Friday, February 06, 2004


Friday Morning

I am going to talk a little more about the prosecutor today. If you did not read yesterdays essay, just scroll past today’s and read that one first and then come back here.

I have a correction to make today.

In yesterday’s essay I wrote that the justification for the indictment contained the phrase that Zaremba case would have at least one witness. This in fact was not the case.

What is absolutely accurate is that the phrase about a witness was contained in the original JUSTIFICATION TO BRING CHARGES.

Here is how the protocol went:

On May 16th, the prosecutor sent a paper to the courts saying that his office had decided to present charges. In this paper, he listed the charges and the concluding paragraph is a bureaucratic issue about an explanation of the charges. I suppose he had the same two weeks to make a written justification just as the court would have to do. That justification is dated June third on my English language copy.

In this document, the first two paragraphs again describe what crimes they want to accuse me of, and the third reads as follows:

“The grounds to pronounce the above decree were: the testimony of the harmed person, THE TESTIMONY OF A SECOND WITNESS OF THE INCIDENT and evidence accumulated until the date the decree was issued in (the) form of the record of the examination of the damaged vehicle.
Considering the above, it was justified to pronounce the decision.
(Seal of the Regional Office of Public Prosecutor and signature)
Stanislaw Wiesniakowski”

Now, just to be repetitive:
1. He has the testimony of the harmed, though it is not the same story that “the harmed” told to Tomas Jucha, the arresting officer.
2. There was not at the time, and never would be a second witness; Jucha refusing to remember and Jablonski the car painter only officially aware of the incident after a second car crash by Zaremba in June. This point was false as well.
3. What is meant by evidence accumulated until the date the decree was issued is not known to me. The fingerprints were not mine and the inspection of a six year old car which was bought used has no relationship to any incidents at the crossing. No one even asked the daughter at the time what had happened and of course, I was disagreeing with the story.

They had no right to present these charges.

However, I apologize for saying that that remark about there being a witness to be called was in the “indictments” justification. In that document, again the story and charges are repeated; my own story is represented only in the following way:

“…Adam Goodman confessed only to his guilt described in punching the sufferer into the face. He did not admit his guilt described in imputation contained in page 1. He explained that the deposition made by the sufferer is to be appraised within the category of slander, deriving from the fact the he is a US citizen. He denied making any damages to the vehicle. The suspect has no criminal record in Poland”

In a utopian world, the prosecution would have decided that what was needed was real proof that Zaremba’s story was true. He could have asked the girl but he didn’t. He could have even asked the cops at the KSP what they had seen. I mean he might have done that but refused to report what he had heard because it disagreed with his case. He also chose to ignore the remark about broken teeth. And he could have asked Zaremba if he had had any previous damages to the car and if the claim was real. In Zaremba’s case, and again this is utopia, Zaremba would have said that he had had an accident in January, that those repairs were made and that there are photographs of the car illustrating the car’s condition. That this information was not given until court did nothing but take the onus of proof from the prosecutor’s office. In other words, it was the prosecutor’s job to fully examine the case, he didn’t do it, and the fault now only lay on Zaremba for his court announcement that he had in fact misrepresented the status of his car in all of his previous testimonies.

I don’t think I misrepresented the situation I was writing about as a whole. All assumptions of blame still lie where I directed them yesterday. The claim of witness was false, only in what was the real protocol, Zaremba failed to produce the promised witness not within a two month period, but in a five and a half month period.

That they put me through this, is why I am writing the words you are reading.

Please read the below entry again.

And thank you for listening to me.