Positively Kafkaesque, isn’t it Herr F*****?

The first thing I would like to say is that I know who is ultimately responsible for this lawfully questionable use of the legal system of the Republic of Poland.

It has now become clear that when the complaint of extortion and blackmail was made against me it was made as a means of deliberate delay and obfuscation in order to avoid payment of a debt. The complainant Marek F (in future he shall be referred to as Herr F, unbelievably there is also a genuine Herr K involved in this little saga, who will become prominent at a later date). Herr F, who is a lawyer and arguably Poland’s foremost arbitration judge, was cognisant of the fact that in making the complaint he was beginning a process which in all probability, with due assistance from the state, would be extremely prolonged. This was done in the knowledge that there was no basis in fact for the allegation. Herr F is being aided and abetted by the state in this totally disgraceful use of the system of legal justice of the Republic of Poland.

It is apparent that the complaint was made in order that the criminal legal system of justice could be used by the complainant to absolve himself of responsibility for the malicious and criminal nature of the allegations. My understanding is that the prosecutor is a party to the litigation, but with special rights – he does not have to restrict his actions to the narrowly understood personal interest, but represents the state and, thus, may perform actions in the public interest, including those in the interest of the other party. So, is it in the public interest or in my interest that the prosecutor ignores the fact that the original complaint was totally baseless?

Polish law states that the prosecutor must fulfil his duties impartially and free of any undue interference. Furthermore, Polish law also states that the prosecution may not set priorities with regard to the institution of investigation and inquiries. In other words, where there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, the prosecutor MUST ACT. No ifs, no buts, the prosecutor MUST ACT. In the Polish system of criminal law there prevails the principle of legalism, causing the necessity for prompt institution and conduct of criminal proceedings in ALL matters specified by the legislator as subject to prosecution by virtue of office.

If someone makes a complaint that a person has committed the criminal acts of theft, extortion and blackmail and it transpires that all these accusations are false and that the complainant knew them to be false when making the complaint. Does this act not constitute the commission of a criminal act in respect of which the prosecutor must, according to the principle of legality, which is said to be fundamental in Polish law, initiate proceedings? Or is someone going to try to tell me that this is not an act specified by the legislator as subject to prosecution by virtue of office?

When one considers the gravity of the false accusation and the fact that they are allegations which could lead to a very long term of imprisonment, is it not imperative that the fundamental principle of Polish law be strictly adhered to? I remember being told on the day of my arrest that, if I were lucky, I would only go to prison for five years. What is the penalty for someone who makes such allegations in the knowledge that they are totally without foundation?

Is the prosecutor not duty bound, according to the principle of legality, to initiate proceedings at least with respect to giving false testimony?

Polish law also states that the police are generally obliged to report to a public prosecutor ALL offenses indentified by them, in line with the principle of legalism. Indeed, the law states that failure to observe these principles may lead to disciplinary or criminal responsibility of a police officer.

The police became aware of the fact that all the allegations were false during their search of my flat on the day of my arrest. Did they keep this fact to themselves, or did they report it to the prosecutor?

When I was arrested, the reason given for my arrest by the police was the theft of documents, extortion and blackmail. I was kept in custody for 48 hours, after which I had to make an appearance before the prosecutor. I did not know it at the time, but this was because I had to make an appearance before a court so that they could make the application for my detention for a period of three months, just in case I decided to run away from “Polish Justice”. They applied for a detention order knowing that all accusations made in the complaint were false.

What happened in that prosecutor’s office made it clear to me that I was being railroaded, as the Americans say.

I was sitting in the prosecutor’s office. As well as the prosecutor and myself, there was an interpreter present. My advocate was unable to attend and had told me that I should not make any statement. When I told this to the prosecutor he was beside himself with anger and proceeded to shout at me in a most intimidating manner. However, he could have shouted till the cows came home, as I did not understand a word of what he was shouting.

After listening to this tirade for a while, I asked the interpreter if he would ask the prosecutor a question on my behalf. This he agreed to do.

