Back to the
HOMEPAGE
Here is the full text of the appeal. If some of the Polish doesn't come through, I don't know what I can do about it. And the reference to "kards" is a court reference to documents in the court files. If you really can't understand it, I'll send you the index and explain it. The footnotes follow at the bottom.
Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie
X Wydział Karny Odwoławczy
Za pośrednictwem
Sądu Rejonowego dla Warszawy – Śródmieścia obrońca z urzędu Adama R. Goodmana – oskarżonego w sprawie sygn. akt: II K2589/02
Appeal
This document is an appeal applying for a reversal of the decision of March 31.
The decision of the courts was incorrect due to several important issues:
1. The court had an inability to define the actual damages.
2. The case according to the indictment was incomplete.
3. There was a lack of hard evidence, specifically the lack of eyewitnesses and physical evidence.
4. A biased and prejudiced situation existed throughout the trial disallowing for reasonable discussion of the subject.
5. The court was unable to provide adequate council for the defense.
6. That the situation of keeping the accused in Poland for the duration of the trial was based upon a false pretence.
7. The court has provided punishment already before the decision was made.
8. The decision is based on the lies and/or withheld evidences of the accuser.
1. The inability to define the damages.
The penalty assessed by the court of 4225.29PLN, comes directly from a document taken in as evidence on 30 August (K95-99) at a meeting at the office of Stanislaw Wiesniakowski, the prosecutor at the time. This number comes from an estimate of damages made after work was completed in conjunction to the sale of the Red Renault to the wife of Stanislaw Jablonski (K89-90, 189-90) a friend of Zareba and the owner of a private body shop. The document however contains items not mentioned in the description of the damages made by the police inspector on May 15th (K10-11). These new damages include damages to the lights, the actual breakage of the front bumper, the windshield wipers and spritzers, new damages to the left door, the replacement of the roof carpeting and the displacement of the front hood.
The reason for these discrepancies was not mentioned at the August 30th meeting. The only reference of any difference was Zareba’s mentioning of a black mark (K104-105), not mentioned either in this report or the previous inspection(1) . This black mark was mentioned by Zareba in conjunction with a statement made by the inspector Mr. Robert Kalinowski (K93-94), who said that according to the photos he is shown the damages to the right door of the car could not have been caused by a hand(2) . This mark is later attributed in court by Zareba to the handlebars of my bike(3) . Also, according to Zareba, the black mark was not on the original May 15th list because the inspection was done in the rain, an untrue statement according to the inspection report(4) . It was not until Stanislaw Jablonski’s testimony to the courts that we learned that there was in fact a second damage causing accident(5) some time in June and before this second estimate was produced.
At that meeting Zareba in fact flatly denied the car having any previous damages before May 15th, stating concretely at that meeting:
“Before the day that I met Mr. Goodman, my car had one dent on the running board on the right side. All of the described damages I have told about have come about as a result of Mr. Goodman’s actions, specifically throwing the bike or by action with his hands(6) .
However, Zareba did finally confess on November 29th that there was in fact a previous accident sometime in January, stating that he drove into a tree, though failing to provide any written documentation. This lack of documentation creates a situation where actual alleged damages from the May 15th incident cannot clearly be ascertained. Proof of existing damages on May 15th could have been validated by insurance records, photographs and estimates for damages and signed off work from the January crash.
This denial of previous and subsequent accidents is an intentional distortion of the facts. Because both of these accidents went unmentioned for over six months, this situation should rightly be seen as withholding evidences for the purposes of gaining additional and unwarranted funds. As they were not mentioned before the indictment, this makes the states original claim false. This also constitutes perjury and/or withholding evidences on the part of Zareba. But also, according to their testimonies, Zareba represented the damages to both Kalinowski and Jablonski(7) as being directly and solely linked to the May 15th incident. In doing so, he has corrupted these witnesses in the same fashion as Katerzyna Zareba(8) . This should also rightly be seen as claiming attitude for Zareba’s disregard of the truth and avoidance of personal prosecution for making false reports of damages
Therefore because both the previous and subsequent accidents of the accuser was known the court by the time of its decision, assessing this number as being the actual damages to the car unfairly allows for all of the damages to be assigned. I feel this is sufficient cause for the reversal of the decision.
2. The indictment claimed a witness that did not exist.
In the justification for the indictment, issued September 4, 2002, it is claimed that the reasons for the askance for a trial was based upon the testimony of Zareba and one additional witness. During the trial, the state called two witnesses, however Stanislaw Jablonski was not a witness to this event (See below) and was only “officially” acquainted with Zareba after a subsequent June accident and therefore had no direct knowledge of the May 15th event at all except via Zareba. Also, Tomas Jucha refused to testify in any meaningful way at all, simply claiming he remembered nothing. Therefore, the original cause in the case was not justified, as the state provided no witnesses. I feel this is sufficient reason for dismissal of the charges and reversal of the decision(9) .
