So, Prokipczak had claimed, under oath, that he remembered NOTHING of what he had said during his attack on me.
Prokipczak however, did NOT deny calling me a murderer...........confusing?
Yes, if he could , under oath, state that he had no memory of what he said, then surely he could easily deny calling me a murderer, just as much as not deny it, and still be telling the truth?
He knew what he had done, he knew what he had apologised to me for, in front of witnesses, he knew, and remembered, that one of my conditions for even meeting him and hearing what he had to say was that he bought flowers and chocolates for the ladies he had terrorised when he had attacked me, and apologised to them...which, like any scared bully, he had done.
He knew I had witnesses to this, so he was careful not to directly perjure himself, in a manner that could be proven (by both my and Witness testimony), or so he thought, and then the Judge intervened, and protected Prokipczak from himself....
But, when asked WHY he had carried out this appalling attack on me, Prokipczak shocked me, (not easy for a Polish Police Officer or Prosecutor to do to me at this point).
I have mentioned he has a girlfriend, I have told you how she behaved when Prokipczak (at his request remember) was given an opportunity to apologise to me....(click the link to read about it:
http://piotrmchalepiotrprokipczak.blogspot.com/2018/03/prokipczaks-apology-sickening-not-one-i.html
But here , in open Court, while under oath, Prokipczak, when asked WHY he had attacked me, and said the things he had said to me during that attack, now decided to betray his own girlfriend, to effectively blame HER for his actions, he decided to lie, he decided that he would impugn his girlfriends character, this lady looks after Prokipczaks children while he works some 200km away (he got transferred out of Gorlice, as did his Boss Kom. Gawlik, in a not very promising career move at the instigation of very Senior Polish Police authorities in Krakow, and perhaps even Warsaw, who knows?).
I remind, I do not speak, read or write the Polish language.
Prokipczaks girlfriend does not speak, read or write the English language.
During Prokipczaks weasel apology, his girlfriend had abused both me, and the memory of my dead child Piotr.
Prokipczaks explanation for his motive for attacking me that night?
He claimed, under oath, at peril of perjury for lying......
That he had checked his girlfriends phone, that he had seen text(sms) messages between his girlfriend and I, and.....decided that we were having an affair.......!!!!!
So, my understanding of this extraordinary sworn testimony was this:
1/. Prokipczak was saying that his girlfriend was a liar.
2/. Prokipczak was saying that his girlfriend was a cheat.
3/. Prokipczak was saying that his girlfriend was dishonest.
4/. Prokipczak was saying that his girlfriend was unfaithful.
5/. Prokipczak was saying that he was so paranoid, distrusting, controlling of his girlfriend.....that he would take her phone and check her messages (maybe her call lists too?), to satisfy his own paranoia, insecurity, and jealousy....and that was why he had attacked me.......
So, he remembered (according to his sworn testimony) nothing of the attack, but did remember WHY he had attacked me.
This was, of course, also an attack on my character, which I wanted to expose as being entirely untrue, and unwarranted, in short, I wanted to examine this extraordinary claim being made by Prokipczak......
This, even I knew, would be easy to do, and would expose Prokipczaks lies, and then perhaps the Judge would finally allow me, as the Prosecutor remember, to cross examine him further about the attack on me.
So, I stood up, and asked him one question, already knowing the answer (as you do reader):
"Does your girlfriend speak English?"
(my next question was going to be:
"In what language were these alleged text(sms) messages written?")
At this point, shockingly, the Judge jumped in, cutting me off, silencing Prokipczak, to say to me:
"That is irrelevant" !!!!
Now, if , as is the case, Prokipczaks girlfriend does not speak English, and I do not speak Polish, it would (as any sentient being could work out), be entirely impossible for she and I to communicate, never mind have an affair. I simply wanted to prove this to the Court, and thus prove Prokipczak was lying under oath.
But, despite my argument to the Judge, that if the Court was going to permit Prokipczak to give sworn testimony that impugned my character, I, as the Prosecutor, should be permitted to rebut that testimony, should be permitted to question him further about this slanderous accusation, once again, the Judge refused to allow me to present my case, or question testimony that would be recorded as evidence.
I was once again denied my legal right to expose the lie and rebut it in its entirety.
I should also point out, that at this moment, I "knew" that Prokipczaks girlfriend was to be present as a witness herself (which the Judge then later denied to me as well) and so was sure I could prove that he was committing perjury.....oh well, Polish Court again...........
So Prokipczak first denied any memory of his attack on me, but the Court would not permit me to question him about his stone-cold-sober apology, which he had full recall about, then Prokipczak attacked my character, but even worse in some aspects, he also attacked the character of his own girlfriend, who lives in his house, looks after his children, and cares for him deeply, by suggesting that she was having an affair with a man with whom it is impossible she can communicate, and who insulted me so gravely when Prokipczak made his weasel apology......honestly, how low can you go? Is there no depth Prokipczak will not crawl down to in order to cover for himself?
I should point out, in order to be fair.....
Prokipczak later also said, under oath, that he soon realised his mistake, and then knew his girlfriend was NOT having an affair with me........!!
I was looking forward to Prokipczaks girlfriend giving her evidence under oath, I was looking forward to her speaking at length about her taking Prokipczak from the Pub as he attacked me, of her speaking openly about his apology 2 days later, and then her speaking about Prokipczak accusing her of having an affair...
I mean, if he was telling the truth (he wasn't), then surely he must have attacked his girlfriend with these wild accusations, surely they must have argued about this supposed affair?
I also looked forward to her explaining how she spoke and understood no English whatsoever....
Indeed, I was sure I could now prove that Prokipczak had attacked me for the reasons I knew to be the reality, the false allegations against me contained in a joke of a Police file, and thus would prove to the Court that that these same false allegations had impacted upon me very severely, as is the standard under Article 234 of the Polish criminal code, the 2nd part of the indictment.
Sadly, the Polish "Justice" system would intervene, again.
My witnesses, I would be told by the Court, were, suddenly not coming, I would not be permitted, despite my full legal entitlement to do so, to question Prokipczak about any element of his sworn testimony to the Court, it was all "irrelevant", the Judge had made sure of that.
Please click on the link to remind how my witnesses were suddenly denied to me by the Court
http://piotrmchalepiotrprokipczak.blogspot.com/2018/04/prokipczaks-sworn-evidencein-two.html
Thursday 26 April 2018
Wednesday 25 April 2018
Prokipczaks sworn evidence, part two......impugning character is his favourite trick......Now, under oath, HE blames his own GIRLFRIEND.... for HIM attacking ME!....and highlights his own callousness, cowardice, insecuroties and dishonsty...unintentionally
I have spoken quite a bit about the criminal charge under Article 234 of the Polish Criminal code in recent posts here, and for good reason.
