I don’t know if I made my point yesterday as clear as I would have liked. Getting a letter after 8 months telling me that during all of the time I have been trying to deal with the wreckage that Poland has caused in my life, they have done nothing but set a date to talk about my appeal, simply makes me ill. How much longer am I going to be forced to suffer these people? I never built anything in Poland. I neither had nor wanted business with them. I was trying to work in Belarus when their cop hit me with a car. This was enough for them to kidnap me and make me pay for a 10 month stay during which they all stood around and took pot shots at me. When is this illness I have been afflicted with going to go away?
What is the worst part of this though, is that once again I have to sit here deaf, dumb and blind because they didn’t even have the common decency to explain to me the process. I tried to make the point yesterday that this is the same way in which they have treated me since the beginning. I am not sure I did the job well enough, so I am going to try again today.
In dealing with this nonsensical case, it is and has been the lack of knowledge of the situation allowed me that angers me more than anything. I have no idea what to expect on the 10th of February. I have not been informed as to the process, what generally happens during these affairs, how the information at hand will be dealt with, or what sorts of conclusions are possible. I am again in the dark, except for the hard earned knowledge that the eventual decision, whatever it is has already been made and was made without my having been a part of the discussion. I know this because this is also what has happened all along. That is what the book was about.
How can they justify their actions? How can they just sit there and screw with me month after month after month, allowing the most revolting distortions of truth to be the foundations of their discussion making?
Let’s talk about this. Let us pretend for just a moment that the justice system is actually about justice. That is to say, that their job actually is to accurately determine who is treating society as a whole unfairly. And that they take this job seriously. One would think in such a utopian situation as that, that those grave, deep thinkers of the court, to whom the whole of public safety is entrusted, would be incredibly interested in deducing the real truth of any given situation before coming to any such conclusion. I mean, that is what they are supposed to be doing all day, right? Defending the social trust, protecting moral and ethical standards… I believe that getting their facts straight would be a necessary part of the judicial process.
So why don’t they ever tell me what is going on? Why was I led to believe that the appeal, which had a rigid schedule for completion as far as my writing it was concerned, would be read within a week or so of my turning it in? I believe if you were to ask them about this, they would tell you that I am legally supposed to be allowed in the conversation and to know what is going to happen. They would tell you that this would be my right.
Well folks, let me tell you here and now: I have never been. If you were to say that it would be my attorney’s place to be there in those conversations and/or explaining to me the case, I would say that not only has this has never happened. Those so-called attorneys, who might have actually had those conversations either directly worked against me or at the very least represented ideas I wanted no part of. This has been true every minute of the last 18 months and is still true to this minute. So I have no idea what to expect of this upcoming court date. Why couldn’t they just have told me that my turning in an appeal meant nothing but the arranging of a day to talk about it eight months later!?
I have dealt with the higher court once before in this case. I wrote about a situation that occurred that involved the higher court that took place on December 19, 2002 in the book (chapters 24 to 30). On that date, the situation was that we were appealing the lower court’s decision to continue to withhold my passport to the higher court. My second attorney Marcin Borus got us this date. When I told him I wanted to be there, Borus told me quite vociferously that, just as in this situation, my presence would not be necessary. However, as I was by that time no longer trusting that Borus was defending me, this was just after Zaremba’s day in court and I knew after that day that Borus simply had to be working for the other side, I went to the court anyway.
Austere situation. I wanted to do the talking, but the court insisted that Borus represent. I was not happy at all. Amazingly enough however, on this date, Borus presented quite emotionally my side of the situation. He was great. And the court acted as though they really believed me. And for about five minutes, I actually felt that I my situation was being defended. However, AFTER LISTENING TO OUR ENTIRE PRESENTATION, THE COURT DECIDED ONLY THAT IT WAS NOT PROPER TO HAVE LISTENED TO US BECAUSE THE APPEAL WAS MADE TOO EARLY A DATE ACCORDING TO THE RULES. Can you understand this? The court date was made, the judges arranged and the attorneys all show up. I am on a bus at 5 in the morning just to get there on time. They go ahead and hear us, the whole story, but only THEN decide to do nothing on the grounds that the proper date to make such an appeal, a piece of information that was available to everybody concerned (but me), was not observed. I mean, I can sit here and ask why they allowed for that court date in the first place. Or I could ask why, as long as we all showed up for work anyway, they didn’t just rule on the issue at hand. But they didn’t. Nice game, yea? And course I was four and a half more months there.
In Eastern Europe they love to play a game called “who’s guilty?” Or “who’s to blame?” How they play this, is that when some sort of a scandal arises, any scandal really, all people really care about ids who is to blame for the scandal. What has happened means nothing. Who is harmed means nothing. Who to point the finger at means everything. This game doesn’t always suit me so I like to play a variation on that game called “Criminal or Stupid?” I’ll show you how this game works.
