Damaged records, photographs, and receipts remain. The fire service, police, and insurer each hold only one part.
TOP STORY · JUDICIAL EVIDENCE
The High Court quashed the findings of guilt: the judgment did not distinguish lawful from prohibited cannabis.
On 29 July 2025, by order ref. 11 To 88/2024-2990, the High Court in Prague quashed the findings of guilt, the related sentences and the forfeiture order in the Prague Municipal Court judgment of 7 May 2024, ref. 45 T 1/2024-2430, and returned the matter to the Prague Municipal Court for a new hearing and decision under Section 259(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The creator reports that the new hearing is scheduled for October 2026; that date does not appear in the order itself. The new judicial evidence has 9/9 relevance to the shared review question across four separate cases — EXTREME, ON FIRE.
WHY IT EXISTS
When you know what happened but cannot yet prove it
An official letter arrives on Friday afternoon. It contains reference numbers, links to earlier proceedings, and perhaps a deadline. You do not know whether or when the clock started. The person who could advise you will not be available until next week.
What happened?What does the evidence show?What remains unknown?What must a person check?
This is where AI Advocate for the Poor begins: between “I know what happened” and “I can prove it.” It places a new document in the story, shows what it changes, and says openly what it does not know.
AI Advocate turns an overwhelming archive into auditable memory, so a person does not have to be wealthy, healthy, or legally trained to understand their own story.That memory should belong to the person.
Other moments when a person may lose the whole story
Memories, letters, and official records are dispersed among relatives around the world.
Reports, expert opinions, photographs, and testimony accumulate, while some statements change over time.
Poverty here is not only a lack of money. Faced with a complex system, anyone can become poor in time, health, information, professional support, or the ability to keep the whole story connected.
Try your own documentText-layer PDF, TXT, or pasted text · processed only in your browser · always returns orientation outputs and a proposed next step
Compare with the shared memory
0/9 — a separate personal archive with no match1/9 — weakest green overlapprivate processing · the person controls sharing
HOW IT HELPS YOU
The document remains yours. The system turns it into a clear next step.
EVIDENCE DESK
Four ways into the living memory
Illustrations: Jiří Votruba
New evidenceWhat changed across four cases?Facts, references, relevance, and the boundary of the conclusion.
Human firstThe memory belongs to the personThe user, not the platform, controls sharing.
Shared evidenceAnother case’s conclusion never transfersOnly sourced facts and evidence candidates may cross cases.
Your documentStart with your own recordPDF and text remain only in your browser.
Votruba’s drawings form the editorial and human layer of the website. They are not a source for any legal or factual conclusion.
STRONG SENTENCE → CRIMINAL FILE → REOPENING RELEVANCE → WHAT THE NEW DOCUMENT CHANGED
Mgr. Dušan Dvořák’s live map — exactly referenced and still-open branches
21 JULY 2026 UPDATE · BEFORE / AFTER INSERTION
Four current court branches
Five exactly referenced institutional branches
Open groups — exact references will be added from primary records
Three dated periods of testing and further development
FROM EVIDENCE MEMORY TO A REVIEWABLE PROCEDURAL RECORD
What the system produced from specific case files, new evidence, and the shared THC-measurement question
Each output identifies the court, date, and reference number, separates exact quotations from their meaning, and states what the record does not prove. Shared evidence is used only as a candidate for checking against the particular case file; a prepared conclusion from another case is never transferred.
Mgr. Dušan Dvořák — motion to reopen proceedings
Prostějov District Court · cases 2 T 104/2010; 2 T 65/2011 / 2 Nt 1257/2013; 2 Nt 1151/2014; 3 Nt 1151/2014.
The complete, non-anonymised Czech original is published with the creator’s explicit consent. The file is reproduced unchanged; its SHA-256 is recorded in the manifest. Open the motion exactly as filed (Czech PDF)Mgr. Dušan Dvořák — new records after 12 July 2026
A separate addendum connects later institutional nodes and the Prague High Court order ref. 11 To 88/2024-2990 to precise questions about the historical laboratory record.
It does not rewrite the original motion. Later official responses and a judgment in another case do not automatically establish a ground for reopening. Open the working addendum (Czech PDF)L. CH. — Brno Regional Court
Brno Regional Court, 28 February 2019, ref. 50 T 7/2018-603; Olomouc High Court, 6 November 2019, ref. 5 To 39/2019-707.
The 2022 motion is compared with today’s sourced memory. The complete judgments, laboratory chain, current procedural status, and consent of the authorised person remain necessary before any filing. Open the L. CH. working draft (Czech PDF)M. K. / J. K. — Hradec Králové Regional Court
Regional Court, 27 February 2017, ref. 9 T 5/2016-948; Prague High Court, 12 June 2017, ref. 11 To 48/2017-1036; Supreme Court, 13 December 2017, ref. 11 Tdo 1499/2017-48; Constitutional Court, 9 July 2019, file no. IV. ÚS 1140/18.
