Prior her refusal to make refund or the chargeback DCC filed a false criminal complaint in breach of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 Et sequentes) of September 30 1996 and, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. At trial the court returned a not guilty verdict & referred the matter to a civil docket. DCC forum shopped for a judge in the commercial docket and found one; willing to abuse Complainant's rights. DCC actions have already caused severe material harm to Complainant's person, his family and telecom & consulting business worth hundreds of millions Czech Crowns. Facts and applicable rules: This case is about consumer protection, viz. the right of a consumer to file a complaint (?claim' or ?charge-back') against non-conforming goods and/or services purchased, and the obligation of the service provider and/or seller to provide assistance in the dispute resolution particularly, a refund and/or recovery of the purchase price and other related costs between the consumer and the seller. DCC (credit card issuer) is the service provider and Complainant is an individual and/or the consumer (user of the service) in this case. Under the alleged relationship, Complainant is not a firm or business or entrepreneur as the credit card states Complainant's name as ?XXX' and not Complainant's business name: ?XXX Ltd..'

Complainant paid for goods (telecommunications equipments hard- and soft-wares, amongst others) via DCC's issued credit card. The goods which the ISC Company (seller) delivered were ?second hand' or ?used' as Complainant indicated on the takeover protocol. The contents of the takeover protocol was confirmed by Ishai Rosmarin's, GM, VocalTec Germany, written statement to the INTERPOL that ISC was not an authorised or licensed seller or reseller of VocalTec products and that because VocalTec Israel had no evidence about the Complainant's details in their clientele database, it is obvious that the SW was stolen. Rosmarin advised Complainant to pursue the matter with the authorities.

Complainant filed a complaint against ISC but the Police decided otherwise, contrary to the available material evidence. The same way another case between Complainant and the ISC found its way to another court instead of the District Court for Prague 8, the dispute arrived at the docket of the Metropolitan Court in Prague. Simultaneously, Complainant filed a written claim for a refund with DCC within 30 days in accordance with the pertinent binding provisions of the laws and DCC's General Terms and Conditions (?GTC') as Complainant argues below. These binding provisions are not reflected in DCC's GTC albeit the law clearly mandated these conditions in an effort to unify the European Union (?EU') consumer Directives within the single market. Therefore, the Metropolitan Court in Prague, Spalena branch must reverse entirely any other interpretation that may suggest otherwise or limit the purpose of the Single Market because in order for the Single Market to function, as designed, only interpretations supportive of the Single Market or its furtherance should be upheld. Diners Club International cannot violate the provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 ET sequentes) of September 30 1996 and, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act but its subsidiary and franchise is doing the same under her watchful eyes. The severity of these abusive conducts may never be known without a complete and thorough investigation by the Office of the Attorney General, the NSE and other agencies. At trial, Complainant challenged the jurisdiction of the commercial docket over a civil dispute and filed an appeal and a complaint with the Court of Appeal which is still pending. Despite the appeal, apparent conflict of interest because the judge is name in the lawsuit before the court of appeals for seizure of jurisdiction and destruction of material evidence in support of Complainant's case for a refund, the judge has not recused himself, neither has the Ministry of Justice recused him.

Therefore, the provisions of the Commercial Code (Act No. 513/1991 Coll.) which the judge used to adjudicate the dispute should not apply to the dispute instead of the Civil Code (Act No. 40/1964 Coll.) and the Consumer Protection Act (No. 634/1992 Coll.) are the proper and applicable substantive laws. The judge has not forwarded timely and properly filed appeal against his judgement including extra-ordinary appeal to the Supreme Court. Only last week the judge seized the extra-ordinary appeal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and attempted to adjudicate the matter before the Supreme Court. The continued property and non-property harm being cause by this abusive conduct runs into tens of millions of Czech Crowns. The amount of money involved is in excess of hundreds of millions of USD and counting. Respectfully submitted,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will be uploading unedited digital pictures and timely and properly ifled appeals of the complete case file during the week for the whole world all to view the extent of the corrupt practices and unchecked ongoing violations; the real extent of the harm may never be known.