Was Borus at fault in that situation because he simply didn’t understand the proper rules concerning the proper time for an appeal? If that is the truth, this would mean that he is stupid. Or, was the situation such that he did he know that the appeal wouldn’t mean a damned thing because the date was screwed but went ahead and made a show so as to get me to believe he was actually doing the job of being my attorney? Why, then that would make him a criminal. See how the game works?
Let’s play again!
Did Wiesniakowski the prosecutor allow for Zaremba to turn in a damage report listing damages that did not match the police report from May 15th and dated 50 days after the incident between he and I, because he failed to properly read the document (stupid)? Or because he wanted to help the cop win his case at any cost (criminal)?
Do you like this game?
Did the judge allow Zaremba’s testimony to exist as the truth even though he was obviously making the story up, due to an inability to do her job (stupid)? Or did she simply bypass the reality of the situation to make the verdict she felt like making (criminal)?
Did the American embassy really forget that they had failed to pass information to me regarding a hearing about my passport in June, one that would have allowed me to come and go as I please from Poland (stupid)? Or did they not wish to pass that information a long so that I would not be able to go to that meeting (criminal)?
And, are we saying that it never occurred to the courts, my lawyers, the embassy or to anybody who has ever heard of me and knows what the hell is going on, to tell me that I would be waiting 8 months just to hear that they would be talking about the appeal I wrote (Stupid)? Or, is this simply a case of following up on false charges, ruining a man’s life and doing all of it from the shadows for the purposes of preserving the integrity (cough) of an admitted liar and extortionist. (Criminal)?
Wasn’t that a fun game?
I hope this is a little clearer then yesterday? I think this is why I am writing these things.
So, I have several decision I have to make about what I want to do about this February court date. Traveling back to Warsaw is not an easy decision to make. There are several reasons why. Firstly, I fear an official trick- one that comes from the court itself. I am thinking that perhaps this is all simply a ruse for them to get there hands on me. Don’t like that at all. Secondly, I fear getting shot. The prosecutor has warned me of this, so it is in my head. And then there is the money for the ticket…
My thinking is that at this time, an attorney does not represent me. Of course, I would say this even if one was standing next to me. I believe I have already stated my reasoning about that. So what to do?
My response all along has been to put my thoughts into writing and to turn this in to the courts. I am thinking that I should do something like this for this situation. I’ll have a few ideas on paper ( and on the web) by tomorrow.
What is the worst part of this though, is that once again I have to sit here deaf, dumb and blind because they didn’t even have the common decency to explain to me the process. I tried to make the point yesterday that this is the same way in which they have treated me since the beginning. I am not sure I did the job well enough, so I am going to try again today.
In dealing with this nonsensical case, it is and has been the lack of knowledge of the situation allowed me that angers me more than anything. I have no idea what to expect on the 10th of February. I have not been informed as to the process, what generally happens during these affairs, how the information at hand will be dealt with, or what sorts of conclusions are possible. I am again in the dark, except for the hard earned knowledge that the eventual decision, whatever it is has already been made and was made without my having been a part of the discussion. I know this because this is also what has happened all along. That is what the book was about.
How can they justify their actions? How can they just sit there and screw with me month after month after month, allowing the most revolting distortions of truth to be the foundations of their discussion making?
Let’s talk about this. Let us pretend for just a moment that the justice system is actually about justice. That is to say, that their job actually is to accurately determine who is treating society as a whole unfairly. And that they take this job seriously. One would think in such a utopian situation as that, that those grave, deep thinkers of the court, to whom the whole of public safety is entrusted, would be incredibly interested in deducing the real truth of any given situation before coming to any such conclusion. I mean, that is what they are supposed to be doing all day, right? Defending the social trust, protecting moral and ethical standards… I believe that getting their facts straight would be a necessary part of the judicial process.
So why don’t they ever tell me what is going on? Why was I led to believe that the appeal, which had a rigid schedule for completion as far as my writing it was concerned, would be read within a week or so of my turning it in? I believe if you were to ask them about this, they would tell you that I am legally supposed to be allowed in the conversation and to know what is going to happen. They would tell you that this would be my right.
Well folks, let me tell you here and now: I have never been. If you were to say that it would be my attorney’s place to be there in those conversations and/or explaining to me the case, I would say that not only has this has never happened. Those so-called attorneys, who might have actually had those conversations either directly worked against me or at the very least represented ideas I wanted no part of. This has been true every minute of the last 18 months and is still true to this minute. So I have no idea what to expect of this upcoming court date. Why couldn’t they just have told me that my turning in an appeal meant nothing but the arranging of a day to talk about it eight months later!?
