Bits and pieces from Las Vegas and from other places as well
This essay was meant for czech readers as a propaganda which has the purpose to promote jury system in the Czech republic. The Czech republic was liberated from communism, but communists mostly stayed in power. The president is a former communist, ministers are former communists, judges of all kinds of courts are former communists, especially they, who are on higher courts of all kinds. Chairman of the Constitutional court is a former communist. These former communists have a huge power on the lifes of the people. They would not permit any discussion about juries. Television, newspapers, would not allow me to present my points of view. For this reason, I must place my articles on the internet. Some parts of my writings might be for some english readers, such as Americans, Canadians, Britons, boring, or redundant. If you are an American, for instance, you do not have to read my remarks about Las Vegas, since you have probably been there already yourself. But, at the same time, you might learn a thing or two, if you read my essay. It is up to you, if you do, or if you do not. Should you read my essay to the end, then be so kind and send me some comment on it.
Furthermore, I have to apologize for my not excellent English, since I am not a professional interpretor. At the same time, however, I need to explain, that certain grammar is not the result of a mistake, but it is used purposely by me. For example, I never, ever, close a sentence with a preposition. I do not say: "This is the man I spoke to", but: "To this man I spoke" or: "This is the man to whom I spoke".
I do not say "Where are you from?" but rather "From where are you?" In this case I would probably use neither of these versions, while it is impolite to ask somebody, from where he or she is. This is another thing. If I spoke about one person, I never say "they", such as in this sentence: "If somebody comes and they want to speak to the manager, call me." This is stupid. I say instead of this stupidity: "If somebody comes, and he or she wants to talk to me, call me." (For example.) When I speak about the USA, I use a plural. "The United States are a member of the Unitd Nations." This is the way the Founding Fathers used it.
These are some things I dislike about the US. Americans call their country "America". They ask a Cuban, when he came to America. This is stupid. Cuba is in America. They use an adjective for nationalities, instead of a noun. For instance. "He is jewish". I say: "He is a Jew." They say: "He is spanish." I say: "He is a Mexican." They say: "He is spanish, but not from Mexico, but from Spain." I say: "He is a Spaniard."
English is a beatiful language, but you use it in a very low manner. This is an
example of american conversation:
How can you say to somebody: "Huh?" If you do not understand something, then say: "Excuse me." or "Pardon?" or better yet: "I beg your pardon."
Now here is a big one: How can you call a grown man, a complete stranger, by his first name? One time I went to see a physician and he asked me, how to call me. I said: "Call me Mr. Ševčík." I pay him a lot of money, and if he thinks, that it is too much to call me politely, I go to another physician. I noticed a nurse, who called patients to the physicians office by just calling loud their first names. "John!", then: "Michelle!" and so on. There was a gentleman, who was at the age of over 80 and she called him "Herbert". I stood up for him and I asked her not to call him like that, but Mr. So and so. Couple of years ago, it did not exist. People were more polite. These manners are now comming even to my country, where for example people employed in hotels have name tags, where there is only their first name on it. This is disgusting. I saw a lady, a front desk clerk, middle aged, with a name tag saying: "Call me Jarmila." (Jarmila is a czech first name, like Jane or something in English.)
Folks from the U.S. What have you elected for a president? A guy from where? Does your president have a US citizenship? Has anybody ever seen his birth certificate? I doubt it. Does he have any schoolmates from US schools? (I mean from his early life.) Does he still hold his indonesian citizenship?
People, dress better. How can you go to a movie theatre almost naked? How can you go to a church in cut-offs? Put on some Ritz! How can a TV anchorman wear a shirt and a tie and no jacket? Does he not earn money enough to buy a jacket? Why presidential candidates most of the time take off their jacket and speak to people in a shirt? How can a well dressed man unbotton his jacket and look like an idiot? A jacket is never supposed to be unbottoned.
One of the last things. When I saw how people in US eat, I was shocked. They take a fork and eat their meal with a fork, withnout a knife. Some of them at least cut everything with a knife, then eat it with a fork. I had to turn away. Now guess what! I see it a lot in my country nowadays. People eat with a fork in their right hand, with a baseball cap on their head. People, cultivate yourselves, learn languages, dress better, eat beter, read something, not only sport section or cartoons. Learn geography. Do not call complete strangers "John" or "Jane". Read my essay, into the bargain. It is good for you.
But do not get sad. It is not only in your country. It is also in my country. I live in the Czech republic. Over here, people adopt only the bad from the USA. First names. Disgusting manners at the table-fork in the right hand, head gear on, very bad wear even in a fancy restaurant. Blue jeans, t-shirts, snickers, that is it. You can see it even in the theatre. Parking not in a parking house but on the sidewalks, or just anyhow. Politicians without a tie and without a jacket. Judges and attorneys at the court room without a tie and without a jacket. At the same time, there are many good things in the US as well as in the UK and other places. Jury system, great universities, Bible-King James Version, great churches. Czech people adopt first name calling, blue jeans and cheap t-shirts, fast food, only the bad things. What they should adopt are things, which are worthy of adopting, such as jury system. You English speaking people, you do not know what you have, if you have a jury system at courts of justice. Over there, you are real people, who take your lives into your own hands. Do not ever even think of getting rid of it. Always support your jury system, serve on a jury, when they call you. If I fail in reestablishing jury system in my country, at least I shall always fight for jury system in countries, where they already exist.
At this moment I speak especially to the people from the USA. Gradually and slowly, you lose more and more of your dignity and human rights. Almost every employee has to wear a name tag with first name only, such as "Hi, call me Mike" or "Hi. I am John from Nebraska." Police strip search you as if it was a common thing. Police set road blocks and search cars without any order issued by anybody. It is easy to get fired. Prices of everything go up. Unemployment. If you work in some kind of public service you have to be very polite, say "Have a nice day" all the time. You even have to smile, which is very unnatural and tiresome. In hospitals? That is terrible. If you do not have money? Then you are called "John" or "Michelle" or "Jane" ten times in a minute and then asked to leave, once you run out of cash.
Do not get me wrong. I am not making fun of Americans. The US gave me an asylum, when there was communism in my country. I love the US, just like I love the Czech republic. But many things make me sad. When I look at some old american movie, it is beautiful. Nice dresses, good looking people, inteligent dialogues. Today, it is Arnie or somebody like him, with lines such as "Go forrrrr it", "I count to sree. ...von, two, sree."
But do not get sad! You still have the juries, the jury system. In the courtroom, it is not the judges, it is not the DA, but it is you, the people. Take your destiny into your own hands. Do not let anybody force you to send the guy to prison for the rest of his life, if he has done nothing wrong. Just use your power: "Not gulity on all counts." If there are juries, nobody can make you a little guy, unimportant. Your opinion is important. You do not have to say "Have a nice day", but you can be somebody. Always fight for the jury system, for the right of the people to juries. Most of my articles shall not be translated into English or into any other language, because it is not necessary. There are many internet sites supporting juries, which are written in English. I will welcome any help from you, any feedback, any support. At this moment, the judicial system in my country is a shame. The road to justice is long, first the old commies need to die, or at least retire and live on a good pension. But the new generation needs to be educated already, so that one day we get rid of this system and the jury system will be reestablished even in our, post-communist country. God bless you.
Bits and pieces from Las Vegas and from other places as well
I am a big supporter, a devotee and a promoter of jury system in judicial system. As the only just system of justice I hold the system, in which a jury assembled from normal citizens decides. Jury made of citizens, who are not professional judges. The best known jury system is without a doubt in the USA. I lived longer than ten years in the USA. I have to think very often, why there is a jury system in the USA, but the jury system is not in the Czech republic, even longer than twenty years after the fall of communism. There are more reasons for it. Judiciary system without juries is in the countries, where the citizen has no say so, his opinion is not important, he or she may not take a vote in referendum, because no referenda takes place. State power is being divided basically in three branches, or powers. There is the executive power, lawmaking power and judiciary. Here I have to explain especially for czech readers, that judiciary is only the body of judges, not the district attorneys, police or counsellors.The minister of justice is not part of judiciary, he or she is part of the executive branch. The head of the executive branch is called "chairman of the government". (In my country some uneducated people call the chairman of the government (something like the prime minister in the UK) premiér. There is no such a thing in my country. The word "premier" means "first" in french and it is pronouced "premié" "Premiere" is the feminine for "premier".)
In countries with highly developed culture in the field of law, where the commies or the fascists or the nazis never took the power, it is the juries who decide in the court of justice. The jury is made of local citizens. If somebody is charged with a murder, for example, a jury is made, which is composed of twelve men, or men and women, or women. These jurors, on the end of the decisionmaking announce their verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty". Everybody respects the verdict of a jury. Nobody casts doubt upon the twelve jurors. Nobody asks what their education is, if they are lawyers. Of course, jurors most of the time do not have a law school. They are drivers, architects, cleaning ladies (cleaning men, porters), teachers and what else you know, what ever comes on your mind. The fact, that the jurors are not lawyers (most of the time) but people from other walks of life (from other professions) is good, because in many cases, it is needed, that the one, who decides something, knows something about the drivig of a car, bussiness, constractions and something about life in general.
