Search

"In the event of a direct attack on the Russian Federation (...) then, of course, the question of whether the Russian Federation will use all types of weapons that our country has at its disposal will inevitably and immediately be on the agenda." Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that the world is going through a dangerous period and that it is crucial to ensure that weapons of mass destruction are never used; however, he warned that Russia would consider the use of all types of weapons if there were an attack on the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. (translated)

"He wants to reach an agreement under which they immediately open the Strait, because they are really losing badly." While U.S. President Donald Trump, in his speech to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, September 22, reiterated claims about Iran's race for nuclear weapons and opened the possibility of "annihilating" Iran, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi responded on Friday, September 25, with an announcement of proposals sent to the U.S. several days earlier for Iran to open shipping through Hormuz within 7 days and start negotiations on nuclear issues. (translated)

Unfortunately, it has not been possible to overthrow this horror government, but it still makes sense to speak out. In this country, there are plenty of people who refuse insane indebtedness, who care about housing availability, who defend democracy. Let's come together next Friday to defend a strong Senate and independent cities and municipalities. (translated)

If there is a direct attack on Russia - here I am thinking of Kaliningrad, but possibly also other territories - then, of course, the question of the use of all the weapons that our country has at its disposal by Russia would inevitably and immediately appear on the agenda. This is inevitable. Attacks have repeatedly hit targets, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has now publicly acknowledged this in a speech in Moscow. (translated)

Germany wants to play the role of a political mentor for Europe, while at the same time refusing to talk about responsibility for the crimes and losses inflicted on Poland and other nations during World War II. Credibility begins with reckoning with one's own history. (translated)

"Whether any scenario unfolds globally in the coming years, the continuation of international conflicts is, unfortunately, highly probable. This is partly due to the fact that ongoing fundamental shifts and the opportunities they present drive ambitions and a willingness to take risks for seemingly enormous rewards," Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday, adding that he is confident the situation will calm down with the retreat of Western hegemony. (translated)

Poland is facing a difficult decision regarding its participation in the upcoming G20 summit in Miami and is grappling with the dilemma of how to approach Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose participation the Ministry of Foreign Affairs refuses, while many political leaders are calling for the Polish president to attend, but without shaking hands or posing with the Russian leader. (translated)

The article compares the approaches of the USA and China to regulating artificial intelligence, highlighting concerns about technological dominance and speculating on the reasons for political interactions between the two countries, while the USA rejects regulations until a serious crisis occurs. (translated)

Mr. Grzegorz, I read the entire justification. And I agree with one thing – legal analysis cannot be replaced with the label of a "neo-judge," because that is not an argument 🤷‍♂️ However, the justification itself, although extensive and internally organized, in my opinion leaves two very serious legal problems. The first concerns Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provision states that in preparatory proceedings, a "blanket warrant" can be issued at the request of the prosecutor or in the absence of their objection. Here, the prosecutor filed an objection. The court does not challenge the wording of the provision. It consciously deviates from it, considering that the binding objection of the prosecutor would violate the court's jurisdictional independence. It references Article 8 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 178 paragraph 1 of the Constitution, Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 47 of the KPP, and part of the case law of appellate courts. This is a legal argument. But there is also an opposing line of case law, based precisely on the linguistic interpretation of Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which the court itself notes in the justification. I wrote about this yesterday. So it is not the case that there is no problem. There is a very serious dispute about the limits of interpretation contra legem and whether the court can practically deprive the premise, which the legislator explicitly included in the provision. The second problem I have is with the prognostic assessment. The court acknowledges that Romanowski left Poland, did not appear for the hearing concerning the temporary arrest, was outside the reach of Polish authorities, and even informed in his own application that he has a passport issued under a different identity 🤷‍♂️ The court considers these circumstances to be burdensome but then assumes that they cannot determine the assessment because one should look at it primarily prospectively. 🤔 And this is where I have the greatest doubt. The prediction of a suspect's future behavior does not occur in a vacuum. Its foundational material is, after all, their past behavior. 🤷‍♂️ If a person involved in the proceedings previously did not comply with procedural mechanisms, left the country, and remained outside the reach of the authorities, then their later declaration that from this moment they will comply with the conditions of the "blanket warrant" must be subjected to particularly rigorous assessment. The court may conclude that despite this, the risk has currently diminished. But it should convincingly demonstrate why specific past behaviors have lost their prognostic significance. Because if we are to predict a person’s future behavior while disregarding their past behavior, then a rather fundamental question arises - on what basis are we actually building this prediction? 🤷‍♂️ Therefore, I would not dismiss this ruling with the label of a neo-judge, but I would also not say that the problem ends with the justification sounding rational. A rationally constructed justification can still lead to a legally debatable result. In my opinion, this is exactly the kind of case we are dealing with here. The argumentation of the court is clear and can be recounted, but both the way of breaking the literal wording of Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the prognostic assessment of the suspect's behavior leave significant legal doubts. If I were to rule on this matter, I would not grant the application. Firstly – due to the prosecutor's objection and the content of Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Secondly – even accepting a different interpretation of this provision, I would not find sufficient grounds for a positive prognostic assessment. This is not about punishing Romanowski for the past. It is about assessing whether his past behavior allows rationally to assume that from this moment he will respect the obligations arising from the "blanket warrant." In my opinion – it does not allow 🤷‍♂️ And that is precisely why there is an appellate review. (translated)