Prokipczak was a crucial witness in this regard, his evidence would (if he was honest) prove that I was the subject of assaults, threats and attacks from him, caused directly by his knowledge of the false accusation made against me by Olekysk, including that I was a Murderer, an opinion such as that which Prokipczak repeatedly expressed during his violent attack on me, could ONLY have been formed through his access of the Police file, despite that file also containing Medical proof, Doctors sworn statements, and Expert Medical opinions all saying that her allegations were false, and could not have occurred as she claimed.
I would also point out that at no time, did any Polish Police Officer, Detective or Prosecutor ever approach me, question me, ask me for a statement, nothing, the opposite in fact-
I was denied my rights as a Father (more of which later), I tried for 3 years to make a statement, but when I did so, I was attacked by senior Police Officers, again threatened, thrown out of the Police station on one occasion, unlawfully prevented from leaving the Police station on another occasion.
Both the Irish Govt and a Member of the European Parliament wrote on my behalf to Polish Prosecutors and Government Ministers asking that I be permitted to make a statement, but they were lied to by the Polish Officials, and to this day, I have never been permitted to make a statement about my own sons death.
On one occasion, I was confronted in a Prosecutors office, and threatened with arrest, if I insisted on trying to speak about Piotrs death, and the Prosecutor produced an internal Prosecutorial document, written by one JANUSZ IWINSKI, the Boss of the Regional Prosecutors office in Nowy Sacz, who had written to the Prosecutors office in Limanowa, ORDERING them NOT to permit me to speak about Piotr, or his death, in a sworn statement. (more on this later also)
So Prokipczak, in his first testimony, claimed he had "forgotten" what he did and said during his attack on me, while the Judge prevented me from asking about his apology, even though Prokipczak had mentioned it himself, without being asked about it.
So, I could not, according to this Polish Judge, cross-examine a witness about his earlier sworn evidence.....Polish Justice.
Then we moved on to Prokipczaks next bit of evidence....WHY he had attacked me that night. He knew he was drunk, he knew he had attacked me, he knew he was aggressive, but no more detail remained in his alcohol addled brain.....as to what he remembered about his stone-cold sober apology?
The Judge blocked me asking about it, entirely.
But, Prokipczak said he had a "reason" for attacking me....and it was a doozy!
I could not believe what I was being told he was saying.....this wasn't really his fault......it was mine, it was his girlfriends, but not really his...........this guy can really plumb the depths.....
Remember please, I speak no Polish bar about 5 words, I understand about the same, I cannot read or write a single word in Polish.
His girlfriend I had "met" through a mutual acquaintance about 4 times I think, but she speaks no English at all, understands no English at all, so any "communication" I ever had with her was not in fact communication with her, it was through our mutual acquaintance who works with her, and she would translate whatever his girlfriend was saying, and anything I might say.
I had probably been in Prokipczaks girlfriends company for a total of about 3 hours, ever, had never spoken a direct word to her, nor her to me.
Bear this in mind when in my next post I describe Prokipczaks sworn evidence, yep, under oath at peril of Perjury charges for lying......as I said, a doozy........and about as dishonest, and dishonourable as it was possible to be, all the while trying to cover up his own knowledge of events that night- how do I know that to be the case? Because he told someone else...and they told me immediately !
Prokipczak was a crucial witness in this regard, his evidence would (if he was honest) prove that I was the subject of assaults, threats and attacks from him, caused directly by his knowledge of the false accusation made against me by Olekysk, including that I was a Murderer, an opinion such as that which Prokipczak repeatedly expressed during his violent attack on me, could ONLY have been formed through his access of the Police file, despite that file also containing Medical proof, Doctors sworn statements, and Expert Medical opinions all saying that her allegations were false, and could not have occurred as she claimed.
I would also point out that at no time, did any Polish Police Officer, Detective or Prosecutor ever approach me, question me, ask me for a statement, nothing, the opposite in fact-
I was denied my rights as a Father (more of which later), I tried for 3 years to make a statement, but when I did so, I was attacked by senior Police Officers, again threatened, thrown out of the Police station on one occasion, unlawfully prevented from leaving the Police station on another occasion.
Both the Irish Govt and a Member of the European Parliament wrote on my behalf to Polish Prosecutors and Government Ministers asking that I be permitted to make a statement, but they were lied to by the Polish Officials, and to this day, I have never been permitted to make a statement about my own sons death.
On one occasion, I was confronted in a Prosecutors office, and threatened with arrest, if I insisted on trying to speak about Piotrs death, and the Prosecutor produced an internal Prosecutorial document, written by one JANUSZ IWINSKI, the Boss of the Regional Prosecutors office in Nowy Sacz, who had written to the Prosecutors office in Limanowa, ORDERING them NOT to permit me to speak about Piotr, or his death, in a sworn statement. (more on this later also)
So Prokipczak, in his first testimony, claimed he had "forgotten" what he did and said during his attack on me, while the Judge prevented me from asking about his apology, even though Prokipczak had mentioned it himself, without being asked about it.
So, I could not, according to this Polish Judge, cross-examine a witness about his earlier sworn evidence.....Polish Justice.
Then we moved on to Prokipczaks next bit of evidence....WHY he had attacked me that night. He knew he was drunk, he knew he had attacked me, he knew he was aggressive, but no more detail remained in his alcohol addled brain.....as to what he remembered about his stone-cold sober apology?
The Judge blocked me asking about it, entirely.
But, Prokipczak said he had a "reason" for attacking me....and it was a doozy!
I could not believe what I was being told he was saying.....this wasn't really his fault......it was mine, it was his girlfriends, but not really his...........this guy can really plumb the depths.....
Remember please, I speak no Polish bar about 5 words, I understand about the same, I cannot read or write a single word in Polish.
His girlfriend I had "met" through a mutual acquaintance about 4 times I think, but she speaks no English at all, understands no English at all, so any "communication" I ever had with her was not in fact communication with her, it was through our mutual acquaintance who works with her, and she would translate whatever his girlfriend was saying, and anything I might say.
I had probably been in Prokipczaks girlfriends company for a total of about 3 hours, ever, had never spoken a direct word to her, nor her to me.
Bear this in mind when in my next post I describe Prokipczaks sworn evidence, yep, under oath at peril of Perjury charges for lying......as I said, a doozy........and about as dishonest, and dishonourable as it was possible to be, all the while trying to cover up his own knowledge of events that night- how do I know that to be the case? Because he told someone else...and they told me immediately !