In the Czech republic, in the cases of criminal law decide judges only, that is in the cases of penalty up to five years decides only one judge. In the courts of justice a term is being used, which is not in any dictionary, and expresion, which was coined by the communists, who are founders of this system. They call the judges, who sits alone "samosoudce" which can be translated as "self-judge". (Terrible is not it?) In the Old Testament, there is one whole book, which is called the Book of judges. These judges also sat alone. Good thing, that in the times of judges did not exist communists, they would have called these judges "self-judges". The Book of judges would have been called The Book of self-judges. To jail for up to five years you can be sent in the Cezch republic on the grounds of a decision of only one person, one judge. If you lose everything, you lose your job, if you probably lose your apartment and more, is up to the decision of one man (or woman) only. This person (a judge) might be a former communist, a person without a doctors degree (a lawyer, in my country is supposed to be a doctor of law), without a drivers licence, without a knowledge of even just one foreign language. If the crime is punishable with a sentence higher than five years, than there sits one professional judge and together with him or her two additional judges, non-professionals, so called "soudce přísedící", which is hard to translate, maybe "judges co-sitting". In many cases (in most of the cases) it is, as if the "judges co-sitting" were not there. They do not pose any questions. On the end of the trial they just sign to the professional judge anything. They do not even talk about the case with the professional judge. The professional judge is the chairman of the senate. What are the qualificational requirements to be a professional judge? Professional judge must have a law school. (Many professional judges have studied their law school somehow "quickly", they do not have properly completed lower education, high schools, they have their high school diploma completed somehow later in life.) Professional judge does not have to be a doctor of law. (In my country, it is a matter of prestige to be a doctor of law, if you are a lawyer.) On the contrary, a big amount of judges in my country holds only the titul "magister" or "Mgr." something as a master of law in the West. If you see a czech lawyer (a judge, prosecutor, a defense attorney), who has the short form of a title "Mgr." in front of his or her name, then it means, that he or she did not pass the examination for the doctorate. He or she does not have the doctorate, he or she is not a doctor of law. Judge must pass an examination for judges (so called judicial examination) in order to be allowed to perform the work of a judge, or other examination already passed is accepted, such as the examination required for notaries or defense attorneys. That is it. A judge does not have to hold drivers licence, he or she does not have to speak one foreign language. A judge may be a former member of the communist party. (Many judges in the Czech republic are former members of the communist party, expecially the ones on higher courts.) A judge does not have to have any previous experience in any field what so ever, even the slightest one, he or she does not have to be a former attorney or prosecutor. The judges co-sitting have it even easier on them. They do not have to meet any requirements at all. If a citizen comes to a court of justice, he or she is on the ground of somebody else, he or she is not at home. If he or she wants to address the court, then only standing. He or she is being corrected all the time, he or she is not supposed to speak. What he or she is saying, was already said by somebody, he or she does not speak to the point. The citizen repeats himself or herself. He or she was not asked to speak. He or she does not say anything new and so on. If a citizen wants to ask something, he or she finds out, that this is not the way to ask a question, the question was already being asked. He or she is oftentimes being asked, what is the purpose of such a question, what he or she wants to find out. The same applies for attorneys, persons who know the law. They are being interrupted, attacked, ridiculed. In the USA, I was at court of justice couple of times. I have never seen a judge to interrupt an attoreny. In the USA, a judge must be at least 40 years of age and the judge must have at least 10 years of previous experience, before he or she beginns to work as a judge. It is completely different world. Why? Czech man is being beaten generation after generation by somebody. Once we have lost the Battle of White Mount, our country was flooded by foreigners. All kinds of foreign robber barons came here. Normal person was pushed away, trampled down. Things got better during the final years of Austrian-Hungarian empire and things were really much better in the days of the first republic. Then, however, came the so called "protectorate", which means occupation of our country by nazi Germany. Shortly after the departure of Nazis came the communists. The worse time of our history began. Monster trials, executions of democratically thinking people. The time of impossibility to travel came. Political opponents were being murdered. Communist trials did not even have the character of judicial crimes or murders. These were ordinary farcical crimes, murders. The most terrible case is the murder od dr. Milada Horáková. This woman was condemned by communist hyenas in nonsensical trial to the death penalty and yes, she was executed. Actually, she was not executed, she was murdered, tortured until she died. Her execution, it was something terrible, terrifying. Not even the hitlerites have done something like this, nor the worst monsters have done it. Only the communists have done this kind of thing. Doctor Horáková was "executed" this way. (For non-Czechs here is an explanation. Dr. Horáková was officially executed. This is what the communists say. But the way the communists did it, makes it even much more horrible. She was strangled, tortured. This can not even be called an execution.) The devise prepared for executing and used for executing and for torturing Dr. Horáková to death was called "prkno", what can be translated as a board. Dr. Horáková was not hanged on the gallows. This so called board was really some kind of a board. As I have said, Dr. Horáková was not hanged, as until this day many people believe mistakenly, even strong anti-communists. She was placed on the board. Executioner placed around the neck of this poor woman some kind of a strangler, not very similar to the noose. To this strangler was attached a rope, which the executioner handled with a wheel. He turned the wheel and by doing so, he tightened the strangler around the neck of this fragile woman. The executioner strangled Dr. Horáková so. Some things here are very difficult to be translated. So bear with me. The executioner had several henchmen to his disposal, to help him. These henchmen pulled the legs of Dr. Horáková in opposite direction, downward, because her body had a tendency to be lifted up. To the legs of this poor woman was fastened a rope. This rope was ran through the "board" and ended again in some kind of a wheel or a pulley. The henchmen turned this wheel. So the executioner turned the wheel on the upper part of the board, the henchmen on the lower part of the board. Nobody knows how long it took to torture this poor woman slowly to death. The whole murdering took at least twenty minutes. Some former political prisones say, that certain executions on the board took an hour or hours. Can you imagine this? Beware of communists. Anyway, after at least twenty minutes "a physician" stated, that the poor woman is dead, because her poor heart is no longer beating. (Can you imagine that a person with medical school assisted to this kind of torture? Can you believe, that this scumbag was called a physician, even a doctor of medicine?) This kind of bestiality was only on the communists side. Nobody else would be able of such atrocity.Today, former communists in the Czech republic stayed in power. They hold the highest positions, especially at courts of justice. Communists, in the days of their rule murdered, sent people to jail, did not allow the people to study, they took to small peasants their tiny fields, where they grew potatoes, vegetable. They were murderers, hyenas, criminals, seed of hell. They were the worst, what ever walked the earth. Satan himself, is a smooth gentleman in comparsion with communists. Everybody, who joined the communist party during the rule of this horific group of people, did know about their atrocities. If somebody joined the communists during the fifties, he or she knew what the communists has done and joined them anyhow. He or she supported this regime full of terror. (Thanks) to the (people) who were members of the communist party had communists money for their criminal activities. If they were expelled from the communist party after the soviet invasion of 1968, it does not make any difference. Expelled communist and a scumbag, who stayed in the communist party until the Great november velvet revolution can shake hands. Communist party had way too many members. For this reason, the communists sorted it a little bit out, expelling somebody from their midst, while permitting somebody else to remain. But, who was at least a moment in the communist party, supported the worst regime there ever existed. Today, the (former) communists are everywhere in the state administration. Even the todays president of our country is a former communist. Former communists have all kinds of excuses. They did not know of or about the atrocities. They were too young. They wanted to help. (?) They wanted to work in their field. They wanted to be admitted to school. They wanted their children to be admitted to school. They wanted to get a job. They wanted not to be fired from work. They wanted to travel abroad. They wanted to finish school. They have been told, that if they do not join the communist party, they will be fired from work. It is all a nonsense. They just joined a criminal organization to have a better life. Who supported a criminal regime, does not belong to public life. I know, November of 1989 (the time of the so called Czech Velvet revolution) was a humbug. Communists and members of the Státní bezpečnost (secret communist police) stayed in their power, they just went to different positions. Most of the times it was not needed, they just stayed where they were. How many chairmen of big courts of justice are former communists. How many of high ranking police officials are former members of Státní bezpečnost-State security, communist secret police. Not long time ago, a former communist and a former military prosecutor in one person was appointed to an important court, which is supposed to protect constitutional rights of the people. Are they making fun of us? They could have appointed even a former member of the State security or a former board guard, (who were shooting people, who tried to escape from communism.) Even as it is, they are not far from it. Military prosecutor overseed the activity of State security. These persons have now say so in the Czech republic. Progress can not be stopped, nonetheless. Communist party ended up in the garbage. They henchmen should too. Even though, there is a strong informational blockade in my country, there are certain possibilities on the side of democratically thinking people. There is the internet. The internet is a powerfull weapon for spreading of information. Even though the television and the newspapers do not allow any discussion about reestablishing juries at courts of justice, there is a tremendous power in the internet. Nothing can overpower this power, not even a former communist, military prosecutor, former communist himself, not any other former communist, no matter in what position he or she at this moment is. What we need, is to have sufficiant number of supporters, pass laws and former communists will end. If we renew juries at the courts of justice, the people will have their say so in approximatelly one third of the state power.
