Boguslaw Szostak wrote:
> Artur "Shiva" Włodarczyk pisze:
>
>
>>Zastanawiam sie, jak dziala sadownictwo w tym kraju, skoro bez udzialu
>>stron i jakiejkolwiek mozlwosci wytlumaczenia sie zasadzony zostaje wyrok,
>>po czym dostarczany jest on poczta. W dodatku nie do rak wlasnych, a
>>odebrany przez osobe mieszkajaca w tym samym lokum.
>>
>>Otrzymane pismo podaje, ze wydzial grodzki bez udzialu stron uznaje osobe
>>winna (art. 286 par. 3 kk) i wymierza kare grzywny (30 stawek dziennych po
>>20 zl).
>
>
> No przeciez tak jest o wiele taniej i prosciej..


Taniej jest skazywac ludzi na smierc postepowaniem nakazowym. A jeszcze
taniej jest przerabiac Zydow na mydlo bez postepowania nakazowego w
ogole. Tak nie dziala system wymiaru sprawiedliwosci.



> Watpliwosc budzi jedynie "skutek doreczenia", gdy odbierze ktos
> "dla syna" i odda za miesiac..



Postepowanie nakazowe NIGDY nie bylo, nie jest i nie bedzie legalne
poniewaz jest odwroceniem do gory nogami fundamentalnych praw
konstutucyjnych. Ze ten knot przeszedl przez Sejm swiadczy tylko
osobista korupcja agenta specsluzb Czeszejko-Sochackiego, ktory ten
bubel przepchal w Sejmie.


Nonsens postepowania nakazowego polega na tym ze narusza prawo obywatela
do uczciwego procesu gwarantowanego art 6 Europejskiej Konwencji.
Patrz wyroki:

Trzaska versus Poland:
http://www.worldlii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2000/369.html

Belziuk vs Poland:
http://www.worldlii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1998/17.html

oraz

Niedbala vs Poland:

http://www.worldlii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2000/359.html




TRZASKA vs POLAND (25792/94) [2000] ECHR 369 (11 July 2000)

Sprawa Trzaski co prawda dotyczyla postepowania karnego w zasiegu
aresztu, nie mniej Strasbourg uznal ze:

"72. In the applicant's case the courts had been deciding on the
applicant's detention in his absence and that of his lawyer.
Consequently, they did not have an opportunity to take a position in
respect of the arguments on which the prosecutor relied before the court
in support of the applicant's detention. The court, not having had a
personal contact with the accused, did not have an opportunity to assess
properly whether his detention was and remained justified."


Co to znaczy?

A no to:

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION

70. The applicant complained that the proceedings concerning review of
the lawfulness of his detention on remand were not truly adversarial, in
breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which reads:

"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be
entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention
shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the
detention is not lawful."

...


"79. In conclusion, in the light of the above considerations, the Court
finds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention."

Gratulacje Idioci z Sadu Wojewodzkiego w Katowicach.


BELZIUK v. POLAND (23103/93) [1998] ECHR 17 (25 March 1998)


"11. On 21 April 1993 the Regional Court refused the applicant's
request to be brought before it, considering that his presence was
unnecessary, since he had already given a detailed account of the events
at his trial before the District Court. Moreover, in his written
statement of appeal he had set out at length his complaints in respect
of the contested conviction. Furthermore, in its view he had sufficient
time to submit further observations in writing, if he wished to do so.

12. On 10 May 1993, after a hearing at which the public prosecutor, but
not the applicant, was present (see paragraph 14 below), the Regional
Court dismissed the applicant's appeal."

Co to znaczy?


"I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 3 (c) OF THE CONVENTION

22. Mr Belziuk maintained that he had been deprived of the right to
defend himself in person before the Tarnów Regional Court. He also
submitted that the principle of equality of arms had been violated as he
had not been granted leave to attend the appeal hearing, whereas the
public prosecutor had been present at the hearing and made submissions
to the Regional Court. He relied on Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with
Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, which provide as relevant:

"1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge agaist him,
everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal
established by law...

...

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum
rights:

...

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own
choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance,
to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;"


a to znaczy ze ...


"40. In conclusion, having regard to the prominent place held in a
democratic society by the right to a fair trial, the Court finds a
violation of Article 6 § 1 taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c)
of the Convention."

Gratulacje Idioci z Sadu Wojewodzkiego w Tarnowie.



