Wednesday, January 21, 2004

Well that was a lot of work but I finally got everything linked up and got the homepage set up too. I think I have this place as tidy as I can make it.
I have for today’s essay a draft of my letter to the court for the 10th. But before I go there, I thought I would take a moment to say thank you all very much for all of the letter I got this morning. I am going to do my best to get back to you all as soon as I can. But really, thank you so very much for your support.
And for those of you who said that you could not read the Russian in the Russian language play, simply go to the “view” button on you explorer tool bar and change the encoding to “Cyrillic for Windows” or “Cyrillic KOI88-R”. If that doesn’t work, I don’t know what I can say other than just click on the English version and read that. I actually think that the Russian version is better, though. But I don’t know what I could tell you, I wrote it for Belarus…
And yes, I have changed the location of the book and have re-posted only posted the first 15 chapters. Again, I apologize to all of you had not already downloaded it, but it is simply too much material for Blogger to handle well. If I can, I will put it all back up, but if not, just let me know and I will do what I can to get you a copy. And again, thank you.

So, to go back to the Homepage, you can click “HERE”, or stick around and have a look at the first draft of a letter to the court.

For February 10, 2004
A letter to the court.
For 21 months now I have been involved with the judicial system here in Warsaw over an incident involving a car and a bicycle.
For the entire 21 months I have been trying to make one single point as clear as humanly possible. : I committed no crime, and the original accusation, made by the driver of the car was false. It was a lie. It was a confabulation made for the purposes of hiding his own guilt for an assault he made on me while I was riding a bicycle, and eventually for the purposes of taking money from me. Plain and simple.
For 21 months now however, I have faced remarkable opposition to my desire to make this claim. I have had all of my lawyers dismiss my desire for adequate counsel as a waist of their time. And more so, all of them refused to even argue the point that the driver’s story was a lie. The police lost a document that was material evidence for over eight months and the court refused to read any one of the papers I submitted on the subject.
Why was this so? Well the obvious reason is that the driver was also a cop. And this seemed to be enough reason for all concerned to protect him from accusation. However, I imagine it must have been difficult to do this for Mr. Zaremba. Whatever allegiance people might have felt for him due to his position certainly must have been stretched by the endless far fetchedness of his tale.
What Mr. Zaremba told the court was the following:
1. That some 120 meters before the stop, with a moving bus only five meters in front of him, a biker came into his lane and he had enough time to brake, slow down and have the biker move back into the right lane. This is a lie. It is physically impossible for the action to go that fast because the car and the bus would still be going very close to the 50kph speed limit at that time. Therefore, the action of the bike would need to take place within a period of about 1/3 of a second. However, it is very possible that the bus might have been five meters in front of him at the stop when I tried to go around it. This though, would make his move to pass around me a very violent and dangerous one. This of course is exactly my claim. Do the math for yourself.
2. That I passed by his car cleanly (his first account), that I passed by the car giving it a passing hit (his second). That I passed cleanly by the car hitting it several times (his third testimony), and then finally in court, that I did not pass the car at all, but instead hit and kicked the car before lifting my bike over the car by hand. These are all lies. Zaremba changed his story each time, finally altering it to completely renounce his previous claim that I was able to pass him. This testimony was an echo of my own. Read it for your yourself.
3. That I beat his car in several different scenarios, the order of which is never the same way twice, and that, also as an echo of a report that I had written, that the attack lasted close to two minutes. This is a lie. It is a lie because it is impossible for an event like describes to draw not one single attempt of help from any of the witnesses, from a cop who was supposedly parked just behind him, or even a cell phone call for the entire alleged 90 seconds. You tell me that this is the way it happened.
4. Mr. Zaremba tells us that he thought about making a phone call at first, and then dialed afterward. He then said that he had tried to call, but the phone fell out of his hands. And then finally he said that that he actually had the ability to dial the phone WHILE SUSTAINING BLOWS TO HIS HEAD AND BODY, only to (unfortunately) reach an answering machine instead of the police. And, by his own admission, the time of the phone call was ten minutes off. This story is a lie. My Zaremba did not call the police until the thought occurred to him that it would be good for him to have done so if it was all my attack. The time on the phone would be right about the time he told Tomas Jucha, the arresting officer that he had in fact driven around and in front of me.
5. Mr Zaremba claimed that I was responsible for all of the damages to his car. This is a lie. Mr. Zaremba failed to report that he had had an accident for which he received an insurance payment. He offered no papers, pictures or estimates from that claim and offered only his word of the amount of his claim. There were fingerprints taken from the car but these were not mine. His description of the attack at first included my throwing my bike at his car several times. In the next telling only once. And then finally, it was only an arbitrary thing that the bike touched the car, Only after I proved that the damage to the car had been there before me, did he admit to this in court. However, in addition to his original claim, Mr. Zaremba finally turned in an estimate of damages, this paper though included damages from yet another driving mishap. During the interview that he gave that day, Mr. Zaremba not only failed to say why he was in fact giving the courts this evidence, he also confirmed that he was holding me responsible for all of the damages listed then in the court records. This is not only a lie, it is a criminal act in itself.
6. Mr. Zaremba claimed that there was a fight at the KSP, and the he himself instigated the police taking the biker. This is a lie. I was not brought to the police station in handcuffs, I walked in under my own power and even locked up my bike outside. The situation was two people with conflicting stories, not the dragging in of a criminal.
7. Mr. Zaremba claimed I broke his teeth. This was a lie proven in his own medical report. When asked if there was any dental work to be accounted for in reference to his broken teeth, he responded in court that he didn’t remember. This story was a lie.
What really happened at the crossing that day was simple. For whatever his motivation to do so, Mr. Zaremba, instead of simply safely moving to the crossing at the light, accelerated quickly, swung his car into me and then skidded to a stop just in front of me, forcing me into the bus I was riding a long side. The move could have possibly killed all of us, including his own 10year-old daughter.
There are some points of Mr. Zaremba’s story that were true about what happened then. I did yell. I did use vulgarities and I did hit him. But I did not execute a two-minute dance of destruction on his precious and pristine, six-year-old 100,000-km car.
I am afraid that Mr. Zaremba’s story, as they say in American jurisprudence, does not hold water. And when you add in the botched requests to find compensation from false claims of damages, you have motive and “mens reas”; guilty mind.
I have read in American jurisprudence that in order for an event to be described as a crime there needs to have been a conscious negative action, for there to be damage as a result of that action, and that there needs to be malice aforethought.
By making false accusations against me on more than one occasion, and to have those false accusations lead to a 21-month trial process, What we have here is a situation where one crime has been remedied by another, and another, and another, and another. There has been no justice served here. There is no hard earned victory. Only shame.