As I have already stated, I lived in the USA. The things, I have learned there, can nobody take away from me. In Las Vegas I have studied liberal arts by the best teachers. Some former communist, who writes a glorifying article about sixtyeighters (reformed communists who came forward in 1968) is a subject of laughter and scorn for me. I laugh also at some athlete, who some time ago made a point of granting four olympic medals. She gave these four olympic medals to communist leaders of Czechoslovakia of 1968. All these four men were members of the communist party long time before the year of 1968 including the time of the worst communist oppresure. Former communist has nothing to tell me. Let us not honour false authorities. Let us decide ourselves in as many things as possible. Certainly, also at the courts of justice. Contemporary czech judicial system is a holdover of the communist regime. Before communism, there were juries in our country. Is it right, that we still have something, which was introduced by the communists? There is a judicial system, which was introduced by communists. In this judiciary system only judges decide, of whom many are former communists. Some of them are even former communists and former military judges, into the bargain. Is there something even lower, than a person, who was in the time of communism member of a communist party and also a military "judge" or military prosecutor? I can not understand, how former communist succeded in something like that. Communism fell, communists turned their coats, pushed to the front some funny figur with a speach impediment in short pants and they go further in their arrogance. In Germany, former nazis had to leave work for the state after the Second World War. In what used to be German Democratic Republic (East Germany) all judges who "studied" during the era of communism and who were judges in East Germany had to leave. In my country, something unexplainable took place. Communism fell, communists stayed in power, they just turned their coat. I even experienced, that one former communist explained to me, why juries are not appropriate at the courts of justice, that they do not fit into "continental" system and similar stupidities. Do not trust a former communist. His word has no weight. There is no sense of arguing with a former communist. (It is needful to remove former communists from public service. It is necessary to pass appropriate law.)
Here, as opposed to what I have mentioned above, are some remarks from the USA. In the USA, all criminal cases are to be decided by jury. Only, in some very "unimportant" matters, basically in the cases of misdemeanours, it is up to the judge to decide himself or herself. Jury, is in what every accused hopes. When a jury enters the court room, everybody present rises. To be objective, I have to admit, that also when the judge enters the courtroom, everybody present rises. When the jury enters, though, lot of times it happens, that present people clap their hands. That really never happens when the judge enters the court room.
Now, just really very few words to former communists. After the year of 1989 (year of the fraudulent czech so called "Velvet revolution") you turned coats, you stuck in your positions, many of you were even promoted. Still, you are nothing but the little, commonplace communists, colaborators, who attended meetings of communist party, paid their dues for membership in communist party, approved the occupation of Czechoslovakia in the year of 1968 (otherweise the communists would have kicked you out) and you were all in all the lackeys of the Soviet Union. You knew all about the crimes of communism, you knew about the murders in the 1950s. You "studied" communist schools, where you received even some kind of diplomas, but I scorn you anyhow. In the days of communism you were allowed to travel abroad. Even though you have been abroad, it is like you have never been there. You did not know any foreign languages. You did not have money, you could not have gone anywhere. You drank your cup of coffe somewhere at a cheap snack counter and that was a big experience for you. Once you returned home, you rushed to your "referent" (this term is hard to translate, it is an appointed officer, who was assigned to an informer to hear him or her out, to get information from him or her, while the informer was not a member of State security, but the appointed officer was a full member of State security) of Státní bezpečnost (State security, the secret communist police) and there you started telling him all about your journey to the west, and everything you have learned.
Now, I would like to mention some of my observations from the USA, first of all from Las Vegas. I worked there in casions, in real estate agency, I studied there (at the Clark County Community College, Mohave Community College, University of Nevada, Las Vegas-UNLV), I served my time in the Army - (U.S. Army). I was interested in the law, couple times I was as an interpretor at court of justice, as well as for the police, I served on a jury. In this article, which has the only purpose to promote jury system-I want to freely mention some of my observations from the field of law, especially from the field of criminal law, judiciary, district attorneys, jurors, police officers, attorneys at law. If there is somebody, who is a suspect of committing a crime, policemen take him or her to the police building. Over there, there are telephone booths all over the place. The suspect may call whom he or she wants. Within a day, more likely within hours a judge comes and he or she decides, what the bail will be. The suspect posts the bail and the suspect goes home. The bail is usually a couple hundred of dollars, sometimes the suspect is released without posting any bail, he or she is just instructed how to behave. In our country, there are cases, when no bail is allowed. That is in cases, when a judge decides, that the suspect could try to talk to the witnesses. No such a thing exists in the USA. Actually, in real life, the suspect is released during hours or days. It is not like in our country, where convicted people are being held in custody for long months or years. In the USA, the bail hearing takes couple of minutes. The judge, who administers his or her office right in the police building, finds out what the charges are. Then he or she sets a bearable bail. The suspect calls his or her home (unless he or she has the money in his pocket), somebody from the family comes, the suspect posts the money and he goes home. It is not like in our country, where one judge decides on bail, the district attorney files a motion against it and superior court overrules this decision and the suspect stays in custody.
Now, let us get to the person of a judge in the USA. Mostly, a judge must be at least 40 years old, he or she must be educated in the field of law and be a member of the bar association for at least 10 years. That is, in the professional association of attorneys of law, judges, district attorneys. That means, that before somebody becomes a judge in the USA, he or she must at least for the time of 10 years pay his or her bills, such as to pay the rent for an office, dues to the bar association, telephone bills, secretary and many other bills, that is, if he or she works before working as a judge as an attorney at law, which is very common.
Now, let us have look at a judge in my country. He or she must be at least 30 years old. Before he or she is hired to the court as a judicial trainee, he or she dos not have to have any experience what so ever in anything. Once he or she comes to the court of justice, he or she works as a so called judicial traine for three years and then must pass an examination, then he or she becomes a judge. In the USA a judge must pass an examination, ten years works as a lawyer (attorney at law, district attorney) and only then he or she might become a judge. In my country, many judges do not even have a drivers licence. Many judges do not know even one foreign language. (In Europe, it is very prestigeous to speak foreign language, it is part of education, part of the class of a man or a woman.) Some judges (many) are former communists, some of then received some kind of a weird education. In order to study law in the USA, you must already have a university degree. To Czechs it seems to be a nonsense. They will tell you, that law is supposed to be sudied at a university. In the USA, you must have an university diploma in your pocket, if you decide to apply for admission at a law school. Average student (of law) in the USA already has in his or her pocket a diploma, received after a completed four year university program, most of the times after studying liberal arts, that is mostly literature, history, mathematics and more. To become a judge in the USA is much harder, than in our country. Small summary of a judge in the USA. Graduating from high school, enrolling a four year university, graduation from university, enrolling at a law school, law school graduation. Beginners work at a legal office (or the office of a district attorney), passing an examination. Then working for ten years as a district attorney or a councellor. Only after that, so qualified lawyer might become a judge. A judge in the Czech republic: high school graduation, law school, law school graduation. Work as a trainee at a court of justice for three years, no previous experience asked. After three years passing an examinaton as a judge, being appointed as a judge. Little different, is it not? In our country, it is possible to study law right after high school. A high school does not have to be a true high school, some vocational school will do. A judge in the Czech republic does not have to have a doctors degree. To me, in my book, in czech environment, a lawyer is somebody, who has the title of a doctor of law, that is, he or she is a iuris utriusque doctor, JUDr. for short. A whole chapter of a book could be written about lawyers, who have the title "magister", Mgr. for short. Especially in the cases of a judge, you very seldom hear, that somebody would talk about them and not refer to them as "a doctor". Sometimes, a court clark corrects me. I ask, when "magister" So and so holds a trial and the clerk says "Mr. Doctor." They are also always addressed "Mr. Doctor" even though they do not hold a doctors degree and they are not doctors. Not a long time ago, I went to a court and there was a district attorney, who addressed the judge all the time and he kept on saying "Mr. Doctor", even though the judge was not a doctor of law, he did not pass the doctoral examination and he held only a "magister" title. (Maybe something like a "master of law".) The judge never, not even once corrected the district attorney. He was (the judge) supposed to say: "Please, do not call me Mr. Doctor, I am not a doctor. I did not pass a doctoral examination, I am a magister. (Master of law.) He did not do it. Instead of that, the form of address "Mr. Doctor" was heard many times. It is not right. I, personally, I was graduated as a magister and I worked on my doctoral degree several years. To clarify this matter. A law school graduate is graduated as a "magister", shortened "Mgr.", which is someting like a master of law. In some cases, law school graduate might be graduated as a doctor of law, if he or she fullfilled some mandatory criteria, that is, to have an excellent grades, an excellent final written work, which can be accepted even as a doctoral work. He or she has to pay a fee. (Not very high.) A consultant and an opponent is assigned to him or her. He or she is being examined by a commission. I do not want to get into any more details. Just to say, another, very important examination. After the examination comes a graduation ceremony and after that "promoce", which is a graduation feast, most of the times in a fancy restaurant, in a chambre separee-that is, if the candidate succeeds. If he or she fails, there is nothing. For a graduation ceremony, commencement, and a feast arrives the whole family. Relatives, friends and acquintences are at hand. Parents, great-parents, but often more likely a husband or a wife, children. Everybody is happy, to have a doctor. Doctoral examination is not for free. It costs something. In other words, if somebody wants to be a doctor, he or she must enroll in a doctoral proceedings.