The chemical, yield, digital, and possible Section 278(4) branches are kept separate. A public source dated 23 January 2026 describes the judgment concerning Judge Ivan Elischer as non-final; the statutory condition is therefore not established. Open the M. K. / J. K. working draft (Czech PDF)G. F. / J. K. — Ostrava District Court
Reported matter: order of 18 June 2025, ref. 15 T 11/2025-122; related police matter KRPT-202999/TČ-2024-070774 and expert statement KRPT-2600-1/KT-2024.
The available records describe a conditional discontinuance, not a conviction. Calling this a motion to reopen would be misleading without the original order, proof of finality, and the outcome after the probationary period. Open the procedural memorandum (Czech PDF)Procedural boundary: only the first PDF was actually filed. The remaining PDFs are public working records created after the competition submission; they are not legal advice, do not guarantee success, and require review of the complete case file, the affected person’s consent, and a qualified lawyer before use. Order 11 To 88/2024-2990 is a comparative source, not an automatic acquittal or an automatic ground for reopening.
THE RESULT FIRST · EVIDENCE UNDERNEATH
CASE INPUT DATA
What the memory already holds in one window
VERSIONS AND EVIDENCE CONTINUITY
V0 is the data, V1 the competition snapshot, V2 the living memory, and V3 its clear public window
V0 is not an older website. It is the data and evidence layer dating from 20 April 2026, created before knowledge of the competition and before the present system design.
NINE-LEVEL TRAFFIC LIGHT
Colour records relevance, relationships, and the need to respond
In this case the darkest red means extremely important relationships and a need for response. A deadline appears only when a document or verified rule sets one; colour alone never creates it. For another user, every level applies to the relationships and relevance of that person’s own case.
DAILY V2–V3 HISTORY
What was added after submission
DATED TEST MEMORY
How many distinct checks belong to each competition period
ONE SENTENCE → TRAFFIC LIGHT → NEXT STEP → EXPAND THE EVIDENCE
What the official records directly state
What later submissions allege — not official findings
Legal review framework and privacy boundary
M. K. / J. K. — full assessment and sources
The M. K. and J. K. case: shared new evidence 9/9 — EXTREME, ON FIRE
L. CH. — full assessment, sources, and missing evidence
L. CH.’s 2022 motion to reopen: 9/9 relevance to new evidence about THC methodology
Alliance organisational memory — register, annual report, and enforcement branches
The 2025 Annual Report and four documented concluded enforcement branches of the alliance
V2.2 · The 2025 Annual Report, the first three stopped enforcement branches, and the Prostějov District Court judgment
State before v2.3 was added: five unique non-public PDFs established the register context, three stopped enforcement proceedings, and one precisely bounded judicial finding. The Annual Report was recorded as approved on 14 July 2026 and awaiting graphic design work.
At that stage the Liberec branch showed approximately CZK 200,000 as the creator’s indicative figure because the stopping order itself stated only principal of CZK 83,020.64 plus accessories. V2.3 narrowed that uncertainty with a new document stating CZK 192,752.91 on 8 July 2025, not on the stopping date.
V2.1 · After more than fifteen years of seeking a substantive answer, the police document dated 20 July 2026 again provided none
1 · DIRECT DOCUMENT STATEMENT
The police state that the submission addressed to the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office was:
„bez přijetí dalšího opatření uloženo“
English translation: “placed on file without further action.”
2 · CREATOR-CONFIRMED CHRONOLOGY
Mgr. Dušan Dvořák confirms that, after filing the pre-action demand with the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office on 14 July 2026, he also sent it to the Police as evidence supporting the preventive filing of 12 July, to the Prostějov District Court and District Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Office of the President, the Ministry of Justice, and the related intervention actions.
3 · SYSTEM SYNTHESIS
The document adds a procedural node but gives no reasons for taking no further action, does not decide the merits of the submission, and closes none of the affected branches.
Nine red links — where the document’s meaning is immediately propagated
Evidence boundary: the exact police quotation, creator-confirmed chronology, and system synthesis are deliberately separated. Red records urgency and the number of affected links; it does not itself prove unlawfulness or predict an outcome.
English evidence policy: the English page translates the analysis and material quotations while retaining the Czech wording as the auditable source. Dušan Dvořák’s name and the names of organisations he represents remain public; addresses, signatures, and unnecessary third-party data are withheld.
Open the laboratory, original demonstration tests, and detailed case map
PROJECT MISSION
From thousands of fragmented items to an auditable case
A person with limited money or health may have a legitimate claim and enough evidence, yet still fail because they lack the resources, time, or professional capacity to organize their case.