3.The lack of hard evidence
In the justification for the decision (page 6, paragraph 8 of the English translation), the court states that it finds the evidences of Tomas Jucha, Stanislaw Jablonski and Katerzyna Zareba to be “mutually complimentary”. I believe that the court used the testimonies of these witnesses erroneously and I sight the following as examples:
Tomas Jucha was not an eyewitness to the event. He was the arresting officer, but was not there at the scene until 15 minutes after. His written report though clearly details a picture that resembles quite accurately my story(10) much more then subsequent Zareba testimonies. He does see that there is damage to the car, but the knowledge of where that damage comes from comes only from Tomas Zareba’s telling him. He does not collect statements from any bystanders nor does he inspect the scene. And Jucha’s testimony in court(11) does nothing but to protect Zareba by not agreeing to say that what was in his written account was indeed what Zareba had told him.
Stanislaw Jablonski was not an eyewitness to the event. He owns an illegal paint and body shop where Zareba has his “work” done. Though the terms of his relationship are not made clear, the ongoing relationship between he and Zareba seems propagated on the difference in price Jablonski can charge to paint a car and do body work against the cost of a “professional” shop(12) . There is a high probability that Jablonski was the man who did the body work after the January accident, though this is never mentioned. The damages to the car he describes are only after a second Zareba accident from sometime in June(13) . Jablonski’s “wife” purchased the car and Jablonski’s firm neither signed off the work from the January or the June crashes. Knowledge of where any damages came from is only from Zareba’s word to him.
Katerzyna Zareba is an eyewitness to the event, but her testimony is biased because Zareba is her father and that “her parents told her” what to remember(14) . The purpose of calling her to the stand however was successful because she did indeed admit to being told what to say. Her admission that she had been coached admits a crime on Zareba’s part and there is evidence in the statements of Jablonski and Kalinowski that he did the same with them. However, there are also essential parts of the story that come from her that do not agree with Zareba’s version of the events. These items are:
1. That the car was in the center lane and not to the left. This would account for the car not being seen before I made my move to go around the bus.
2. It visually places the biker in front of the car, implying that Zareba saw the biker and dismisses his claim of the biker darting out in front of the car.
3. She specifically states that she guessed that “someone must have cut in” inferring that something (normal to her) had caused her father to do something violent.
A much larger and destructive problem occurred in the court though, when I was not allowed to interview this witness directly.
Reasons given were inappropriate to the situation because of my vested interest in questioning the witness directly and because of the existing problems I had with meaningful representation(15) . Failing to allow for full interview of this witness, especially when there was the high probability that she was influenced greatly by her father, removes my ability to help discern the truth of the situation, which was the only reason I called her to the stand in the first place. This alone is grounds for dismissal because it shows evidence of a prejudiced and unfair court(16) .
Thomas Zareba was a witness but,
1. He told a different story to Jucha than he did to the police
2. He denied that there was previous damages to his car.
3. He never mentioned that his “report” contained new damages from an accident a month after May 15th.
4. He said that he had broken teeth which was disproved by the dental report
5. He told us the bike was thrown at the bumper and then changed his story.
6. He told us the bike rode past the car three times, but then admitted he barred my way in court(17) .
7. He “coached” all of his witness as to what to say
8. Failed to repeat the order of the incidents correctly even one time in his four testimonies(18) .
9. He made some remark in his testimony about English being spoken to him that is simply incomprehensible: “FROM TO POLICE” has no meaning in English. It is two directly opposite prepositions followed by a noun, which therefore makes no sense.
10. Zareba admitted to grabbing my finger, which indicates very well that I was pointing my finger at him. This is absolutely indicative that I was “TALKING” to him and not attacking him. One doesn’t point a finger at another unless he is trying to make a point.
11. He claimed in his story that the distance between the bus and his car was five meters and the event of my passing in front of him was over a hundred meters from the stop. This estimate is physically impossible because the implied speed of the bus and the car would mean the bike had about 1/3 of a second to cross two lanes of traffic, a physical impossibility for either the bike or the car(19) .
12. He told a story about a police car being at the scene, though he changes his story from the policeman following him to the KSP (There is no evidence of this, and this is not Jucha) to actually ignoring him and making a right turn on Marshalkovska and driving away(20) .
13. During my testimony to the court, Zareba tried to ask a question about the bike making contact with the car. A simply return question sent Zareba running from the courtroom to call whomever was his acting attorney(21) . This sort of behavior should easily be indicative of the un-believability of his situation.