I wrote this question down immediately I got the opportunity, several hours later. This is exactly the question I put to the prosecutor:

“Are the charges you are preparing the same as those in the original accusation?”

The prosecutor hesitated for what seemed like about thirty seconds, then replied clearly and very emphatically.

“Yes!”

Several hours later, when I arrived in court the charges read out had nothing to do with theft, extortion and blackmail.

The state, having become aware of the fictional nature of the complaint, now sought to prosecute matters totally unrelated to the original allegation. Imagine being arrested and accused of theft, extortion and blackmail, then being told that the charges a couple of hours later had been changed to, not revealing, but threatening to reveal banking secrets and, added several months later, the criminal, not civil, matter of defamation of the character of the person who brought the original complaint of extortion and blackmail which cannot be substantiated quite simply because he had lied. This is so bizarre that the adjective Kafkaesque springs to mind.

If the Polish state now begins to obey the laws of the Republic of Poland Herr F is F*****.

During the weekend I shall return to the original topic. The return of my property which has now been shown to have been confiscated without due reference to the laws of the Republic of Poland and the return of which I now demand.

When all else fails there is always THE INTERNET.

I consider it a great misfortune to have been caught up in the workings of the system of legal justice of the Republic of Poland. This has come about through no fault of my own. Indeed, this is a situation I did everything in my power to avoid.

Nevertheless, having found myself in this situation, I decided that it was not possible to seek justice. I felt that I should simply find out what precisely the laws of the Republic of Poland state with regard to this matter. Simply from the perspective that if one is ignorant of the laws being used against him, one cannot hope to provide a proper defence. It is not for me to say that the laws are not being used impartially. I leave it to others to judge.

I have sought assistance from all I could think of who ought to be able to give me the information which should be available to all. Note, information is all that I sought. None was forthcoming from any quarter to which I appealed.

When all else fails there is always THE INTERNET.

I hope this information will be useful to all non-Polish speakers who find themselves in the same situation in the future. I intend to provide links to the documents used as source for this information at a later date.

The Public Prosecution Authority in Poland

The tasks of the public prosecuting authorities have been formulated in the Law on Public Prosecution Authorities of June 20, 1985.

If a justified suspicion arises that a criminal offense has been committed, the public prosecutor acting in accordance with the applicable laws, initiates and performs preparatory proceedings or orders the initiation and performance of such proceedings to another authorized body, supervising the proceedings in the latter situation. The duty of the public prosecutor in initiating proceedings in respect to offenses prosecuted officially emerges directly from the principle of legality – one of the fundamental principles of the Polish legal system. The same duty rests also on police authorities. Rulings of the public prosecutor during preparatory proceedings are binding for the authority which conducts such proceedings.

The prosecution service may not set priorities in regard to institution of investigation and inquiries. In the Polish system of criminal law there prevails the principle of legalism, causing a necessity of prompt institution and conduct of criminal proceedings in ALL matters specified by the legislator as subject to prosecution by virtue of office.

The proper realization of the Public Prosecution’s statutory duties depends on its position and relationship with other authorities of the state. The basic task conferred upon the Polish Public Prosecution is conducting of the investigation and supervision of all preparatory proceedings conducted by the Police and other authorized bodies, and also exercising the function of the public prosecutor (accuser) in the courts.

The gravity and significance of these functions determine the position and relationship of the Public Prosecution Office with other state powers and define the conditions of fulfilling its duties impartially and free of any undue interference. Ensuring that public prosecutors are able to perform their professional duties and responsibilities in the conditions guaranteeing them independence should be the fundamental problem of considering the institutional position of the Public Prosecution Office.

In performing his function as a public attorney, the public prosecutor is a party to the litigation, but with special rights – he does not restrict his actions to the narrowly understood personal interest, but represents the state and, thus, may perform actions in the public interest, including those in the interest of the other party (e.g. he may appeal the verdict also to the benefit of the convicted person).