Tuesday 24 April 2018
UPDATE- Prokipczaks sworn evidence..in two parts....here's part one......
So the trial itself related to 2 charges in the criminal indictment, the first was a "straightforward" charge of perjury, the second charge, under Article 234 of the Polish Criminal Code, relates to falsely accusing a person of a crime, and the consequences inflicted on that person resulting from the false accusation.
Prokipczak was brought under summons to give evidence, as a result of his attack on me, what he had said and done during the attack, what was contained in his weasel apology, and, because the only "source" of the false information which he used when attacking me, was the false statements and allegations contained in Police files, some even created by Prokipczak himself, Oleksyk, and other Police Officers, all proven to be entirely false within perhaps weeks of first being made.
Please click on this link for a Polish Court decision regarding the false allegations made by Oleksyk:
http://nojusticeinpoland.blogspot.com/2018/04/to-get-sense-of-indictment-no-better.html
Prokipczak , you will remember, threatened to kill me, to slit my throat, to dump my body in a river, he made wild accusations against me, and on and on it went, until I contacted someone to try to get in contact with Prokipczaks girlfriend (who I did not know and who speaks no English) to come to where the attack was going on, and take him away. Link to the "apology":
http://piotrmchalepiotrprokipczak.blogspot.com/2018/03/prokipczaks-apology-sickening-not-one-i.html
This being the background, Prokipczak walked into Court, took the oath (and was now at peril of perjury charges himself if he lied under that Oath).
The first part of the questioning to Prokipczak was simple (or should have been).
In Poland the first questions to a Witness are put by the Judge, then the Prosecution gets to examine the witness (that is the theory, in my situation I was denied this right as it related to Article 234 (see above).
He admitted to the Court that he had attacked me, he admitted that he had contacted a 3rd party after the attack, asking them to please ask me if I would meet with him as he wanted to apologise.
So far, so honest, and it was here that the honesty, under oath, ended.
Under questioning from the Judge, under oath,
Prokipczak said he had no memory whatsoever of what he had said to me during the attack.
Prokipczak said he was very drunk.
Then, in theory, it became my turn to cross-examine Prokipczak.
I was focused on the two issues, the charge under Article 234 of the indictment, the effect on me of the false allegations that had been made. These allegations being behind Pokipczaks attack on me, which he knew about, ONLY because he had access to the case file. The second issue being the appalling "official Police note" he had created when illegally attending Piotrs Post-mortem, which contained outright lies and falsehoods.
Prokipczak was a serving Police Officer.
Prokipczak had gone to the Hospital following Piotrs death, and created a completely false note, and had violated Polish Law by attending the Post-mortem.
http://piotrmchalepiotrprokipczak.blogspot.com/2013/08/what-ins-piotr-prokipczak-did-next.html
Very simply, I wanted Prokipczak, while under oath, to detail what he had done during his attack on me, and why.
Now the dishonesty.....
He denied remembering anything about the attack, other than there was an attack.....
He remembered that he had asked someone else to contact me because he was scared and wanted to save himself by apologising to me......
http://piotrmchalepiotrprokipczak.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-day-after-prokipczaks-attackmr-big.html
Now, anyone who has ever been to Court has seen how it works......the Prosecution asks the witness a question, the witness answers, the Prosecution asks follow-up questions, and on it goes. The Prosecution usually, (as I did) had a series of questions prepared, in order to elicit the full truth.
However, I asked Prokipczak this same question approximately EIGHT times:
"Do you deny calling me a Murderer"?
The Judge kept interrupting, while Prokipczak kapt rambling, obfuscating, talking for 2 or 3 minutes at a time, making it impossible for the interpreter to translate his responses in a way that I could comprehend, the Judge, and Prokipczak would talk over each other, the Judge then telling me it was irrelevant (!).....(imagine being the Prosecutor where you can understand nothing of what a witness is saying in answer to your questions, and a Judge who keeps over-talking the witness at the same time, who is also completely impossible to understand, and the interpreter simply giving up- that was my situation)
I then asked the Judge to instruct Prokipczak to answer the question , and stop making speeches...
But, the Judge told me that he WAS answering me, well, the answer to my question was either
"yes"
or
"no",
it was not a 3 minute speech in Polish, which I could not comprehend, this was typical of how the Polish Judge conducted himself throughout proceedings. Which led to a (naturally, failed) attempt to have the Judge recused.
http://piotrmchalepiotrprokipczak.blogspot.com/2018/04/prokipczak-gives-evidence-in-open-court.html
Finally, and barely heard, Prokipczak admitted that he was NOT denying that he had called me a Murderer during his attack. I heard it, it can be seen on the video of the trial, but the Judge didn't hear it, or if he did, he simply ignored it.
I then attempted to ask Prokipczak about his "apology" to me. He had raised this subject himself when speaking to the Judge, he had explained how it came to pass, so it was perfectly reasonable for me to pursue this subject, find out if he remembered his own apology, made 2 days later, when completely sober.....but, naturally, the Judge shut me down, for no apparently valid legal reason, ignoring the existence of the indictment under Article 234 completely, and so this was how the Judge protected Prokipczak......from himself......
But we were not finished, in the pre-trial submissions I had informed the Court that I intended to call two witnesses to that apology to Court to give evidence, and indeed I intended to call Prokipczaks girlfriend for the same reason.
In November I made written motions to Court to have these two witnesses called to give evidence.
In March, FOUR months later, I asked the Court about when these 2 witnesses would be called, and was informed by the Court that:
I had waited until it was too late to call these witnesses!!!
I had motioned for them in May, I had submitted written motions in November, and now, in March (10 months after the initial motion, 4 months after the written motion!) the Court was acting as though I had asked for these witnesses for the first time !
The Court, naturally, refused to call these witnesses, my case was being destroyed by the Judge,the interpreter could not translate to me, the Judge was making bizarre rulings about witnesses (more of this later), the indictment was based on 2 Articles of the Polish Criminal Code, (Art. 233 and 234) but every time I attempted to speak in regards to article 234 the Judge would interrupt and tell me "that's irrelevant" ...and on it went......it looked good for Prokipczak....it looked like he would get away with not having to tell the full truth...
But
This is Prokipczak
So he wasn't finished with his evidence, and now his girlfriend (who speaks no English), was "thrown under the Bus" (for my Polish readers that's an idiom!) by Prokipzcak, when he attempted to attack me when giving evidence, what he actually did was attack his own girlfriend, and highlighted once again that he is a despicable human being.......with memory issues it seems.....or so he claimed under oath.....
