,
a close colleague of the former StB officer Ludvik Zifcak).
The premiere has not met the expectations of judge Michal Jelinek and 3 other judges in a panel, pretentiously called
"the judicial panel." Prosecuting attorney Lenka Sromova read out 11 of
the 28 pages of "criminal" charges, and in the end she made a request to exclude the public from further court
hearings. She justified her request by mentioning the functions of BIS
as classified and concealed issues.
The courtroom had the capacity to hold about 70 people. Some of them were lucky enough to be seated, the rest
were standing near the back wall. Representatives of the major media were also present, and the whole course of the trial
could be video/audio recorded.
After they heard the state prosecutor's request to exclude the public, most people loudly
expressed their disagreement, and judge Jelinek threatened
to clear the courtroom. Both defense lawyers (Milan Hulik and Stanislav Devaty) and the defendant (Vladimir
Hucin) had an opportunity to express their views concerning the prosecutor´s request.
In relation to this another important fact ought to be mentioned. During more than 12 years of
this so-called "democratic system," communist and StB criminals have been leaving the courtrooms with smiles on their faces, their self-confidence boosted. No custody, no jail sentences for torturing and persecuting
innocent people – they are given suspended sentences at the very most. It seems almost unreal that the former Secretary of the Interior and later
prime minister (for 20 years!) Lubomir Strougal, who was the head of the totalitarian regime in Czechoslovakia, and who more than willingly carried out
orders coming from Moscow, was not held in custody or confinement, but was let at large to enjoy his fat retirement pension. This man left the courtroom with
an arrogant smile on his face, acquitted of all charges! He was accompanied by his daughter (she is a judge by profession herself, so she
approved the nice job done by her colleagues), and when leaving the courtroom, he said
to the camera: Well, time to watch a good hockey match!
Another hardliner, former StB officer Alois Grebenicek, who used electric
shocks, as well as kicking and beating during interrogations, is still a free man – his process, thanks to the communist judges, drags on for several years already (since 1995!). His son Miroslav Grebenicek is the leader of the legal successor of
KSC, KSCM (Communist party) – one of today´s legally accepted
parliamentary political parties! (Communist party and communist ideology was lawfully
condemned in 1993 as being criminal and evil.) Unreal, isn´t it?
But let us return to this courtroom comedy on 13th February 2002. Milan
Hulik, one of the defense lawyers, raised 5 objections of the bias on
Judge Michal Jelinek´s part.
1) In the last resolution to continuance of remand, the judge presiding over the case (Jelinek) justified the continuance of remand with referral to
a certain legal report on Hucin´s behavior made by police investigator (Stary), which was written after all investigational materials were disclosed to the accused and his defense lawyers.
Neither the accused, nor his defense lawyers know such a document. It was not disclosed to
them. The existence of such they learnt only from the already mentioned resolution.
When a judge uses unknown documents to justify the necessary continuance of remand, he clearly indicates his bias.
2) The same judge presiding over the case answered a media question long before the trial,
saying that when making decision concerning the continuance of remand, he would
take the prior decision concerning the continuance of remand made by Regional Court (in other proceedings) into consideration.
Because a judge must not indicate his decisions in advance, this judge expressed his prejudice.
3) Many witnesses received summons for the hearing taking place tomorrow and the day after (14th and 15th February 2002) in
courtroom number 3, which is the smallest courtroom within the building of the Prerov Court of Justice. It is very obvious then, that the matter of public exclusion has been decided upon well ahead of
today's hearing – without even listening to the other parties' views. The first day (13th February) this trial
began in the courtroom number 4, where part of the interested public and some media could have fitted in.
Because a judge must not prejudicate his decision, with the above instance he has again indicated his bias.
4) This judge accepted the indictment – that is to say – under
circumstances where the report on the search of premises clearly shows this to be permitted
solely in the residence of Vladimir Hucin.
According to the commentary on the law, residence means a dwelling, a premise where the respective person resides, lives. Such a dwelling is the
apartment of V. Hucin in a family house in Prerov of which two thirds are owned by Hucin´s mother Anna Hucinova, and one third belongs to V. Hucin.
We are submitting the documents concerning the ownership titles to the court.