The police are generally obliged to report to a public prosecutor ALL offenses indentified by them, in line with the principle of legalism. Therefore, they are obliged to observe principles connected with the necessity of institution and conduct of criminal proceedings prosecuted by virtue of office immediately after having obtained information about the same. Failure to observe these principles may lead to disciplinary or criminal responsibility of a police officer.

The facts yield their secret sense!

I think I need make no further comment!

The Law of the Land

• Arrest and detention awaiting trial

The police is authorized to arrest/apprehend a suspected person for a period of 48 hours if there is a reason to suppose that he has committed an offence, and reasonable fears exist that such a person may go into hiding or destroy the evidence of his offence or if his identity could not be established. The arrested person should be informed immediately about the reasons for his arrest and his rights. His or her explanations should be heard.

The prosecutor must be notified immediately.


Immediately after collecting the necessary evidence, in case that the legal prerequisites for pre-trial detention referred to in Article 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure occur, a motion to the prosecutor should be made, requesting him to obtain a preliminary detention order from the court.


The arrested person, upon his demand, shall be given the opportunity to contact a lawyer by any means available and to talk directly with the latter. The person who made the arrest may reserve the right to be present when such a conversation takes place.


By virtue of Article 250 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, detention awaiting trial may only occur on the basis of an order from the court, upon a motion from the prosecutor. The court, and in the preparatory proceedings also the prosecutor, shall supervise the carrying out of the arrest as the preventive measure (Article 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).


• Seizure of objects and searches


Objects which may serve as evidence, or be subject to seizure in order to secure penalties regarding property, criminal measures involving property or claims to redress damage, may be surrendered when so required by the court (during the trial phase) or the prosecutor (during the preparatory proceedings), and in cases not amenable to delay, by the police or an other authorized agency (Article 217 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).


If the surrender is demanded by the police or another agency, the holder of the objects liable to surrender has the right to make, without delay, motion to a court or a prosecutor to present justification of the authorization decision and the person MUST be informed about his/her right.


The holder 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).


A search may be made of premises and other places in order to detect or detain a person or to ensure his compulsory appearance, as well as to locate objects which might serve as evidence in criminal proceedings, if there is good reason to suppose that the suspected person or the objects sought are to be located there (Article 219 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).


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.


In cases not amenable to delay, if it has not been possible to obtain the order prior to seizure, the police must present a warrant from the chief of unit or an official identity card. The agency should then apply, without delay, to the court or the state prosecutor for approval of the search. The person on whose premises the search was conducted should be served, within 7 days of the search, an order of the court or the state prosecutor authorizing the action if he demands one. This person must be informed about his/her right to demand authorization of the search.

It has taken six months and fourteen days to obtain this information, which shows that many procedures Polish law says MUST be obeyed by the prosecutor and the police were simply ignored.

I have never seen a warrant and I have never been informed of my rights of appeal against the confiscation of my property. I repeat once more, I demand a motion to a court or a prosecutor to have justification presented to me with regard to the authorization decision for the surrender of my property.

The law says the person MUST be informed about his/her right regarding this procedure.

They were too busy obtaining my wrongful imprisonment to inform me of my rights. Had I been informed of my rights, I was rendered incapable of taking the necessary action as a result of my incarceration.

The Fourth Estate, protector of the common man

I have been asked why I have written such lengthy posts. I think this is a very good question. I write everything down in as much detail as possible as it is of great assistance with regard to the writing of a screenplay of this whole affair.

Furthermore, it is my intention to send the link to my blog to every major newspaper in the member countries of the European Union, except Poland; to every member of the European Parliament; to the members of the faculty of law in every major university in Poland; to every legal body I consider would be interested in the workings of the system of justice of the Republic of Poland.

I also do it so that I have as much on record as possible when I choose to publicly name the person referred to, which is what I intend to do as soon as I arrive at the conclusion that it is the right time.

