Jan Šinágl angažovaný občan, nezávislý publicista

How the prosecutor can anticipate the court's decision, it is not clear to the convicted that this is a corrupt, illegal procedure, is beyond doubt.

[26] This is followed by another letter from JUDr. Šada to JUDr. Foltýn dated 8 April 2014 (incorrect: 2024), in which this defence counsel informs prosecutor Foltýn that he withdrew the application of M. Rakaš, as it assumed that the conditions for conditional release after ⅓ of the sentence had been met, but the law does not allow it in this case. Mr Šáda asks that Mr Foltýn assist in the application for a further interruption of the sentence, and, as it says in brackets, "the KSZ in H. Králové can certainly act in this respect". The final greeting, which reads "In anticipation of further cooperation, I remain in perfect esteem", is also curious - if it may be noted somewhat wryly, the cooperation between M. Rakaš and L. Foltýn was undoubtedly close and of great benefit: in return for his false testimony, JUDr. Foltýn provided this witness with a service that other perpetrators of serious crime can only dream of.

Full article in Czech>

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