In my next post I will further expose this creep for what he is, and what he is willing to say about others, including his own girlfriend, to save his own skin,
Prokipczak was brought under summons to give evidence, as a result of his attack on me, what he had said and done during the attack, what was contained in his weasel apology, and, because the only "source" of the false information which he used when attacking me, was the false statements and allegations contained in Police files, some even created by Prokipczak himself, Oleksyk, and other Police Officers, all proven to be entirely false within perhaps weeks of first being made.
Please click on this link for a Polish Court decision regarding the false allegations made by Oleksyk:
http://nojusticeinpoland.blogspot.com/2018/04/to-get-sense-of-indictment-no-better.html
Prokipczak , you will remember, threatened to kill me, to slit my throat, to dump my body in a river, he made wild accusations against me, and on and on it went, until I contacted someone to try to get in contact with Prokipczaks girlfriend (who I did not know and who speaks no English) to come to where the attack was going on, and take him away. Link to the "apology":
http://piotrmchalepiotrprokipczak.blogspot.com/2018/03/prokipczaks-apology-sickening-not-one-i.html
This being the background, Prokipczak walked into Court, took the oath (and was now at peril of perjury charges himself if he lied under that Oath).
The first part of the questioning to Prokipczak was simple (or should have been).
In Poland the first questions to a Witness are put by the Judge, then the Prosecution gets to examine the witness (that is the theory, in my situation I was denied this right as it related to Article 234 (see above).
He admitted to the Court that he had attacked me, he admitted that he had contacted a 3rd party after the attack, asking them to please ask me if I would meet with him as he wanted to apologise.
So far, so honest, and it was here that the honesty, under oath, ended.
Under questioning from the Judge, under oath,
Prokipczak said he had no memory whatsoever of what he had said to me during the attack.
Prokipczak said he was very drunk.
Then, in theory, it became my turn to cross-examine Prokipczak.
I was focused on the two issues, the charge under Article 234 of the indictment, the effect on me of the false allegations that had been made. These allegations being behind Pokipczaks attack on me, which he knew about, ONLY because he had access to the case file. The second issue being the appalling "official Police note" he had created when illegally attending Piotrs Post-mortem, which contained outright lies and falsehoods.
Prokipczak was a serving Police Officer.
Prokipczak had gone to the Hospital following Piotrs death, and created a completely false note, and had violated Polish Law by attending the Post-mortem.
http://piotrmchalepiotrprokipczak.blogspot.com/2013/08/what-ins-piotr-prokipczak-did-next.html
Very simply, I wanted Prokipczak, while under oath, to detail what he had done during his attack on me, and why.
Now the dishonesty.....
He denied remembering anything about the attack, other than there was an attack.....
He remembered that he had asked someone else to contact me because he was scared and wanted to save himself by apologising to me......
http://piotrmchalepiotrprokipczak.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-day-after-prokipczaks-attackmr-big.html
Now, anyone who has ever been to Court has seen how it works......the Prosecution asks the witness a question, the witness answers, the Prosecution asks follow-up questions, and on it goes. The Prosecution usually, (as I did) had a series of questions prepared, in order to elicit the full truth.
However, I asked Prokipczak this same question approximately EIGHT times:
"Do you deny calling me a Murderer"?
The Judge kept interrupting, while Prokipczak kapt rambling, obfuscating, talking for 2 or 3 minutes at a time, making it impossible for the interpreter to translate his responses in a way that I could comprehend, the Judge, and Prokipczak would talk over each other, the Judge then telling me it was irrelevant (!).....(imagine being the Prosecutor where you can understand nothing of what a witness is saying in answer to your questions, and a Judge who keeps over-talking the witness at the same time, who is also completely impossible to understand, and the interpreter simply giving up- that was my situation)
I then asked the Judge to instruct Prokipczak to answer the question , and stop making speeches...
But, the Judge told me that he WAS answering me, well, the answer to my question was either
"yes"
or
"no",
it was not a 3 minute speech in Polish, which I could not comprehend, this was typical of how the Polish Judge conducted himself throughout proceedings. Which led to a (naturally, failed) attempt to have the Judge recused.
http://piotrmchalepiotrprokipczak.blogspot.com/2018/04/prokipczak-gives-evidence-in-open-court.html
Finally, and barely heard, Prokipczak admitted that he was NOT denying that he had called me a Murderer during his attack. I heard it, it can be seen on the video of the trial, but the Judge didn't hear it, or if he did, he simply ignored it.
I then attempted to ask Prokipczak about his "apology" to me. He had raised this subject himself when speaking to the Judge, he had explained how it came to pass, so it was perfectly reasonable for me to pursue this subject, find out if he remembered his own apology, made 2 days later, when completely sober.....but, naturally, the Judge shut me down, for no apparently valid legal reason, ignoring the existence of the indictment under Article 234 completely, and so this was how the Judge protected Prokipczak......from himself......
But we were not finished, in the pre-trial submissions I had informed the Court that I intended to call two witnesses to that apology to Court to give evidence, and indeed I intended to call Prokipczaks girlfriend for the same reason.
In November I made written motions to Court to have these two witnesses called to give evidence.
In March, FOUR months later, I asked the Court about when these 2 witnesses would be called, and was informed by the Court that:
I had waited until it was too late to call these witnesses!!!
I had motioned for them in May, I had submitted written motions in November, and now, in March (10 months after the initial motion, 4 months after the written motion!) the Court was acting as though I had asked for these witnesses for the first time !
The Court, naturally, refused to call these witnesses, my case was being destroyed by the Judge,the interpreter could not translate to me, the Judge was making bizarre rulings about witnesses (more of this later), the indictment was based on 2 Articles of the Polish Criminal Code, (Art. 233 and 234) but every time I attempted to speak in regards to article 234 the Judge would interrupt and tell me "that's irrelevant" ...and on it went......it looked good for Prokipczak....it looked like he would get away with not having to tell the full truth...
But
This is Prokipczak
So he wasn't finished with his evidence, and now his girlfriend (who speaks no English), was "thrown under the Bus" (for my Polish readers that's an idiom!) by Prokipzcak, when he attempted to attack me when giving evidence, what he actually did was attack his own girlfriend, and highlighted once again that he is a despicable human being.......with memory issues it seems.....or so he claimed under oath.....
In my next post I will further expose this creep for what he is, and what he is willing to say about others, including his own girlfriend, to save his own skin,
Monday 23 April 2018
So, here it is, what Prokipczak said under oath, at peril of perjury, about his attack on me, and his bizarre , completely untrue, and incredibly disloyal claim about his girlfriend as to WHY he attacked me...
