Search

Piotr Kusznieruk described the court's decision to deny the arrest of Piotr after the protest as a disgrace for the prosecution. He stated that, in his opinion, the lack of high probability of committing a crime meant that the prosecution had not demonstrated the basic premise for applying the arrest. He claimed that Piotr had spent over 50 hours deprived of freedom, and the police conducted a brutal intervention and a request for arrest was submitted without convincing evidence. He noted that the denial of arrest does not mean acquittal, but he considered it a serious signal for the prosecution. He called for the accountability of the police officers and their superiors. #prawo #sprawiedliwość #prokuratura (translated)

Bartosz Lewandowski called the situation a disgrace for the National Prosecutor's Office. He wrote that the lack of a high probability of committing an offense meant that the court had already at this stage determined that the crime had not been demonstrated even to a degree justifying the application of preventive measures. #Polska #prawo #sprawiedliwość (translated)

Bartosz Malewski informed that the court did not grant the prosecution's request for a month of temporary detention for Piotr. According to Malewski, the prosecutor justified the request with concerns that Piotr might hide and an assessment that there is a high probability of him committing further crimes. Malewski wrote that together with lawyers Magda Prządka and Magda Majkowska, he convinced the court that there were no grounds for imposing detention. He claimed that it was not sufficiently substantiated that Piotr had committed the alleged acts and that Friday's events should be treated as an incident requiring thorough explanation. According to Malewski, Piotr has a permanent place of residence, is socially engaged, and is a firefighter in the volunteer fire department, so there is no real risk that he would hide. He added that after the defenders reached him, Piotr, feeling safer, started limited cooperation with the authorities. Malewski also emphasized that the lack of cooperation is Piotr's right and should not be a basis for preventive measures. Malewski also assessed that the forecast for further criminal activity had no rational basis. He wrote that Piotr had not been convicted and that his behavior on Friday was not aimed at committing the alleged acts, which, in Malewski's view, undermined the legal qualification adopted by the prosecution. He informed that the court did not apply other preventive measures, such as police supervision, and that Piotr would respond to the charges at liberty. He added that assistance was provided as part of a procedural intervention by Ordo Iuris. #wolność #sprawiedliwość #prawo (translated)

Prem evaluated the recording from the body camera and pointed out nine violations that, in his opinion, were committed by the intervening individuals. He claimed that one of the police officers only provided their rank, without a name, and that the officers did not explain the actual reason for the identification. Referring to Article 15 of the Police Act was, as he wrote, insufficient to justify this action. According to Prem, there were also no legal or factual grounds for the identification, which he considered unlawful. The author also accused the police officers of violating the principle of least intrusive action as per Article 15(6) of the Police Act. He considered a mocking comment directed at the man and an approach within 45 cm to be a manifestation of psychological pressure and a violation of dignity. He also wrote that the order to move to another location had no legal basis. Prem asserted that the officers used physical force without prior calls to comply with the law and warnings required by Article 34 of the Act of May 24, 2013, on measures of direct coercion and firearms. He listed possible consequences: violation of personal inviolability under Article 217 of the Penal Code and potential abuse of power or failure to fulfill duties under Article 231 § 1 of the Penal Code, which carries a penalty of up to 3 years of imprisonment. He regarded the most significant issue to be the man's escape from the grip. According to Prem, if the grip was unlawful, the citizen would not, in principle, have committed an offense under Article 222 or Article 224 of the Penal Code, and self-defense against the unlawful action of a public officer would not be punishable. #policja #prawo #uczciwość (translated)

Piotr Kusznieruk accused Professor Sadurski of condemning the journalist's vulgar comment more strongly than the convicted politician he defends received a five-year prison sentence for crimes involving corruption. He pointed out that the sentence is not legally binding, but in his view, that does not justify disregarding the findings of the first-instance court. Kusznieruk wrote that Sadurski has the right to criticize uncivil language, but he should also address the seriousness of the actions determined by the court. He added that Sadurski's membership in the Venice Commission remains significant when assessing his public statements, although he does not speak on behalf of that institution. He also criticized the closure of discussions under the pretext of fighting trolls, arguing that it is difficult to reconcile that with openness to arguments. #Polska #korupcja #debata (translated)

Bartosz Malewski wrote that the detention protocol and charges were presented to Piotr 30 hours after his arrest. He assessed that this was the first properly conducted action in the proceedings and added that during this time Piotr was removed from handcuffs for the first time. According to Malewski, Piotr was charged with forcing police officers to refrain from taking action and violating the bodily integrity of the police officers. In the case of one of the officers, the charge was said to include actions threatening loss of life or serious bodily harm. Malewski cited the provisions: Article 224 § 2 of the Penal Code in conjunction with Article 222 § 1a of the Penal Code in relation to Article 57a § 1 of the Penal Code in conjunction with Article 11 & 2 of the Penal Code, as well as Article 224 § 2 of the Penal Code in conjunction with Article 222 § 1 of the Penal Code in relation to Article 57a § 1 of the Penal Code in conjunction with Article 11 & 2 of the Penal Code. He stated that Piotr did not admit to the alleged acts and refused to provide explanations, but he submitted an extensive statement about the course of events from his own perspective and about the period of detention so far. Malewski also informed that a request had been submitted, among other things, for an examination of Piotr's health status. #policja #prawo #sprawiedliwość (translated)

