I am working on the next big part of this- I think that there will be a lot of news shortly. But in the meantime, here is a brief overview of the situation.
The incident took place on May 15th 2002. I was originally offered a bail of $1000, but that was later revoked in favor of simply keeping my passport. I think that the prosecutor, Stanislaw Wiesniakowski, knew Zaremba’s original story was false from the first day but for some reason that is still not really clear to me, they proceeded anyway. I say this because the actual story that Zaremba told, wasn’t really the sort of thing that really happens in the world; it had a lot of flaws and inconsistencies- but more to the point, he went and changed several important details the next day to reflect a more cop like attitude of the situation. But also, neither of these two stories were the same as he told the cops at the scene. And of course the medical reports clearly stated that his teeth were fine.
Zaremba was asking for damages to his car of about $750. There was no official estimate as to this amount, Zaremba’s rational for having given that number months later was that the number was suggested by a friend. There was an inspection of the car was made by the police that day and pictures were taken. Zaremba claimed I was responsible for all of the damages to his car. This was what they had.
I had no access to any information regarding the case until I was allowed to read the official documents at a meeting at the prosecutor’s office about six weeks later in July. After hearing what had been said about me, I protested that it was obviously all farcical; Zaremba had changed his story several times and even the pictures of the car clearly showed that the damages to the car were old. I pointed out to the prosecutor that there were “water marks” on the hood and this clearly showed old damages. A complaint was registered by an attorney I had never met or spoken to, and the case was continued until a second meeting on August 30th.
Well a number of interesting things happened between those two meetings. The first thing was that Zaremba crashed his car again. But more interesting to the case is that after this new crash, Zaremba went out and got an estimate to repair these new damages, got a car expert to write a document that claimed that some of the damages “could have been caused by a hand” and sold the car to the wife of the guy who ran the body shop. He then took these documents to the prosecutor’s office and submitted them as the official estimate of the damages from May 15th. The prosecutor both accepted these documents as evidence and then refused to translate them to me in full. My appointed attorney, read the documents, but in refusing to point out anything that could be seen as negative concerning the cop neither asked the cop about these damages or told me about them. Zaremba also sat for an interview at that meeting. Without being overburdened by questions from my attorney, Zaremba confirmed his claim that I was responsible for all damages to the car and even included a new story about an alleged “black mark” that he had later noticed on his car. This mark though was not previously mentioned in the original inspection of the car and Zaremba justified this by claiming that the inspector missed this “black mark” because the inspection was done in the rain. Very clever.
I proved the truth of the situation by doing a little detective work. Firstly, the inspection was done in clear weather and we know this because the inspector wrote that the inspection was done in clear weather on the report itself. But also, I found the weather history for Warsaw that day, and there not only was no rain at the time of the inspection, but there was only rain before our incident on the roadway and during the time when Zremba was sitting in the police station giving false testimony to the police department.
I wrote a 92 page document about all of these shortcomings. And though this evidence was apparently enough to make Zaremba finally admit in court to having had a previous accident in January of 2002 (He drove off the road and into a tree) it was never enough to stop the trial. And, again at that trial, Zaemba changed his story about the eventsof May 15th, but this time, he changed them in such a way to actually admit what he had done to earn his punch. In addition to those revelations, also on that day, one of his two witnesses, Stanislaw Jablosnki, the owner of an illegal body shop, and whose “wife” bought the car from Zaremba in June, only testified that there was indeed a second accident in June, proving his estimate false, and the arresting officer refused to say anything or even officially remember the incident. But still, the trial was not concluded until the end of March, where I was found guilty anyway, told to pay Zaremba the amount from the estimate from after the second accident, and finally returned my passport.
I appealed the decision, wrote my own appeal and turned it in to the courts on May 27th 2003.
There is of course a lot more, but then again, you can always just have a look at the book.
Now, I have not even heard from Poland about my appeal in seven months. I will be updating this regularly about what is happening with the case. All e-mails are of course, welcome.
