Duda has provided further legally flawed nominations for neojudges and neo-assessors positions

Andrzej Duda allegedly a lawyer known for the widespread violation of the Constitution, for which he should be put before the Court of State, handed out defective acts of appointment to another band of disguises who wanted to become judges. However, in view of their faulty vocation, they will add a "elite" group of neojudges and neo-assessors without the right to issue judgments in the provincial administrative court and territory court. A fresh group of criminals in robes have made a vow to the president of the Republic of Poland, which, in the light of the jurisprudence of the SN and the TEU and the ETPC, does not substance due to the fact that they are persons impersonating a state authoritative and their rulings are flawed legally.

Duda's action leads to a complete politicisation of the justice strategy by a group of illegal "judges". This is simply a typical action aimed at the complete implementation of the totalitarian strategy in Poland.

Below we present a list of another group of neo-Judges and neo-Assessors, which, due to the appointment received from a lawyer acting as the president of Poland, has supplied almost 4000 costumers in toga:

Adam DOLIWA - ultimate Court

Ms Agnieszka GÓRA-BŁASZZYKOWska – ultimate Court

Krzysztof Grzesiowski – ultimate Court

Ms Agnieszka Maria JURKOWSKA-CHOCYK – ultimate Court

Piotr TELUSIEWICZ – ultimate Court

Agnieszka Żywicki – ultimate Court

Ewa Maria Kwiiecinska – Chief Administrative Court

Bogusław Adam WOZNIAK – Chief Administrative Court

Karina Magdalena Gniewek-BEREZOWska – Provincial Administrative Court in Rzeszów

Andrzej NOGAL – Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw

Barbara ROMANCZUK – Provincial Administrative Court in Białystok

Justyna SIEMIENIAKO – Provincial Administrative Court in Białystok

Agnieszka Wioletta BRYGIDIR-DOROSZ – Court of Appeal in Warsaw

Zuzanna Janina DRUKAŁA – Court of Appeal in Kraków

Aleksandra FISCHER – Court of Appeal in Kraków

Artur FORNAL – Court of Appeal in Gdańsk

Rafał Roman ŁATANIK – Court of Appeal in Katowice

Joanna Maria PRZANOWska-TOMASZEK – Court of Appeal in Warsaw

Filip SPOREK – Court of Appeal in Gdańsk

Magdalena Maria ADAMIEC–MADEJ – territory Court in Bielsko-Biala

Beata BIHUŃ – Olsztyn territory Court

Jakub BLESIŃSKI – Olsztyn territory Court

Roman ĆWIKLINSKI – territory Court in Łódź

Anna Justyna DŁUGAJczyk – Elbląg territory Court

Ireneusz Mirosław FRĄCALA – territory Court of Konin

Marek Zbigniew GARLIK – territory Court in Czestochowa

Wojciech Januszkiewicz – territory Court in Białystok

Paweł KARLIKOWSKI – Warsaw-Prague territory Court in Warsaw

Ewa KOSIOR – Białystok territory Court

Joanna Krajewska – Elbląg territory Court

Adam Niejadomski – Olsztyn territory Court

Laryssa Rozmarinowicz — Circuit Court in Toruń

Aleksandra Maria RUSIN–BATKO – territory Court in Warsaw

Agnieszka SABATOWSKA-JANCZIŁO – Olsztyn territory Court

Stanisław SADOWSKI – Circuit Court in Toruń

Elżbieta STEFANIUK – territory Court in Warsaw

Beata Anna Taradajczyk – territory Court in Warsaw

Daniela TARASIEWICZ – Olsztyn territory Court

Iwona Wąsik-Winiarczyk – territory Court in Kielce

Katarzyna Wierzbinska – Suwałki territory Court

Anna Barbara Zwolinska – territory Court in Gliwice

Anna BARĆ–KRUPIŃSKA – Lublin–East territory Court in Lublin based in Świdnik

Urszula ETEL-WOJCIECHOWSKA – territory Court in Białystok

Sławomir FOLUSZ – territory Court for Kraków-Śródmieście in Kraków

Agnieszka Maria GAWLIK – Gdańsk-South territory Court

Weronika JAGODZKA – territory Court in Piotrków Trybunalski

Iwona Łukasz-Cashtelan — Legionary territory Court

Marek Kamionka – territory Court for Kraków-Podgórze in Kraków

Magdalena KARWACKA – territory Court in Lubartów

Konrad Chrystian Kopystyński – territory Court for Wrocław–Śródmieście in Wrocław