Immediately I found myself in the situation which I have explained at such great length I was advised by just about everyone I spoke to that I should go to the media. People in this country seem to think of the mass media as a refuge for those who seek justice and cannot obtain it by conventional means. In today’s political climate that is almost impossible anywhere in the world, and it is certainly a pointless exercise in Poland. As the journalist and novelist Norman Mailer said as long ago as 1960:

“Once a newspaper touches a story, the facts are lost forever, even to the protagonists.”

I believe it is appropriate, in the world of today, to replace the word ‘newspaper’ with the expression ‘mass media’ in the above quotation. In Poland it is not even a question of the facts being distorted or being lost forever, they cannot even be reported.

As an idealistic young man and a member of the National Union of Journalists in the United Kingdom, I was definitely of the view that the function of the mass media was that of watchdog and a very important part of protecting democracy in a modern society. I genuinely believed that when all else failed the fourth estate would stand up and protect the vulgus mobile, the common masses.

The notion that the Press is the fourth estate rests on the idea that the media's function is to act as a guardian of the public interest and as a watchdog on the activities of government. Depending on one's view of the media, this is either self-serving rationalisation, or an important component of the checks and balances that form part of a modern democracy. I know which I now believe it to be. In the words of Marshall McLuhan:

“All media exist to invest our lives with artificial perceptions and arbitrary values.”

After approaching various journalists and explaining my current predicament I arrived at the conclusion that I would not be helped by any journalist in Poland. They are only interested in a story once it has reached its conclusion. However, surely it is obvious that one does not need help once the case has reached its conclusion. How can a journalist be guardian of the public interest when he sits on his hands when it really matters? Could this have anything to do with certain draconian Polish legislation and a fear of going to prison?

One journalist told me he would make one telephone call on my behalf. The following day he sent me a message that unfortunately he could not make the call because he had to go to Krakow. I was not aware they do not have telephones in Krakow, and that this journalist has still not heard of the mobile phone. Furthermore, it seems as if he has never returned to Warsaw, as I have not heard from him again. This person described himself as a friend of mine until…

Frankly speaking, in Poland the Fourth Estate flatly refuses to do its job, for whatever reasons. As a result we must figure our own way of doing their job for them. The Internet gives us that opportunity.

Besides, if I tell my own story the facts will not be lost forever.

It has occurred to me that I have said nothing about the other three estates in relation to the fourth. One of my favourite authors summed it up so succinctly that I think I should let him tell you.

"In old days men had the rack. Now they have the press. That is an improvement certainly. But still it is very bad, and wrong, and demoralising. Somebody - was it Burke? - called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time, no doubt. But at the present moment it really is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three. The Lords Temporal say nothing, the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of Commons has nothing to say and says it. We are dominated by Journalism."

The Soul of Man - Oscar Wilde

In Poland the first three estates are exactly as Oscar Wilde describes; the fourth is worse as it also has nothing to say and is not permitted to say it even if it wanted to. If you don't believe me, ask the people, especially the young who have left Poland in their hundreds of thousands.

So, now let me tell you a little known fact of history regarding the fourth estate. Taken from Wikipedia, no less.

"The term Fourth Estate was used in the early seventeenth century to propose that a government should hold in check a fourth estate of lawyers selling justice to the rich and denying it to a rightful litigant who cannot buy a verdict."

What occurred openly in England 400 years ago occurs in Poland openly today. There really is nothing new under the sun!

Article 241 rears its ugly head to protect 'the Polish Reality'

This saga becomes for me, by the day, ever more interesting. I received a communication from a friend a couple of days ago. The reason for this communication was to make me aware of the contents of Article 241 of the Polish Criminal Code. Now this is where things could become really difficult for everyone. I have already stated that I have no desire to become involved in Polish politics. Of course, the Polish authorities are free to do whatever they wish. However, any action under this legislation to imprison me, on the part of the authorities, would be a direct attack upon the freedom of speech of one who has not been properly charged or convicted of any crime. That is right, six months down the road and I have not been properly charged with anything. This is exactly the obfuscation and delay desired by my accuser, except that I was supposed to spend this time in prison, completely unable to speak my mind. Anyone who knows the Polish system of justice understands what I mean.

