A riot of robes. Another installment

When you don't know what's going on, there's usually money involved. At least that's what happens in everyday life. It's a little different in politics – when you don't know what's going on, the game is really about power.

PUntil 1989, there was no problem with this. People, even the activists of the then mono-party, knew very well the main principle of real socialism, which applies equally to all citizens:

– I think differently, say differently and do differently.

Such a practical extension of Orwellian doublethink.

In practice, the above meant that every thinking Pole had a smart special services officer – he just didn't take everything as it seemed, even at second glance.

Unfortunately. The generation of “Wikipedians” has effectively lost their independent thinking in favor of being able to search for information on Google.

And yet you can understand without it today There is no way.

However, someone who hasn't lost the skills they've acquired, such as during WRON Urban's speaker press conferences, should be able to easily predict the consequences/motives of certain behaviors that seem to exist independently.

Let's look at the circus that the current government is organizing in connection with the case of former ministers Kaminski and Vesik.

It is disputed that Art. Article 139 of the Constitution (President's pardon power) is so open that it can accommodate anything. Especially because we have a country in our immediate environment that clearly states that the president's power to pardon also includes the decision not to initiate criminal proceedings (Czech Republic). Meanwhile, the Polish legislator succinctly states just that The law on pardon is applied by the President of the Republic of Poland.

The second paragraph contains the only limitation – the amnesty law cannot be applied to persons convicted by a state tribunal.

The author is familiar with the far-reaching concept contained in the decision of the Supreme Court (then called the Gersdorf Court) of May 31, 2017 (I KZP 4/17), but it smells like a kilometer of logical error, which discredits its authors (see http://pressmania.pl/tk-napravil-razacy-blad-logiczny-sn/ ). Moreover, even 1000 decisions of the Supreme Court cannot affect the scope of the prerogatives of the President.

The justices who signed the highly political resolution on May 31, 2017, knew this, as they cited a number of scientific opinions in their reasoning that say the president can issue a pardon before the sentence becomes final.

From the comparison of the regulations of both constitutions adopted before 1939, and especially the provisions of the 1935 constitution, it was stated: “… pardon or mitigation of the sentence imposed on the convicted person by a legally binding sentence, or cancel Art. Convicted' and the very general formula regarding the right to pardon contained in the 1952 Constitution, or the Minor Constitution and the current Constitution, leads to the conclusion that the post-war constitutions have a different, broader scope in the content of Georgian law. Pardon, which means that this right can also apply to persons who have not been convicted by a legally binding sentence and, therefore, an individual amnesty can be used (eg. B. Banaszak, Constitution of the Republic of Poland. Commentary, Warszawa 2012, p. 768; idem, Presidential pardon law in Poland, Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis, Przegląd Prawa i Administracji L, Wrocław 2012, p. 34; A. Murzynowski, Refleksje…, p. 490; ibidem: Pardon…, p. 128; T. Grzegorchik, J. Tillman, Polish Criminal Procedure, Warsaw 2014, p. 1008; S. Waltoś (in:) S. Waltoś, P. Hofmanski, criminal proceedings. Zarys system, Warszawa 2013, p. 559; K. Kaczmarczyk-KłakThe Law of Grace…, p. 431-439). It should be emphasized that the proponents of the inclusion of individual amnesty in the law of grace and, therefore, the admissibility of the use of the act of grace before the judgment becomes final, rely only on a comprehensive comparison of the content of the provisions that regulate the law. Grace and, moreover, the claim that there are no restrictions in the content of the article 139 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland (except for the second sentence).

(Justification of the resolution I KZP 4/17)

Therefore, it is clear that a politically ordered “resolution” cannot limit the prerogative of the president in any way.

It is as if the Polish Social Security Court heard the case of a US citizen, an entrepreneur living and running his company in Chicago, who was sued by four generations of his employees living in Illinois and solemnly ordered him to pay contributions to the Polish Labor Fund. , exempting him only from health insurance contributions.

The Supreme Court cannot change the Constitution. This truth should reach even the most hardened legal counsel.

Similarly, yesterday's opposition and Public Defender Bodnar, detached from the constitutional reality, spread the story about the election of the members of the National Council of the Judge Court by the Parliament.