Yep, its hard to know about what was worse about what Prokipczak said under oath, knowing that perjury charges could follow if he was anything less than 100% honest under oath.
The headline point is that he was not honest, but worse, he attacked his girlfriends character, and my character, in a fairy story to "explain" why he attacked me.
I have never named Prokipczaks girlfriend, and I never will, but I have no doubt some of you know who she is.
She did not deserve to have her name sullied and dragged into the mud by Prokipczak, but he did it anyway, in a pathetic, disgusting, self-serving attempt to cover for himself.
I have never spoken to this woman, nor has she ever spoken to me......amongst other reasons, the most obvious and relevant one being I speak no Polish, and she speaks no English, making conversation impossible, obviously.
I have been in her "company" about 5 or 6 times I would imagine, the last time being when Prokipczak gave me a weasel apology to try to protect himself and his job, a few days after his appalling attack on me.
I ask you to click on the links below to remind yourself of what happened during Prokipczaks attack and that "apology", and my next post will detail what Prokipczak said in Court, which fully reveals how this is a man who is entirely self-obsessed, and selfish, has no decency, does not care who he sullies in the attempt to cover up for himself, and is a stranger to the truth, in fact, James Comeys words about Trumps distance from the truth and morality are just as applicable to Prokipczak.
That is my honestly held opinion, and you can form yours after reading the links below, and then my next post which will detail his sworn evidence.
http://piotrmchalepiotrprokipczak.blogspot.com/2018/03/prokipczaks-crazed-attack-this-is-what.html
http://piotrmchalepiotrprokipczak.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-day-after-prokipczaks-attackmr-big.html
http://piotrmchalepiotrprokipczak.blogspot.com/2018/03/prokipczaks-apology-sickening-not-one-i.html
The headline point is that he was not honest, but worse, he attacked his girlfriends character, and my character, in a fairy story to "explain" why he attacked me.
I have never named Prokipczaks girlfriend, and I never will, but I have no doubt some of you know who she is.
She did not deserve to have her name sullied and dragged into the mud by Prokipczak, but he did it anyway, in a pathetic, disgusting, self-serving attempt to cover for himself.
I have never spoken to this woman, nor has she ever spoken to me......amongst other reasons, the most obvious and relevant one being I speak no Polish, and she speaks no English, making conversation impossible, obviously.
I have been in her "company" about 5 or 6 times I would imagine, the last time being when Prokipczak gave me a weasel apology to try to protect himself and his job, a few days after his appalling attack on me.
I ask you to click on the links below to remind yourself of what happened during Prokipczaks attack and that "apology", and my next post will detail what Prokipczak said in Court, which fully reveals how this is a man who is entirely self-obsessed, and selfish, has no decency, does not care who he sullies in the attempt to cover up for himself, and is a stranger to the truth, in fact, James Comeys words about Trumps distance from the truth and morality are just as applicable to Prokipczak.
That is my honestly held opinion, and you can form yours after reading the links below, and then my next post which will detail his sworn evidence.
http://piotrmchalepiotrprokipczak.blogspot.com/2018/03/prokipczaks-crazed-attack-this-is-what.html
http://piotrmchalepiotrprokipczak.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-day-after-prokipczaks-attackmr-big.html
http://piotrmchalepiotrprokipczak.blogspot.com/2018/03/prokipczaks-apology-sickening-not-one-i.html
Wednesday 18 April 2018
Prokipczaks "evidence"......
Later I will post what Prokipczak offered under oath, but having reflected, I think its only fair and proper that I also tell you what Kom. Gawlik had to say, and indeed, some of what Detective Bednarz offered in his sworn testimony.
I should also inform you that I have the full case on video as it was recorded by the Court, and whilst the translation is inaudible, I have used an interpreter to confirm to me what was being said.
I, of course, won't be posting their full evidence, but rather the main thrust of what they said, and you can Judge whether you think they were honest, truthful and open......or not.
I should also inform you that I have the full case on video as it was recorded by the Court, and whilst the translation is inaudible, I have used an interpreter to confirm to me what was being said.
I, of course, won't be posting their full evidence, but rather the main thrust of what they said, and you can Judge whether you think they were honest, truthful and open......or not.
Sunday 15 April 2018
Prokipczak gives evidence in open Court, so does Kom Gawlik......., but first, to understand their "evidence", how it was given, a little about the Judge HH Langer, and his behaviour....
I discuss the trial on another of my blogs, and in my next post I will simply discuss Prokipczaks evidence under oath during that proceeding, as well as Komendant Gawliks rather, interesting sworn evidence.
However, you should know a little about how the trial was "conducted" by the Judge, and it gives a more global view of how things are done in Poland, first by the Police, then by the Prosecutors, and finally in the Courts, in the sister blogs I discuss this in greater detail, so here I limit it to the Judge who was presiding over the case in which Prokipczak and Gawlik gave their sworn testimony.
I have to first make it clear that both I, and a Lawyer I had present during the proceedings, made repeated objections to the Court over many issues of the Court violating my rights during the Trial, denying me my guaranteed right to fully understand proceedings (which were conducted in Polish, with an interpreter present), to fully understand (i.e. have in English) all documents either used or created during proceedings, his failing to order witnesses to answer the questions they were being asked, his failing to ensure that witnesses limited their speech to shorter "outbursts" in order that the interpreter had the possibility to translate to me what was being said (else how could I ask follow-up questions, or follow a pre-planned series of questions), , as well as the Court repeatedly interrupting me to say "that does not matter" whenever I tried to either question witnesses or put forward evidence of the crime under Article 234* of the Polish Criminal Code in the indictment, (which was 50% of the indictment and inherently linked to the perjury charge), and, in fact, this ended up with 2 motions for the Judge to be recused (removed from hearing the case) due to the many and various violations of Law and my rights which were permitted by the Court.
A Higher Court would later rule (on appeal) ,and in a very Polish manner, that many of these violations did take place to my detriment, but that they didn't matter!
This included the failure of the Court to provide me with translated documents (to English), meaning I had no idea what was contained within them during proceedings, and, providing me with no translations of the written record of proceedings themselves to refer to when preparing for the next hearings, some of which were 4 months apart. Apparently only I was supposed to rely on memory, of verbally half-translated testimony, while everyone else involved in the trial was provided with a full written record of the proceedings, which they could refer to throughout.
This also meant that when I would attempt to sum up the case, some one year after it started, having had 8 separate hearings, with months in between these hearings, that I was supposed to recall everything that had been said....
but hey, I was only the victim, and, oh yeah, the auxiliary Prosecutor !
