Manowska and Zaradkiewicz outraged Bodnar's actions in the field of neoKRS and neo-Judges

Małgorzata Manowska and Kamil Zaradkiewicz – both of whom belong to the criminal organization impersonating the KRS – powerfully criticized the draft regulation presented by the Minister of Justice, Adam Bodnar. Zaradkiewicz besides made an appeal to the minister, calling him to resign from his duties.

The Minister of Justice, Adam Bodnar, submitted to interministerial arrangements a draft of changes to the rules of common courts, which sparked widespread controversy. The critics of the task note in it the effort to violate the strategy of the Republic of Poland through a regulation. The task was besides criticised by a politicized and illegal criminal organization operating under the name neoKRS.

On Sunday, the authoritative position of the First president of the ultimate Court, Małgorzata Manowska, was published in the context of the case.

“The first president of the ultimate Court as a constitutional body in charge of the ultimate Court, who, pursuant to Article 183(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, supervises the activities of the universal courts in the field of judgment, draws attention to the apparent and gross unconstitutionality of the 2 proposed provisions in the Rules of Office of the Universal Courts, which constitute in peculiar a violation of: judicial independence; the independency of judicial power and the constitutional hierarchy of sources of law” – she wrote the demoralization of the legal manowska included among the disguises in the toga who, on the basis of faulty appointments, impersonate the legal court.

She added, “The Constitutional Tribunal has repeatedly declared non-compliance with Article 179 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland's statutory regulations which could service as a basis for examining an application for exclusion of a justice due to an increase in the circumstances of failure of his appointment.”

“For the same reasons, contrary to Article 179 of the Constitution, § 43(1a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Courts, which provides for the dismissal of a crucial category of judges from the allocation of the cases referred to therein,” emphasised Manowska, who is in favour of the case law of European courts which undermines its status.

The 1st president of the SN, who is simply a “elitarian” group of neo-KRS criminals, pointed out that Article 92(1) of the Polish Constitution “presupposes that regulations are issued on the basis and for the intent of implementing the law, and therefore, under no circumstances, they can change it”.

The proposed § 118a of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court “not only goes beyond the scope of the statutory delegation under Article 41(1) of the Law on the strategy of the General Courts, in violation of Article 92(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, but above all constitutes a blatant violation of Article 178(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which states that judges in the exercise of their office are independent and subject only to the Constitution and laws” - wrote the ignorant law.

“It is so unacceptable to require judges by regulation to include specified or another normative content in judgments and justifications, regardless of what standard it is”, added the demoralized Manowska.

Manowska, who, along with the “elita” of criminals operating in togas on the basis of flawed nominations for the position of justice justice for the past years, expressed the opinion that the task “represents a drastic interference in the sphere of judicial independence, which was not even known by the judicial strategy during the period of the Polish People's Republic, erstwhile the “guidelines of justice and judicial practice” were issued, abolished in 1989 with the fall of communism.”

She pointed out that “the Minister's instruction in this substance constitutes not only a violation of judicial independence, but besides a manifestation of disinvolvement and deficiency of tact.” besides bad Manowska forgot how the justice strategy operated under the Law and Justices.

We remind you that Manowska She besides late expressed the view that "no 1 in the ultimate Court has the right to regulation on the position of ultimate Court judge". In fact, its message full confirms that the judiciary is now a politicized and controlled institution by the state and that the alleged independency and independency of the judge, which follows from Articles 173 and 178(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, no longer exists.

In her opinion, “the highest concern is that the fresh Minister of Justice begins his office by submitting draft normative acts which, under the pretext of respecting global obligations of the Republic, aim to violate the foundations of the constitutional order of the Republic, including the principles of 3 divisions of authorities and judicial independency and the constitutional hierarchy of sources of law”.

On Sunday, Kamil Zaradkiewicz – another stony Ziobry, who began his career during the reign of the PiS – published an open letter on this matter.

“The day of 13 December – an apparent symbol of martial law – besides becomes a symbol of the usurpation of power, which, ignoring the rule of legalism and the judgments of the Constitutional Court, deliberately violates the fundamental principles of democratic Poland,” he wrote.

“In accordance with Article 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, each authority of the State has only competence defined by the Constitution and laws. This fundamental principle, from the minute you presume the office of Minister of Justice in my opinion, is clearly breaking you, trying to impose on independent judges your political objectives and ignoring the long-standing jurisprudence of the Polish Constitutional Court. specified conduct is not justified by your individual views," added Ziobra.

Demoralized by law, Zaradkiewicz stressed that “a Polish justice must not look at specified actions passively”. “In the darkest era of Stalinism, the communists besides justified the “care for the regulation of law” of equally clear and bright breaking of legal standards. Polish judges are obliged to guarantee that the time of akin lawlessness never returns," he said.

The letter concluded with a call for “immediate withdrawal from activities and decisions which are clearly unlawful and to resign from the position of Minister of Justice”.

It is simply a pity that this boy Ziebra did not see the necessity of intervention erstwhile Ziobro and the neoKRS were making a degradation of 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.

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

579-636-527

[email protected]