If you see a judge, who has in front of his or her name written "Mgr.", then that means, that this judge did not pass a doctoral examination, that is, he or she did not sign for this kind of examination or just failed at this examination. I know both cases. Why work hard for years for the examination, pay fees, write a written thesis on a computer, know two foreign languages and in these two languages try to find information, sources? Much better is to ignore all of that, when all the typists, court clerks are going to call me a "doctor". They even correct somebody, who says "Magistr So and So." I went to a court, where there was a very unpleasant judge. He spoke very unpleasantly, his voice was very loud, so I called him couple of times "Mr. magistr". He gave me an order to call him "Mr. chairman" (which is one of the ways a judge in my country might be called, it is a form of address judges prefere, expecially the ones with no doctor degreee). I refered him to a specific regulation, that regulates how to address at court and I ended my sentence with the words "Mr. Magistr". Mr. Magistr was blushing, it was not pleasant for him. I told him that if he stops yelling, I will not call him Mr. Magistr, but I will call him Mr. Chairman. He was glad and he started speaking in more cultivated manner. One lady judge started yelling at me during my closing statements, that if I address her as Madame Magister, I need to go back to school, pass examinations, look at "certain" laws. American judge may become a judge only at the age of at least 40, before this age he or she has to feed his or her body by own work, as an attorney at law or a district attorney. If you work as an attorney, be sure, that many payments are connected with this work. Rent, computer, secretary, telephones, maintaining of a car-(buying a car in the first place), many other payments. Big portion of judges in the USA are former attorneys. Well, it would not hurt, if some of the czech judges tried to support themselves, before they get a position at court with an ofice with everything to it. Judge in the USA must have at least 10 years after passing the examination for the bar association. Simply, it is a whole different world. One of the worlds is the world of grown people, the other is some kind of a weird world, which was created by the communists. Now, imagine, if you can, this is not everything. Judge in the USA does not decide in the case. He or she is much more experienced, educated than the czech judge. Judge in the USA has never been a member of the communist party. Judge in the USA has never been a judge during the communist era. He or she has never been a prosecutor in the time of communism. Even though, as it is, judge does not decide in the case itself. The case is being decided by a jury, composed of 12 local citizens. These citizens are independent, unbiased, they have nothing with the case. They are strictly separated from the judge, they may not speak to him or her, during a break time they must go to a separate room. On the end, when they decide the case, they have to be in a separate room the more. Spokesman of the jury, the foreman of the jury, just announces before the court: "guilty" or "not guilty". The members of the jury may not be biased. Somebody might ask: what if they are biased? Well, before they even go to serve on the jury, they are subject to unlimited questions, unlimited detailed interrogation from attorneys and district attorney. These ask the proposed jurors what their opinions are, they try to uncover, if the proposed jurors are not biased. This questioning of proposed, future might be jurors is called "voir dire", something like "to have the opportunity to see to express oneself"-or just simply "to see speak". Many of the proposed jurors are excused from the jury duty, they are excluded by the attorneys or by the district attorney. Attorney at law excludes proposed juror, who expresses himself or herself with disgust about poor people, if his or her client is poor. I think, that this procedure and why it exists is clear. A chapter for itself is the rule, that the jury must be composed of defendants peers. It means, that a millionaire must not be judged by all poor jury. Some insist, that at least part of the jury must be composed of rich guys. Some say, that the whole jury must be composed of the rich. What is it, that you tink? (What do you think?) In my country, there is no point to this discussion. Can you imagine to question a judge (in the Czech republic) whether he or she is not biased. In the Czech republic, a case is given to one judge, that means a case, which is punishible up to five years. Can you imagine, to ask this judge questions, whether he or she is not biased? Of course, you may not. As far as being biased, there is no talk about that. He or she is biased, his or her middle name is "biased". He or she advices, right on the beginning of the court hearing, that if the defendant confesses that he or she is guilty, it is "always" a mitigating circumstance. (The defendant is denying the guilt though.) The witnesses who do not remember, who dodge questions, are being repeatedly instructed, that they have to testify, that in pre-trial phase (while questioned by police) they remembered more. The judge is in many instances a former communist. While in the military (in the Army), he joined the communist party, got some kind of a high school diploma (huh) and then he was sent to "evening law school for working". In many cases it is a former communist. Do you know, what these former communists have to say why they joined communist party, this criminal organization? They did not know, what it is. One former communist prosecutor said, that he joined the communist party way too young, so he did not know, into what he is getting. Other communists did not even know, that they joined the communist party, somebody else signed for them. They joined while in school, they had to go there, otherwise they would have been dismissed. They did not know about atrocities, they knew nothing about the monster trials. The communists accepted them as a reward for good school grades. They wanted to work in their field. We do not have to analyze that, you know it very well. Imagine, that these former communists have again the power over people. The higher court it is, the bigger probability that there is a high percentage of former communists. Some time ago, I went to a court to public hearing about an appeal. I thought that I was somewhere around the year of 1970. The three member panel of three judges was composed of three former communists. The former communists had a hundred percent representation there. How many years after november velvet humbug. (In November 1989, there was the so called "november velvet revolution" in Czechoslovakia, which left former communists in power.) Can you imagine to go to court of justice in Germany after the Second World War, let us say around the year of 1965 and there were all nazis? Procedures in court of appeals are worth of mentioning itself. Individual public hearing are being held each half an hour, maybe each hour, in one day, sometimes even ten public hearings take place. Defendants, who are sentenced by lower courts come to the court room one at the time. In front of them, three professional judges sit. Their chairman usually asks the defendant to be brief, he or she keeps saying: "this you have already said", "this is not to the point", "would you like to say rather someting new?" and then the appeal is denied. To serve on the panel of judges in court of appeals is very highly paid. High percentage of these judges of the court of appeal are former communists. Great Novermber Velvet Revolution was a humbug. This is also how the whole of society looks, including courts of justice. You do not care at all? You do not mind, that former communists laught at you? Former communist is not a likable guy "simpatico" who just wanted to work in "his or her field". It is a person who supported a criminal regime and after the year of 1968 a regime treacherous, that means approving of soviet occupation of August 1968. Each member of the communist party after the year of 1968 was a collaborater and a traitor.
Let us learn from those, who never lived with communists or nazis. The question of juries is a very complex question. It takes a lot of effort, time and money to push through juries. This work is just a beginning of beginning. Former communists are entrenched in their positions. Now, in order not to be so serious all the time, here are some bits and peaces from Las Vegas about the things, about which you maybe did not know.
When jurors enter the courtrom, people present in the courtroom rise and oftentimes clap their hands. The defendant, the moment he or she is acquitted, is immediately released from handcuffs (if he or she is held in the custody), uniformed members of department of corrections leave the courtroom. They do not wait for any instructions from the court, there is no appeal to that decision. The defendant runs to the jurors, he or she shakes their hands, many times he or she starts to hug them, kisses their cheeks, kisses their hands, the defendant cries. Some of the jurors slap him or her on the back, some of them exchange couple of words. Some of the jurors stay aloof from the defendant, they do not shake hands with the defendant, they do not talk with the defendant.These are the jurors, who were not all that convinced about the defendant not being guilty. They are still doubting, they only let the other jurors persuade them, after a long debate, to vote "not guilty", but there is still doubt on their mind.
An interesting chapter in a book about Las Vegas are attorneys at law, lawyers. They look different from other people. Most of the time, they have a nice suit. The jacket of their suit is always buttoned. Even in very hot weather, the hottest weather possible, they do not take off their jacket. They have a great vocabulary, most of the time they look very intelligent. Even though, it is a common thing to call somebody by his or her first name and many people do not object to it and just bear this rude behaviour, attorneys do not usually let any stranger to call them by their first names and in a car workshop, in a hospital and just about everywhere they are being called "Sir", "Madame", "Miss". If you look at them, you can really tell, that they have spent many years in schools. If there is misunderstanding between attorneys and personel of let us say car service, personnel of the car service is trying to go out of its way to accomodate to attorneys.
Do not call strangers by their first names. Be polite. Do not let strangers to call you by your first name.
