HOMEPAGE
Court is convening tomorrow in Warsaw Poland to discuss the appeal I have written regarding my case. I wrote that appeal eight months ago. This case started May 15th, 2002.
Today’s musing is simply a rant.
If only…
Ok, tomorrow is the court meeting. I am not going. I haven’t a clue what will happen. But I am not going.
Oh, I know what you are saying: If I don’t go, I will not have my say. But when did I ever have a say? When did they give one millionth of a damn what I had to say? You would think I would have had a right to have my say. You would think that there might at least me a shred of justice in a country’s justice system. But they don’t. They didn’t. And they have never listened either to the case, or to me.
And not only did the polish court system not listen to me, they had a plan to defraud me, carried it out with malicious glee and dragged it out for the longest possible time allowable. And that’s why you are reading this rant here today.
This was not a court case, this was not justice; this was pure unadulterated corruption and lies. What they did was take a situation where there was an attack and then helped the attacker rob the person he attacked FOR TWO YEARS!
Can you understand what I am saying here?
I am saying that I had my life stopped on May 15th 2002. How many days was that? Try 634! Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of having to wear an anchor of lies and malicious distrust around my neck. Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of having to remember Zaremba’s laughing face in the courtroom, of enduring the grotesque distortion of truth in Borus’ university English (I hope some day to have a taste of your plays!). Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of watching money, which was supposed to do some good for some very, very, very hungry people, siphoned away in the cost of having to stay in Poland.
Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of lies.
How do I feel about these six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days?
Well, let me tell you; I am a fair guy. I don’t go around slamming my cars into people and then robbing them. I don’t ask the people around me to lie for me, or play games for me, or diminish their lives for me (Before this day there was no previous damage to my car but for a scratch on the running board.). I don’t go around making the world uglier for my having been in it. I just don’t.
I don’t like what it feels like to be a cancer in the world get it? I don’t sit at my desk, the burden of the public trust on my shoulders, wasting my time manipulating people out of a few dollars (Do you like guns? How much is the cost of guns in America? How much does a public prosecutor in America make?). I don’t screw peoples lives over simply so I can get some money without earning it, or disserving it. I don’t sweat people, abuse my office and make people ashamed to be associated with me.
If only they would have been square about it.
I mean, if you want to tell me that it is illegal in Poland to hit someone with your fist, regardless of whether or not that person you have just hit had just tried to run you down with his car from behind, that’s a different story.
“Well Mr. Goodman, you see we have “no fault justice” here in Poland. What this means is that all actions here are seen as disconnected from each other- therefore, that you actually hit him, regardless of why, is against our rules.”
And I would say something like “ What about “sequence of events”? You know, first year law: The reasonable and prudent man does not remove the pebble that allows the boulder to roll down the hill smashing the house. He is the instigator of the events because a reasonable and prudent man would not have removed the pebble in the first place.”
“That is American jurisprudence!” They would say.
“No! It’s natural law. It the truth. We are responsible for our actions”
“Responsible for our actions!” They would cry “This is Poland Mr. Goodman, even saying such things is a damnable offence!” And so on…
But that’s not what is going on here. There were no real legal issues at stake. According to my first attorney, what I did is not even considered a crime in Poland!
No, I said that I refuse to let them rob me, and they took my passport from me and proved that the could do so if they wanted to. That’s what they did.
I said it was wrong for a guy in a car to arbitrarily ruin down baikers, they told me their cops were made men, like the Mafia guys, and that they were free, just like the Mafia to do whatever harm to the world they wanted. That’s why you are reading this.
But what if they did treat this crime of Zaremba’s honestly. I wrote in my “epilogue” piece two days ago that I would have let Zaremba go if he had simply told the truth.
“Yea, I did a stupid thing. I drove in front of him. But he had no right to hit me!” (How many times has he said this into his beer?) This is May 15th again. The guy at the desk looks at him like he is the whiney little baby that he is.
Listen sonny,” he says to Zaremba “if you don’t like getting punched in the face, it would be better not to do such stupid things as would garner such responses. Don’t waste my time with this nonsense. Both of you get out of here.”
I like this scenario game. How about this one: Let’s say that Zaremba was telling the truth. How would the reasonable and prudent man go about proving such a thing?