14. He filed an additional lawsuit using the extra damages as his base argument…
These witnesses therefore do not find great evidence against myself, but against the driving ability and dishonesty of Zareba. But also:
Robert Kalinowski, (K95-96) was not an eyewitness, had no actual knowledge of the situation outside of reading a document and looking at a picture. His idea of the possibility of damage being done by a hand is pure conjecture with no basis in hard evidence. Furthermore, even his statement was coerced by Zareba as evidenced by the statements that he was told both that the damages were done on May 15th and in Zareba’s opinion, how(22) .
Concerning Zareba’s Medical report (K79-80):
Though it is true that the report does show that Zareba had a cut on his lip and some swelling, it does not indicate that there are any “broken” teeth. Statements made by Zereba specifically described his teeth as being broken or crumbled(23) . His story was a lie.
Concerning the psychological exam (K238-239):
The opinion of the psychologist says that there was some minor impairment of judgment at the time of the incident. However, this is not a statement of lack of control. There is in Zareba’s stories a lack of motive in his description of my actions. He relies on: “He was crazy” as a point of proof. But all actions require motivation. The psychologist at the time of the examination, offered that I was angered by Zareba making an aggressive and unnecessary driving move against me. This maneuver is seen in Jucha’s report, from Katerzyna Zareba’s testimony and from Zareba’s court testimonies that he did in fact bar my way. In other words, being attacked by a car in the middle of the day made me angry enough to hit him. This is not evidence that I committed an assault, only that I reacted to an assault committed against me.
Concerning the hitting of the car:
There is no physical evidence that shows in any meaningful way that I hit Zareba’s car. Accordingly:
1. During the inspection of the car (K10-11), the last lines indicate that the car was dusted for fingerprints and that these prints are filed into black folders and marked as #1. However, these are not my fingerprints and there is nothing anywhere in these papers that say that they are.
2. The evidence from the report of the bicycle(24) (K241-242) clearly states that there is no damage whatsoever to the bike or to any of its parts, and of course any damage done to the car would also be damage done to the bike.
3. There was no damage done to my hands (K26-27) and only a small scratch made on my right thigh. One is hard pressed to imagine one smashing glass or punching steel without making corresponding damage to ones hands(25) .
4. And, as an experienced bike messenger, that I would use my hands as a weapon rather than my lock or keys is simply not correct.
5. The courts opinion that my seeing Zareba showing his car to the police is evidence of my crime is false logic. This is also true concerning the circular logic of saying that because some people saw or were told about a damaged car, that this gives them absolute knowledge of where the damage of that car came from. Because Zareba attributes that car's damages to me to so many people, he is both corrupting witnesses and slandering me at the same time. Therefore, these statements are not material evidences that I have done the damage to the car only hearsay evidence and therefore inconclusive.
6. Zareba “knew” the number 3000PLN when he came to the desk to tell his story on May 15th. His knowledge must certainly come from somewhere. If indeed all of the damages to the car done in the January crash were not completely fixed, the money for the differences between work done at Jablonski’s shop and the original estimate would amount to a profit for Zareba. This difference in price, especially where insurance checks are given gives Zareba a vested interest in his “accidents”.
7. There were in fact previous damages to the car(26) , and his denial of which for six months is a crime.
8. Might be caused by a hand(27) DOES NOT mean that the damages WERE caused by a hand or WERE caused by my hand. These statements of probability have no basis in fact in regards to this case and were a result of a coerced request by Zareba.
9. The only evidence that I did this thing comes directly from statements by Tomas Zareba himself.
I submitted a piece of evidence to the courts concerning evidence of previous damages to the car in my essay to the court of December 7(28) .
In that report I showed how the photographs of the Renault showed clearly dirt streaks trailing backwards from the dents in the hood. These marks showed that the car had been driven in the rain, with these damages already in place. This paper showed that it was physically impossible for the damages to the hood to be caused at the time of the incident on May 15th because Zareba was only driving in the rain before 1:50 in the afternoon and the car was standing still in the parking lot of the Wilcza street station for the other rain that day. This finding turned out to be the absolute the truth concerning the existence of previous damages.
I told the prosecutor about the pictures to the hood in advance of the report or the August 30th meeting. That this information was passed onto Zareba is seen clearly in Zareba’s statement about the inspection being done in the rain(29) and in Kalinowski’s opinion that the damages to the hood (The only clear photo that showed the water marks) were inconclusive(30) . These items do clearly show Zareba’s desire to distort the facts. And again, at that meeting, Zareba’s position was absolutely that there was never any previous damages to his car.