Now, I shortly mention forms of addressing people in the USA. Politeness commands us, to call a stranger "Sir", "Madame", "Miss". (Mr. Jones, Mrs. Jones, Miss Jones for example.) It is however unfortunately the truth, that today, it is already common, that poorer, poor, common people (folks) are being called by their first names. It is up to you though, if you suffer this rudeness. If you do not take this, the one who is being rude to you this way, will quit it. I never took this rudeness (if I was in a position to have a choice.) Of course, it differs. It is important in what position you are. If you are looking for a job because you do not have a job, any worker of personnel office will call you by your first name and there is nothing you can do about it. Well, if you want to get the job and pay your rent. If you go to buy an expensive car, however, (or a car, every car is expensive today), or if you are making a reservation to a theater, everybody must be polite to you. Higher takes all. The customer chooses, how they will treat him or her. Do not accept tourist guides, which tell you, that in the USA "people call each other by their first names." How disgusting. At the same time, it is true, that people really appreciate, when you call them "Mr. So and So", "Madame", "Miss". It is necessary to say, that even in the Czech republic, calling by first name is now more common. It applies mostly in the case of unmarried women and girls, who are only very seldom being called "Miss So and So". Very seldom do I see a woman on TV, who would be called according to polite behaviour, that means, for example "Miss Nováková". (Of course, unless she is a government official.) No. They call an unmarried woman "you" (polite form of addressing people), not "thou" (informal form or a rude one), but they call her "Jana", "Martina", and so on. Back to the USA. You can tell that people are glad, if you just call them "Mr. Jones" and not "Jim". Of course, they have to suffer all kinds of things, if they work as personnel in a hotel or something like that. Who does not have to, does not take it. There is a known example, when famous singer Diana Ross told to somebody to call her Miss Ross. Her saying "Call me Miss Ross" is well known.
On this place I have to mention something, what is not in the czech version of this article. In the USA, just about everybody, who talks to a TV reporter, or an anchorman, calls him or her by his or her first name. Somebody talks to Tom Brokaw and he or she calls him "Tom". Why? Tom Brokaw is a grown man. He is educated. He is a family man. He earns good money. By every standard he should be called "Mr. Brokaw". The only exeption there is, is the leader of Nation of Islam Louis Farakhan and his co-workers. Look on internet on all kinds of videos, where he speaks. When he is on TV, he always calls TV people "Sir", "Madame", "Mr., Mrs., Miss Jones" and so on. It is interesting. I am no member of his fan club. But we have to give him credit for being polite to the newsmen. He is also always very well dressed, which is true about all the leaders of Black Muslims. (Or they prefare to be called Ministers of Islam.) He also has a good vocabulary. Many things, which you do not see nowadays so much. Mr. Farakhan's suit is also always buttoned, he does not take his jacket off, like you see a lot today. Mr. Farakhan is at least in something a good example for the youg ones. He talks to a scholar, he calls him or her "doctor Jones", for example, not "Jim", like it is common today. I saw people calling their physician "Mark", "Jane" and so on. I saw kids in school calling their teacher "Mary", "Jim". How disgusting! One time I checked in an expensive hotel in the USA and a front desk clerk asked me, how I pronounce my name. I taught him, how to pronounce my surname and he smiled and said: "No, I do not mean your surname, your first name, how is it you say it?" I told him, that he does not have to know, how to pronounce my first name. He said: "Yes, I do, I want to know, how to call you." Of course, I chewed this idiot out, and he was afraid to lose his lousy job, so he called me "Sir" about ten times. Do not take any rudeness from anybody, if it is possible.
In the Czech republic we can see already waiters, saleswomen, salesmen, front desk clerks with a name tag which reads for example: "Jenda", "Hanka", "Jaroslav". Common czech names or pet forms of names. ("Jenda" for "Jan", "Hanka" for "Hana" and "Jaroslav" being a full first name.) I even saw a front desk clerk, who was a lady already really in a way advanced middle age, who had a name tag saying: "Jarmila". How is it possible? To call this lady "Jarmila" would be an indecency and rudeness. Why do we take from the United States only the bad things, which do not fit to us? Sure, these things came to us from the United States, but even there it is permissible only for the poorest ones and powerless. I served in US Army. If you called there your superior by his or her (mostly his) first name, you would suffer a lot. A sergeant is always called "Sergeant" (not "Sir"), an officer always "Sir". Because I would like to speak mostly about juries, thus about a part of judicial system, I have to make one statement. A judge has, in the United States of America, that means including Las Vegas, great respect. Justly. He or she studied for a long time, was attorney for a long time, (or a DA). He or she became a judge only after many years of working, it is for him or her the highest point of his or her career. A judge is always addressed as "Your Honour". I have seen some people, who called a judge "Judge", or by his or her family name, for example "Mr. Brown", but this is really a minority. District attorneys and attorneys at law say "Your Honour" maybe in each sentence, or better yet, every time, they make some kind of a statement.
In Las Vegas, there is a huge number of churches. Not too many people go to casinos, not too many people meet tourists, only at work, if they work in a casino.The locals are rather very conservative. In Las Vegas, there is the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, UNLV for short. It is of a reasonable price, tuition is not all that steep. During the regime of communists, I was not allowed to study (at a university), that is why, when I came to Las Vegas, my footsteps were directed to the UNLV. (Not my first steps, first, I had to get some money to buy bread and pay for housing.)
Another thing. In Las Vegas, there are big, huge hotels and casinos. They make huge amounts of money. That is why they can afford gigantic theatres, so called showrooms, where they can afford to pay big, great orchestras, with which perform famous singers such as Tom Jones or already mentioned Diana Ross. Some people scorn these orchestras, but there are all musicians who were graduated from schools of art (conservatories), or at least some of them are alumni of these schools. Las Vegas is generally a town of opportunities. Money can be made there, school can be attended there, then go on, to another place, or return to your hometown.
Sure, I have also returned home. But what I have learned in the USA, especially in Las Vegas is lasting, no former communist can take it away from me, even though he or she still has-for the time being- some kind of power. Furthermore, I want to mention religion in the USA. Americans read the Bible a lot. Roman church has not a dominant position in the USA. In the Czech republic, the dominant denomination are roman catholics. Catholic bishop who sits in the city of Brno is called "bishop of Brno". Some catholic prelate in Prague is called even "czech primas". Is he thus some kind of a "primas" of even other christians? (Non-catholic christians?) For example of evangelicals or baptists? In the Bible there is not a word of some kind of a pope. All churches are equal, none of them is right just because it is right. No church was given the right to make anything its own. It is the truth, that some churches were founded by breaking away from the Roman-catholic church. It was a historical development in given period of time. Other churches had nothing to do with catholics though. Russian orthodox church had never to do anything, had nothing in common with catholics. One of the first foreigner christians (not a Jew, nobody from the Holy Land) was an ethiopian courtier-eunuch. First churches were actually made of individual churches-congregations, which were completely independent and-positively they did not have any superior appointed over them, that is a bishop, cardinal, pope. Read the Bible! It is all written there. Americans like to say: "Read your Bible, it is there." I would like to tell you the same thing: "Read your Bible." The thing is, that most of the czech people have no Bible. So I have to say: "Buy yourself a Bible, some edition for a reasonable price would do, even a cheap one would do. It does not have to be all that luxurious. This Bible, which you get yourself, just read. You can be sure, that you learn something." - Las Vegans read the Bible a lot. I have seen a croupier (casino dealer) who was waiting for a bus and he had a Bible opened on his knees and he was reading the Bible. Around him, there were tourists laughing, but our Bible student was absorbed into the stories of Moses, Aaron, Jacob and others. If I may, I would recommend to you, to buy yourself a Kralice Bible, that czech translation, which is the closest one czech translation to the original tongues (languages). (Of course, this is a recommandation to czech readers. At the same time, if you, english readers decide, to read the Bible in czech, good for you. If you decide to read the Kralice Bible, you are a gentleman and a scholar-or a lady and a scholar.) If you like to read the Bible in English, than I recommend the King James Version. For this moment, I shall not expand this recommendation of mine any more. If you like to read the Bible in English, it means, that you understand English fairly enough, so you can find various pages on the internet, which are dedicated to the King James Version. As far as English is concerned, it is my most beloved version-by far, no compare. Just an intresting point: a huge percent of inhabitants of the Czech republic was never baptized. This goes for people working for the state (government) twice as much. One man working for the state was heard, that he was not baptized, but his parents were hugenots. (Of course, hugenots were in a completely different time, parents of no living man or a woman were hugenots.) One more time I recommend to you: read the Bible and if you do not have one, get yourself one. It is interesting, that the Bible opens your eyes somehow. Let me give you an example. In the time of the biggest colt of personality of some then famous artis (a writer, a playwright), who had a wrong prenonciation of "r" and on the begining he wore a sweater, then had shorter pants than appropriate, I read the Bible and all of this seemed like a small detail to me, I forgot the so called Sweaterer, even though they insisted to us in television, that this guy in a sweater is the envy of the whole world. Gentle reader hopefully understands me, let us not allow anybody to fool us, do not let the former communists fool us, let not the "czech primas" fool us, do not let the unbaptized son of hugenots fool us. We are the nation of Master Jan Hus (great czech religious reformer) and Commenius (another great religious reformer), who has the right to receive more than was given to us. Serbs are our brothers and that is why we must always condemn the bombings of Serbia. This did not work out somehow for Sweaterer the Short Pants. How is it possible that the man in a sweater traveled during communism routinely to the West? I do not trust to any kind of guys in a sweater a word they say. I do not have the slightest respect for them. To whom I trust is the people (the nation) and its common sense. A symbol of participation of people in public affairs is participation of people on court procedures and that is in the form of deciding as a part of a jury.