I have dealt with the higher court once before in this case. I wrote about a situation that occurred that involved the higher court that took place on December 19, 2002 in the book (chapters 24 to 30). On that date, the situation was that we were appealing the lower court’s decision to continue to withhold my passport to the higher court. My second attorney Marcin Borus got us this date. When I told him I wanted to be there, Borus told me quite vociferously that, just as in this situation, my presence would not be necessary. However, as I was by that time no longer trusting that Borus was defending me, this was just after Zaremba’s day in court and I knew after that day that Borus simply had to be working for the other side, I went to the court anyway.
Austere situation. I wanted to do the talking, but the court insisted that Borus represent. I was not happy at all. Amazingly enough however, on this date, Borus presented quite emotionally my side of the situation. He was great. And the court acted as though they really believed me. And for about five minutes, I actually felt that I my situation was being defended. However, AFTER LISTENING TO OUR ENTIRE PRESENTATION, THE COURT DECIDED ONLY THAT IT WAS NOT PROPER TO HAVE LISTENED TO US BECAUSE THE APPEAL WAS MADE TOO EARLY A DATE ACCORDING TO THE RULES. Can you understand this? The court date was made, the judges arranged and the attorneys all show up. I am on a bus at 5 in the morning just to get there on time. They go ahead and hear us, the whole story, but only THEN decide to do nothing on the grounds that the proper date to make such an appeal, a piece of information that was available to everybody concerned (but me), was not observed. I mean, I can sit here and ask why they allowed for that court date in the first place. Or I could ask why, as long as we all showed up for work anyway, they didn’t just rule on the issue at hand. But they didn’t. Nice game, yea? And course I was four and a half more months there.
In Eastern Europe they love to play a game called “who’s guilty?” Or “who’s to blame?” How they play this, is that when some sort of a scandal arises, any scandal really, all people really care about ids who is to blame for the scandal. What has happened means nothing. Who is harmed means nothing. Who to point the finger at means everything. This game doesn’t always suit me so I like to play a variation on that game called “Criminal or Stupid?” I’ll show you how this game works.
Was Borus at fault in that situation because he simply didn’t understand the proper rules concerning the proper time for an appeal? If that is the truth, this would mean that he is stupid. Or, was the situation such that he did he know that the appeal wouldn’t mean a damned thing because the date was screwed but went ahead and made a show so as to get me to believe he was actually doing the job of being my attorney? Why, then that would make him a criminal. See how the game works?
Let’s play again!
Did Wiesniakowski the prosecutor allow for Zaremba to turn in a damage report listing damages that did not match the police report from May 15th and dated 50 days after the incident between he and I, because he failed to properly read the document (stupid)? Or because he wanted to help the cop win his case at any cost (criminal)?
Do you like this game?
Did the judge allow Zaremba’s testimony to exist as the truth even though he was obviously making the story up, due to an inability to do her job (stupid)? Or did she simply bypass the reality of the situation to make the verdict she felt like making (criminal)?
Did the American embassy really forget that they had failed to pass information to me regarding a hearing about my passport in June, one that would have allowed me to come and go as I please from Poland (stupid)? Or did they not wish to pass that information a long so that I would not be able to go to that meeting (criminal)?
And, are we saying that it never occurred to the courts, my lawyers, the embassy or to anybody who has ever heard of me and knows what the hell is going on, to tell me that I would be waiting 8 months just to hear that they would be talking about the appeal I wrote (Stupid)? Or, is this simply a case of following up on false charges, ruining a man’s life and doing all of it from the shadows for the purposes of preserving the integrity (cough) of an admitted liar and extortionist. (Criminal)?
Wasn’t that a fun game?
I hope this is a little clearer then yesterday? I think this is why I am writing these things.
So, I have several decision I have to make about what I want to do about this February court date. Traveling back to Warsaw is not an easy decision to make. There are several reasons why. Firstly, I fear an official trick- one that comes from the court itself. I am thinking that perhaps this is all simply a ruse for them to get there hands on me. Don’t like that at all. Secondly, I fear getting shot. The prosecutor has warned me of this, so it is in my head. And then there is the money for the ticket…
My thinking is that at this time, an attorney does not represent me. Of course, I would say this even if one was standing next to me. I believe I have already stated my reasoning about that. So what to do?
My response all along has been to put my thoughts into writing and to turn this in to the courts. I am thinking that I should do something like this for this situation. I’ll have a few ideas on paper ( and on the web) by tomorrow.
posted by BEING HAD at
10:31 AM