The incident took place on May 15th 2002. I was originally offered a bail of $1000, but that was later revoked in favor of simply keeping my passport. I think that the prosecutor, Stanislaw Wiesniakowski, knew Zaremba’s original story was false from the first day but for some reason that is still not really clear to me, they proceeded anyway. I say this because the actual story that Zaremba told, wasn’t really the sort of thing that really happens in the world; it had a lot of flaws and inconsistencies- but more to the point, he went and changed several important details the next day to reflect a more cop like attitude of the situation. But also, neither of these two stories were the same as he told the cops at the scene. And of course the medical reports clearly stated that his teeth were fine.
Zaremba was asking for damages to his car of about $750. There was no official estimate as to this amount, Zaremba’s rational for having given that number months later was that the number was suggested by a friend. There was an inspection of the car was made by the police that day and pictures were taken. Zaremba claimed I was responsible for all of the damages to his car. This was what they had.
I had no access to any information regarding the case until I was allowed to read the official documents at a meeting at the prosecutor’s office about six weeks later in July. After hearing what had been said about me, I protested that it was obviously all farcical; Zaremba had changed his story several times and even the pictures of the car clearly showed that the damages to the car were old. I pointed out to the prosecutor that there were “water marks” on the hood and this clearly showed old damages. A complaint was registered by an attorney I had never met or spoken to, and the case was continued until a second meeting on August 30th.
Well a number of interesting things happened between those two meetings. The first thing was that Zaremba crashed his car again. But more interesting to the case is that after this new crash, Zaremba went out and got an estimate to repair these new damages, got a car expert to write a document that claimed that some of the damages “could have been caused by a hand” and sold the car to the wife of the guy who ran the body shop. He then took these documents to the prosecutor’s office and submitted them as the official estimate of the damages from May 15th. The prosecutor both accepted these documents as evidence and then refused to translate them to me in full. My appointed attorney, read the documents, but in refusing to point out anything that could be seen as negative concerning the cop neither asked the cop about these damages or told me about them. Zaremba also sat for an interview at that meeting. Without being overburdened by questions from my attorney, Zaremba confirmed his claim that I was responsible for all damages to the car and even included a new story about an alleged “black mark” that he had later noticed on his car. This mark though was not previously mentioned in the original inspection of the car and Zaremba justified this by claiming that the inspector missed this “black mark” because the inspection was done in the rain. Very clever.
I proved the truth of the situation by doing a little detective work. Firstly, the inspection was done in clear weather and we know this because the inspector wrote that the inspection was done in clear weather on the report itself. But also, I found the weather history for Warsaw that day, and there not only was no rain at the time of the inspection, but there was only rain before our incident on the roadway and during the time when Zremba was sitting in the police station giving false testimony to the police department.
I wrote a 92 page document about all of these shortcomings. And though this evidence was apparently enough to make Zaremba finally admit in court to having had a previous accident in January of 2002 (He drove off the road and into a tree) it was never enough to stop the trial. And, again at that trial, Zaemba changed his story about the eventsof May 15th, but this time, he changed them in such a way to actually admit what he had done to earn his punch. In addition to those revelations, also on that day, one of his two witnesses, Stanislaw Jablosnki, the owner of an illegal body shop, and whose “wife” bought the car from Zaremba in June, only testified that there was indeed a second accident in June, proving his estimate false, and the arresting officer refused to say anything or even officially remember the incident. But still, the trial was not concluded until the end of March, where I was found guilty anyway, told to pay Zaremba the amount from the estimate from after the second accident, and finally returned my passport.
I appealed the decision, wrote my own appeal and turned it in to the courts on May 27th 2003.
There is of course a lot more, but then again, you can always just have a look at the book.
Now, I have not even heard from Poland about my appeal in seven months. I will be updating this regularly about what is happening with the case. All e-mails are of course, welcome.
posted by BEING HAD at
12:29 PM