There were no eyewitnesses
Of the thirty to fifty people who saw the event neither Zareba nor the Police collected one witness for a statement. According to his own stories, Zareba indicates that he sat in his car and did nothing for over a minute and a half(31) during the alleged assault. As a professional police officer Zareba knew to simply call the police during the assault and to remain at the scene, he did neither. He could have had the alleged cop nearby help, but he didn’t. He could have taken names from onlookers- either after I left, or before we all went to Wilcza Street. His failure to do these things, mixed with the inconsistencies in his stories and his failure to explain other relevant driving problems all point plainly to the false character of the account(32) . Relying on his position as police officer rather than backing up his stories, especially when he wants compensation for property damages in foolish and unprofessional. The only reasoning for this failure would be that he desired no witnesses.
The truth of the evidence is that it shows very clearly that Thomas Zareba gave false testimony to the police on May 15th and at every subsequent stage of this case. This alone is the right reason for the reversal of the decision.
4. A biased and prejudiced situation existed throughout the trial.
It was an obvious situation that Tomas Zareba was a policeman. Many people I talked to about this case told me that in Poland, I should know that no matter how “right” I was, it didn’t matter because Zareba was a cop(33) . I found this to be very true. And, I found that because of this, the courts desire for conviction superseded the reality of its evidence and I found that I had absolutely no help in defending myself in this case.
I wrote several essays(34) with the hope of adding evidences to the court concerning the stories and evidences of Zareba. The content of these essays were important. The large essay submitted on 7 October(35) showed evidence that there was in fact previous damages to the car, later proved true. The essay concerning the Angle of the car (K353-375) contains relevant information about the differences in Zareba’s stories and specifically his enormous change of story regarding the moment when the bike and the car had first contact(36) . All of these essays were written at great cost of time and material and concerns major issues in this case but were apparently ignored by the courts. If the reason the essays were disallowable was a procedural flaw, it was the job of council to explain this to me(37) . That these essays were not accepted as evidence is sign if prejudice.
Also, Zareba was made auxiliary prosecutor, a position that further protected him. Placing Zareba in this position created a conflict of interest because he was also a witness in the situation. This denied the existence of any counterclaims and also helped create a biased court. This situation created problems with Marcin Borus, who refused to attack Zareba’s story during this trial in any meaningful way because of this.
Prejudice created another problematic document in the bike document was made on May 17th (K241-242). This document directly refutes responsibility for damages to the car as well as the “throwing of the bike” statement because there were no damages to the bike. This document was in fact the only physical evidence from the first day. The police’ inability to send the paper across to the courts in a timely fashion (It took eight and a half months to get to the court files) caused grievous harm to the defense during the discovery period. If this document was available, it would have probably disallowed the case from going to the courts.
Because that document was not sent to the courts, Jersey Twardowski was needed as a witness to try and confirm the bikes condition and the existence of said document. But, because of a potential conflict of interest due to Twardowski’s being my translator, there existed a potential mistrial that caused unnecessary pressure in the defense and Twardowski. It also must be said that Mr. Twardowski is not a young man, and his translations were not very good. Evidence of this problem can be seen in the terrible translations of my testimony, and my inability to follow the dialogues of the court. However, I was compelled to keep him because of his attachment to the earlier incidents in the case. The court had knowledge of Twardowski’s involvement beforehand, but chose to call him as the translator nevertheless. My attorney Marcin Borus was bilingual but never made a protest. This also would also be sufficient reason for a reversal of the decision.
Many documents were unaccepted
In addition to the essays, I also submitted many signed documents, which were also not allowed as evidence. I submitted as evidence letter’s from Marcin Drazkiewicz (K264) concerning my skills as a biker and his participation in my trial, from Roman Skoczynski, owner of the A to Z bike company in Warsaw as a personal and expert reference of my skills and the bike I ride and from Elzbieta Drazkiewicz concerning Warsaw drivers and her personal knowledge of my riding skills. I also included two letters from David Leopold representing Calvary Couriers in New York both as a character reference and as a professional one verifying my skills and both my capacity for the job of bike messenger as well as my income (K308).
In addition to these, I submitted letters of recommendation from Chris Dinant, Kat Lopez, Peter Stull, Alison Bevage, Klause Baker representing BonJava, SRO, Bill Bliech, Erik Leonard, Bruce Gaskins, My Parents, Judie and Lee Goodman, Silke Froelich, Lukasz Wdowiak all of whom wrote in personal or business reference on my behalf. I also included Letters from Tatyana Copus, my fiancée, Irene and Victor Kovelenko, her parents with whom we live when we are in Belarus, From Victor Guydanyadchuk, one of my business partners there and from Ilona Ceredivich, Natalia Makeravich, Tatyana Vladimirov, all friends and acquaintances from our town in Belarus. There was included from Jon Grondelski of the US Embassy a letter regarding my presence in Warsaw at the time of the hearing about my passport on June 13th (Blue folder, evidence section) and from Piotr Borkowski, concerning the coercive nature of my stay during the discovery process. I also included as character references letter from my Polish students (328-342) and names of the people who housed me over the last month of my stay in Poland.