Ewelina KHOSTEZEK – territory Court for Kraków-Śródmieście in Kraków

Artur Karol KOWALCZYK – Milicz territory Court

Beata KOWALSKA – territory Court for Łódź–Śródmieście in Łódź

Patrycja KRZELEWSKA-KURTYKA – territory Court for Warsaw Prague-South in Warsaw

Kinga Anna KROK–SUCHECKA – territory Court of the Concession

Joanna LACH-SZYMANSKI – territory Court in Bydgoszcz

Olga Ewa LEWANDOWSKA – Lublin–West territory Court

Ms Małyszka-AL-DARAWSHEH – territory Court for Warsaw-Śródmieście in Warsaw

Joanna MARSZAŁEK – territory Court for Kraków-New Huta in Kraków

Sylwia MAZANEK – territory Court for Łódź-Śródmieście in Łódź

Agnieszka Podemska – territory Court in Bydgoszcz

Krzysztof Bronisław POWROSŁO – territory Court in Bytom

Simon Paul RATAJ – territory Court in Rybnik

Anita Milena RYKAŁA-WOZNIAK – territory Court for Kraków-Krowodrzy in Kraków

Karolina SORDYL – Tarnobrzeg territory Court

Beata Helena SÓJKA – Legnica territory Court

Justyna STELMACH – territory Court for Łódź-Vidzew in Łódź

Mateusz Adam SYC – territory Court in Zgorzelec

Anna Katarzyna Szewczyk – territory Court for Wrocław-Śródmieście in Wrocław

Aneta Grażyna SZKLARSKA – Myszkow territory Court

Natalia WOZNICZAK — Ełk territory Court

Agnieszka Elżbieta ZACZEK – territory Court for Warsaw – Wola in Warsaw

Paweł Wojciech Zieliński – Giżyck territory Court

Ms Anna Jadwiga Żebrovska–Kruk – territory Court of Opole

Ms Katarzyna Ewa ŻETECKA-ŚIEREK – territory Court in Szamotuły

Arkadiusz CZERWONIUK – Military territory Court in Poznań

The following were appointed to service as noeasesor in the provincial administrative court:

Jolanta Natalia KŁODA-SZELIGA – Provincial Administrative Court in Rzeszów
Adam Szymon PAWLYTA – Provincial Administrative Court in Gliwice
Ms Joanna Świerzko-Bukovska – Provincial Administrative Court in Szczecin

There is no uncertainty that the above-mentioned persons are consciously participating in illegal competitions and are consciously accepting flawed legally nominations which do not give them the power to issue judgments. Thus, it should be considered that they are knowingly committing a crime, inter alia, with Article 227 k.k., in principle, citing Article 52 of the Constitution (all before the law are equal) should supply a basis for bringing them to criminal justice.

We remind you that the case law issued by the neo-judges is repealed by law. In the case of civilian proceedings pursuant to Article 379(4) in fine k.p.c. and criminal proceedings pursuant to Article 439(1)(6) in fine k.p.k.