Sebastian Kaleta called the publication of the recording another disgrace and wondered why it was released only after more than a day. He claimed that the material undermines previous reports of an alleged attack on the officer and shows an unjustified attempt to identify a citizen. According to Kaleta, the officer did not provide a reason for taking action, which allegedly violated internal procedures. Citing established case law from the Supreme Court, he called for an investigation into the suspicion of exceeding authority — if the identification occurred without reason or for the unlawful purpose of establishing a list of assembly participants. Kaleta wrote that the man was alone and had no witnesses. He also claimed that the protesters outside the Constitutional Tribunal felt besieged by the police and feared the creation of a list of participants, for which, as he emphasized, the police had no right. He admitted that the man quickly moved to the office so that further actions took place in the presence of witnesses. He assessed that the police directed at the Constitutional Tribunal did not have the trust of the protesters. #Polska #protesty #policja (translated)

Jacek Ozdoba stated that the recordings published by the police revealed, in his opinion, numerous irregularities during Piotr's arrest. He questioned why the officers did not provide a specific reason for requesting documents and emphasized the knife issue, although — according to the account presented — Piotr did not use it. Ozdoba demanded clarification on whether the policewoman sustained injuries and what evidence exists for that. He assessed that the recordings undermined information regarding her health status. He also pointed to allegations concerning actions taken after the arrest, which — as he wrote — could indicate the possibility of a crime being committed. He also questioned the conditioning of contact with a lawyer on providing personal data, reminding about the arrested person's right to contact a defender as stipulated in Article 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He asked whether he was allowed to notify a close person, whether the measures applied were necessary and proportional, and whether he was provided with adequate medical assistance. According to a statement by Piotr W., which Ozdoba referred to, comprehensive medical examinations were not conducted. Ozdoba also raised concerns regarding the legal grounds for the arrest and pointed to the possibility of judicial review based on Article 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In his opinion, the actions of the officers should also be assessed in light of Article 231 of the Penal Code. He wrote that a uniform does not exempt one from responsibility, and an arrest does not strip a person of their rights. He added that the course of actions and communication by the police, which he assessed presented many facts in a way inconsistent with reality, raised justified concerns of provocation. #Polska #Policja #Prawo (translated)

Bartosz Lewandowski asked the Polish Police about the legal and factual basis for identifying Piotr. He wrote that, in his opinion, the police cannot preventively determine the data of participants in demonstrations or gatherings without a specific reason, such as a suspicion of committing a misdemeanor or the need to identify witnesses of a crime. He noted that the recording began when the officers were running after the man and asked what had happened earlier and whether superiors had ordered the identification of specific individuals. He assessed that the film left more questions. #Polska #Policja #Demonstracje (translated)

The author wrote that the recording showed a lack of response to police commands, an attack on a police officer, fleeing the scene of the crime, and the capture of the perpetrator. He criticized the supporters of PiS for continuing to defend this behavior and stated that they have no chance. #polska #bezpieczeństwo #prawo #PL (translated)

Zbigniew Bogucki announced that the reaction of the President of the Republic of Poland will be decisive and symmetrical. He claimed that President Nawrocki is ready for various scenarios, including an attempt to forcibly enter the Constitutional Tribunal and remove Bogdan Święczkowski from it. Bogucki ruled out a compromise with the current authorities and questioned why it would be necessary to negotiate with individuals who, as he claimed, commit crimes. He also called for the presentation of documents confirming that Berek has the required experience and actually performed the work, rather than merely being listed as a legal advisor. As support for this doubt, he cited two opinions, including that of Prof. Piotrowski, and a statement by Prof. Grabowska on one of the television stations. He emphasized that this is the position of recognized constitutionalists, and not just his or President Nawrocki's, and stated that the ruling authorities do not have the required documents. #Polska #Prawo #TrybunałKonstytucyjny (translated)

Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka cited Donald Tusk's words about "blowing the chairman Święczkowski off his saddle." She wrote that using the prosecution without real grounds for a crime to pressure a person holding a constitutional office, to lead to their removal or to paralyze the body, constitutes an abuse of power and criminal activity. #Polska #prawo #polityka (translated)

Magdalena Prządka-Leszczyńska informed that, in connection with the detention of Piotr at the headquarters of the Association of Free Speech, she filed a notification of suspected crime committed by the intervening police officers. She wrote that the activities involved MPs Dorota Arciszewska-Mielewczyk, Jarosław Kaczyński, Marek Suski, and Jan Mosiński, and the police still did not allow the defender to access the detainee nor did they disclose his whereabouts. #Polska #Policja #Prawo (translated)

TVN24 reported that Marcin Kierwiński stated that it was decided to file a notification with the prosecutor's office regarding the possibility of a crime being committed by journalists from Telewizja Republika, whom he described rather as officials. https://t.co/2TqJpcI8W2 #prawo #media #Polska (translated)

The author of the post asked whether it is possible to take dozens of animals away from someone, export some of them abroad, and only later resolve in court whether a crime was committed. In his opinion, the case of the zoo in Łączna showed that someone's business and life could be destroyed before an indictment reaches the court. #zwierzęta #prawo #sprawiedliwość #PL (translated)

Michał Sopiński wrote that Berek was not a judge of the Constitutional Tribunal and did not have the immunity of a Constitutional Tribunal judge because he did not take an oath before the President of Poland. He cited Article 128 of the Penal Code, indicating that it imposed penalties of 3 to 20 years in prison for actions aimed at violently removing a constitutional organ of the state, from 3 months to 5 years for preparations for such a crime, and from 1 to 10 years for using violence or unlawful threats to influence the official activities of such an organ. #Prawo #Konstytucja #TK (translated)