According to the report on the search of premises, most of the things serving as evidence against our client, were found on the premises outside his dwelling, in other areas belonging to Mrs. Anna Hucinova, who
didn't give any permission for the house search, and the investigative, prosecuting and adjudicating bodies
didn't produce any other search warrant which would include these other premises in Anna Hucinova´s ownership.
According to §2 section 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Penal Code), nobody is to be
prosecuted for illegitimate reasons or in a manner disallowed by this law. If the accusatory instrument
contains evidence which the prosecutor based his case on, and such evidence was obtained contrary to the Penal Code, then such evidence cannot be used
in a Court of Law, and the defending party makes a motion to eliminate such evidence from the file, and if this might be technically
impossible then such evidence cannot be considered by the Court.
Additionally, I have to state that from the content of the file it is obvious that the interception
(wiretap) was carried out on two phone lines. The judicial approval of interception of two lines (phone numbers 0641-250514 and 0641-250515) states that both numbers are registered in the name of Vladimir Hucin, which is contrary to the Telecom invoicing where each number is registered separately in the names of two users, Anna Hucinova and Vladimir Hucin. From the content of the file it is not apparent which calls were made from which line. It means that without the possibility to
distinguish the above, the
evidence was obtained contrary to law, and again, such evidence has to be withdrawn from from the file, or not
be considered.
If the judge presiding over the case did not return the case -- with such unlawfully obtained evidence – during the preliminary hearing of the charges back to preliminary stage of proceedings, he expressed his prejudice again.
5) And finally, the defense justifies its plea on the bias of the judge with
the fact that during the whole criminal procedure carried out by the investigative, prosecuting and adjudicating bodies so far, not a single motion made by the defending party has been
sustained. In addition, vital evidence was rejected by the investigator during the file disclosure.
According to §2 section 5 of the Penal Code, the investigative, prosecuting and adjudicating bodies must very carefully consider all the circumstances weighing for and against the accused person.
If not one motion made by the defense has been sustained, the fundamental principal of criminal procedure
has probably been violated, and if the judge accepted the charges in advance, it indicates again his lack of objectivity and his
bias.
According to law the accused can defend himself in any way he finds appropriate, and
the means of defense cannot be used against him. I am referring to the document unknown to the defense
lawyers as "the resolution in continuance of remand," when the accused supposedly
committed something against the person of the investigator. If this actually happened
as the prosecution states then they should have filed a charge against Hucin – for example, due to a verbal assault against the investigator. Under no circumstance may
allegations serve the investigative, prosecuting and adjudicating bodies in making any conclusions about the guilt, or in deciding about the
continuance of remand. Under these circumstances the defense makes a motion to put the hearing into recess
and to remand the whole case to the state prosecutor for additional investigation in
compliance with §221 of the Penal Code, because a further hearing of this case would be contrary to the basic principles of criminal procedure – as stated before.
When asked if the bias of the judge concerns only the judge presiding over the case, both defense lawyers gave a positive answer.
When asked for their views concerning the exclusion of the public, both said that they would accept the exclusion only on
occasions when secret or classified facts are discussed.
When Vladimir Hucin was asked for his view on public exclusion, he took the opportunity to speak out – considering the public and media present – and tried to say more than
Judge Jelinek was willing to hear. Therefore his speech was several times loudly and angrily interrupted by
the judge.
Hucin said:
I am of the opinion that the public should be present at this hearing because it concerns
a problem which might be described as 'the penetration of the state
administration by communist structures,' which has been effected in a treacherous way. Under the present government of social democracy it is unbelievable, and it is extremely cunning. When we take into consideration, for example, this state prosecutor Sromova present here
--
Hucin was loudly interrupted by the judge and could not finish his sentence.
Hucin nevertheless attempted to continue:
In the interest of educational activity, I would like to point out, that with the public being present, people would have an opportunity to follow
along. The materials which are called 'classified' are going to be officially made
public and declassified, because these mostly refer to communist criminals who
according to the Law on StB files must be exposed; and anyone interested will be able to look into these materials.
