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*****.
No comments:
Post a Comment