Search

Mr. Nawrocki, Unfortunately, I listened to this hmmm "message" and checked it against the documents. And, as usual, I have a problem. A big one. Because when you set aside the gestures, the teleprompter, and the political phrases, what remains is a series of facts mixed with half-truths, altered chronology, forecasts presented as certainties, and accusations that are not even confirmed by the documents of your own Office and a mass of other manipulations. Step by step. "The campaign promise of fuel at 5.19." No. Mr. Donald Tusk’s specific statement about 5.19 PLN was made in JUNE 2022. Parliamentary elections were scheduled for August 8, 2023. Only then did the election campaign begin in the sense of the Electoral Code. But it gets much more interesting with your quote... In the message, you connected 5.19 PLN, "one simple decision," and... a VAT reduction 🤦‍♂️ However, in the original statement about 5.19, Tusk talked about the MARGINS of Orlen and Lotos. And in a later statement about "one decision," he also talked about limiting Orlen's profits. Not about VAT! 🤦‍♂️ You are manipulating the Prime Minister's statement, and you are using the institution of the Address to the Nation for that... Exactly the same version about VAT was spread by Mr. Bogucki in the morning, but in his case, nothing surprises me anymore. A coincidence? Let’s move on. You claim that your project would cause "an immediate drop in fuel prices of over 2 PLN." Meanwhile, your OWN justification explicitly states that the mechanism DOES NOT START when the law comes into force. First, specific market conditions must occur. Then the Council of Ministers MAY issue a regulation. Only then does the mechanism begin to work. Where is the "immediate" here? Did you read your "own" project? Or are you just repeating this nonsense from Mr. Przydacz? Moreover, earlier materials from KPRP talked about an ESTIMATE of 1.70–2.60 PLN 🤦‍♂️ In the address, the estimate has already turned into a guaranteed effect 🤦‍♂️ Next, you say that the project is "good for the budget"... Meanwhile, your own justification predicts a loss of up to 600 million PLN just from the retail sales tax and further, unestimated costs of any potential excise tax reduction. I ask again - did you read your own project? Because you probably didn’t write it manually... Even more interesting. In the address: "The government bears full responsibility for fuel prices." In the justification of your project: market disruptions have an "objective character and are independent of entrepreneurs and the government".... So please decide. Full responsibility of the government or factors independent of the government? Because both versions cannot be true at the same time 🤦‍♂️ "The Marshal of the Sejm freezes the project." The project was submitted on September 18. On the same day, it was directed to the Legislative Office and BEOS. Then for opinions and consultations. Moreover, KPRP talked about the possibility of "freezing" as early as September 17 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ THE DAY BEFORE THE PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE SEJM! So first, a narrative about freezing was created, and only later did the Marshal receive the bill 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ Are you communicating with the rest of the "experts" in your office?? Next, we hear that the government deliberately keeps prices high because it wants to profit from VAT and dividends from Orlen. Proof? None was provided! A higher price may mean higher nominal VAT revenues. Orlen can pay dividends to shareholders. But one does not imply the other: this is NOT proof that the government deliberately keeps fuel prices high. This is attributing a motive without providing evidence 🤦‍♂️ Then you sign the law and say: "Every zloty obtained from this law must be spent on reducing fuel prices." A moment earlier, you conceded that the law DOES NOT CONTAIN a mechanism for passing that money on to reduce prices 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ Exactly. So it "mustn't." This is your political demand, not the legal effect of the signed law 🤷‍♂️ Moody’s? Yes. Here, the fact is a fact: Poland's rating was lowered from A2 to A3. But why was there no information that at the same time, the outlook was changed from negative to STABLE? Why does the rating decision then create a vision that "tomorrow there may not be enough for pensions and armaments"? (translated)

Citizens have the right to know what has been happening in the Constitutional Tribunal for months. Judge of the Constitutional Tribunal Sławomir Patyra has submitted a notification of reasonable suspicion of a crime committed by the acting President of the Tribunal, Bogdan Święczkowski. The accusations concern intentional (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)

