According to the Central Statistical Office in Poland, about 1.8 million apartments are empty, so they are not utilized for rent. This fact has been widely discussed in the media, and here is an example of this text:
1.8 million apartments are empty. The owners do not want to rent them - PolsatNews.pl
The smaller part of these apartments, located in the resources of municipalities (city-min) and stands empty mainly due to the mediocre method condition of both these apartments and full buildings. The primary reason for this mediocre method condition is:
the allocation of housing at absurdly low costs (prices), not covering in any way the cost of surviving and/or the restoration of their method condition; frequently those housing, allocated at absurdly low prices, are owned by persons who should never be in their possession; moreover, any of these persons rent to others their flats at marketplace prices (and themselves live elsewhere, e.g. in their homes);
Municipal housing without supervision. "A scale of inefficiency shocking" - Business in INTERIA.PL
(b) the deficiency of any actual, effective supervision of the usage of specified apartments; the town-municipality is not curious in these apartments even if the alleged "locator" devastates and demolishs the premises, and if there is any more "medial" event (e.g. arson) it repairs the building so that arsonists live better and... there is something to burn again.
Here is what it looks like in Włocławek:
(a) ]]>https://pomorska.pl/33-pozary-building-social-on-wloclawski-wrote...]]>
(b) ]]>https://wloclawek. naszemiasto.pl/pozar-in-block-on-street-Viennese-we-in...]]>
(c) ]]>https://www.portalwloclawek.pl/Article/2054, arson-no-ma-co-do-toma...]]>
(d) ]]>https://pomorska.pl/point-flavourable/ar/c3-6780721]]>
Of course, this picture, contained in the cited texts concerning Włocławek, refers to alleged social housing, but if this unit (from 1 city, or Włocławek) is transferred to the full country, then we can only imagine the scale of PATOLOGY.
And here we would be incorrect – the PATOLOGY is much, much bigger: social housing is just a part of the flat with the alleged allocation. Much more has been allocated and is inactive provided as part of the alleged "solutions" by the state, and for about 30 years besides by municipalities (mainly urban municipalities, here for example Włocławek) alleged "household problems".
Moreover, there is an expanding force on commies to build apartments from public money and allocate them to certain people at underpriced prices (not compensating for the cost of building and maintaining premises); with these "allocations" there are a number of successive pathologies (large income of beneficiaries, but obtained "in black", income obtained abroad, surviving with a "partner", but officially: a single mother" etc.); however, this is simply a subject on a separate, large article.
Moreover, there are no regulations that would let the owner, or local authorities, to supervise the correct usage of these allocated premises. Itd, etc. - pathology continues.
The predecessors of today's communists (in the confession of bandit "ideology", but frequently their predecessors "after family": grandparents and parents) have led to the degradation of full quarters of cities throughout Poland, frequently of immense historical value. It is adequate to walk around Łódź for example and look at the yard of many buildings, which from the facade have already been most frequently (rather frequently for immense public money) but renovated and see what the yard covers.
I observe this on the example of Włocławek – many buildings in the mediate Town are technically only suitable for demolition, due to the fact that the costs of their renovation are so immense that it is not profitable.
Another thing is that the city for tens of millions of zlotys any specified demolished tenement houses refurbish and place in them, for example, institutions which on paper/in statistic (still being refined) are flourishing, but for the full city's inhabitants, the entities located there do not be (in pushing specified ideas the erstwhile "president" from the Coalition of Cheats, being in a coalition with post-comuchs).
What is more, the city of Włocławek – for millions of people's money (e.g. backing from BGK), in which the president of the SLD now "rules" refurbishes tenement houses for "fat" millions of zlotys (the subsidies from BGK alone are PLN 4.5 million), which his predecessors from the Polish People's Republic and their successors have brought to ruin, creates in them a "turnkey" luxury flat (only 7) and distributes to residence for no price. Here is an example of a townhouse in Brzeska 15:
]]>https://wloclawek. nasmasto.pl/Brzeska-15-we-wloclawku-ready-on-adopted...]]>
Even if only this amount of funding: PLN 4.5 million, which is just part of the cost of reconstruction, is divided by 7, it turns out that each of the 7 apartments cost PLN 650 1000 on average. In fact, more. How much?
What's the rent?
I did not manage to get information about the rents that will be in Brzeska 15, but the rents in recently built municipal apartments on Cellulozowa is – attention, attention!!! - 11 zł 85 cents per sq m.
Attention, attention – these are not social housing!!!
Would you like to receive a luxury, finished "turnkey" 50 – 70 metres apartment, in the city center and pay rent 600 – 800 PLN per month?
Millions of hard-working, physically or mentally, people in Poland will never have flats of this kind and in specified a standard. But it is us – the general public, not the "president" of the city promoting its person, that we pay for the next "instruments" (now) of the post-communists!!!
This is again the subject of a separate large comprehensive article: from which money is funded reconstruction (because it is not – due to the condition of buildings - "ordinary" renovation), who and "after which money" obtains a contract of works, who then uses these premises, etc.
I would like any detective to "examine" who are the people in Brzeska 15, who have obtained the "assignment", which is actually their material situation and have so far tried not to gotta usage state aid (self-government)!!!
What if individual didn't effort at all? The apartment, on top of that: specified an apartment, besides "we deserve it"?!