However, mid-trial, in any event, and providing me with no surprise, the motions to recuse the Judge during proceedings were........... refused..............
by......................
HH Judge Joanna Zaryczny........, who at the time of making this decision had been a Judge for all of one year, and had worked exclusively in the Civil Courts.
So this most Junior and most inexperienced Judge in the system in Gorlice, was in charge of deciding whether or not one of the most Senior Criminal Court Judges should be recused, based on inappropriate or biased conduct.
While this is very Polish (and thus legal in Poland), the idea of the most Junior person deciding if one of the most Senior people should be removed from their current job, seems, well, bizarre.
(It is at this point I ask you to create an image in your head....... your Boss, the one with years of experience, sitting in his/her plush office, with a beautiful view, all lovely.......then someone complains about him/her, so, your employer follows strict codes of inquiry procedures........
.....and then appoints the most Junior and inexperienced person in your office or workplace to decide whether or not your Boss had done his job correctly, with the caveat that the most Junior member of staff had never actually done any element of the Boss' work, and you get the picture).
How about you imagine a scenario where a medical malpractice allegation was made against a Cardiac Specialist of 30 years standing, and a review of his conduct was ordered by his employers,............. ....to be carried out by a kid one year out of Medical school....with no experience of Cardiology........hmmmmm.
I'll give you a flavour of just one or two of the "Justifications" provided by HH Zaryczny when she decided that there was nothing wrong with how the case was being conducted, and that the violations of Law, and my rights, were entirely ok:
1/.
"...there is no statutory duty to have the minutes (written record) of Court sessions translated".
For your information my reader:
a) There IS a statutory duty to make written records/minutes of Court sessions.
b) There IS a statutory duty to create these records in the Polish language.
c) According to Polish law, participants to the trial, Lawyers, Judge, Victim, Suspect, are entitled to obtain these written records/minutes, and read them.
d) In fact, the Polish Court system operates a portal, and these written records/minutes are published on that portal....in Polish only. I have to point out that I was granted access to that same Portal by the Polish Courts, as I was both victim and auxiliary Prosecutor in this case, but not a single document that was posted to that Portal could I comprehend, as I do not speak Polish.
But, according to Judge Zaryczny, if you happen to be a foreigner, or don't speak Polish, then hard luck, you get Polish language documents which you cannot understand.....Polish Justice.
Now, at the risk of telling a Polish Judge the Law....in Poland.......here's some European, Polish Constitutional and indeed some Polish domestic Law on the subject, just ELEVEN examples, but there are more:
Charter of Fundamental rights of the EU (which became binding on EU member States with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1st December 2009).
Article 1:
"Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected"
Unless of course you are a foreigner in Poland, when you may be treated with no respect or dignity by the Polish State.
Article 20:
"Everyone is equal before the Law".
Unless you are not Polish, do not speak or comprehend Polish, then the Polish State will happily discriminate against you.
Article 21:
(1) Any discrimination, based on any ground, such as sex, race , colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, LANGUAGE, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited".
Very clear, yet, HH Zaryczny felt free to, in effect, rule that discriminating against me on the grounds that I do not comprehend the Polish language, and being a foreigner, was perfectly ok, as there was "no statutory duty" to translate Polish language documents (that every Polish person could read and comprehend in their own language).....into English, so that I, the victim, and auxiliary Prosecutor, might also know their content.........equal before the Law? Not if you don't speak or comprehend Polish you're not.......
(By the way, you might remember Gawliks letter to me, and his ignorant abuse of my rights about language , highlighted at point 6/. in the post reached by clicking on this link:
http://piotrmchalepiotrprokipczak.blogspot.com/2013/10/is-this-police-intimidation-komendant.html)
(2) Within the scope of the application of the Treaties and without any prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of Nationality shall be prohibited"
Unless of course, like me, you happen to be Irish, in a Polish Court, in which case you can merrily be discriminated against, if you do not comprehend the Polish language.
Constitution of the Republic of Poland:
Article 27:
"Polish shall be the official language of Poland.
This provision shall NOT infringe upon national minority rights resulting from ratified International agreements"
So, accession terms to the EU, EU Law, Fundamental Charter of Human rights of the EU all apply, but just not when Polish Judges are making decisions that relate to the upholding and respect for the rights of Non-Polish speakers and foreigners?
Article 30:
"The inherent and inalienable dignity of the person shall constitute a source of freedoms, and RIGHTS of persons and citizens. It shall be inviolable.
The respect and protection thereof shall be the obligation of the Public authorities".
Just not when the person whose rights are being denied and abused is not Polish?
Article 32:
(1) "All persons shall be equal before the law.
All persons shall have the right to equal treatment by public authorities".
Unless you are not Polish, and do not comprehend the Polish language?
(2) " No one shall be discriminated against in political, social or economic life for any reason whatsoever".
Unless, you do not speak Polish, in which case Poland will merrily discriminate against you?
Article 37:
"Anyone, being under the authority of the Polish State, shall enjoy the freedoms and rights ensured by the Constitution".
Unless you happen to be foreigner...who does not comprehend the Polish language......in Poland?
Article 87:
"The sources of universally binding Law of the Republic of Poland shall be:
The Constitution, statutes, ratified international agreements, and regulations"
Unless of course, those Laws happen to be internationally binding Laws, Internationally binding agreements or Treaties, and particularly if it is European Law (to which Poland is a signatory), which is ignored as standard practice.
Polish criminal procedure Code:
This keeps changing, and is covered by more than one Article in the Code, but effectively, the Code states that all evidence must be translated for a person who does not have a command of the Polish language, :
Article 204, (subsection 2):
"An interpreter shall also be summoned when it is necessary , to translate into Polish a document written in a foreign language, or to translate a document written in Polish, to a foreign language".
This also covers the calling of Interpreters to Court proceedings.
Now it seems that HH Zaryczny in her decision NOT to recuse Judge Langer, does NOT consider sworn witness testimony to be evidence, and so it does not need to be translated in the written record, in order that I, a non-Polish speaker, might be able to read it, re-examine it, or use it later in proceedings.
Perhaps she would also think it was perfectly reasonable if the written record/minutes, were made in Swahili, and so Judge Langer, and Defence Counsel, could not read or comprehend them either?
I think not.
It was into this that Prokipczak and Gawlik walked, and it was no better when they gave their evidence,
However, you should know a little about how the trial was "conducted" by the Judge, and it gives a more global view of how things are done in Poland, first by the Police, then by the Prosecutors, and finally in the Courts, in the sister blogs I discuss this in greater detail, so here I limit it to the Judge who was presiding over the case in which Prokipczak and Gawlik gave their sworn testimony.
