Many times, in our regular lives, we encounter cases of complete, alogical thoughtlessness, even of progressive impropriety, or intellectual, alternatively than optical blindness.
PSuch blindness is clear and unquestionable.
There is no unusual phenomenon that for many, many years blindness has been a final effect in the dose (and in advanced doses) of permanent perfidious propaganda in the release of a gufnianian paper under the aegis of Nadaśek Szechter, and besides founded by the esbek confidents TEFALA.
Such a dosage is yet manifested in full dembrillation and thus deficiency of logical reasoning and grasping of reality. It was this full mind-blowing that most of the lemming herds became. all “revealed truth” by their Fuhrer TUSKA HERR was, is, and will be, by this herd uncritically and without any uncertainty consumed like a dead fish by hungry pelicans. Let us not delude ourselves besides much that this will change quickly, unless the perception of the Fuhrer changes rapidly and turns to “policity” from his current state of abnormality to her. As a consequence of specified remandation, the creation of highly dangerous, hard to cure symptoms of diseases, i.e. lemingos, Stockholm syndrome, and cell blindness, not chicken but mental. There is no effective remedy in the treatment, although there are cases of miraculous healing from time to time. However, there is an oddly very affirmative effect of these diseases, namely due to the characteristic DNA features of their personality specified individuals are simply The happiest creatures on this planet, regardless of its spherical or flat shape. The Edenic climate of delight is connected with the fact of absolutely blissful unawareness of unconditional possession of all attributes of idiotism!!!
Idiots, which is known, do not sow, are born... Thus, looking at e.g. at the window of the somsia, we can easy see its felician figure, although blind. For it is hard to admit that, affected by his disability, he would find pleasance in his stay even in the finest conditions of Eden, despite having the name Felician...
So let's focus here on an appropriate exemplum confirming the existence of apparent blindness, and unfortunately to distress dic TENKRAI in a criminal prosecution institution, which is the D.A. On 10.10.2024, prosecutor Tomasz Kuziak of the territory Prosecutor's Office in Warsaw issued a decision to refuse the initiation of an investigation due to the fact that he allegedly failed to see the grounds which would let him to conclude that the alleged act bears the mark of a prohibited act. The laconity of this provision, on the another hand, is marked by the fact that he was betrayed by a blind man!
To the patient and those who would like to do so, we put below the sacramental words (P.S.) the content of the appropriate complaint from the accused “blind” provision.
The paradigm of blindness occurs virtually in all areas of socio-political life, and lately peculiarly strongly, it is acutely noticeable in the academic domain, which we frequently express on our pillars. Parallelly critical texts are besides placed on the Foundation portal Sciente WATCH POLAND Under the aegis of Dr. Joanna Grub.
The quintessence of academic deviation includes our column of 6 bm. entitled Bad things happen in the Dane State, to get to know whom we cordially invite
And that would be as much as onegda concluded late Prof. J. T. Stanisławski.
15.11 2024
Fig. pixabay
Ps.
Gliwice 12.11.2024.
territory Court
Criminal Division
Warsaw
via
territory Attorney's Office
Warsaw City
31 Krucza Street
00-512 Warsaw
Ref. act: 4314-4.Ds. 1836.2024
REMEMBER
to the order of the territory Prosecutor's Office of the territory Prosecutor's Office Warsaw Śródmieście dated 10.10.2024.
I am challenging, on behalf of the Foundation, the decision to refuse to initiate an investigation in its entirety, since, as in an highly laconic manner and without any dispute, consideration and logical argument required, the Prosecutor's Office has concluded that the act allegedly does not contain any prohibited effect. This kind of attitude and position creates against law enforcement authorities, and in peculiar prosecutors from the alleged public opinion not very favorable connotations.
To the contested order, I accuse a mistake in the facts by completely ignoring the arguments put forward by the Foundation in its announcement of 23.08.201224 about the anticipation of committing a criminal offence directed to the National Prosecutor's Office. I decision that the contested order be repealed in its entirety and that a ruling be given to the territory Prosecutor's Office in Warsaw to initiate proceedings against Alfred Mark Wierzbicki, Osman Ochwatowicz, as well as Paweł Łukov, initiating an investigation into the criminal offence referred to in Article 271 § 1 k.k.
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
Repetitively, the Foundation informs that on 17.06.2024, acting on the basis of the order of the Ministry of Science, the Committee on Ethics in discipline operating at the Polish Academy of Sciences, and specifically acting as its ruling squad composed of Fr. Alfred Marek Wierzbicki as president of the Group and prof. Osman Ochwatowicz, as well as Prof. Paweł Łuków as members of the Group, prepared an opinion on whether Prof. Bogusław Sliwerski violated the principles concerning the possession of good opinion and adherence to technological ethics.
By Resolution No 3/2024 of the abovementioned, the Commission adopted the approval of the Panel of Judges, which unanimously ruled that: it did not state that Prof. B. Sliwerski was in breach of the condition that he had an excellent opinion and adherence to the principles of technological ethics. The Commission's reasoning is astoundingly concise and highly laconic and includes wording absolutely false. Moreover, its content contains a completely erroneous creation of giving absolution to a individual violating individual else's copyright. It's a complete deception and a cosmicly detached fantasy. The apriorative, ecclesiastical expiation expression adopted by the Commission can only derive from the cosmic abyss of the black hole, for it creates false, false reasonings and circumstances which Absolutely not. in the operative part of the judgement of S.A. in Warsaw.
