Pre-election detention

Mr Dariusz Matecki (on the National Attorney's website called Dariusz M.) was detained present between 8.40 and 8.45. He was on his way to the D.A.

Zreceiving and then arresting a associate for all is obvious. The year with the hook that passed showed precisely what Bodnarian "lawfulness" is.

The published PK message states:

In the course of an investigation into irregularities in Justice Fund The prosecutor obtained evidence allowing Mr Dariusz M. to present six counts of crime. These include, among another things, cooperation with another persons in setting up competitions for grants from the Justice Fund and in misappropriation of respective million zlotys, money laundering, cooperation with directors of State Forests in fictional and apparent employment, and certification of untruth in documentation concerning circumstances related to the performance of work.

The large credit of the past months is that no lawyer believed in the above, after the passing of the spokesperson of PK mgr Przemysław Nowak it was apparent that he too.

But serving is not the best man...

Curiosum, or alternatively a whorehouse, is the reason for the detention.

PK states:

The detention was essential in peculiar due to the legitimate concern of unlawful obstruction and the request for an immediate preventive measure (Retentions under Article 247(1) and (2) and (2) kpk).

These words mean absolutely nothing due to the fact that they are a duplication of the applicable provisions.

That's not what interests us.

According to Article 258 kpk:

§ 1. Temporary arrest and another preventive measures may be applied where:

1. the legitimate fear of escape or concealment of the accused, in peculiar where his identity cannot be established or where he is not in the country of permanent residence;

(2) The legitimate fear that the suspect will be inciting false evidence or explanations or otherwise obstruct criminal proceedings.

§ 2. If the suspect is accused of having committed a criminal offence or an offence punishable by a custodial conviction of at least 8 years, or if the court of first instance has sentenced him to imprisonment of no little than 3 years, the request for a temporary arrest in order to safe the appropriate course of proceedings may be justified by a threatening severe penalty.

"There is no hypothetical anticipation here that the suspect may be obstructing the correct course of action, e.g. urging the witness to change his evidence in a situation where there is no reasonable basis for this, namely concrete evidence or even circumstantial evidence. Therefore, fear of mattiness cannot be derived only from a hypothetical presumption of specified actions by the suspect, as well as from the probability that the fishy could take action to induce witnesses to give false evidence or otherwise to impede proceedings (post. SA in Katowice dated 7.5.2014, II AKa 275/14, KZS 2014, No 10, item 79). Demonstration of the reality of the fears of mating does not require proof that specified actions were taken or will be undertaken in the future (post. SA in Katowice dated 10.1.2007, II AKz 862/05, KZS 2007, No. 5, item 82). The court must find whether the fishy can behave in this way, not whether he has already done so (post. SA in Krakow of 27.3.2013, II AKz 97/13, Legalis; post. SA in Krakow of 13.10.2005, II AKz 366/05, KZS 2005, No. 10, item 29; post. SA in Krakow of 18.3.2008, II AKz 128/08, KZS 2008, No. 5, item 69).

The issuing of the first instance judgement does not remove concerns about obstruction of proceedings (post. SA in Kraków dated 23.2.2005, II AKz 54/05, KZS 2005, No 2, item 38). The reason for the fear of mating is not to effort to get false testimony, due to the fact that then the mating was accomplished. In terms of obstruction of justice, it is besides impossible to see the defendant's failure to plead guilty, as this violates the right of defence (post. SA in Krakow from 5.2.2014, II AKz 33/14, KZS 2014, No 2, item 42; post. SA in Katowice from 14.11.2001, II AKz 906/01, OSPLok. and Pr. 2002, No 11, item 21; post. SA in Katowice from 13.2.2002, II AKz 142/02, KZS 2002, No 4, item 58; see besides Post. SA in Katowice from 15.11.2005, II Akz 690/05, OSAK 2005, No 4, item 9). It is besides not a substance of changing the defendant's explanations, since it is simply a consequence of the defendant's exercise of his right to defend himself against the charge (post. SA in Krakow from 2.9.1999, II AKz 210/99, KZS 1999, Nr. 8–9, item 48; Wycz. SA in Warsaw from 1.9.2009, II AKa 264/09, KZS 2011, Nr. 3, item 60). It is not an obstacle to the defendant’s exercise of his procedural powers (see J. Izidorczyk, Application, p. 124). The fact that the fishy knew all the witnesses personally does not justify the concern that he would urge them to falsely attest or otherwise obstruct proceedings (post. SN of 24.8.2007, WZ 33/07, OSNwSK 2007, No. 1, item 1868; post. SN of 19.2.2021, I KZP 35/20, non-publ.; see besides post. SA of 22.10.2008, II AKz 793/08, Biul. SAKa 2008, No. 4, item 18). However, the fact that the suspect knows most of the witnesses in a given case may prove the reality of the matter, with any of them already making various threats.