So, they may send me to prison for speaking my mind if they wish, but the system of legal justice would be the sufferer, not me. The question has already been asked. Who is responsible? This will have to be answered at some point.

Apparently, by speaking out in the manner in which I am currently doing, I could be arrested and sentenced to as much as three years imprisonment. Notice the way in which it was expressed, arrested and sentenced. No mention of the process which is supposed to take place between being arrested and being incarcerated. Forgive me for being so pedantic, but I do believe people should say what they mean and mean what they say. Especially, bearing in mind my recent experience. What is it in the Polish system of justice which makes one say arrested and sentenced, forgetting everything else between? I forgot you have a term for that, do you not? Areszt śledczy!

I would like us to give this matter a little further thought. Someone owes me money. He decides he is not going to pay. He considers himself to be a member of the patrician classes, purely based on money earned rather than deportment, and therefore beyond the law we mere mortals are expected to adhere to. For this reason, basically arrogance, he concludes that I am not in a position to do anything about it if he decided not to pay. Of course, when he made this decision he thought he was dealing with 'the Polish Reality' and that in this reality I would simply have to accept it. In the real world people do not accept such things.

Having made this decision, he decides he can avoid payment by arranging my indefinite imprisonment. Incidentally, he warned me that these measures would be taken, so it was a very calculated act. Which words should one choose to describe such an act? There are many aspects to this which I have only just come to understand and which I will make public in the future. Yet another matter which deserves its own time and space.

In order to bring about this lawfully questionable arrest and incarceration, he decides to go to the police and tell them a story which would bring about his desired result. He tells the police that I have stolen certain documents and that I am using these documents for the purpose of blackmail and extorting money from him. To describe this accusation as mendacious is an understatement. It is, in fact, an incredibly scandalous libel. Note libel, not slander, in other words it was written and therefore the evidence is in the possession of the state.

Furthermore, the fact the documents were not stolen was known before my only appearance in court two days after my arrest. That is why there has never been any mention of extortion or blackmail in any accusation since searching my flat on the day of my arrest. They know the documents were not stolen and they know there was no attempt at blackmail or extortion. They know the truth as they have it in writing.

The warrant which was issued for my arrest was issued in order to discover whether I was in possession of these ‘stolen’ documents. Here the assumption is made that if this ‘powerful’ person reports that his documents were stolen, then they must have been stolen. So there is no need to make any attempt to discover the veracity of the accusation. Not even to take the time to ask the person being accused. I have never been asked if I had stolen those documents. Should I not have been asked whether or not I had stolen the documents immediately the complaint was made and before being arrested? Is that not basic police procedure?

What is worse is that when the evidence showed that the accusation was a lie, that fact was simply ignored. Ignored by whom? Ask those responsible! That is worse than the original false accusation. I do not think I need to explain why.

So, going back to the accusation. There is not one element of truth in the original accusation. My arrest and subsequent incarceration took place as a direct consequence of baseless lies. As far as I am concerned this is the only fact which is relevant. None of what has transpired since my arrest would have been possible without that warrant being issued based on a fictitious tale by someone with a Machiavellian and furtive imagination.

Can anyone give me one good reason for refraining from speaking the truth? Should I accept 'the Polish Reality' and allow myself to be muzzled by the fear engendered through the use of draconian legislation? I have been informed that no sensible individual will partake in this discussion for fear of this piece of legislation. I am gradually coming to understand this term 'the Polish Reality'.

All that I have requested is a hearing on the confiscation of my property. I have no desire to become involved in the controversial use of legislation which can only be described as being contrary to freedom of expression.

I have decided to post this before I suddenly disappear again. The next time may be for years. Do not laugh, as this is really no laughing matter! When I read this I smile, because if I did not, I would cry. Not for myself, but for the people living 'the Polish Reality' under Polish justice.