I demand to be allowed to present a motion to a court or a prosecutor to present justification of the authorization decision with regard to the confiscation of my property. In fact, I demand that my property be returned forthwith.
In order for this process to have been initiated, Herr F must have made a statement in which the accusations being made against me were outlined. I am given to understand these allegations were the theft of certain documents, extortion and blackmail. I say “given to understand” as no confirmation of these allegations has ever been presented to me. Now, seven months after my arrest, I believe it is definitely not unreasonable to demand to be given a copy of the document, the original complaint, the presentation of which, by Herr F, caused this process to be initiated.
By virtue of Article 220 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a search may be conducted by the prosecutor, or, with warrant issued by the prosecutor, by the police, and, also in cases specified in law, by another agency. The person on whose premises the search is to be conducted should be presented with a warrant issued by the prosecutor.
The code of Criminal Procedure states clearly that the police may conduct a search, as they did. However, the law states clearly that I should have been presented with a warrant. It is now seven months since my arrest and I have never seen this warrant. I demand to see this warrant and to be given a copy of it without any further delay or obfuscation.
As I have never seen a warrant I can only state what I have been informed, which is that my computers were confiscated, as evidence, in order to ascertain that I was in possession of documents stolen from Herr F. I was also told by the police upon being arrested that these documents were being used by me in order to blackmail Herr F and extort money from him and that I would be charged with these criminal offences. This was the reason given to me by the police through an interpreter for my arrest and incarceration. Nothing was given to me in writing, and although I was given the reason for my arrest, nothing with regard to my rights was given to me by the police. This was not by accident, but by design as there was an interpreter present for the purpose.
The arrested person should be informed immediately about the reasons for his arrest and his rights.
With regard to the reasons for my arrest it has subsequently been established that there were no documents stolen and no attempt at either extortion or blackmail. Each aspect of the complaint has been shown to be figments of the imagination of someone who seems to have transmigrated from the pages of a Franz Kafka novelette into post-Communist Poland. This person is here referred to as Herr F.
It is clear that I was made to surrender my property by the police. It is also clear that the law states categorically that:
I am aware that sometimes the police are empowered to act without the issuance of a warrant by the prosecutor. I suspect there may be an attempt to justify not having shown me a warrant by suggesting that this was such a case.
I would just like to point out that if this was the case then the law says the following:
The holder [of the property seized] shall be served, within 14 days of the seizure of the objects, an order of the prosecutor authorizing the action (Article 217 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
At the same time I was being incorrectly incarcerated in the name of Polish justice, I was being deliberately denied my legitimate rights by those empowered to administer Polish justice. I now humbly request that the law be obeyed and reserve the right to take any action deemed necessary to ensure that the law is obeyed.