NIEDBALA v. POLAND (27915/95) [2000] ECHR 359 (4 July 2000)

Sprawa dotyczy co prawda postepowania karnego w zasiegu aresztu, nie
mniej znaczenie ma wykladnia co prokurator moze a czego nie moze zrobic.
Tak w ogole, to prokurator nie ma zadnej wladzy sadowniczej. Sprobij
to wyjasnic Idiotom z Sadu Wojwodzkiego w Katowicach).

W postepowaniu nakazowym wystepuje prokurator, ktorego postepowanie
wyglada na przekroczenie uprawnien (z wladzy wykonawczej na wladze
sadownicza). Nastepuje to moim zdaniem poprzed danie sedziemu "gotowca".




"B. The Court's assessment

48. The Court recalls that the role of the officer (PROKURATORA)
referred to in Article 5 § 3 is to review the circumstances militating
for and against detention and to decide, by reference to legal criteria,
whether there are reasons to justify detention and to order release if
there are no such reasons. Before an "officer" can be said to exercise
"judicial power" within the meaning of this provision, he or she must
satisfy certain conditions providing a guarantee to the person detained
against any arbitrary or unjustified deprivation of liberty (see the
Schiesser v. Switzerland judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34,
pp. 13-14, § 31).

49. Thus, the "officer" must be independent of the executive and of the
parties. In this respect, objective appearances at the time of the
decision on detention are material."

...

"55. The Court further notes that the detention orders given by the
prosecutors on 2 September 1994 and on 21 April 1995 were subsequently
subject to judicial review, following the applicant's appeals, carried
out after ten days and six days, respectively. However, this review was
not automatic as it depended on the application lodged with the court by
the applicant. Consequently, the fact that judicial review of his
detention was open to him does not remedy the shortcoming that the
detention orders were made by the prosecutors. "

Czyli...

57. The Court concludes therefore that there has been a violation of
Article 5 § 3 of the Convention."

Gratulacje Idioci z Sadu Wojewodzkiego w Katowicach raz jeszcze.







To tak na poczatek.

Nie powinno dziwic ze w tych wypadkach rzad polski wyprzedza inne.

Problem z procedura postepowania nakazowego jest nastepujacy.

1. Oskarzony nie wystepuje w sprawie dopiero do momentu "doreczenia"
"wyroku". Przypomnijmy: sad nie PROPONUJE SKAZAC, a SKAZUJE obywatela,
bez jego uczestnictwa i wiedzy. Prawny nonsens. Patrz wyroki wyzej.
Sad/prokuratura ma obowiazek powiadomic o zarzutach PRZED wyrokiem.

Dodaktowy nonsens to "doreczenie" "zarzutu"/wyroku.

2. "Skazany" ma prawo uczstniczyc w postepowaniu przeciwko niemu.
Jednostronne decyzje sadu (rozprawy/posiedzenia) na podstawie pism
prokuratury (bez udzialu oskarzonego, ba, bez jego wiedzy) sa niewazne.
Sedzia w Twoim wypadku to DUPA prawna. Jak tez prokurator i policjant.


Wyglada na to ze w Polsce panuje przekonanie ze Ziemia jest plaska,
tylko dlatego ze tak kazdy sedzia dookola uwaza.

Mysle ze powinienes zlozyc wmiosek o pozbawienie sedziego prawa
wykonywania zawodu powolujac sie na powyzsze sprawy. Rowniez wniosek o
pozbawienie prokuraora prawa wykonywania zawodu prawnika daloby sygnal
ze Ziemia plaska nie jest juz od dawna.











>
>
>>Oczywiscie bedzi odwolanie, poniewaz za skandal uwazana moz byc sytuacja,
>>w ktorej prokuratura stawia zarzuty oparte o zeznania wylacznie
>>"poszkodowanego", nie przypatrujac sie zeznaiom i dowdom "podejrzanego", a
>>nastepnie z urzedu zasadza wyrok. Tutaj pytanie do znajacych temat:
>>odwolanie w formie pisemej musi zawierac jakies konretne rzeczy, czy
>>nalezy tylko podac nr sprawy? Bede wdzieczny za informacje.
>
>
> Zwroc uwage, ze tu nie chodzi o to, czy cie wysluchano, tylko czy masz
> jakies zarzuty. Jesli druga strona powiedziala nieprawde - no to masz..
>
> A to, ze cie nie wysluchali... no to wysluchaja teraz.. i o co chodzi ?
> wyrok nie jiest przeciez prawomocvny..
> Boguslaw