It is so essential at this point to quote the judgement of S.A. of 31.01.2024:
I. amends the judgement under appeal in part, in so far as it obliges Bogusław Sliwerski in the first point to place within 7 (seven) days from the date of the judgment, on the defendant's blog PEDAG (at the address of ]]>https://swigglerski-pedagog.blogspot.com/]]>) for a period of 5 (five) consecutive days of apology, in the form of a fresh entry, with the following text, utilizing the font Georgia 14 pt: "Prof. Bogusław Sliwski apologizes to Dr. Józef Wieczorek for violating his own individual law by failing to mention the creator and origin of a drawing called "Dr(h)ab. academicina" published without approval on blog 3.01.2021 at the address
]]>https://sliwerskipedagog.blogspot.com/2021/01/academic-controversies-in...]]> and 19.04.2020
II. dismisses the appeal to the remainder, III. Judges from Bogusław Sliwerski to Józef Wieczorek the amount of PLN 780 (seven 100 eighty zlotys) with interest in the amount of statutory interest for the delay, for the time from the date on which the ruling was passed, until the date of payment for the costs of appeal proceedings.
Absolutely in that operative part of the judgement not functional the Commission’s false thesis above about alleged punishment the defendant's persons in any dimension, as well as the involuntary or negligent nature. Parallelly the same excellent professorial squad together could effectively prove; (complying with the expectations of the principal) the axiom in force in at least any environments about the flatness of the planet, on which we are presently walking, or on Earth. specified action must clearly lead to a clear consensus that Members of the Commission will allow falsification of the paper and at the same time acknowledgment of the false. In the Commission's view, prof. B. Sliwerski was allegedly punished for being incapacitated from the point of view of copyright to usage another people's intellectual property in the author's message on the blog as part of para-scientific activity. The judgement of the Court of First Instance shows that the reprimanded act of a associate of the RDN did not have plagiarism marks and so cannot be qualified as a gross violation of the principles of ethics in science. In the Commission's view, it is secondary to whether prof. B. Sliwerski's actions took place in the field of his scientific, popularizing or para-scientific activities. The Commission falsely nuanced the problem clearly stressed that: Prof. B. Sliwerski in his para-scientific activity (whose – as he convinces to read the material published on PEDAG's blog – is not unaware of the adherence to ethical standards in discipline and technological life) of an act that violates the rules of the current student (that) did not commit intentally.
According to a very incompetent Commission, “its one-off act is simply a consequence (and only) of "Editorial unfitness". It is simply a slight negligence, which is besides evidenced by low punishment imposed by the General Court.’
Synonymously rich Polish language eats ambiguity by referring to various kinds of phenomena and events. The Commission itself fell into its own trap rightly derived that B. Slippers He did it. In fact, committing a reprimand, however, she does not seem to head doing anything to make full absolut towards him. It is simply a disgraceful; a totally false view of a comparatively famous, colloquially personalized mistake.
As a highly eloquent exemplum of the complex synonymism of the Polish language, it is worth to mention frequently spoken by specified celebrities as B. Kurj-Satan or M. Lempart vulgarly defining the oldest profession in the planet synonymous with the daughter of Corinth. The colloquially plagiarism and juridical word included in the judgement of the S.A. on violating another people's copyrights are concepts of the same meaning, in fact, the insolent theft of another people's intangible or material assets. Members of the Commission, as you can see, are not sufficiently perceptive to the required degree of jurisprudence nuances and semantics of the parent tongue relating to synonymic concepts, but it should be effectively made clear that the J. Wieczorek vs B process took place in the expression civil process, and thus, in the final judgement in the Court of Appeal (against the Commission's false narration) he had absolutely no prima facie prerogatives towards the suspect to any degree whatsoever.... penalties. Consequently, he could not impose any punishment on him, i.e. both hailingly low, smaller, average or greater, for the cognitively punishment of the perpetrator of the act prohibited by law is entitled to onlycriminal courtsNot civil.
The civilian court is only entitled to by-law penalties in the form of a judgement of a fine, e.g. against a witness for his unfair invocation
The civilian court in issuing the ruling obliges the suspect to act only in the form of an apology, payment of a certain amount, or compensation of a comparative pension, etc. Again, the totally erroneous, absolutely unacceptable view adopted by the Commission of the hailingly low, comparatively insignificant negligence by B. Sliwerski on the violation of its copyright, and consequently the adoption by the Commission of a paradigm that allegedly specified insignificant negligence should a prioritize it to be released automatically from any liability.
Shown specified symptomatic and at the same time novel, juridical dialectics of the Commission would completely prevent, for example, victims of communication accidents, or another mobility-related effective investigation of material and moral losses incurred ... for it could always be argued that the accident was allegedly due to insignificant negligence, or impertinence of the perpetrator of the accident.
This dialect would bring far-reaching voluntaryism and nihilism into the legal order of the Republic of Poland effectively washing distant all existing rules of law and legalism. Showing so depends on firm VETO against its current functioning in the Commission's edition.
Recapitulating: the claims made in the petitum of complaints should be considered full justified.
for the Foundation:
Dr. Joanna Gruba