This my essay and some of my other essays on site www.shibboleth.cz are the only sites, where anybody deals more into depth with achieving the comeback of juries in czech judiciary system. Of course, this is just a beginning. Were you ever interested at least a little bit in the case of life time convict Jiří Kajínek? This man was condemned to life in jail by one man, a judge. Both of the other judges (the judges so called co-sitting, non-professional judges) who were supposed to take part in the decisionmaking, were completely passive. Did you read, at least very quickly, what the witnesses had to say in the court of justice? If Jiří Kajínek had a fair trial, he would have not been convicted. I shall be so daring to insist, that a twelve member jury would have acquitted him. In the USA, the prospective jurors would have been first examined, if they are not biased. This is something wonderfull. In the Czech republic the defense does not have the right to call to witness stand even one witness. If the defense wants to hear a witness, it can suggest it to the police. Police can reject this suggestion. When the case arrives to the court, the defense can not subpeona even one witness again. Defense can only suggest hearing a witness in the court of justice. Judge can either hear the witness, or not. In the USA, it is the district attorney (the prosecutor) and the defense attorney, who subpeona witnesses, not the court. They have the power to hand over subpeona to anybody. When I served on a jury in Las Vegas, the judge did not know, how many witnesses the district attorney and the defense attorney will call to the witness stand. The judge asks frequently: "Do you have any more witnesses?" To this question (for example) the district attorney answers: "Yes, Your Honour, the people of the state of Nevada call John Smith." The same applies, naturally, for the defense. He or she answers in the same manner, for example like this: "Defense calls Joseph Cooper." Do I have to say anything else? Why, on earth, juries were in our country not yet reestablished, when they were reestablished even in the very Russia, in that Russia about which contemporary newspapers, radio and television speak almost like about some latin american dictatorship? By the way, even in latin american dictatorships mostly nobody questions the right of the accused-to have his or her destiny decided by a jury. Have you seen the moving picture (movie) Twelve angry men? This is something different, is it not? As if it was from a different world, from a diary of an older sibling (much older). In our country, this movie (originally a theater play) would have to have the name "One in advance decided man-(to say nothing of the two co-sitting judges)". On this place I would like to state as fallows: everything, what I have written, has the purpose of promoting juries at the courts of justice. I am not interested in a debate, if juries yes or not. Do not write to me, that you are against juries. I am not interested in letters of former communists, that they had good intentions and "they wanted to do something" or that they wanted "help by developing of the rural areas". You, who like the way it is now, have your newspapers, radio, television. You had yours 42 years of communist regime and velvet fraud. (Here meant the infamous Czech so called Velvet revolution of 1989.) All of this work, which I do, I do out of my persuasion, not because I want to earn something. It all costs me a lot of many, writing on a computer. This, what you read, may not be in any way re-printed, quoted and so on, withnout my permission, which I do not give and which I shall not give. There is a lot of people, though, who did not collaborate with communist regime and have open eyes. Because they know foreign languages, they can learn a great extend of reality. That is why my work can lead them to further studies about juries, supporting of juries and all in all to serious work on the behalf of juries and democracy at all.
A human being should, first of all, keep an unbiased opinion. It is needfull, to select out of everything the best and not to be a bootlicker. In the USA, as the case might be, there is plenty of good, but also many bad. The good things are first of all juries in the court rooms, the possibility to study, plenty of great universities, independent judiciary, independent churches, separation of church from state. Bad are certain things, which we should not take over. For example, Americans eat in a way, that for us, it is a rather not very aestetic sight. They cut the whole meal with a knife, then they take the fork in the right hand (!) and eat. When I saw somebody to eat like this, I always had to turn in a different direction. There are, nonetheless, some very well educated Americans, who use knife and fork, they eat with two hands. Some of them just learned it (how to eat) in Europe, where they for example served in armed forces of the USA, or they just simply visited Europe. But, hold on! I even saw already people in my country, who eat with a fork in their right hand. They even cut their meal with fork, without ever using the knife. Please, do not do it, it is disgusting. Do not be more popelike, than the pope himself. Until the year of 1989, the defeat of fascism was being celebrated by a way, that only the Soviets were being celebrated. The smaller part of our country was liberated by Americans and a small part of our country was liberated by Roumanians. The role of Roumanians was until now kept in secret and basically they are kept in secret to this very day. Many of them died by liberating my country, tens of thousands. Perhaps 33 000 or 34 000. More of them died, than Czech themselves by liberating their own country. Today, only Americans are being celebrated. The main celebration is taking place in Plzeň, which was really liberated by Americans. But even in Praha (Prague), which was liberated by everybody, but Americans, you can see predominantly fans of Americans. You can see american flags, Jeeps, american uniforms. Good people, do not lose human diginity. Now, only very shortly to the Prague liberation. Prague was partially liberated by the very Czechs, mainly inhabitants of Prague. They were helped a lot by russian soliders of general Vlasov. (Russian soldiers of general Vlasov were russian colaborators with Hitler, who turned their coats at the last moment.) In the last moment it was the Russians, who entered Prague. Germans, however, were fleeing from Prague, because they wanted to surrender to Americans. They wanted to become prisonners of war in american camps, rather than in Russia. As I have mentioned earlier, it is needed not to be a boot-kisser. Earlier, we were big protestants, after the Battle of the White Mount, fallowers of the Habsburgs. Then everybody sang to the "papa Masaryk" (the first Czechoslovak president, called "tatíček", which means "daddy" or "papa".) After that, everybody sang to Masaryk's faithfull pupil Beneš. (Beneš was the second president of Czechoslovakia, a protégé of Masaryk.) Then it was the communists, then "disidents", then "economists", in the meanwhile Russians, Americans. I have met several former colaborators, who told me, that they are reading a book about general Patton, they saw an american war moving picture (movie). I served in US Army. Today, all kinds of former communists are bigger in their admiration of our Big Brother. As opposed to former communists, who read books about liberation of Plzeň by heroic american soldiers, who handed chewing gums, invited everybody, especially good looking girls, to the local social hall for an evening of dance, I am not much looking for this kind of literature. My favoured literar characters are rather Count of Monte Christo, Abbe Faria, as they were years ago and are still today. I do not read any books or plays written by Big Sweater man. I turned over the pages of some of his books, but it is disgusting. I do not let anybody fool me. I know one thing. On the beginning, Hitler and Stalin got along very well. They invaded Poland together, each of them went from one side. When Germans, Poles and Hungarians took portion of our land, in the year of 1939 as part of the Munich agreement, the Soviets did not move one finger fo us. In the same manner, one finger was not moved for us by the Americans, Englishmen and Frenchmen. When in the year of 1939 Germans invaded us, again, nobody moved a finger. Then Germans thought, that they would be able to handle it by themselves, they would no longer need the Soviets and they attacked the Soviet Union. Then, all of a sudden, the main allies became Soviets, Americans and Brittons. Of course, they had other and other helpers, other states fighting on their side. Great respect deserve for example the Frenchmen, who, under the leadership of the legendary general de Gaulle also did a great deal of a good work. Today, debates can be heard, however, that if there was not for Americans, then the Russians would have lost, Germans were very good soldiers and so on. It is not the case. Everybody, who fought against Hitler, was great. British pilots were great. American foot soldiers were great. Soviets tank drivers were great. Soviet machine gun man might not have such a beautiful lighter like american high officer of the US Army had, but the nazis were running before him, just like it was only possible. By saying that, I do not want to belittle heroism of german soldiers, who lots of times fought in difficult terrain, while being outnumbered, surrounded by their enemies, in a terribly low temperature, without food. There were whole books written about the german mountain troops, pilots, members of tank corps and others. I know, what it is, to serve in millitary forces, even in peace time. Most of the people, who talk bad about somebody, would weep in a battle theater. So let us not be boot-kissers, each state, each nation has its outstanding personalities, writers, scientists, soldiers and others. Of course, not only important people have their importance. There can not be all ministers, judges and presidents. Read about it in the Bible. What has done for you lately some president or a judge? Cook had a meal for you prepared, driver of a street car has taken you home, engineer on a train has taken you to a distant town. These are the people, who create values, (who produce something.) The factory owner needs the workers, so they can produce the products, on which he received contracts. The workers need the factory owner, so they can work and produce something. I, personally, can do without some outstanding president, who is the envy even on the other side of the world. What if I asked you, who is the chairman of the government in Denmark? Do you know it? Who is the president of Iceland? In our country, there is no need for any foreign radar, or any foreign military forces. In the year of 1945, our country was liberated first of all by Soviets, smaller part by Americans, smaller by Roumanians. Praha was liberated by the soldiers of general Vlasov and a lot have done the people of Praha themselves.