What harm is there in promising?! In the 2024 election campaign, Aleksander Miszalski promised a yearly ticket for public transport for students at a price of 365 PLN. In December 2025, a law was passed where the price of that ticket was 470 PLN. In the justification, the president explained that Kraków already subsidizes nearly 65 percent of the costs of operating public transport, and with rising costs of energy, fuel, and salaries, it is necessary to adjust the rates to maintain the quality of transport services at the current level. On November 28, 2025, city councilor Michał Ciechowski submitted an amendment to the law to help fulfill the president’s promise of the ticket for 365 PLN. It was rejected by the Kraków City Council, where the majority belongs to KO/Left. In 2026, Monika Piątkowska announces that the proposal will be implemented! The money has been found! Campaigns perform miracles! (translated)

Am I understanding correctly that Onet reported Edyta Skotarczak as a witness in the case against Karol Nawrocki? Her testimony was supposed to take place, but the publisher's representatives ultimately withdrew that evidentiary motion. And now I really would like to know what specifically her testimony was supposed to be about. Because if it turns out that Onet, publishing material with very serious accusations against Nawrocki right before the second round of elections, based at least part of their findings on information from Edyta Skotarczak, then I'm fucked... It would have been much better to take Murański instead. 🤦🤦🤦 But this is not Onet's first fuck-up. When the justification comes, I'll say more. (translated)

Mr. Wójcik, I think you are adding too much to a single court ruling. Firstly – we do not yet know the full written justification. From public reports, it appears that the court at this stage did not notice any fear of tampering and deemed the issuance of a travel ban appropriate. That is not the same as erasing the entire procedural history of Mr. Romanowski. Secondly – you are contrasting the explanation of the case with the position of the prosecutor's office. However, the prosecutor's office is currently conducting proceedings to clarify this matter. The dispute is not about whether to clarify it, but under what conditions the suspect should participate in the proceedings 🤔 And finally – can we really say today without any qualification that there is no fear of hiding, aside from the wanted list, the EAW, the many months spent outside Poland, and the current course of the proceedings? In my opinion, no, of course, the court may conclude that the grounds currently look different. That is the court's role. But that does not yet support your narrative that the court wants to clarify the matter, while the prosecution merely wants to chase. The prosecution is pursuing the suspect precisely so that the proceedings can be conducted and the matter clarified 🤷‍♂️ Do you really not see a problem with the logic here? (translated)

"The issuance of an iron letter is justified by the public interest." Dear sir, it is in the public interest to settle to the very bottom, not to protect PiS thieves. I hope that the prosecution will file an appeal against the decision of Zio's fossils. (translated)

Główną obawą jest to, czy wszystkie wydatki ponoszone przez hiperskalerów mogą wygenerować niezbędny zwrot z zainwestowanego kapitału, który by je uzasadniał— Główną obawą jest to, czy wszystkie wydatki ponoszone przez hiperskalerów mogą wygenerować niezbędny zwrot z zainwestowanego kapitału, który by je uzasadniał — mówi Ross Mayfield, strateg inwestycyjny w firmie Baird. #sztucznainteligencja #kryzysfinansowy #inwestycje

Argument about fair competition is raised by Jarosław Królewski. We can often say that a certain team plays with the twelfth player. Wisła Kraków stands by the statement that the lack of fans affects the result of sporting competition. Wisła fans are very fanatical; we see how they perform at their own stadium. The atmosphere at the Biała Gwiazda stadium is great. It has some justification. (translated)