AI Advocate is designed to compensate for this disadvantage. It turns fragmented legal and life materials into a structure of people, institutions, proceedings, events, claims, and evidence. It can then gather the relevant sources within a selected branch and prepare a proposed next step for human review.
fragmented materials→auditable structure→relevant branch→proposed action
This does not replace a lawyer. It helps a person reach the point where a lawyer, legal-aid organization, ombudsperson, or public authority can actually help.
AUDITABLE MEMORY
Statements, institutions, links, and case law
The public case-study author is named with consent. Contact details and irrelevant private persons are excluded.
Verified statements from source documents
Known links awaiting a source
Relevant case-law principles
ONE PERSON'S LIVING MEMORY
CannaInsider.eu — 1994 · 2004 · 2008 · 2010 · 2026
From an archive to an auditable decision graph.
Three publicly auditable evidence axes
Scale of the documented map
Active court branches in 2026
Submission and referral tree since 20 April 2026
Timeline and links
Candidate inconsistencies for verification
CONCRETE APPLICATION TODAY IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC FOR APPROXIMATELY 30,000–50,000 CITIZENS
A European case since 2004 as a network of institutions, proceedings, and remedies
The range of 30,000–50,000 citizens is the creator’s approximate estimate; it is neither an official statistic nor the number of people recorded by the platform.
The prototype displays an anonymized connection from the research program to the President, Czech courts and public prosecutors, ministries, police and forensic bodies, the CJEU, European Commission, and ECtHR. It distinguishes indexed material from creator-stated claims that still require an anonymized primary source.
Privacy in this demo: selected files are processed only in your browser. They are not uploaded and disappear when the page is refreshed.
EVERYDAY POTENTIAL
A person brings a box of records — the system returns an understandable path
A prisoner’s family, a disabled person, a senior, a debtor, or a parent dealing with an authority may fail not because evidence is absent, but because they cannot find it in time, connect it to the right proceeding, and explain it to a professional.
documents or speech in the user’s language→safe anonymization→timeline and evidence traffic light→review by a lawyer or advice service
Outcome: a reviewed output for an exactly supported document; for every other readable document, detected dates, references, institutions, amounts, possible deadline expressions, overlap with the public memory, and a proposed next step. Voice input, OCR, automatic anonymization, and universal legal analysis remain product vision.
CONTROLLED PRE-SUBMISSION TEST
Citizen XY’s archive already exists. One new document is being added.
2004–2026 archive→new referral notice→deadline and relevance check→updated decision graph
This button runs the first internal test. A separate outside-PDF test and safe text mapping appear below.
INTERNAL TEST RESULT
What the document proves
What the document does not prove
Relevance traffic light
Impact on the three unfiled documents dated 18 July 2026
Second layer: ministers, the Supreme Public Prosecutor, and other authorities
Questions for human verification
REAL-WORLD PROJECT OUTPUT
Documents sent on 19 July 2026
Created within AI Advocate for the Poor through collaboration between Mgr. Dušan Dvořák and Codex. At the author’s request, each document is published in its sent form, including his identifying details. The analytical layer identifies other people only by public role; the linked PDFs preserve the form in which the documents were actually sent.
BEFORE THE TEST
Drafts dated 18 July 2026
The new referral notice had not yet been safely propagated through all three documents, and some wording treated a prepared draft as already filed or evidenced.
AFTER THE TEST
Outputs sent on 19 July 2026
The system created a new procedural node, assigned document-specific relevance, limited the meaning of the referral, and corrected document status. The three sent outputs appear below.
SECOND TEST AND POST-SUBMISSION TEST — OUTSIDE INPUT
A safe test of any document — the file stays on your computer
Post-submission test build v3.2 · 21 July 2026: after the competition entry had been duly submitted, support was added for exact recognition of records concerning five other people, two exact records in the Prague judicial branch, and five creator PDFs supplied today. The latest set represents three already-known events — one exact duplicate and two events newly established by primary PDFs — plus two new official nodes. The original competition build remains preserved in the dated archive. This testing and the related thematic Czech pilot are expressly labelled as development completed after submission.
Files are processed only in the browser and are never uploaded. An exactly supported PDF receives its verified, source-bounded output. Every other readable document receives general orientation: detected dates, case references, institutions, amounts, possible deadline expressions, comparison with the public and shared cannabis memory, and a proposed next step. Weak overlap is green 1/9; zero overlap is a black 0/9 dot. For a person in a cannabis-related legal conflict, the system carries that person’s quoted facts and evidence candidates into separate working material for the selected or textually indicated route; it does not copy personal procedural status or another case’s finished conclusion and does not promise success. An image-only scan reports that OCR is required.
Open the anonymized evidentiary extract PDF Open the reviewed public derivative of the police noticeGENERAL LOCAL ORIENTATION — OUTSIDE INPUT
What the document contains and whether it overlaps with public or shared cannabis evidence memory
PRIORITY QUEUE OF RECOGNIZED DOCUMENTS
Peak level and red-link count determine the order
EXACTLY SUPPORTED PDF RESULT