Now, let us turn the page. One thing in Las Vegas is very good. There is many people in Las Vegas, who read the Bible and make their own opinion. They do not parrot something, what some important person told them. Be also like they are. Read the Bible and think about everything. Create your own opinion. "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." (Gospel according to John 8:32)
Two examples for all, what relations to us have representatives of western countries. Couple years ago, the President of the United States of America, paid visit to Prague. In my eyes, it is a man with many questions marks, first of all regarding to his place of birth, citizenship, in the time of his birth, number of his citizenships. He does not know, in what hospital he was born. He knows only, that it was in Honolulu, Hawaian islands. He has never shown his birth certificate, just some kind of "verification" or "certification". It is even possible, that even at the present time, he does not hold a citizenship of the United States of America, not only, that he was not born as a US citizen, but as a citizen of Kenya, from where his father was. This president was on a very short visit to Prague, in addition to it not on a visit of Czech republic, but he was on some kind of an international meeting (conference, negotiation). Prague resembled a war zone. On the rooftops there were snipers. The streets were not passable. The town was full of some kind of weird "secret agents". On the streets of Prague walked foreign policemen or agents with loaded guns. In the newspapers, there was even some kind of a warning not to approach something, or there is a possibility of danger to be shot to death. This president without a birth certificate, who did not perform even one day of military service, was supposed to go to some luxurious Prague restaurant, what he in the end called off. He was closed in his hotel room, where he and his wife, had a steak brought to them. He did not visit even one monument. He did not care to visit the Chapel of Bethlehem. (The place, where czech religious reformer Master Jan Hus preached.) Prague medieval horologe has no importance for him. Maybe only, in his hotel, which is certainly part of some "american" chain, he worked out. Needful to say, Prague is a unique cultural juwel, through which history passed. After some kind of a very important meeting, where there were some 50 (?) world politicians, he quickly flew away. His wife perhaps flew away even a little bit sooner and that, I think, to Paris. Mr. Obama, in my eyes you are just a hillbily. The President with no birth certificate gave during his short visit to Prague a speech on the Hradčany square. (Probably the most exclusive place in Prague, next to Hradčany, a castle, where the czech president performs the duties of his office.) They searched everybody, there were metal detectors everywhere, secret agents all over the place. The listenners heard, when it came to it, a speech full of frases and dime a dozen clichés. Barrack Hussein Obama then spoke about himself like about a man, who accompanies to Prague his wife Michelle. This little joke said, however, somebody long time ago and that is the legendary John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who spoke about himself and his wife Jacqueline. Mr. Obama, do not make yourself look ridicoules and invent something yourself. You are not really JFK and your wife is not Mrs. Kennedy. Another outstanding politician, originally from Scotland, has a baptismal (first) name of an Anthony and several other names. He calls himself "Tony", however. This "Tony", who is in his sixties, was in Prague for a short visit. Czech chairman of the government of that time tried to be on good terms with him and in front of cameras he called him "Tony". Why? Is it some kind of "Tony" for him? It is not appropriate. Chairman of a foreign governament or a prime minister of the government of a foreign country should be addressed as "Mr. Prime minister" or at least "Mr. Blair". (I speak about Anthony Blair.) This "Tony" all of a sudden addressed the czech chairman of the government of that time "Zeman". (The chairman of the government of that time has a last name "Zeman". It is pronounced "zeman", like "e" in "bed", "bet", "set", "get", "wet", "red" and many, many other english words. Thus, it is not difficult, to learn how to pronounce the czech last name "Zeman".) He did not call him by his first name, but he called him by his last name, in front of cameras, to be seen on tv screens, by his last name, which he did not learn to pronounce. He did not even try to learn, how to pronounce the name of chairman of the government of the receiving country. He did not even have so much respect to call him "Mr. Zeman", "Sir" or so. Can you imagine, how much interess have this various "Tonies" for a normal man from our country, who works decently, works hard in constractions and then tries to get home on a crowded bus. My stand to those, who do not know how to behave is this: if you do not know how to behave, do not come to us.
All of these I had to write. It seems to look, that I dislike US citizens, Englishmen, or judges, perhaps. This is not the case. In the USA, as well as in England, there are plenty of decent people. There are plenty of judges, even in my country, who only try to work properly, they try to be just and caring. Amongs judges, there is good and bad. One of the top official of organisation of judges said, that judges are the "elite of the nation". Well, for certain, you are not, calm down. A judge is simply a human being, who works in one of many professions which exist on the earth. Other than judges, there are other occupations, for example miners, car drivers, teamsters, flyers (pilots), plumbers, teachers, physicians, architects, workers in agriculture, writers, poets.... Why a judge, out of many, should be a part of an elite? What is elite about him or her? In that, that after being graduated from a law school he went to work as a "judicial trainee, or judicial candidate"? This applies, of course, even for citizens of the USA or Great Britain. There are good and bad. "Tony" or president without a birth certificate do not interest me. There is, nonetheless, a huge number of their countrymen, who can do something, they are in good use to somebody, in something. People are different. Educated, uneducated, rich, poor, old, young, strict, gentle, conservative, liberal. All these people form one nation. As a result of their debate comes a final opinion. These people sit in a jury, as the case might be. Their opinion counts. Their opinion is binding. Their opinion means sometimes for somebody freedom, for another prison or death on electric chair. Nobody pulls his or her rank on jurors. That is, how it is supposed to be. I know, that juries will not be reinvented in our country within a year or two. But the time comes someday. For the time being, I am the first and only, who is interested in this matter. This is a beginning. It is sure, that juries will not be reestablished out of nothing. In order for juries to be reestablished, people have to know, what juries are, how they function. This is the aim and purpose of this work.
There are couple more things, which are on my heart and certainly belong to this chapter. When I lived in the USA, I was interested in all kinds of things. I am not exactly a big supporter of Rev. Jesse Jackson, but once in a while I fallowed his speeches and his activities as a whole. One time he expressed himself even to the fact, that the Supreme Court of the USA has prohibitted public prayer. For example pupils (students) in a public school may not begin their school day by prayer. Of course, on a parochial school it is different. Rev. Jesse Jackson said something in the sense, that "eight men and one woman in black robes" may not dictate to the whole nation, "eight men and one woman in black robes" can not push through their will against millions in the USA. He was partially right. Children in public schools may not pray, may not study the Bible. Inauguration of a US President has a prayer as its unremovable part. Rev. Jesse Jackson expressed himself like this about the judges of the US Supreme Court. At the same time it is true, that judges of this high court are highly esteemed citizens, they are all storngly convinced about something. They are divided between conservatives and liberals. Some of them are in something rather conservative, in something rather liberal. Their word has its esteem. They look full of gravity. They dress in a beautiful, noble way. Nobody questions their integrity and morals. Even, as it is, Rev. Jesse Jackson speaks about "eight men and one woman in black robes". How on earth should somebody look at top representatives of czech judiciary, who took places at higher courts? Almost all of them were judges in the times of communism. In these days only to be enrolled at a law school meant, to be from a very, very loyal family. Big part of judges on higher courts were members of communist party. Take one higher court as an example, which is supposed to be active in defending constitutionality. Its chairman is a former communist. Member of this court is a woman, who in the time of communism was a judge. She sentenced to jail a pub keeper, because he complainted, that in his pub will take place a meeting of communists. Am I supposed to seek her advice? Do you want me to visit her lecture? What is she? Conservative? Liberal? Neither. She is simply a former servant of communists, who was able, once again, to get higher. One time I saw her on television. She wore a T-shirt, which you would maybe wear for a work in your sommer cabin. Last member of higher court is a former communist, who in the time of communism was a military prosecutor. Are you joking? Are you serious? Why do not they send to the High court plainly some former StB member (Státní bezpečnost, StB for short, was the secret police under communist regime, which protected communist regime), or a former border patrol guard, who was shooting little guys on the border, who wanted to the west, so they could travel freely? From these "people" I do not expect anything. Their opinions do not interest me, I would not sit with them at the same table. It is obvious, that these people wil not support reestablishing of juries. Former communist prosecutor will be against juries. Let him be against. This work has long term aims. Communist prosecutor will depart-at least some day. In the meantime, a few people will read my work. Since I speak English (and other languages), I have no serious trouble to invite to the Czech republic american attorneys and other supporters of jury for the purpose of enlightment, lectures about juries. Communist prosecutor does not speak English as I do. Or does he? Let him write then work of the same content as this one in czech and english version and as the case might be, in other versions. I do not need to emphasize, that the whole english version is written by me, it is not translated into English by anyone, nobody else but me. Comrade prosecutor, would you write it also in English like I did? Rather not. Instead of learning foreign languages, you have spent your time in meetings of union of youth (pro communist state run organization of young people) and then on meetings of communists. Development goes forward and even though a communist prosecutor gets a job with High court, the society goes forward. In the USA, the judges are being elected. They should be elected even in our country. Why, representatives, senators, council members are elected, not judges? In whole of a branch of state power does not have the people the slightest say so. Judiciary (judges, courts) is he most backwardly branch of state power in my country. They wrote something in the newspapers, that some kind of some Great Velvet November Revolution took place here, but I have a feeling, that in some courts of justice, the time has stood still. I fell like in the year (for example) of 1972. Let us not want anything from them. Let us found an organization, supporting reestablishment of juries. It is also needed, that the whole judicial branch is not a subject to the state. Towns, cities, countries, regions, lands must have their own courts of justice. For example, the city of Pardubice must have its court of justice, consisting of local people, elected by local people. Not, that the ministry of justice hires somebody on the position of a judge in Plzeň, somebody else in Brno. In fact, these courts of justice in different towns are all state courts of justice, only with different jurisdiction. Courts of justice should be even in smaller towns, such as Slavkov, Rosice, Doudleby nad Orlicí, Kostelec nad Orlicí, Blansko and others. There should be judges, elected by local citizens. We have a long way to go. If the people get a say so at courtrooms, as it is in developed countries, then our fledging democracy makes a leap ahead. Very well, after the year of 1989 we got from the rule of communists. We can take a ride to Vienna. We can read an american magazine. Western singers come here to perform. The State security (StB, former secret police of communists) may not terorize us. (Many former state security agents work for police and elsewhere.) Communist hangmen may not strangle on a "board" an innocent woman or innocent members of a religious order, who dedicated their lives to the life of fasting and prayer. Is this what we wanted though? Why is there a whole branch of government, which is in the hands of unelected people, of whose a big portion are former communists or their flunkies?