1. He collects witnesses.
2. He provides accurate reports of the damages. In this case, he provides the insurance and repair records and photos from before and after his previous accident in the beginning.
3. He asks his daughter to speak up on the first day.
4. He never lies in court, changes his story or files false claims.
All three of these apply also to the office of the prosecutor and specifically about witnesses, to the police at the time.
What happens then? Well, there was no damage from me to his car. There were no broken teeth, and, the guy drove his car into me. No case, no problems and I am back with Tatyana on the 16th in the morning, just like I had planned.
If they only had told the truth in the beginning I would have had no problem with them at all. If they would have explained the court system, the order of the protocols, what the official reasons for the meetings were, allowed me to attend the hearings, translated the documents for me on time, allowed me to even defend myself…
But… they… didn’t…
I was in Poland for a week to get a new visa.
On my last day in town, while riding around a stopped bus, Zaremba decided to try to be first in line regardless of the danger of his driving maneuver.
He had enough room to simply drive directly there if he was so inclined, or perhaps he should have simply slowed down a little and let me pass without incident.
But he didn’t.
The guy lost it in a moment of road rage and decided, with his 11-year-old daughter in the seat next to him, to step on the gas and drive around me.
While passing me, he took the trouble to try and ram me with the car, missed by a centimeter or to and then slammed the breaks, sliding to a stop in front of me, pinning me with his car to the bus.
I punched him in the mouth for this after screaming at him what a complete asshole he was for doing what he had just done.
When he neither apologized nor yelled back at me, I thought I was dealing with a personal rather than an arbitrary attack.
So I rode to the cops and asked them to get this guy off of me. He followed me there and started talking.
He told the officer called to the scene, one Tomas Jucha that
a biker came quickly around the bus. Zaremba had stopped in front of him. And that even though the biker was not hurt, he went and punched Zaremba in the face.
He then accused me of being responsible for all of the damages that had ever been on his car (common game).
He even went so gar as to say that I had broken two of his teeth. For some reason he already had the number 3000 zlotys ($750) in his head.
We were both taken to the police station and asked to give statements.
At the desk, Zaremba changed his story, concocting an alternative driving situation that did not include his driving in front of me.
He was a cop.
They believed him and sent him home.
I slept in a cell.
I spent 10 month sitting in Poland because of this incident.
They took away my passport, and I was not allowed to leave the country.
The courts and the prosecutor in all of that time never contacted me once regarding the case.
My lawyers refused to defend me.
They refused to let me read documents, allow me to go to meetings regarding my case, told out right lies, lost evidence and refused to hear my testimonies.
When I proved that he had lied about damages to the car, Zaremba simply changed his story and admitted in court that there had been another accident in January.
No records from this accident were ever submitted to the court.
When he turned in an official estimate for damages, this estimate included damages from YET ANOTHER CRASH IN JUNE, six weeks after our incident.
This new information apparently cast no doubt about Zaremba’s honest or driving ability with the prosecutor.
This document was accepted as real by both the prosecutor and the court.
In court, when Zaremba altered his story creating scenarios that would tie me to these new damages as well (He leaned on the hood causing it to become unhinged) the court suspended disbelief even though the PICTURE’S OF THE CAR SHOW THAT HE WAS LYING.
When he changed the basic premise of his original story (That he had never even obstructed my riding), this was not seen as important.
The prosecutor, with the justification that there would be a witness to the events, sent the case to the courts.
The courts accepted the case as true, even though there was never a single eyewitness even brought in to speak by the prosecution.
It was a lie from the first day and they all knew it.
Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of lies.
Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of having to stomach this, of not having a business to do here, of not being able to properly take car of my loved ones…
Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of politics and scandals all directed at me while at the same time THE UNMITIGATED OBVIOUSNESS OF THE LIES CAN BE SEEN BY ANYBODY WHO TAKES THE TIME TO READ THE DAMNED TRANSCRIPTS.
Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of torture.
Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of being tortured and stolen from by Poland.
Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of having their cancer-like presence in my life.
Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of being had.
Get the point?
Court is tomorrow. I won’t be there. I don’t believe a word that comes from their mouths.
But you know I’ll let you know what was said.