Many of these people were available to give testimony to the courts and several came several times to the courts. All of these references (except for the students) were made available to the prosecutor before the indictment was made but were flatly refused as inconsequential. To ignore such items is to ignore a basic premise in this case; the accusations of character and claims of craziness on the part of Zareba. In a case where the evidence is as thin as it is, character becomes important. Ignoring so many references should be considered grounds for dismissal.
5. The inability of the court to provide adequate council.
There was from the first moment an extreme language barrier. The reading of Polish texts and the necessity of trust therefore must be in place for there to be any hope of fair representation. No state attorney established such trust.
Because there were no eyewitnesses in this trial and no concrete evidences other than Zareba’s story, the concept for the defense was simply to prove that Zareba was less then honest in his claims. It was my goal to prove that Zareba’s stories were without merit in many places and physically impossible in others. But it was specifically because Zareba was a policeman, and because of the prejudice that his position created that none of the attorneys agreed to attack Zareba’s stories in any meaningful way, choosing instead to take a passive defense assuming some element of guilt at the same time.
Evidence of their lack of assistance is seen in the form of the incomplete and un-aggressive complaints issued by Wojciech Tomczyk, his not appearing at the first scheduled meeting, failing to give information about the nature of meetings or what would be expected at the time. The lack of questions asked during the August 30th meeting(38) or not even mentioning that Zareba would be there is a direct sign of an unwillingness to represent.
The second attorney, Marcin Borus representing Sylwester Pieckowski, made no position whatsoever at any moment concerning previous or subsequent damages to the car, and made no request for clarifying physical evidence proving the damages. He ignored any request of complaint against Zareba concerning differences in his statements, made mistakes in dates, and limitations for filing papers, had a lack of knowledge of the facts previously presented, allowed for an air of discrimination to exist without doing anything meaningful to stop it, all failures in the preparation of a proper defense. He also failed to make any motion that would shorten the case and similarly provided no forewarning or advice as to form and requirements of the court.
The third attorney did not participate in the proceedings and the fourth was so hostel as to be completely unavailable for any participation, even going so far as to hang up the phone during routine phone calls. She also included a completely unnecessary and uncalled for remark during her closing arguments an has been no help at all.
The obviousness of the evidence presented seems to indicate that Zareba was showing a genuine distain for disclosing facts while at the same time overstating and falsely attributing damages. If there is no attorney willing to simply show this in court, or at the least help to mount a defense, it is fairly obvious that council was simply not representing the defense adequately. This is not only grounds for dismissal of the charges but shows the liability of the state because its failure to represent was the cause of even further damages due to the extended time needed for an inferior or non-existent defense.
There is proof in the contribution and content of my essays that I was trying to mount a legitimate defense, but that these essays apparently went unheard is proof that there wasn’t any understanding of how to submit and/or discuss such evidences. It is clear therefore that there was in fact no defense provided by any state attorney and this is grounds for dismissal of the charges.
6. That the situation of keeping the accused in Poland for the duration of the trial was wrong and based upon a false pretence.
On May 17, the court released me on 4000pln bond. It was made clear that my passport was to be held only until I returned with the money (K38). However, before leaving the court, I was instructed by the court directly to write a complaining note(K39). This note specifically refers only for a reduction in the amount of bail and was not a complaint about the situation. The wording of the complaint was directly from the court as translated by Twardowski. I returned with the money the following Monday, but was told by the prosecutor that my passport was to be held.
A meeting to discuss this situation was scheduled for June 13th. I did not receive notice of that meeting because I was in Gdansk at that time. I had however returned to Warsaw on the 12th of June (See blue folder for receipts from where we stayed that night) and went to the United States Embassy that day for a phone call to the prosecutor’s office (see letter from John Grondelski-also blue folder). The embassy was told in that phone call that the courts would decide the decision concerning the passport within a few weeks and no such mention was made of any such meeting(39) . Because I was not allowed to see the court papers and was without representation for another six weeks(40) , I had no knowledge of why these changes were made nor was I given a chance to argue my position. It was not until months later that I found these documents as a result of a friends reading to me the documents of the case.
As the original complaint was coerced and asked for under false circumstances and the agenda of the meeting was withheld, I feel this is further grounds for a reversal of the decision. I say this because being held in Poland was both expensive and painful to me, and the results of being held here for such a long time caused great damages. To have such events take place behind my back and under false pretences is cruel und unusual treatment. If the original cause for the holding of the passport was therefore false, this gives reason and cause for reversal of the decision and also makes the court liable for these damages.