❗️EXPLANATION In connection with the politicians' spin regarding the prosecutor's opposition to the issuance of the ironclad letter, which allegedly prevented the District Court from issuing such a letter, I present statements from court rulings indicating that this is an ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT understanding of the provision of Article 281 paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 👉🏻As noted by the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk in its ruling of March 29, 2022, case file II AKz 222/22: “The understanding of the provision of Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in such a way that the prosecutor's opposition would be binding on the district court would lead to systemic inconsistency and would at the same time be an expression of the prosecutor's privilege over the suspect, while reducing the district court to the role of a subordinate entity to the prosecutor's decision. Such a solution would be extremely ineffective and contradict the requirements of procedural economy, which speaks against involving in a specific proceeding as a procedural body an entity that does not have full powers to resolve the issue at stake in that proceeding. If the legislator intended to grant the prosecutor a decisive voice regarding the issuance of an ironclad letter, considering that they should be equipped with that competence as the body conducting the preparatory proceedings and responsible for its effects, they should have done so explicitly by modifying the provisions on functional competence for issuing an ironclad letter in preparatory proceedings. Since this has not been done, leaving this decision in the hands of the district court, the current regulatory provisions - given their lack of clarity and their systemic inconsistency - should be interpreted on the assumption that primacy should be given to the interpretation taking into account systemic assumptions, including rules resulting from the principles of adversariality and equality of the parties. In summary, the systemic and functional interpretation of Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure leads to the conclusion that the district court considering the suspect's application for the issuance of an ironclad letter in pre-trial proceedings is not bound by the prosecutor's opposition.” 👉🏻Also, the Court of Appeal in Krakow in the case with case file II AKz 523/22 in the justification of the ruling of February 7, 2023: “Analyzing the linguistic interpretation of the aforementioned provision, it is necessary to refer to the designation of the word opposition, which is 'disagreement, protest' (according to SJP PWN - internet service), 'resisting in any form' (...). Also, in the systemic context of the criminal procedure act, 'opposition' means a lack of consent to a specific decision or procedural action and entails a negatory or cassatory effect. This is also how this institution is perceived by W. Hermeliński and B. Nita-Światłowska, indicating that after the amendment the prosecutor was supposed (allegedly) to have the possibility of 'blocking the court with their statement of disagreement on the issuance of an ironclad letter' (...). Therefore, it cannot be acknowledged that the legislator in the amendment to the procedural law on April 20, 2021, established a separate form of 'opposition' and granted the prosecutor shaping powers, i.e., the ability to bind the court with conditions under which the court would consider the suspect's application, especially in the context of applying and shaping the financial guarantee indicated in Article 283 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is also supported by the purposive and logical interpretation of the mentioned regulation. The institution of opposition contained in Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is of an extraordinary nature and was intended by the legislator to limit the judicial independence of the court. Adopting the concept of the possibility of conditioning the opposition on exonerating conditions would lead to a further limitation of the judicial independence of the court than in the case of a literal reading of the provision. (...) In summary - the prosecutor's opposition indicated in Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has a purely negatory character and cannot be burdened with any reservations. This does not take away from the prosecutor's ability to formulate a specific procedural position regarding the conditions for the issuance of an ironclad letter - nevertheless, the court ruling on the subject of the ironclad letter is not bound by them.” (translated)

Today, the amazing @beneslenka is celebrating her birthday. A woman whom I admire because she has already raised several million crowns for help to Ukraine by painting little birds. And she shows us all that an individual can help in a very significant way. Leni, all the best! You are absolutely amazing! 🫂🫶🏻 (translated)

Jeśli wyda się agentowi sztucznej inteligencji abstrakcyjne polecenie pozyskania określonych danych, to — o ile nie zabroniono mu tego w sposób wyraźny i bez wyjątków — uzna on nielegalne metody za uzasadnione środki do osiągnięcia celuKrytycy koncernu OpenAI ostrzegają, że agenty tej firmy zachowują się jak kapryśni dżinowie: dżin wprawdzie spełnia wyrażone życzenie swojego pana, ale często robi to w sposób niezwykle dosłowny i nieprzewidywalny, czyli taki, którego składający życzenie nigdy nie chciał — wyjaśnia krytyk AI i ekspert w dziedzinie kryptografii Bruce Schneier. #OpenAI #sztucznaInteligencja #bezpieczeństwo