I have to first make it clear that both I, and a Lawyer I had present during the proceedings, made repeated objections to the Court over many issues of the Court violating my rights during the Trial, denying me my guaranteed right to fully understand proceedings (which were conducted in Polish, with an interpreter present), to fully understand (i.e. have in English) all documents either used or created during proceedings, his failing to order witnesses to answer the questions they were being asked, his failing to ensure that witnesses limited their speech to shorter "outbursts" in order that the interpreter had the possibility to translate to me what was being said (else how could I ask follow-up questions, or follow a pre-planned series of questions), , as well as the Court repeatedly interrupting me to say "that does not matter" whenever I tried to either question witnesses or put forward evidence of the crime under Article 234* of the Polish Criminal Code in the indictment, (which was 50% of the indictment and inherently linked to the perjury charge), and, in fact, this ended up with 2 motions for the Judge to be recused (removed from hearing the case) due to the many and various violations of Law and my rights which were permitted by the Court.
A Higher Court would later rule (on appeal) ,and in a very Polish manner, that many of these violations did take place to my detriment, but that they didn't matter!
This included the failure of the Court to provide me with translated documents (to English), meaning I had no idea what was contained within them during proceedings, and, providing me with no translations of the written record of proceedings themselves to refer to when preparing for the next hearings, some of which were 4 months apart. Apparently only I was supposed to rely on memory, of verbally half-translated testimony, while everyone else involved in the trial was provided with a full written record of the proceedings, which they could refer to throughout.
This also meant that when I would attempt to sum up the case, some one year after it started, having had 8 separate hearings, with months in between these hearings, that I was supposed to recall everything that had been said....
but hey, I was only the victim, and, oh yeah, the auxiliary Prosecutor !
However, mid-trial, in any event, and providing me with no surprise, the motions to recuse the Judge during proceedings were........... refused..............
by......................
HH Judge Joanna Zaryczny........, who at the time of making this decision had been a Judge for all of one year, and had worked exclusively in the Civil Courts.
So this most Junior and most inexperienced Judge in the system in Gorlice, was in charge of deciding whether or not one of the most Senior Criminal Court Judges should be recused, based on inappropriate or biased conduct.
While this is very Polish (and thus legal in Poland), the idea of the most Junior person deciding if one of the most Senior people should be removed from their current job, seems, well, bizarre.
(It is at this point I ask you to create an image in your head....... your Boss, the one with years of experience, sitting in his/her plush office, with a beautiful view, all lovely.......then someone complains about him/her, so, your employer follows strict codes of inquiry procedures........
.....and then appoints the most Junior and inexperienced person in your office or workplace to decide whether or not your Boss had done his job correctly, with the caveat that the most Junior member of staff had never actually done any element of the Boss' work, and you get the picture).
How about you imagine a scenario where a medical malpractice allegation was made against a Cardiac Specialist of 30 years standing, and a review of his conduct was ordered by his employers,............. ....to be carried out by a kid one year out of Medical school....with no experience of Cardiology........hmmmmm.
I'll give you a flavour of just one or two of the "Justifications" provided by HH Zaryczny when she decided that there was nothing wrong with how the case was being conducted, and that the violations of Law, and my rights, were entirely ok:
1/.
"...there is no statutory duty to have the minutes (written record) of Court sessions translated".
For your information my reader:
a) There IS a statutory duty to make written records/minutes of Court sessions.
b) There IS a statutory duty to create these records in the Polish language.
c) According to Polish law, participants to the trial, Lawyers, Judge, Victim, Suspect, are entitled to obtain these written records/minutes, and read them.
d) In fact, the Polish Court system operates a portal, and these written records/minutes are published on that portal....in Polish only. I have to point out that I was granted access to that same Portal by the Polish Courts, as I was both victim and auxiliary Prosecutor in this case, but not a single document that was posted to that Portal could I comprehend, as I do not speak Polish.
But, according to Judge Zaryczny, if you happen to be a foreigner, or don't speak Polish, then hard luck, you get Polish language documents which you cannot understand.....Polish Justice.
Now, at the risk of telling a Polish Judge the Law....in Poland.......here's some European, Polish Constitutional and indeed some Polish domestic Law on the subject, just ELEVEN examples, but there are more:
Charter of Fundamental rights of the EU (which became binding on EU member States with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1st December 2009).
Article 1:
"Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected"
Unless of course you are a foreigner in Poland, when you may be treated with no respect or dignity by the Polish State.
Article 20:
"Everyone is equal before the Law".
Unless you are not Polish, do not speak or comprehend Polish, then the Polish State will happily discriminate against you.
Article 21:
(1) Any discrimination, based on any ground, such as sex, race , colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, LANGUAGE, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited".
Very clear, yet, HH Zaryczny felt free to, in effect, rule that discriminating against me on the grounds that I do not comprehend the Polish language, and being a foreigner, was perfectly ok, as there was "no statutory duty" to translate Polish language documents (that every Polish person could read and comprehend in their own language).....into English, so that I, the victim, and auxiliary Prosecutor, might also know their content.........equal before the Law? Not if you don't speak or comprehend Polish you're not.......
(By the way, you might remember Gawliks letter to me, and his ignorant abuse of my rights about language , highlighted at point 6/. in the post reached by clicking on this link:
http://piotrmchalepiotrprokipczak.blogspot.com/2013/10/is-this-police-intimidation-komendant.html)
(2) Within the scope of the application of the Treaties and without any prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of Nationality shall be prohibited"
Unless of course, like me, you happen to be Irish, in a Polish Court, in which case you can merrily be discriminated against, if you do not comprehend the Polish language.
Constitution of the Republic of Poland:
Article 27:
"Polish shall be the official language of Poland.
This provision shall NOT infringe upon national minority rights resulting from ratified International agreements"
So, accession terms to the EU, EU Law, Fundamental Charter of Human rights of the EU all apply, but just not when Polish Judges are making decisions that relate to the upholding and respect for the rights of Non-Polish speakers and foreigners?
Article 30:
"The inherent and inalienable dignity of the person shall constitute a source of freedoms, and RIGHTS of persons and citizens. It shall be inviolable.
The respect and protection thereof shall be the obligation of the Public authorities".
Just not when the person whose rights are being denied and abused is not Polish?
Article 32:
(1) "All persons shall be equal before the law.
All persons shall have the right to equal treatment by public authorities".
Unless you are not Polish, and do not comprehend the Polish language?
