Monday, January 19, 2004

I added the text of the Russian version of the play Pod Kablukom to my blog group. I hope your computer can pick up the Russian. I am going to go on a but about my appeal again today. Be sure to check it out as well as the court’s justification. Also, all of the testimonies from Zaremba and from the daughter are all in the book, so you can go there as well…
And thanks again for all of the letters.

Here are today’s daily musings.
To view the text of the book Being Had, press “HERE
To view the text of the appeal, press “HERE
To view the text of the court’s justification for its decision, press “HERE
To view the text of the play “Ownership”, press “HERE
To view the English language text of Pod Kablukom, press “HERE
To view the Russian/Belarusian version, press “HERE
E-mail me at

Some more about a letter to the courts…
So, I guess I should go on a bit more about this letter I should sent to the courts regarding hearing on February 10th. I talked about point one yesterday.
Point two:
The case according to the indictment was incomplete.( The indictment claimed a witness that did not exist.)
-is pretty straight forward. The prosecution claimed in its justification for the indictment that Zaremba would provide at least one witness. Neither Jucha the arresting officer nor Jablonski, Zaremba’s paint shop buddy who bought the car after the second crash in June, had no connection to the incident itself.
The next point, number three though makes this a little more clear. Here I simply pointed out what was actually said.
About Jucha, I pointed out that his written report from May 15th actually sounds a lot like what I have been saying all along:
“…that in one moment, the biker rode from behind the city bus. Mr. Zareba when he saw the biker in front of the mask, he started to slow down. Zareba stopped the car in front of the biker, but he didn't injure the biker in any way. But the biker, went to Zareba and punched him in the face while standing next to the car.”
In court though, Jucha refused to say anything, stating that he simply remembered nothing.
Jablonski simply confirmed that Zaremba had had a second crash in June: This cars front bumper was damaged and broken… and it had a broken light… Zareba told me something about the car hitting something. Broken front light and a crooked mask in the front, were caused by a car accident, which was told to me by Zareba. The accident happened just before my buying the car. I bought that car in June or July this year.
He apparently having learned the tactic of hiding text from judge Zurawska…
This sort of inadequacy goes all the way through the case. And my problem with this, is that it is too obvious to even try to say, “Oh, please give me the benefit of a doubt. The evidence is not only wildly circumstantial, it is not even close! Actually better said, it simply shows that I was right.
This applies to the testimony of the daughter as well. There was a point that I failed to put in this appeal, and I think it is a legitimate one concerning the reality of her version of the events.
I did point out that the daughter said that Zaremba told her what to say:
“Before I came to the court, my parents told me about the situation because I didn’t remember.” But I failed to mention a line from her testimony about my throwing the bike into the car. In Zaremba’s earlier statements, he had said that I was throwing my bike at his car. After I complained that this was an unreasonable thing to say about a lifetime biker who had hand built the bike he was talking about, Zaremba changed the story and the court decided to give him the benefit of a doubt. However in the daughter’s testimony, she makes this statement:
I actually didn’t see the movement when he cut in on us, but I know that my dad had to slow down quite quickly.
When we stopped at the lights, that man got off the bike, he threw the bike into the car, I am not sure, but I think it was the back.

Now my point is, if what the girl is talking about is the moment that her dad tried to hit me with the car, She is exhibiting some amazing powers of perception. Firstly, she can’t remember seeing the incident itself, but she can remember that I threw the bike at the car, and more amazingly, in a place she could not have seen.
In the psychological report about her testimony, the doctor said that her testimony was not “confabulation”. I agree. Confabulation would be that she was making it up from HER OWN IMAGINATION. She wasn’t making it up, She was trying to accurately retell her father’s IMAGININGS of the testimony…

Point four was about exactly how much leeway the court gave Zaremba.
-Zareba was made auxiliary prosecutor
-The police decided to lose the document I made regarding the condition of my bike for eight and a half months.
-Using Jersey Twardowski as a translator set up a potential mistrial because he was also a potential witness for our side.
-The court refused to accept any of my essays about the case, or for that matter even accept my claim that the original accusation was false and based upon lies.
-And, and this was mentioned in a another section as well, that the court refused to allow me to directly interview Zaremba’s daughter. As In was the only one in the room interested in having the girl tell the truth, this was a remarkably prejudiced tactic.

Point 5 was about the lawyers. I have been talking about this in my daily essays.
Point 6 and 7 are about why it was wrong for the court to keep me in Poland for 10 months for this farce of a trial. And point 8 sums up the bottom line: That my defense had not been self defense or diminished capacity, but that the whole of the case was based upon the lies and confabulations of Zaremba.
“ I did hit Mr. Zareba because he made an unreasonable and dangerous driving maneuver against me; he made this move against a biker and he did this with a young girl in the car. His driving could have cost me my life or the girls, and that I believe that no one should be allowed to feel that it is ok to make such intentional moves against bikers anywhere. Such moves show great social irresponsibility, poor driving judgment and a possibility of future endangerment to my fellow bikers, and this is why I acted.”

Anyway, these are the basics of my appeal. I suppose I can draft a letter about this for the court. I do not know if I am going to go or not. I have several reasons for not going. As I mentioned a few days ago, I fear for my life there. I also fear some underhandedness at the hands of the polish courts. I simply have no trust. But more than this, it is also a financial issue because documents and visas and travel expenses are required; a lot of money would need to be spent and I simply don’t feel I have any more money for Poland- they have taken enough. This of course does not count for the money I still owe Drazek and my friends who had helped me there. They will get theirs… someday. But anyway, I really do not feel that they would listen to me. I say this because they have never once listened to one word I have said. Why should i believe that this will be any different?
I have been getting some feedback because of this blog group that I have made some people angry. I don’t know if this would make things any safer or better for me. I just don’t know.
I would like to go and stand up for myself though. I would love to look them in the eye-again- and tell them what I think of them. My heart tells me that I would love to do this.
And then I remember what they have done to me in the past. I know that they simply will state some half-baked pretext, ignore any counter reasoning and do whatever they want. You can’t get a fair trial in Poland. I knew that when I wrote the book. I want everybody to know this. That’s the point. That’s the point.