The government is responsible for the policies affecting fuel prices. The President presented his own legislative solutions, indicating specific areas for cost reduction – primarily through limiting wholesale, refinery, and import margins, as well as measures concerning excise duty. According to the calculations presented, this could lead to a decrease in fuel prices by about 2 PLN per liter. The President of the Republic of Poland is the guardian of the Constitution. The first law was not vetoed but directed to the Constitutional Tribunal for preventive control due to the impermissible retroactive effect of the law. If the government actually sought an agreement, they would correct the provisions to ensure full compliance with the fundamental law. The proposal to declassify the annex to the report on the dissolution of WSI was prepared in the National Security Bureau strictly according to the guidelines of the Constitutional Tribunal. The document could be published immediately; however, completing the legal procedure requires the co-signature of the Prime Minister. In the current political and geopolitical situation in which Poland finds itself, starting a discussion on access to weapons is not a bad thing. Less than 1% of Poles have any experience with firearms. I believe that opening such a discussion is fully justified. [Russian Federation at G20] For the first time in history, Poland has been invited to participate in the G20 meetings. President Karol Nawrocki's position towards Putin's Russia is unequivocal and was clearly articulated, among other things, during his speech at the UN forum. (translated)

Obywatel Ukrainy Wołodymyr Żurawlow, podejrzewany o udział w wysadzeniu gazociągu Nord Stream, złożył wniosek o azyl polityczny w Chorwacji, uzasadniając go obawą przed brakiem sprawiedliwego procesu w Niemczech, mimo że procedura jego ekstradycji została już rozpoczęta. #NordStream #azylpolityczny #ekstradycja

Sejm i Senat odrzuciły sprawozdanie KRRiT. W uzasadnieniu są wyroki sądów, bezczynność, przewlekłość postępowań, rażące naruszenie prawa i niewystarczające egzekwowanie opłat koncesyjnych, szczególnie wobec TV Republika. Nawrocki zapoznał się z argumentami. I odpowiedział, że kategorycznie się z nimi nie zgadza. Tyle. Z wyrokami sądów też najwyraźniej można się po prostu kategorycznie nie zgodzić i mieć je gdzieś. Tak jak obywateli. #Polska #prawo #media

🛑 25 kwietnia 2024 roku Centralne Biuro Antykorupcyjne zawiadomiło prokuraturę o podejrzeniu popełnienia przestępstwa przez byłego Szefa CBA Andrzeja Stróżnego, polegającego na przekroczeniu uprawnień na szkodę interesu publicznego, w celu osiągnięcia korzyści majątkowej. Audyt przeprowadzony w tej służbie na początku 2024 roku jasno wykazał, że na potrzeby A. Stróżnego ze środków finansowych CBA zakupiono w Warszawie lokal mieszkalny za kwotę 1️⃣ mln 2️⃣5️⃣5️⃣ tys. zł ‼️ ➡️ Prokuratura Okręgowa w Warszawie wszczęła w tej sprawie śledztwo. Prokurator - po przesłuchaniu 4️⃣0️⃣ świadków - nie miał żadnych wątpliwości, że istnieje uzasadnione podejrzenie popełnienia przestępstwa. ➡️ Wczoraj prokurator ogłosił byłemu szefowi CBA zarzuty z art. 231 § 2 kk w zw. z art. 12 § 1 kk w związku z wykorzystywaniem w latach 2020-2023, do celów innych niż służbowe, dwóch lokali konspiracyjnych CBA. ▶️ Dla jasności: prokuratorskie zarzuty dotyczą wykorzystywania wbrew prawu mieszkania operacyjnego, a to jest już poważna sprawa. #korupcja #CBA #sprawiedliwość