Meanwhile, the Constitution in Art. 187 clearly states:

1. The National Council of the Judiciary consists of:

1) First President of the Supreme Court, Minister of Justice, President of the Supreme Administrative Court and a person appointed by the President of the Republic of Poland.

2) Fifteen members elected from judges of the Supreme Court, common courts, administrative and military courts,

3) four members elected by the Sejm from among its deputies and two members elected by the Senate from among the senators.

2. The National Council of Justice elects the chairman and two deputy chairman from among its members.

3. The term of office of the elected members of the National Judicial Council is four years.

4. The structure of the National Council of Justice, the field of activity and the manner of activity, as well as the manner of electing its members, are determined by law.

Therefore, it would be unconstitutional to elect only the members of the National Council of the Judiciary from the deputies or senators, except for the mentioned institutions. There is no such requirement for judges. The assumption that the legislator intended this is not rational, because it is contradicted by paragraph 3 of the first paragraph. A correct interpretation leads to the conclusion that the selection of judges was entrusted to a group other than the judges themselves.

All the hysteria, unleashed and carefully maintained, seems to serve only to protect the all-powerful association in court society. justiceAnd whose influence was not threatened, but weakened.

This, of course, does not mean that judges are completely free from pressure from the executive. A long time ago I succeeded in formulating a principle which explains much of the behavior of the extraordinary caste in the dispute between the office and the citizen:

Judges are independent, but they receive their salaries from the budget.

However, the most famous case of excessive subservience of the third power to the executive power was not concerned judgeIn the terminology of Bodnar and his ilk, but… the judge Rissard Milewski from Gdansk (born in 1961). Judging by his age, he was appointed by the Communist State Council, so in the eyes of modern Toga Hunvejbins, his independence was impeccable.

dWhy do we notice a particularly intense attack on the National Council of the Judiciary and the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs?

The answer is extremely simple.

In connection with the October 2023 elections, a large number of protests were filed in the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, we do not know the extent of the alleged violations.

However, it is reasonable to assume that their weight may in many cases cancel the election of individual MPs.

Who knows, maybe the elections will be repeated in a large part of the country.

or later Towards an exotic trio Will we be able to win the majority again?

I know several voters less expensive (in Germany: Siemens strasse), who voted in the opinion that after the elections, Kaczynski would have to agree with two surnamed doctors. They never assumed that by voting for Kamish they would actually be electing Tusk.

So, potentially, if the election is repeated, they will either stay home or wholeheartedly support the United Right.

He scared many voters TV noise Lieutenant Colonel Sienkiewicz's drunkards.

Chaos in the courts, chaos in the prosecutor's office, the prospect of everything becoming more expensive, stories about replacing pig farms with edible insect farms… Tusk's electoral defeat in the next quarter is very likely.

Over the years, the validity of the elections was decided by the aforementioned party Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Relations of the Supreme Court.

Today's attack is a typical preemptive attack. The Supreme Court has until January 13, 2024 to issue a decision on the validity of the October elections.

So one week left.

If he considers the elections right, the noise will subside. Yes, someone mumbles something, but generally it will be quieter.

But if the Supreme Court rules that the election was invalid, the uproar will be enormous.

Will there be force that will be used by powerful people to get the deputies out of the building on Wieisk Street? And when necessary, will he remove them from their place???

I would like to remind you that this was in line with the Tusk doctrine. 😉

At the moment, we are observing the hasty mobilization of the ruling camp. Promises of increased pay (which are legitimate) go along with the announcement of working on a 0% loan.

And if nothing happens, it will continue until the European Parliament elections.

It is time to deceive the people once again with the prospect of an approaching wave of prosperity.

The author remembers that according to one of Tusk's trusted people, promising twice is like giving once, but too many have to learn this the hard way… .

Meanwhile, in the shadow of political disputes, we grow Republic of Judges.

They have already shown that they do not care about the constitution.

A team of committed lawyers is ready to prove every obscenity of the current government.

The situation is slowly resembling the great cycling event of the time of the Polish People's Republic – the so-called A race for peace.

Not only was he one of the organizers A rough lawThe winner was still decided by street criteria.

January 6, 2024