Such 'classified and concealed' materials form a major part of this file. And you too, as the judge presiding over the case – I understand that you are
young and may not have the experience – but even you can look at the
evidence and put it in context. There is, for example, evidence about
practices dictated by the secretary of Prerov region, Mamula (a communist), who based
everything on his own professional expertise. These practices were designed to determine who can work for
them [the regional administration] and who cannot, what are the limits; what such a person is supposed to look like and which pattern is to be maintained. According to
additional information I have obtained from materials saved by me from the flames,
when the StB and a criminal mob of People's Militia were burning vital
evidence, ... I was trying to save some kind of legacy for this nation so people would know what
it was all about, and I was uncovering the penetration of Charter 77 by StB agents. Well, I will return to the
issue at hand. My view is that significant findings should be publicized.
People will then realize who is interested in concealing the facts. The penetration of
communist criminals into the highest levels is evident, and will continue for some time yet. Of course,
State Prosecutor Sromova is very much interested in excluding the public, so these
facts won't see the light of day, because these facts threaten her position. She covers up
for someone connected with the former chief of StB [communist secret police]. And she
knows what she is doing! She includes this very person in the rehabilitation
process among the political prisoners. This is unbelievable! So I am interested in
an educational effect, and you and the panel of judges should consider the fact that the whole matter should be dealt with
in full public view, with the media present if possible, and with all those who are interested in this thing. So this is an introduction to my view. I only want to tell the court that I personally tried to carry out the proper security check on
Sromova and found her unsuitable. The security check was later re-done under very suspicious circumstances,
at a time when the communist prison warden, Comrade Jakubik, had many problems with his security check. He is now in the highest
position [secretary of the police chief]. Everyone was surprised how fast her security check went through. It was done intentionally
... [interrupted by judge]. The public ought to know what is going on here. The security check on Sromova was intentional, it was done in exchange for her services in which Sromova filled the post of a walking legal
stamp ... [interrupted again] ... as a so-called 'independent' person. I want to add that during the house search with the assistance of various fast-deployment units, there was one policeman by the name Kominek present – as an independent person – who was kept in the corner, and when he wanted to look at something, he was arrogantly told to
he ought to be glad to be there and not to stick his nose into anything. He should be called
as a witness.
When asked about the plea of the bias of the judge, Hucin declared that he fully identified himself with his
lawyer's statement. He managed to add one more thing:
I am saying here that, in the course of this trial, it is going to be proved that the bomb attack –
a terrorist attack – against the offices of a political prisoners' organization was
intentional; it was directed from the highest ranks of the police in the state interest, and it was done for
a reason: so the police could get into the offices of political prisoners and obtain materials and information there which
couldn't be
obtained any other way. This action was linked to the ultra-leftist organization of KSC which we have here in northern Moravia.
After deliberation the court panel rejected the pleas of the bias of the judge, and also rejected
public attendance during further hearings. The defense raised the plea of bias
against the whole court panel, and filed a complaint. This complaint is going to be handled by the Regional court in
Ostrava. After this, the public and media were ordered to leave the courtroom, and judge Jelinek
proceeded to question the accused. Hucin protested the public exclusion and declared that he no longer wanted to be present in the courtroom, and asked to be taken away. In reaction to this, both defense lawyers stated that
they could not defend their client, because without having him present he would be
denied an effective defense, and the whole hearing would take the form of an
inquisition.
Under the circumstances the court panel adjourned the trial indefinitely.
Notes: When Hucin was being led by guards through the corridors of the court building, he managed to answer 3 questions asked by
media: Q: Have you got any proofs of conspiracy? A: Of
course I have the proofs. It is a communist conspiracy painstakingly prepared, and it is linked with the Secretary of Police Chief Jakubik and these people. Q: Where it all leads up to? A: Very high up, but it depends on the elections. After that it will be clear. If I would come out with it now, it would destroy them.
That's why they keep me locked up. Q: Do you think it will ever come out? A: I must fight and I am going to make it through! I have survived worse things. And
I'm going to win! I've got trump-cards in my hands! Before leaving the court building,
human rights activists Premysl Vachalovsky and John Bok (authors of a
revealing book on Foreign Secretary Jan Kavan, code name KATO in StB files), filed charges against
State Prosecutor Sromova for unlawfully obtaining evidence. Others followed this example at their local Courts of Law.
|
Archived
Writings