7. The court has already implemented punishment.
Before the decision of the courts to finally release my passport on April 7, I was held in Poland for 320 days at my own expense. During this time I was held away from my fiancée, my business, my family and my freedom. I was obligated to pay for every day of my stay, even though it was illegal for me to work here. I made complaints about this situation on a monthly basis, but the court never even allowed me a holiday with my friends, or even a furlough to attend to business when a theatre in Belarus accepted my play.
This stay was upheld regardless of the evidence before the court or the courts eventual decisions and caused unbelievable hardship and damages. I submitted a list of damages (K304-305) to the court on February 24, 2003, which outlined the losses. Indeed the damages to myself and those around me were not even completely felt until I was finally able to rejoin my fiancée and her family after the middle of April. It was only then that I realized the cost of my absence to people who were waiting for my return. One of my partners in the intended bike firm was no longer working with bicyclists because he had to give up his job with the school for which he was the bike mechanic because of financial problems. A second partner died, though he was only 56 years old. And I do see a connection to the loss of hope that would come along with my promise to work with people who earn less then $1000 a year at their jobs. And this is not to mention the damages to my fiancée’s household, where because of the added stress, My fiancée’s son is now having difficulties in school, and she is having problems at her work.
Further problems having implications on my ability to travel and do business abroad in the future also come along with a guilty verdict. It was acknowledged by the court that I do indeed have a career. My forced stay in Poland has destroyed all of the original plans to work in Belarus, and future punishments will have an endlessly negative affect on future plans.
I believe it is quite clear that the evidence in this case is in fact based on false claims by the accuser and the decision made incorrectly. The implication that I would throw away so much trust and so many attachments is foolishness and the accusation is slander. Therefore, because I have already suffered a one years deprivation of freedom and monumental financial losses, because further punishment will only increase these damages and for all of the reasons previously described, this should be reason enough to the decision against me should be reversed.
8. The decision is based on the lies and/or withheld evidences of the accuser.
I disagree strongly with the courts justification for its decision. I think that the court arrived at that decision based upon a biased and unbalanced point of view. Tomas Zareba was both making false testimony against me as well as was withholding evidence. The reading of the testimonies of Jucha, Kalinowski and Jablonski all agree with this. The reading of the medical report proves this. The report of the bike, the admission that he told his daughter, Kalinowski and Jablonski what to say and his changing stories all prove this. It is also evident by his courtroom behavior in taunting me about his lack of witnesses, delivering witnesses who profess not to remember anything and his running from the courtroom when a simple question was reversed that he is avoiding justice more than proving his own case. The following items are facts and physical evidence from this case:
1. Zareba made false statements to the police after the incident in May 15th about his teeth, about the damages to his car, and about my actions.
2. Zareba gave a false report to the prosecutor on August 30 denying earlier accidents and gave a contrived estimate, which carried damages done after May 15th in yet another driving accident..
3. Zareba coerced witness’s testimonies and withheld evidences about previous damages to his car.
4. He admitted finally in court to having his car in such a way in front of me that I could not ride past.
5. These statements and actions constitute a slander against my name for the purposes of gaining money from me.
I believe that the court disregarded plain material evidence that Zareba had lied due to the simple fact that he was a Policeman. This was true on the first day and was true throughout the trial. And, I suppose this would be normal anywhere but Tomas Zareba was not in uniform on May 15th and was driving his own car. I had no way of knowing that he was a policeman, and he had no police business with which to approach me(41) .
The reality is that while I was being held in Poland purely because of Tomas Zareba’s word at the time of the incident, Zareba was amidst a series of driving catastrophes: Two crashes, and the misjudgment involving myself all within five months. And these are only mishaps we know of. When he denied previous damages and contributed reports including later damages, he committed perjury. Withholding these evidences from the court and attributing all damages to myself are further crimes.
The court seemingly made no note of these things, and the justification of judgment shows prejudice because of it.
I feel I was unfairly tried for these crimes. I did not assault Mr. Zareba’s car in any way and I did not assault Mr. Zareba. I did hit Mr. Zareba because he made an unreasonable and dangerous driving maneuver against me; he made this move against a biker and he did this with a young girl in the car. His driving could have cost me my life or the girls, and that I believe that no one should be allowed to feel that it is ok to make such intentional moves against bikers anywhere. Such moves show great social irresponsibility, poor driving judgment and a possibility of future endangerment to my fellow bikers, and this is why I acted.