The fear of mating cannot justify the failure of all members of the criminal group to which the fishy belonged (post. SA in Lublin dated 6.5.2009, II AKz 261/09, KZS 2009, Nr 9, item 84). It is besides claimed in the literature that the reason for the usage of provisional arrest on the basis of fear of mattage is dropped erstwhile all evidence has been adequately secured and the discovery of fact is not at risk (see A. Kiełtyka, Anticipation, p. 77). In another words, with the degree of advancement of the trial, besides before the court of first instance, the fear of mattiness is weakened, especially erstwhile explanations have already been taken from the defendant, and many witnesses have already been questioned straight by the court. Similarly, the admission of charges mostly excludes the fear of mattiness (post. SA in Krakow of 23.8.2006, II AKz 307/06, KZS 2006, Nr 9, item 29), although it should be borne in head that any fishy may change at the next phase of the explanation (see post. SA in Katowice of 3.11.2006, II AKz 696/06, KZS 2007, Nr 1, item 84)."

This is an excerpt from the commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure under the ed. prof. Andrzej Sakowicz (2025).

On the another hand, the PK spokesman's message is laconic and practically only addressed to the most hardened "eight-stars" and besides to employees of me(r)dial fanzin political fiction from Czerska Street, etc.

By the way, it is comic that after more than a year PK decides to arrest an MP allegedly for fear of obstructing his investigation, nb. according to Codex recommendations to end rather a long time ago.

Article 310 kpk:

§ 1. The investigation should be completed within 3 months.

Paragraph 2. In justified cases, the investigation period may be extended for a further period as determined by the prosecutor supervising the investigation or the prosecutor straight superior to the prosecutor who conducts the investigation, but not more than 1 year. In peculiarly justified cases, the competent prosecutor over the supervising prosecutor or the investigating officer may extend his/her word for further time.

How many times has this "investigation" been extended? After all, it was formally launched on 19 February 2024, and so the code terms have long been exceeded.

And until erstwhile was it extended? due to the fact that it is most likely “a peculiarly justified case”. ;)

However, as it seems, nothing has happened to prevent the investigation of the case from ending within the statutory deadline. The papers needed are in place from the beginning at the disposal of Bodnar himself.

The circus around the “fund of justice” can be translated in 2 ways.

Or on the side of the bodnarists, there is simply a request for mining detention, due to the fact that the collected material can only stand before the court of First instance, and that is provided that the ‘its’ justice decides, or...

Once again, the old song of the Skalds - It's not about catching a bunny...

The case in court will besides let the another party's arguments to be disclosed, which in turn will mean their penetration into the public, which may be uncomfortable for the current power.

At this stage, the only cognition we have comes from many Bodnarist press conferences.

This allows to decently form the public opinion, at least in the assumption.

Therefore, the investigation will proceed despite the fact that the leaders most likely see the senselessness of the actions taken.

The proposed request for three-month detention for Dariusz Matecki is simply a confirmation of this hypothesis.

It should besides be remembered that Matecki is peculiarly active in social media, etc., so he was peculiarly uncomfortable for the “smiling” ones.

So if the arrest applied to the 2 b. MinCase officials was highly extractive, the second seems to be a silence arrest.

Pre-election, if you will.

7.03 2025

photo Dariusz Matecki/facebook