(2) " No one shall be discriminated against in political, social or economic life for any reason whatsoever".
Unless, you do not speak Polish, in which case Poland will merrily discriminate against you?
Article 37:
"Anyone, being under the authority of the Polish State, shall enjoy the freedoms and rights ensured by the Constitution".
Unless you happen to be foreigner...who does not comprehend the Polish language......in Poland?
Article 87:
"The sources of universally binding Law of the Republic of Poland shall be:
The Constitution, statutes, ratified international agreements, and regulations"
Unless of course, those Laws happen to be internationally binding Laws, Internationally binding agreements or Treaties, and particularly if it is European Law (to which Poland is a signatory), which is ignored as standard practice.
Polish criminal procedure Code:
This keeps changing, and is covered by more than one Article in the Code, but effectively, the Code states that all evidence must be translated for a person who does not have a command of the Polish language, :
Article 204, (subsection 2):
"An interpreter shall also be summoned when it is necessary , to translate into Polish a document written in a foreign language, or to translate a document written in Polish, to a foreign language".
This also covers the calling of Interpreters to Court proceedings.
Now it seems that HH Zaryczny in her decision NOT to recuse Judge Langer, does NOT consider sworn witness testimony to be evidence, and so it does not need to be translated in the written record, in order that I, a non-Polish speaker, might be able to read it, re-examine it, or use it later in proceedings.
Perhaps she would also think it was perfectly reasonable if the written record/minutes, were made in Swahili, and so Judge Langer, and Defence Counsel, could not read or comprehend them either?
I think not.
It was into this that Prokipczak and Gawlik walked, and it was no better when they gave their evidence,
Thursday 12 April 2018
This blog is about Prokipczak.....so I will jump forward to more recent times.....
I have told you all about Prokipczaks attack on me, I have told you about his self-serving weasel "apology", and why I agreed to listen to it.
There are two more things to tell about this man, which happened over the years, one refers to his behaviour as a Police Officer when he came into contact, despite my warnings, with criminal cases where I was once again the victim (yes, I have been the victim of a lot of crime in Poland!), the other to do with his testimony under oath at trial, which was nothing short of incredible, fantastical, and simply, unbelievable.
I'll only deal with the first of the above mentioned in this post, and later with his sworn testimony.
When yet another crime was committed against me, it was, as demanded by Polish Law, dealt with by the Police force responsible for the Geographical area in which this crime occurred, in this situation, Gorlice.
I became aware that Prokipczak had involvement in the investigation, and was natural incensed.
This drunken, violent, aggressive man, who had threatened to slit my throat, was now involved in "investigating" cases where I was the victim.
So, I went to Gorlice Police station, there I sought out one particular Police Officer (who I shall not name as I would hate for him to suffer abuse from his "colleagues" for doing his job correctly, and with consideration for me as a victim).
This Officer is a gentleman, knows his duty, understands his job, and was always both polite and professional in any dealings I had with him.
I told him the problem, and asked that he accompany me to Prokipczaks office as I wanted a witness to hear what I had to say, he agreed to accompany me there, though I'm sure as much for his own professional reasons as a Police Officer, and not simply because I had asked him to do so.
Once there, I told Prokipczak to get away, and stay away, from any and all contact with criminal cases in which I was the victim. I spoke very strongly, and perhaps loudly as well, leaving Prokipczak in no doubt as to my meaning.
That evening Prokipczak wrote a memo to Kom Gawlik (the genius boss of Gorlice Police), making up a story as to why he wished to be recused from connection to any case in which I was a victim. He did not tell the truth in this memo, he did not mention that I had come to his office, nor what I had said, he did not mention that he had threatened to kill me, just internal bureaucratic language was used. Gawlik then proceeded to recuse Prokipczak.
Kom Gawlik was later to use this memo as a "justification" for other things, whereby he refused to act on Prokipczaks attack on me.....surprise.....or maybe not.
In my next post I will deal with Prokipzcaks sworn evidence, which the Public were entirely free to listen to, had they come to Court, even his girlfriend could have listened, but she was not there, for reasons I will detail. Remember, I had already notified the Court of my intention to call her as a witness (for more than one reason, but also in the event that Prokipczak was "less than forthcoming" with the truth, as it may very well have turned out......)
There are two more things to tell about this man, which happened over the years, one refers to his behaviour as a Police Officer when he came into contact, despite my warnings, with criminal cases where I was once again the victim (yes, I have been the victim of a lot of crime in Poland!), the other to do with his testimony under oath at trial, which was nothing short of incredible, fantastical, and simply, unbelievable.
I'll only deal with the first of the above mentioned in this post, and later with his sworn testimony.
When yet another crime was committed against me, it was, as demanded by Polish Law, dealt with by the Police force responsible for the Geographical area in which this crime occurred, in this situation, Gorlice.
I became aware that Prokipczak had involvement in the investigation, and was natural incensed.
This drunken, violent, aggressive man, who had threatened to slit my throat, was now involved in "investigating" cases where I was the victim.
So, I went to Gorlice Police station, there I sought out one particular Police Officer (who I shall not name as I would hate for him to suffer abuse from his "colleagues" for doing his job correctly, and with consideration for me as a victim).
This Officer is a gentleman, knows his duty, understands his job, and was always both polite and professional in any dealings I had with him.
I told him the problem, and asked that he accompany me to Prokipczaks office as I wanted a witness to hear what I had to say, he agreed to accompany me there, though I'm sure as much for his own professional reasons as a Police Officer, and not simply because I had asked him to do so.
Once there, I told Prokipczak to get away, and stay away, from any and all contact with criminal cases in which I was the victim. I spoke very strongly, and perhaps loudly as well, leaving Prokipczak in no doubt as to my meaning.
That evening Prokipczak wrote a memo to Kom Gawlik (the genius boss of Gorlice Police), making up a story as to why he wished to be recused from connection to any case in which I was a victim. He did not tell the truth in this memo, he did not mention that I had come to his office, nor what I had said, he did not mention that he had threatened to kill me, just internal bureaucratic language was used. Gawlik then proceeded to recuse Prokipczak.
Kom Gawlik was later to use this memo as a "justification" for other things, whereby he refused to act on Prokipczaks attack on me.....surprise.....or maybe not.
In my next post I will deal with Prokipzcaks sworn evidence, which the Public were entirely free to listen to, had they come to Court, even his girlfriend could have listened, but she was not there, for reasons I will detail. Remember, I had already notified the Court of my intention to call her as a witness (for more than one reason, but also in the event that Prokipczak was "less than forthcoming" with the truth, as it may very well have turned out......)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)