The evidence in this case shows plainly and concretely that Tomas Zareba lied for the purposes of getting money from me. Evidence also proves that the court erred in it’s judgment on several occasions. I was not adequately defended by council or allowed to properly defend myself. Nevertheless, I feel that the evidence is plain that I was not guilty of these crimes and the decision of the courts should be reversed.
Adam Goodman
27 may, 2003
Footnotes:
1“ Today I remember that on the car there was a mark on the right side which goes from the back of the car to the mat protector on the rear door, a little under the window or the glass. This scratch was in black color, probably coming from the driver of the bike or one of the grips that were on the handlebar. W dniu dzisiejszym przypomniałem sobie, że na samochodzie była rysa po prawej stronie biegnąca od tyłu pojazdu poprzez błotnik i tylne drzwi nieco poniżej szyby. Było to przytarcie koloru czarnego prawdopodobnie pochodzące od kierownicy roweru lub jednej z dzwigni która jest zamontowana na kierownicy roweru.” This mark becomes an important part of Zaraba’s testimony to the courts.
2.“On the basis of the inspection of the car was damaged and were fixed. the photos do not show the size of the damages. on the basis of the size of the elements that were fixed and the basis if the description from 15 may, I say that the scratches on the door could not be made by a hand”. Point 5 from the expert opinion.
3. Refuted by the long lost bike report (K241-241) in which there is no damage done to my black rubber grips. Nevertheless, the story is changed to reflect this “unseen black mark” in his testimony to the court on October 29 (K182-89) “when he was riding next to my car, he put his right hand on the bus, and the left side of his handlebars into my car. Przejeżdżając koło mojego samochodu oparł się prawą ręka o autobus a kierownica roweru ocierał i lekko uderzył w prawy bok mojego samochodu.” This element of the story was never mentioned in any previous testimony and there is no mention in any report about such a mark.
4. According to the report (K10-11) the inspection was done in clear weather.
5. From Jablonski’s statement to the court (K189-90) in which he tells us that Zareba “hit something” just before the car was bought by his wife. “(These damages) were caused by a car accident which was told to me by Zareba. Zareba told me something about the car hitting something. The accident happened just before my buying the car. I bought that car in June or July this year.”
6.“Na pytania obrońcy. Mój samochód przed spotkaniem tego dnia z panem Goodmanem miał wgniecenie w progu z prawej strony. Wszystkie opisane uszkodzenia powstały w wyniku działania pana Goodmama dokładnie rzucania rowerem lub działania rękami.”
7. From Jablonski: “I found out from Zareba that the damages were caused by some fight. I don’t want to say anything more.” And from Kalinowski: “on the car there are no damaged described as having happened on 15 may” and later: “on the basis of the inspection of the car was damaged and were fixed. the photos do not show the size of the damages. on the basis of the size of the elements that were fixed and the basis if the description from 15 may, I say that the scratches on the door could not be made by a hand. The value of the damages as described as happening on the 15th of may is written in the cost estimate which is included with the experts opinion and uses about the middle price for fixing them. “
8. See below.
9. Mention of the responsibility of the state appointed attorney’s is mentioned in section 5 of this appeal.
10. From the field report of Thomas Jucha: “Today I was on patrol with my partner Mariusz Zima, at about 2:05 at the parking lot of the KSP, when Tomas Zareba came to us and said that at about 1:50, when he was driving his car, a Renault Megan at Bankowy Place, that in one moment, the biker rode from behind the city bus. Mr. Zareba when he saw the biker in front of the mask, he started to slow down. Zareba stopped the car in front of the biker, but he didn't injure the biker in any way. but the biker, went to Zareba and punched him in the face while standing next to the car.”
11. From (K190) in its entirety: “I don’t know why I am in court. I don’t know the accused, the date means nothing to me. (after reading) I don’t remember that situation.”
12. From Jablonski’s statements to the courts “Zareba called me to fix the car, and I bought it… I painted many parts, I don’t remember… I made the roof smoother and I painted elements, which are damaged… In a professional work shop, they have much higher prices than mine.”
13. From (K189-90) I know why I am here in the court I bought this car from Zereba. Zareba called me to fix the car, and I bought it. This cars front bumper was damaged and broken and it had a broken light… there was also that the front mask was damaged, it was crooked in the middle. In the middle of the mask were waves, and it looks like it was crooked. Zareba told me something about the car hitting something. Broken front light and a crooked mask in the front, were caused by a car accident, which was told to me by Zareba. The accident happened just before my buying the car. I bought that car in June or July this year.
