Search

Getting caught for three straight hours doesn't seem like an option to me, not even a bad one. What they want is a cut of him stammering and nervous, after taking hits, as they did in the 2022 debates. They will use the son and the family of an 80-year-old man. What we would see would be nothing close to good for Lula. (translated)

In 2025, thanks to my swift reaction and the initiation of an investigation, this lecturer was dismissed from the Academy of Justice. Unfortunately, today Maria Ejchart and Sławomir Cudak reinstated Dr. Jakub Czarkowski, who at that time protected this lecturer, to the position of prorector. Meanwhile, the disciplinary spokesperson who effectively prosecuted this lecturer was dismissed by Messrs. Cudak and Czarkowski. (translated)

Donald Tusk talks about Poland flourishing economically, while at the same time hospitals stop admitting patients due to exhaustion of funds for medication programs. Mr. Prime Minister, success propaganda will not heal patients. You are unable to govern, so it’s time for resignation! (translated)

I have a problem with this issue because in conjunction with Scandinavian social democracy™️ and the "welfare state," conscription makes sense, but when Cycolina, a proponent of messing with the state in every possible way, talks about conscription, it is my duty to laugh at it; I won't die for a confederate country made of crap. (translated)

I understand the race for arguments, but your train has already left the platform with the passport. The state has a legal obligation to issue documents to a citizen unless there is a court decision. Please leave the regulations from the People's Republic of Poland in the People's Republic of Poland. (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)

Karol Nawrocki will deliver a speech today. The time of the speech is today at 8 PM. President Karol Nawrocki will deliver the address. Paweł Szefernaker, the head of the Cabinet of the President of Poland, informed about the planned speech of the head of state on the X platform. (translated)

The introduction of mandatory military service for those turning 18 and 19 means the establishment of an entire legal framework. The system will encourage the regulation of relations to military service. Lack of compliance may cause various life difficulties - lack of a passport, state-related issues. (translated)

Here is the translation: "There is the lead rope! 👍 What was concealed by the closed gate at Seszták yesterday could not be hidden in Kecskemét! There's Bazsi! Wrinkled white shirt, head down, accompanied by a few black-masked tax officials. Where has the Szekler blood gone? Where is the big vest and the innocent cultural-saving tale now? Nowhere... Only the bare numbers remain! 1079 times, 17.3 billion forints shuffled into the party's treasury before the elections. In the NKA 'swimming pool', they have turned off the tap, no more splashing around. On Monday, he was still threatening as a minister, now he's being pushed through the negotiating door. Does he dare to tell the judge that the Somló dumpling eating contest served the survival of the Hungarian nation? It's just a matter of minutes before thirty days; Miklós can already warm up the upper bunk at Nagy Ignác!" (translated)