What is neo-KRS and neo-Judge

The National Judicial Council was elected in a manner incompatible with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which makes it impossible for the Court of Justice to recognise it in the light of the adopted line of the jurisprudence of the ultimate Court and the TEU as a body acting as acting and having the power to appoint judges. Any justice appointed by that unconstitutional authority and appointed by the president to execute is besides served by a noe-judge who has no legal capacity to issue judgment,

At this point it will be justified to rise that the problem of vocations of "judges" after the formation of the "National Judicial Council" as a consequence of changes in 2017 has respective aspects. The first is related to the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which impose on public authorities, including the legislator, the work of specified appointment of judges to judicial duties, which guarantees the essential minimum independency and independency of the bodies active in the nomination process. This body is the National Judicial Board. engagement in constitutional standards for shaping the judicial composition of this body, creating an chance for politicians to form the Council, i.e. the election of members of the judges of the Council in their entirety by parliament (excluding the 1st president of the SN and the president of the NSA), has caused this body to neglect to meet constitutional requirements. This makes in any event the appointment of a justice question arise, which accompanies any man who puts his case under the judgement of the court, whether this court is simply a constitutional court.

In addition, this is the second aspect – in the doctrine to which I have given my hand, and in the case-law, there has been a method of verifying the correctness of the appointment of judges based on tools that have been in the strategy since forever, but mostly not utilized to measure the fulfilment of minimum conditions of impartiality and independence. It is the institutions (in the case of preventive control) – iudex sspectus and iudex inhabilis, and in the case of follow-up control – the absolute appeal condition, which is the incorrect cast of the court. On this thought the position of the resolution of the 3 Joint Chambers of the ultimate Court of January 2020 was placed. The resolution contained not precisely the right differentiation: indicating that, in the case of an SN, due to the nature of that authority, judges appointed after a advice of the KRS formed after 2017, do not supply guarantees of independent and impartial ruling. For this reason, it was considered that only this organization flaw justifies the claim that specified judges are deprived of material votum. The resolution did not competition that these persons had obtained the position of SN judges, but it was found that they had no power to issue judgments.

The judgments of specified ‘judges’ so far have been affected by the defect, given the inadequate cast of the court, which should be regarded as a failure to fulfil the constitutional request of the competent court referred to in Article 45(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. Failed judges should not rule. From the date of the resolution, these judges shall be incapable to rule. They do not have a material votum, although they have the position of judges. In the light of the above, it should be considered that, pursuant to Article 91(2) and (3) of the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of the ECHR, the rule of precedence of the application of the law

This is justified in the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 October 2021 in Case C-487/19, as well as in the erstwhile judgement of the European Court of Human Rights of 7 May 2021, action No 4907/18. I remind the hooded court that, in accordance with Article 9 of the Constitution, the Republic of Poland is obliged to respect its binding global law. In accordance with Article 91(2) of the Constitution, an global agreement ratified with the prior consent expressed in the Act shall take precedence over the law if that law cannot be reconciled with the agreement. The position of judges and the guarantees of the independency of courts, which constitute the essence of the right to a fair trial, are enshrined in the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and are further confirmed in Article 6(3) of the Treaty on EU. In the present case, the judgement given on 7 October 2021 by the Constitutional Court in the present – defective – composition of the case in Case No. K 13/21, which reconciles the interests of citizens.

Our position on the neo-CRS and neo-Judges appointed by this unconstitutional body confirms the position of the European Commission, which decided on 15 February 2023 to mention Poland to the Court of Justice of the European Union in connection with the controversial ruling of the Polish Constitutional Court. The Commission opened infringement proceedings against Poland on 22 December 2021. – The reason was the judgments of the Polish Constitutional Court of 14 July 2021 and 7 October 2021, in which it declared the provisions of the EU treaties to be incompatible with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, explicitly questioning the rule of primacy of EU law. Without doubt, in light of the content of the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2019 (Nos C 585/18, C-624/18, C 625/18) and the resolution of the full composition of the ultimate Court of 23 January 2020 (BSA I-4110-1/20), there is simply a basis for concluding that the institution designated to guarantee the regulation of law is breaking the law and commits the crime.

We remind you that the case law issued by the neo-judges is repealed by law. In the case of civilian proceedings pursuant to Article 379(4) in fine k.p.c. and criminal proceedings pursuant to Article 439(1)(6) in fine k.p.k.

You request legal assistance, compose us or call us right now.

579-636-527

[email protected]