Panie Leśkiewicz, mam nadzieję, że w końcu zdobędzie się Pan na odwagę i odpowie mi publicznie. W końcu "po pierwsze Polacy" - tak? Skoro Kancelaria twierdzi, że ten projekt "doprowadzi do realnej obniżki cen paliw", to postanowiłem pokrótce przedstawić opinii publicznej jego rzeczywistą treść. Nie konferencję prasową. Nie hasła. Nie marketing polityczny jak macie państwo w zwyczaju robić a: Projekt ustawy. Bo mam wrażenie, że właśnie tego elementu w państwa wypowiedziach konsekwentnie brakuje. Bo z samego tekstu ustawy wynika coś znacznie mniej efektownego 🤷‍♂️ Po pierwsze: maksymalne marże nie zostają ustalone ustawą. Projekt stanowi jedynie, że po spełnieniu określonych przesłanek Rada Ministrów MOŻE wydać rozporządzenie i dopiero w nim określić wysokość marż. Sam projekt nie mówi, czy będzie to 20 groszy, 50 groszy czy 1 zł. Nie mówi też, że rozporządzenie musi zostać wydane 🤷‍♂️ Po drugie: z akcyzą jest dokładnie tak samo. Minister Finansów MOŻE ją obniżyć. Nie musi. Państwa własne uzasadnienie przyznaje wprost, że skali skutków finansowych nie da się dokładnie oszacować, bo zależy ona od tego, czy minister w ogóle skorzysta z tej możliwości, na jak długo i w jakiej wysokości.🤦‍♂️ Po trzecie: projektodawca - pan Nawrocki, sam przyznaje, że obniżenie podatków pośrednich nie gwarantuje pełnego przełożenia korzyści na ceny detaliczne. Mimo to Kancelaria publicznie mówi o "natychmiastowej" obniżce i operuje kwotami rzędu 1,70–2,60 zł na litrze, choć takiej gwarancji w ustawie po prostu nie ma 🤦‍♂️ Po czwarte: Projekt automatycznie zmniejsza dochody budzetu z podatku od sprzedaży detalicznej, według własnego uzasadnienia nawet o 600 mln zł. Ewentualna obniżka akcyzy oznaczałaby dalszy ubytek dochodów, którego projektodawca sam nie potrafi dziś określić 🤦‍♂️ I tu zaczyna się problem zasadniczy. Art. 118 ust. 3 Konstytucji wymaga przedstawienia skutków finansowych projektu. Regulamin Sejmu wymaga ponadto wskazania źródeł finansowania, jeżeli projekt pociąga za sobą obciążenie budżetu 🤷‍♂️ Nie wystarczy więc napisać: minister może obniżyć akcyzę, rząd może ograniczyć marże, a następnie ogłosić obywatelom, że Prezydent obniży ceny paliw 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ Bo Prezydent w tym projekcie cen paliw NIE OBNIŻA !. Tworzy instrumenty, których użycie pozostawia innym organom ! Rządowi. Ministrowi Finansów. Organom wykonawczym. A potem powstaje bardzo wygodna konstrukcja polityczna: Prezydent chciał. Rząd nie zrobił, Minister Finansów nie obniżył. Cena nie spadła? Winny rząd ! Cena spadła, ale kosztem kolejnego ubytku dochodów państwa? Prezydent może ogłosić sukces, a odpowiedzialność za deficyt nadal pozostaje po stronie rządu 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ W mojej opinii właśnie dlatego ten projekt jest tak zle skonstruowany, ja nawet nie nazwałbym tego "projektem ustawy". Odpowiedzialny projektodawca powinien pokazać realny mechanizm, realny koszt, realne źródło jego pokrycia i realny skutek prawny. A nie napisać ustawę, w której najważniejsze decyzje mają później podejmować inni, po czym już na etapie kampanii informacyjnej przypisywać sobie przyszły sukces. Tak się nie pisze dobrej ustawy. Tak się pisze bardzo wygodny polityczny alibi. I naprawdę nie trzeba wierzyć mi na słowo. Wystarczy przeczytać art. 34b projektu oraz jego własne uzasadnienie 🤷‍♂️ Więc mam jedno małe, ale zasadnicze pytanie, panie Leśkiewicz: czy Pan w ogóle czytał ten projekt, czy ktoś po prostu kazał Panu powtarzać takie bzdury? Odpowie Pan merytorycznie, czy znowu schowa głowę w piasek ? #Polska #prawo #polityka