Are you proud of the fact, that in the toughest prisons of the Czech republic is supposed to end his days Jiří Kajínek. (Mr. Kajínek is a man, who was jailed for theft and stuff like that. He was sentenced to spend his life in prison for double murder and an attempt to murder. He always denied that he killed somebody.) This probably innocent man (innocent of killing, that is) was sentenced to life in prison by a panel of three judges, called a senate. (One professional judge, two judges who are not professional judges, from other walks of life, mostly pensioners, called "co-sitting judges".) Both of the "co-sitting judges" were entirely passive.The whole process was conducted by one professional judge. This one judge has decided, what kind of evidence will be shown, heard, discussed in the courtroom. He has decided what witnesses will be heard and what witnesses will not be heard. He questioned the witnesses. (Only once the judge is through with the witness, it is the prosecutor's turn, then the attorney gets a chance to ask a questions.) He evaluated evidence brought to the court of justice. This one man based upon the testimony of one witness decided, that Jiří Kajínek is guilty and sentenced him to life in prison. He sentenced him to a slow death. Do you think, that a jury of twelve jurors would find Jiří Kajínek guilty? At least in such a big case should decide more people. In the cas of Mr. Kajínek, there is at least a doubt. Some of the witnesses testified in his favour. Still, it was decided by one man, that Mr. Kajínek spends his whole life in prison and he dies there. This is what you like? This is what you want? What if you find yourself in the shoes of Jiří Kajínek? Think about this case. Get yourself materials of this case. The insurance against (unrestrained) judicial power is called - jury.
There is many things, which I would like to write about my stay in the United States, specifically in Las Vegas. With this I shall be busy later on, when I get the time for it. I think, that to know, what is going on elsewhere, how there look at things and so on, is very enhancing. For this moment, I have to be satisfied with listing just a few details. First of all, that the USA seem (plural, because there are 50 states) in some way, but the truth is different from that, what the newspaper are to tell you, what the countrymen have to say, but the situation is (somewhat) different from that, what you see yourself. When I was in the USA only for a short time, I remember, that I have asked some Czechs, if there are in the USA and specifically in Las Vegas any balls. (By "balls" I mean formal social events, taking place in social halls, union halls and all kinds of halls, hotel ballrooms, where a music band plays some dance music, such as waltz, tango, rumba, cha-cha, not a "ball", an instrument, which is needed for a game played with a ball, such as basketball.) They have told me, that there is no such a thing, that there are no balls in the USA, in Las Vegas. I was sad of that, but I believed them. Then I, naturally, found out, that it is not true, that balls exist there, of course they do. Then, some countrymen told me, that in the USA, there are no dance clubs, latin-american dances and standard dances are not being danced, only disco. Good thing, that it is as it is, this was not true, there are dance clubs, ballroom (dances) are being danced, even argentinian tango. (It takes two to tango.) There are dance schools, dance teachers. Somebody smart has told me, that in the USA there are no chess players, or just a few. Wrong. There are chess players in the USA, there are even whole chess families, bloodlines. It is the truth, that in the USA, there are three main sports: football (that means that "american" football, with the epointy ball), basketball and baseball. These three sports are everywhere. Everything else you have to try to find, or it is only in certain communities. There are communities of chess players, dancers, politicians, writers, poets. There are whole dynasties of preachers and all in all people, who are involved in religion, in one way or the other. There are communities of Jews, gypsies, Mexicans, soldiers, rodeo riders, carnies. A whole unique world consists of society of students and teachers from universities and various scholars. Each community is different. It is not possible therefore, to talk about Americans. They differ in the way they dress. University professors are very well educated, well read. They wear tweed jackets, special pants, bow ties. You probably will not confuse them with a worker in a casino, who is simple, whose vocabulary is limited, he wears a dime a dozen clothes (non descript clothes), without any style. Many hotel, casino workers, even come to work and leave their work dressed in a complete uniform, including a name tag (!). (On the name tag, there is written their first name, not a last name, or full name.) In a complete uniform the employee then walks the streets, even sits in a restaurant or a pub, while eating or drinking beer. Physicians and nurses often walk the streets in their uniforms. It is naturally very unsanitary. It says also something about the society in the USA. It is a society, which consist in a big portion from proletarians, working class, people on the border of poverty, just surviving. There are big differences. In the Czech republic and generally in Europe, there are not such big differences between people. You can talk about books with a worker. You can talk politics with a worker in fields. You can talk to a poor clerk about history. Professor, who teaches at mid level school lot of times does not give you very big impression about his or her education. If you talk to a lawyer in our country and then you talk to a driver, many times you would not tell, which one is which. Many lawyers do not know even one foreign language, while a factory worker knows even several foreign languages. A judge has no drivers licence. He walks in the very court building in jeans and he puts on the cheapest sandals we know. In the US, everybody tells a judge from a factory worker and that is by everything. By his or her vocabulary, by his or her looks, clothes. In Las Vegas you can see big differences between people. In fancy casinos you can see guests, who are dressed up to their nines, they have great looks. Their clothes consist all of natural materials, such as wool, silk, cashmere, linen. The gentlemen wear beautiful suits, silk ties. In a cheap casino you can se T-shirts, blue jeans, baseball caps. In an expensive casino you can smell expensive parfumes. That can not be said about a cheap casino. Fancy restaurants are visited by gentlemen commonly dressed in tuxedos and by ladies dressed in something nice. Cheap restaurants has guests dressed in checkered shirts, workers overalls and jeans dirty with mortar. One time I flew on a plane in a tourist class. Stewardes threw packages with meal to people, and they were sending it forwards between themselves. The passangers asked me, from where I was ("Where are you from?") (It is not possible to visit USA and not hear this famous, or infamous question, even if you visit "the States" for a day.). What I did for my living, if I live in Nebraska. (No, I have never lived there.) One lady told me, that I remind her of her son. The stewardesses called older gentlemen in a familiar way, such as "honey", "love" and so on. Then I flew on a plnae, something such a first class de luxe super special and yes, there was a difference. There was peace, beautiful suits, smells. The stewardesses spoke softly, the passangers made orders a la carte. There was an elaborate table settings, simply to say: beautiful. Short distance from me sat an older gentleman in a perfect suit and he offered me a newspaper to read and I offered him a magazine. We exchanged few words (sentences), but nothing personal.
It can be said, that in Las Vegas, it is possible to organize university education, culture and religion by a big portion also for the reason, that there are many hotels and casinos in Las Vegas, with many employess, who drudge there, sometimes in terrible conditions, which are not meet for a human being, where there comes a huge number of tourists and gamblers, who leave there their money, which can serve afterwards also to something good, such as erecting yet another building of the local university, building a new theater, new church, medical facility and other facilities. I talked with a professor or a physician. Both of them have told me: "We can perform over here some kind of highly learned profession, but only thanks to the fact, that there are several people, who make money for us. We do not look down at anybody, if there was not of them, we would be probably unemployed."
My favoured, legendary Elvis is said to rebuke in Las Vegas his flunkies, who laughed at two girls, who loked somewhat rural and wanted to meet Elvis. Elvis reputedly told them: "Do not laugh at them, these are my fans. If there was not of them, I would drive a truck until this very day. What you would do, that I do not know at all. Probably you would be standing somewhere in line for welfare or you woud beg." Yes, it is like this. Every human being (if he or she is at least a little bit interested in something) plays a role in the world and in his or her life. There is not only Elvis. There are also his fans, without whom the King would be nothing. There is not only judge, who is very smart and this is the reason why he or she decides everything. There are first of all jurors, who have their experiences, education, their know how. In Las Vegas, where I have lived, I served couple times in a jury. In the Czech republic I came into the contact with the system of courts of justice, which is based on police and the state attorney (prosecutor), who submits the case to the court of justice, who is the one, who decides on the end. Judicial system based solely on judges, without the cooperation of the people, has no place in democratic society. Believe me, system of juries, which I got to know especially in Las Vegas, is more just.
JUDr. Oldřich Ševčík
In Brno, Czech Republic, 14th October 2015