Court is convening tomorrow in Warsaw Poland to discuss the appeal I have written regarding my case. I wrote that appeal eight months ago. This case started May 15th, 2002.
Today’s musing is simply a rant.
If only…
Ok, tomorrow is the court meeting. I am not going. I haven’t a clue what will happen. But I am not going.
Oh, I know what you are saying: If I don’t go, I will not have my say. But when did I ever have a say? When did they give one millionth of a damn what I had to say? You would think I would have had a right to have my say. You would think that there might at least me a shred of justice in a country’s justice system. But they don’t. They didn’t. And they have never listened either to the case, or to me.
And not only did the polish court system not listen to me, they had a plan to defraud me, carried it out with malicious glee and dragged it out for the longest possible time allowable. And that’s why you are reading this rant here today.
This was not a court case, this was not justice; this was pure unadulterated corruption and lies. What they did was take a situation where there was an attack and then helped the attacker rob the person he attacked FOR TWO YEARS!
Can you understand what I am saying here?
I am saying that I had my life stopped on May 15th 2002. How many days was that? Try 634! Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of having to wear an anchor of lies and malicious distrust around my neck. Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of having to remember Zaremba’s laughing face in the courtroom, of enduring the grotesque distortion of truth in Borus’ university English (I hope some day to have a taste of your plays!). Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of watching money, which was supposed to do some good for some very, very, very hungry people, siphoned away in the cost of having to stay in Poland.
Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of lies.
How do I feel about these six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days?
Well, let me tell you; I am a fair guy. I don’t go around slamming my cars into people and then robbing them. I don’t ask the people around me to lie for me, or play games for me, or diminish their lives for me (Before this day there was no previous damage to my car but for a scratch on the running board.). I don’t go around making the world uglier for my having been in it. I just don’t.
I don’t like what it feels like to be a cancer in the world get it? I don’t sit at my desk, the burden of the public trust on my shoulders, wasting my time manipulating people out of a few dollars (Do you like guns? How much is the cost of guns in America? How much does a public prosecutor in America make?). I don’t screw peoples lives over simply so I can get some money without earning it, or disserving it. I don’t sweat people, abuse my office and make people ashamed to be associated with me.
If only they would have been square about it.
I mean, if you want to tell me that it is illegal in Poland to hit someone with your fist, regardless of whether or not that person you have just hit had just tried to run you down with his car from behind, that’s a different story.
“Well Mr. Goodman, you see we have “no fault justice” here in Poland. What this means is that all actions here are seen as disconnected from each other- therefore, that you actually hit him, regardless of why, is against our rules.”
And I would say something like “ What about “sequence of events”? You know, first year law: The reasonable and prudent man does not remove the pebble that allows the boulder to roll down the hill smashing the house. He is the instigator of the events because a reasonable and prudent man would not have removed the pebble in the first place.”
“That is American jurisprudence!” They would say.
“No! It’s natural law. It the truth. We are responsible for our actions”
“Responsible for our actions!” They would cry “This is Poland Mr. Goodman, even saying such things is a damnable offence!” And so on…
But that’s not what is going on here. There were no real legal issues at stake. According to my first attorney, what I did is not even considered a crime in Poland!
No, I said that I refuse to let them rob me, and they took my passport from me and proved that the could do so if they wanted to. That’s what they did.
I said it was wrong for a guy in a car to arbitrarily ruin down baikers, they told me their cops were made men, like the Mafia guys, and that they were free, just like the Mafia to do whatever harm to the world they wanted. That’s why you are reading this.
But what if they did treat this crime of Zaremba’s honestly. I wrote in my “epilogue” piece two days ago that I would have let Zaremba go if he had simply told the truth.
“Yea, I did a stupid thing. I drove in front of him. But he had no right to hit me!” (How many times has he said this into his beer?) This is May 15th again. The guy at the desk looks at him like he is the whiney little baby that he is.
Listen sonny,” he says to Zaremba “if you don’t like getting punched in the face, it would be better not to do such stupid things as would garner such responses. Don’t waste my time with this nonsense. Both of you get out of here.”
I like this scenario game. How about this one: Let’s say that Zaremba was telling the truth. How would the reasonable and prudent man go about proving such a thing?