You can either spend subsidies from Agrofert on credit, which the EU refuses to pay due to Babiš's conflict of interest, or you can invest in the education of our children and the quality future of this country. I understand that in ANO you are focused on the former. We with @PRAHASOBE will do what it takes for the success of children in Prague. (translated)

Monika Piątkowska's team declined Łukasz Gibała's proposal to organize a debate before the second round of elections with the participation of all television stations. They are afraid of the Republic and questions from Polish independent journalists. The Trzaskowski syndrome. Fear of free media. (translated)

The peak of hypocrisy, Mr. Minister @w_zurek? ✅️So let's go. ✅️You have been the Attorney General since July 24, 2025. ✅️It just so happens that on the very same day, a request from the defender of Michał Kuczmierowski for the issuance of a LETTER OF IRON arrived at the District Court in Warsaw. ✅️On September 10, 2025, the District Court denied the request (case no. XII 1 Kp 2497/25). ✅️Do you know who made such a ruling? It was Judge KONRAD MIELCAREK, who is today being publicly scorned by Minister Żurek for a different decision regarding MP Romanowski. ✅️You did not file a request to exclude Judge Mielcarek from participating in the case. And you were already the head of the Prosecutor's Office then. ✅️Please tell me why? You were very pleased with the decision made. ✅️However, after the defense's appeal was filed, you submitted THREE requests to exclude THREE judges who were to review the appeal. Each time successfully. ✅️Until a judge was drawn who obviously suited you, because you did not request to exclude him. And the refusal was maintained in force. ✅️So please do not speak of hypocrisy. ✅️As a lawyer, I have a duty to maintain moderation and restraint in formulating my statements, but believe me, sometimes it is really difficult for me. (translated)

‼️ End of excuses. Brussels rejected Babiš's trust fund – the conflict of interest persists and hundreds of millions are at stake! ❌ Andrej Babiš promised that the newly created trust fund RSVP Trust would solve everything. However, the European Commission has now made it completely clear and official: the transfer of the Agrofert holding. (translated)

I consider the appointment of Taťána Kuchařová to the Government Council for Human Rights unacceptable. The advisory body of the cabinet should protect vulnerable groups and systemic standards, not serve as a political traffic jam for celebrities without legal expertise. A fundamental obstacle is her behavior during the divorce from Ondřej Brzobohatý. The purposeful misuse of sensitive queer topics and the privacy of her partner in the ecclesiastical court demonstrated complete disrespect for human dignity and minority rights. A person with such practices cannot credibly defend equality. After the civil divorce, Kuchařová initiated proceedings at the Metropolitan Church Court for the purpose of ecclesiastical annulment of marriage. In ecclesiastical law, marriage can only be annulled for specific reasons, which include, for example, the inability to fulfill marital duties, serious personality disorder, or the concealment of key facts before the wedding. To achieve annulment, Kuchařová based her arguments on her husband's intimate life: 🧊 In the lawsuit, she claimed that Brzobohatý is not sexually oriented and suffers from sexual orientation deviations. 🧊 From his private interest in dressing as a woman as part of artistic stylization (drag queen under the alias Tiffany Richbitch), she created evidence of his alleged inability to live in a heterosexual union. 🧊 She was represented by lawyer Jakub Kříž, known from ultraconservative organizations rejecting the rights of LGBTQ+ people. The contents of the ecclesiastical lawsuit, which was supposed to remain strictly confidential behind the closed doors of the ecclesiastical tribunal, leaked in May 2023 to the tabloid Blesk. Civil Court Ruling In January 2026, the District Court for Prague 2 ruled in a personality protection dispute that Brzobohatý brought against Kuchařová: ⚖️ The court concluded that Kuchařová presented false claims in the ecclesiastical lawsuit and consciously harmed the rights and dignity of her former partner. ⚖️ The model was ordered to pay Brzobohatý compensation for non-pecuniary harm amounting to 250,000 CZK. ⚖️ The court also ordered her to publish a public apology in the Blesk newspaper and prohibited her from continuing to spread these false statements. For all this, she should absolutely not be a member of the Government Council for Human Rights. 1️⃣ According to information from Blesk, she presented drag culture and non-traditional gender expressions in court as mental defects, immaturity, or inability to live a normal life. This is a textbook example of homophobia and transphobia that reinforces prejudices in society. 2️⃣ According to information from Blesk, she used sexuality and private preferences as leverage in property or divorce disputes. This is in direct contradiction to fundamental human rights standards. ⚠️🚧‼️ A person who has resorted to the denigration of minority identity for personal gain and faces legal repercussions for undermining human dignity cannot, by principle, guarantee the protection of equality and human rights at the national level. (translated)