Thursday, February 05, 2004


I actually have a new essay for today. I thought I pretty well had the situation cornered but last night I put a couple of things together in my mind, and came up with a new (yet another) thought. I think perhaps I might have yet another legitimate cause for action here. Of course I would have to consult with an attorney to see if I am right about this. Well, I would if such a thing would actually be possible in Poland…


It was at the August 30th meeting in the offices of Stanislaw Wiesniakowski, the prosecutor of the case, that Zaremba presented an estimate of damages along with the “could have been done by a hand” document. This estimate contained damages that were not included in the police report made just after our incident on May 15th. Wiesniakowski however, decided to accept this document into evidence and its contents were presented to myself and to my then attorney Woitchk Tomczyk for examination. I was not allowed to hear its contents.
After the meeting, Tomczyk’s office prepared a complaint about the document sighting that there were some differences between this document and the May 15th damage report. In this complaint, Tomczyk also said that Jersey Twardowski, the translator who was with me when the police report about my bike was made, would be a witness as to what happened while making that report. This would have been necessary because the police “lost” this document and therefore it was not a part of the proceedings at the time.

Now, I did not want this complaint made. The reason I did not want it made was that the previous complaint only extended my stay in Poland and seemed to do nothing in the case. In that previous complaint, Tomczyk stated that the case should not be tried because Zaremba’s complaint was civil and not criminal. The purpose for this I suppose was to protect Zaremba himself from charges of contempt or perjury. I had by this point no faith that Wiensniakowski had a judicious bone in his body and was doing nothing but wasting my time. However, without my permission Tomczyk’s people filed the complaint anyway on September 2nd. They told me about this by E-mail only on the sixth.

September 6, 2002
Mr. Adam Goodman
I would like to inform you, that on the 2nd of September 2002 we sent the application to complete legal proceedings. Mr. Tomczyk decided that this application is necessary and indispensable. Please fine enclosed a copy of application.
Yours sincerely
Izabela Sawa

I made a great show of running around town demanding that this complaint not be made. However, that display was completely irrelevant because Wiesniakowski had, in spite of Tomczyk’s reasoning that the case was not complete, already filed for a trial the day after the complaint was received by his office on the fourth of September.
In the justification for bringing the case to trial, Wiesniakowski claimed that Zaremba would present his case and would provide at least one witness.

For the purposes of this essay, I am not going to talk about how Tomczyk refused to tell me any of this until the 17th or about how I never received any information about what was happening or what was reasonable to do.
What I am going to point out is that the original case was not only known to be false by the prosecutor, but was set up with the intention of simply wasting more of my time.
Here’s my point:

Wiesniakowski certainly knew that Zaremba’s story was false. And he especially knew that Zaremba was committing a crime by turning in the 2nd damage report and claiming the damages that were caused by a subsequent accident as being mine. He knew that the case was a loser. But he went ahead and filed it anyway not only knowing that it was a loser, but intending that it end in a mistrial, further wasting my time. This is harassment.

Here is my reasoning for saying this:

1. Choosing Twardowski to be the translator during the trial created a mistrial situation. Because Twardowski was a potential witness, using him as a translator set up a conflict of interest situation. Witnesses are not allowed to listen to each other during the court proceedings so as not to influence each other. If Twardowski was a witness as well as a translator in this case, this rule is broken; hence the mistrial. Twardowski’s relationship to the proceedings was mentioned in Tomczeck’s complaint, Therefore choosing him as translator shows criminal intent on the part of the Prosecutor.

2. Along this reasoning, using Zaremba as an auxiliary prosecutor also set up this same situation because his position allowed him to be in the court for all of the sessions. And of course in that case, Zaremba absolutely did change his story to reflect my own.

3. The prosecution claimed that Zaremba would have a witness, but this was not the case. Of the two witnesses the prosecution called, the arresting officer Tomas Jucha refused to testify other that saying he remembered nothing and the other was in no way a witness to anything that happened with the car until after the second accident. Neither had any meaningful connection to the case at all.

Or, in other words, Stanislaw Wiesniakowski knowingly filed with the courts a case that was obviously non-existent. He did this with full knowledge that the case would have probably ended in mistrial, a result that would have no other effect than to keep me in Poland longer. Or more to the point, what we have here is not a case against Adam Goodman, but a pure, unadulterated case of harassment and police abuse, complete with malice aforethought, damages and repeated criminal actions.

And, in case you want to pin the action back only on Zaremba, remember that according to Tomczek’s first complaint, the case should never have been brought to the courts in the first place as it was a civil complaint and not criminal. The courts were good enough to acknowledge this assignation of guilt on the prosecutor’s office in the following remark from the justification for the court’s decision.
“ It should be notified that the indicated deed undergoes prosecution from private accusation, nevertheless in compliance with the existing jurisdiction line elaborated by the Supreme Court, lodging an accusation by the prosecutor in a case prosecuted from private accusation should be treated as (a) taking over (of) the accusation by the prosecutor”.

My second attorney, Marcin Borus was the one who told me about the mistrial situation, though it was only after the trial was well underway. He used this as a leverage for me not to call Twardowski to the stand.
And then there was the difference in story between Yucha’s report and Zaremba’s story to the police, the medical report’s proving Zaremba had lied about his teeth, about there being no previous damages to the car, the nonsensical story of the traffic incident, his daughters admitting that her father told her what to say, Zaremba’s turning in a false damage report and lying about it in court…

Did I make my point today?

Write me and let me know what you think of all of this.
I have been sitting through 20 months of this nonsense.