14. From (224-7) “before I came to the court, my parents told me about the situation because I didn’t remember.”
15. See section 5 of this report.
16. See section 4.
17. From (K182-89) “Being about half way from the center of my car to the rear, he raised the bike over his head and made several of steps. Being in front of my car, threw cycle on street and car. Będąc w połowie lub bliżej przodu mojego samochodu uniósł go w górę, zrobił kilka kroków i będąc z przodu mojego samochodu , rzucił rower na jezdnię i na samochód tzn. cały rower nie upadł na samochód.” . Previously he had always maintained the he had not barred the way and that the bike could pass.
18. See essay (K353-375) for a detailed series of the changing stories.
19. See essays (K353-375) and (K376-383) for a deeper description and the math.
20. (K182-89)
21. From my day of giving testimony to the courts:
“Zareba: Czy pana rower uderzył mój samochód?
Twardowski: Did your bike hit my car?
Goodman: Do you mean when you drove your car in front of me?
Twardowski: Czy ma pan na myśli kiedy wjechał pan przede mnie samochodem?
Zareba: Tak.
Twardowski: Yes.
Goodman: No, I think I made a clean stop.
Twardowski: Nie, myślę, że to było czyste zatrzymanie.
Zareba: (do sądu:) Czy mógłbym wykonać pięciominutowy telefon?
Twardowski: May I please be excused for five minutes to make a phone call?”
22. See footnote 5
23. From (K8-9) “but I got a few punches into my mouth, my upper lip and chipped four of my teeth.-ale dostałem kilka uderzeń w szczękę, górną wargę w wyniku czego naruszył mi zęby (cztery)” Zareba failed to show any evidence of payment of medical bills during his court testimony of November 21..
24. Lost by the police for seven months and therefore excluded from the discovery process.
25. It should be noted that I am a writer, a mechanic and I have played guitar for 25 years. My hands are all what I am and what I do. In addition, the described method of beating the car is nothing resembling any such work done by a professional messenger of several years service on New York. In any such cases weapons such as keys or bike locks would be used and never ones hands.
26. Admitted by Zareba in court (K182-89)
27. Malinowski’s expert opinion, (K95-96)
28. Blue folder in the second AKT folder; section 1.
29. I had earlier pointed out the marks in the photo as water damage to Wiesniakowski at a June meeting.
30. “on the basis of the photos and on inspection of the car, no one can say if the front mask was damaged. one can only say that it was painted, this is why one cannot say that the damages could be caused by a bare hand.”
31. Zareba’s estimate for the duration of the alleged attack, from (K182-89): “I am not in a position to say how many times the lights changed at the crossing. They surely changed because the bus that was behind me and the cars went on. Nie jestem w stanie (powiedzieć) ile razy zmieniło się światło na skrzyżowaniu. Na pewno się zmieniło, ponieważ autobus który stał za mną i samochody pojechały dalej.” The lights at that intersection change once a minute.
32. Though in testimonies Zareba readily blames me for what are his own failures in accounting for the truth: From (K 182-89) “If this would have been a conflict or quiet conversation of participants I would think that it would not be problem finding witness. And from regard on this regard as he was acting like a raving madman, I rate that this is why nobody hurried with showing help. Jeżeli byłaby to kolizja albo spokojna rozmowa uczestników sadzę, że nie byłoby problemu ze znalezieniem świadka. A ze względu na to, że było to zachowanie furiata oceniam, że dlatego nikt nie spieszył się z okazaniem pomocy.”
33. To understand the drama in this, see Wiesniakowski’s interview with myself (K26-27): “And it is at this moment that the prosecutor reveals to the accused that the man he his was a Policeman!”
34. See all essays: K290-303, 309-323, 353-375, 376-383 and the Blue covered folder in the second AKT folder.
35. The blue folder in the second AKT folder.
36. In previous testimonies Zareba had stated the bike had in fact ridden past the car, though in testimony to the court he confirmed that in fact the bike was lifted past the car, a story that absolutely agreed with my story. This change was hugely important because is showed that the car had indeed “barred the way” of the bike.
37. See following section about representation.
38. Even though the attorney had foreknowledge that both Zareba would be present and about the estimator of damages and the opinion of the expert concerning the “possibility” of the car being damaged by a hand, that attorney did not provide any notice or council, specifically not telling the accused of the presence of Zareba, thereby prohibiting advance preparation, and, with my own preparation not possible, this attorney asked one single question of the accused, ignoring the extra damages or questions concerning previous or subsequent damages
39. Confirmation is given in the written statement of Tatyana Copus, also in the blue folder as to what we had been told at the embassy.
40. My attorney also failed to show up for that first meeting, I never actually saw him until an accidental meeting on August 27, three and a half months after the incident.
41. From (K104-5) “I haven’t shown my police identification because it wouldn’t do anything, and I didn’t have time, and so I didn’t."
Back to the
HOMEPAGE
Or E-mail me at beinghad_mail@yahoo.com
