The continuing pursuit of the alleged liberals (the increasingly distinct rainbow-pink colour) most likely led to the collapse of the sense of the existence of seismic investigative committees.
I Not only in this term, but more and more clearly, that alternatively of uncovering out the truth, it's all about the games. The local people hungering for revenge even at the price of clearly deteriorating surviving conditions.
What Brejza allegedly did means the end of the anticipation of proceeding witnesses by future parliamentary committees. And that means that they won't be able to do whatever they're in.
PAbout the railroad. Krzysztof Brejza, for his past merit anointed by Tusk, went to Europarlament. Due to his apparent intellectual abilities, he is not likely to appeal to Poland, as was the case with Marcin Kierwiński.
During the proceeding by
The Committee on Investigations to examine the legality, regularity and appropriateness of the operational and investigative activities undertaken, inter alia, utilizing Pegasus software by members of the Council of Ministers, peculiar services, police, taxation and customs and taxation control authorities, authorities designated for the prosecution of criminal offences and prosecutions between 16 November 2015 and 20 November 2023.
Called simply the neocommission of Magpie was expected to defame Brejza.
It specifically meant Kaczyński's words: significant policies of opposition formation are allowed very serious and repugnant crimes, which would consequence from the information he had at the time.
It should be recalled that a witness in criminal proceedings in accordance with Article 190 kpk has an work to tell the fact and not to conceal it.
§ 1. Before the proceeding begins, the witness should be warned of criminal liability for evidence of untruth or concealing the truth.
§ 2. In the preparatory procedure, the witness signs a message that he has been prejudiced by this responsibility.
A witness, Jarosław Kaczyński, gave the truth, which was the information circulating in his ministry, based on news from investigative bodies.
Meanwhile, according to Breyza, telling the fact by a witness (in this case it is not a judgment, but information circulating in the office) is a criminal offence.
MWe so have a clear collision between the requirements of the investigative body, supported by criminal sanctions, and the interests of the individual besides protected by regulations.
However, this is not Kaczyński's fault. simply “Milician girl” Magpie should seal this part of the evidence and ask journalists out of the room.
But that did not happen.
Brejza considered (right or wrong, the future will show) that he had been talked out and issued a private indictment.
TO, however, gives emergence to certain legal consequences... For the future.
Any further witness appointed by any parliamentary committee of enquiry will be able to refuse to answer the question, citing the unquestionable provision of Article 183 kpk:
§ 1. The witness may deviate from the answer to the question if the answer could exposure him or the individual closest to him to the individual liable for the offence or taxation offence.
§ 2. The witness may request that he be heard at a proceeding excluding disclosure if the content of the evidence could exposure him or the individual closest to him to him or her.
Breyza gave a reason why any individual called in as a witness before a committee or a neo-commission, as in the case of a magpie, may deviate from the answer to the question.
For fact may prove to be... a speech of hatred for any viewer. Or talk.
In turn, the secrecy of the committee's deliberations goes beyond the intent for which they were appointed. After all, there were to be games...
The plan of Art 183 kpk evidently allows abuse. But the law in this case is powerless.
The procedural body should so be able, only if the witness’ message raises crucial doubts, to order the witness to approximate the grounds for his refusal. However, the request may concern only the most general information, not detailed data. It is besides not permitted to carry out evidence to verify the witness’ statement, as this could have the effect of affecting him as to the exercise of his rights. "The procedural body may question the witness in order to find whether there are grounds for evading the question, but may not carry out evidence to verify this, but must satisfy itself with the witness’s message and exempt him from the work to answer the questions" (R.A. Stefański, Refuse of Witness, p. 78). The audit of the message must be exceptional, since, in principle, the witness message itself should be binding on the body.
Code of Criminal Procedure. Comment, ed. prof. dr hab. Jerzy Skorupka, 2023
Brey, blinded by the General Directive of the Red Team, expressed in the password *** *** ***, He shot the anti-script games in the knee.
And that is his top achievement. The wicked (or possibly well informed) claim to be the only one.
21.02 2025
photo: Pixabay Głob
