Why do I consider legitimate and even necessary to claim the re-enacting of old agreements between people who died so long ago ?
Isn't after all reviving a dispute between people which already are privileged enough?
Wouldn’t it tarnish a name of distinction and prestige, which evokes many key events of Czech history?
Should my rights proved to be morally and legally justified, would I have still have a chance of winning against the establishment and the forces of a fortune orders magnitude greater than mine?
Do I not already have enough to churn with what was returned so far ?
Wouldn't I waste personal fulfillment and time which is getting more and more precious as it marches on?

As mentioned elsewhere in this site, I returned to my motherland after the Velvet Revolution without thinking twice, without "état d'ame"; because I couldn't turn my back to this hint of destiny. That is what my predecessors would have done themselves and expected me to do, for the best and for the worst.

During the communist era, although we realized - without bitterness, I must add - there was nothing we could do about the fact all our possessions were physically taken apparently forever, we always held the strong sentiment we had a historically legitimate relation with those family properties. We kept pictures of "our" homes in Bohemia on the walls of even the most humble dwellings of our exile, "knowing" they were ours in spite of the fact we were not allowed to remain there.

The same applies to the things which are still in the hands of the State and presently in those of our cousin branch, by the most bizarre and biased interpretation of a combination of restitution and communist laws.

Because the restitution laws did not make provisions for the past liens which were attached to the returned property, I do not find it acceptable that one branch of the family finds itself free all of the obligations it had towards another branch prior to the confiscations, obligations which were the very conditions that allowed them to acquire the bulk of the real estate property in the first place. For the time being, those members of the family must be very thankful to the timely communist confiscations, albeit for forty years, without which the "cancellation" of the obligations, which can only be described as an undue enrichment, could not have occurred.

The purpose of the reservation in the restitution laws seen as "effort to mitigate the consequences of some injuries to property and other cases of injustice" is that the State was aware that practically, they could only commit to a certain point, but not to justify the denial of one person's claim for the benefit of another.

I do not make a distinction between the "restitution" battle and the resumption of past accords; it is all one and same cause.

Finally, there is a material necessity. The restituted property was returned in such a state of devastation, requiring vast investments to put them back in their former state, that it is only too legitimate to claim the others far more valuable assets which were formerly ours, a fraction of which would suffice to realize the purpose of my return to the motherland.



THE 1927 DOHODA CASE


Introduction
www.lobkovi.cz is under construction
H
O
M
E
B
A
C
K