1. He collects witnesses.
2. He provides accurate reports of the damages. In this case, he provides the insurance and repair records and photos from before and after his previous accident in the beginning.
3. He asks his daughter to speak up on the first day.
4. He never lies in court, changes his story or files false claims.
All three of these apply also to the office of the prosecutor and specifically about witnesses, to the police at the time.
What happens then? Well, there was no damage from me to his car. There were no broken teeth, and, the guy drove his car into me. No case, no problems and I am back with Tatyana on the 16th in the morning, just like I had planned.
If they only had told the truth in the beginning I would have had no problem with them at all. If they would have explained the court system, the order of the protocols, what the official reasons for the meetings were, allowed me to attend the hearings, translated the documents for me on time, allowed me to even defend myself…
But… they… didn’t…
I was in Poland for a week to get a new visa.
On my last day in town, while riding around a stopped bus, Zaremba decided to try to be first in line regardless of the danger of his driving maneuver.
He had enough room to simply drive directly there if he was so inclined, or perhaps he should have simply slowed down a little and let me pass without incident.
But he didn’t.
The guy lost it in a moment of road rage and decided, with his 11-year-old daughter in the seat next to him, to step on the gas and drive around me.
While passing me, he took the trouble to try and ram me with the car, missed by a centimeter or to and then slammed the breaks, sliding to a stop in front of me, pinning me with his car to the bus.
I punched him in the mouth for this after screaming at him what a complete asshole he was for doing what he had just done.
When he neither apologized nor yelled back at me, I thought I was dealing with a personal rather than an arbitrary attack.
So I rode to the cops and asked them to get this guy off of me. He followed me there and started talking.
He told the officer called to the scene, one Tomas Jucha that
a biker came quickly around the bus. Zaremba had stopped in front of him. And that even though the biker was not hurt, he went and punched Zaremba in the face.
He then accused me of being responsible for all of the damages that had ever been on his car (common game).
He even went so gar as to say that I had broken two of his teeth. For some reason he already had the number 3000 zlotys ($750) in his head.
We were both taken to the police station and asked to give statements.
At the desk, Zaremba changed his story, concocting an alternative driving situation that did not include his driving in front of me.
He was a cop.
They believed him and sent him home.
I slept in a cell.
I spent 10 month sitting in Poland because of this incident.
They took away my passport, and I was not allowed to leave the country.
The courts and the prosecutor in all of that time never contacted me once regarding the case.
My lawyers refused to defend me.
They refused to let me read documents, allow me to go to meetings regarding my case, told out right lies, lost evidence and refused to hear my testimonies.
When I proved that he had lied about damages to the car, Zaremba simply changed his story and admitted in court that there had been another accident in January.
No records from this accident were ever submitted to the court.
When he turned in an official estimate for damages, this estimate included damages from YET ANOTHER CRASH IN JUNE, six weeks after our incident.
This new information apparently cast no doubt about Zaremba’s honest or driving ability with the prosecutor.
This document was accepted as real by both the prosecutor and the court.
In court, when Zaremba altered his story creating scenarios that would tie me to these new damages as well (He leaned on the hood causing it to become unhinged) the court suspended disbelief even though the PICTURE’S OF THE CAR SHOW THAT HE WAS LYING.
When he changed the basic premise of his original story (That he had never even obstructed my riding), this was not seen as important.
The prosecutor, with the justification that there would be a witness to the events, sent the case to the courts.
The courts accepted the case as true, even though there was never a single eyewitness even brought in to speak by the prosecution.
It was a lie from the first day and they all knew it.
Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of lies.
Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of having to stomach this, of not having a business to do here, of not being able to properly take car of my loved ones…
Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of politics and scandals all directed at me while at the same time THE UNMITIGATED OBVIOUSNESS OF THE LIES CAN BE SEEN BY ANYBODY WHO TAKES THE TIME TO READ THE DAMNED TRANSCRIPTS.
Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of torture.
Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of being tortured and stolen from by Poland.
Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of having their cancer-like presence in my life.
Six hundred and thirty-four consecutive days of being had.
Get the point?
Court is tomorrow. I won’t be there. I don’t believe a word that comes from their mouths.
But you know I’ll let you know what was said.
posted by BEING HAD at
10:17 AM