In order to complete the image - in Włocławek there is simply a deficiency of social housing, that is, housing for people who are not self-inflicted (physical or intellectual disability, etc.) will never be able to buy or rent an flat at marketplace prices, even if they "fall down" as further in the text. Proof of the absence of specified apartments is the fact that the city of Włocławek does NOT EXECUTIVE judicial decisions and forces persons entitled to direct further cases to the court for damages.
And in specified a situation the city of Włocławek plays "pseudo-developer" (for show) for public money, including from the national budget, that is for money OF OUR – ALL CITIZENS)!!!
And just out of curiosity, what kind of motion is behind this "business"?
A fewer years ago, a fellow associate (from a different option than the SLD, who had advanced on a doctorate done by a prof. who was later deprived of the title for plagiarism) erstwhile I got upset with him due to the pathologies that I had already seen, tried to make me realize that "there are so many FRUCTS to manage", so why "pultam" – I should effort to usage these "fruits" with them. I didn't take his offer! On the contrary!
(Ps. I think quite a few people know who I am writing about and what career this (p)oose did!)
Returning to the main topic, not only due to the state of buildings, but besides due to who in these buildings in the "close" Śródmieście Włocławka Śródmieście remained - due to the fact that after 1989 there was a drain of many erstwhile residents – most of the streets are now "dead" (but the same thing happened in many another cities): utility premises stand empty, and if we are driving through these streets by car, then we request to be extra vigilant, due to the fact that abruptly with momentum we could fall right under the wheel of the "locator" of this gate or another gate (such a "worldly tradition" – will stand for hours in the gate, frequently not with empty hand), which abruptly – under the influence of the "categoric imperative" - felt the request to visit a friend in the neighboring gate or local grocery store.
In literature/publicistry we have many descriptions of what the "krasno Armies" were doing in Poland during the Bolshevik War (1919-1921) and erstwhile they "released us in 1944/1945, but here I mention only to the commonly known images of their "executions" in the homes and dwellings in which they were accommodated.
Many housing units from communist broadcasting (PRL) look small better. erstwhile beautiful, decomposed, tall apartments, for example, in unique modernist tenement houses, are only suitable for general renovation; but how to renovate the ash parquet painted with oil?
The mediocre economy (management) of local government housing resources, which results in tens of thousands of dwellings not suitable for rental, is only a fragment of much larger ones, due to the fact that system-systemically-organized, PATOLOGY, which results in more than 1 million (because there are besides lower data than the GUS data) of apartments standing empty.
Here, by the way: the majority of the housing occupied by the communists' alleged broadcasts do not constitute municipal property at all, due to the fact that the vast majority of specified municipal housing was sold after 1989 - and it is inactive sold, besides in Włocławek - for a fraction of their value, even with 95% "bonificate", including many people who, even according to the regulations there, were not entitled to specified buyout.
Many specified apartments, especially the most valuable ones: in the best locations, in good method condition, for example built after 1945 ("the youngest"), became owned by "pertainers" of folk power or people someway connected, mostly family, with specified "pertainers". Why don't we ask 2 erstwhile presidents and at least 1 prime minister, let alone tens, possibly even hundreds of thousands, commies, post-communists and their “coalics”, how did they come into possession of (some) their properties?
Here's the NIK study showing only a fragment of this "friend" - ]]>https://www.nik.gov.pl/newest-information-about-results-controls/privacy...]]>
At present, most of the apartments, inactive occupied by "lovers" from the alleged communist broadcast, are in buildings owned by private individuals, people who, after a period of actual expropriation in PRL, formally (on paper) regained their property after 1989, but who inactive cannot exercise their property rights.
So-called. "locators" from the broadcast from the PRL period are inactive unmoveable:
It is not possible to resolve the rental relation with them (the rental relation – due to the fact that there are no contracts);
The rent is regulated by “the law on the protection of rights (good self!!!) of tenants, the residential resource of the municipality...”, so it is ridiculously low, little than half the marketplace price.
For example: specified an imposed "locator" pays in a 100 thousandth town for a 3-room apartment, over 50 metres, on the first level with a balcony, a rent of 800 PLN.
The owner shall not receive any compensation from the State or any compensation. What is more, the owner is subject to a number of further obligations – now, for example, the work to install heat sources in accordance with the EUROPEAN UNION DIRECTIVE, in the case of a gas boiler (which will shortly besides be prohibited) costs of PLN 10,000
"Democratic State of Law" in action!!!
Do I gotta add that it does not substance what kind of "locators" get income? They can gain even tens of thousands of zlotys, and inactive pay rent for the apartment, at most, below half the marketplace price, which can be obtained in a given location.
Each period the owner of specified an flat is added to the maintenance of specified a "locator" amount – in this case described above – PLN 1,200. individual explain to me why? WHAT RIGHT (not to confuse the Law with the applicable law)?
Here I will only point out - due to the fact that it will continue, with bad religion - that even if specified a tenant dies, and the place will be occupied before his death by a individual who besides has no legal title to this place (e.g. a grandson who previously lived elsewhere), then the owner cannot get free of specified a person, due to the fact that he is protected by the rules on possession (in bad religion – without a legal basis).
Of course, the police and the D.A. don't see the grounds for any intervention here. The prosecution will discontinue proceedings (without the work to justify!!!), and the complaint to the court is only a waste of time.
What is more, even if specified a individual (i.e. a "wild tenant") does not pay the owner a penny, the owner inactive has to supply water and pay for it, pay for draining sewage, for collecting solids, and .... pay property taxes!!!.
The state not only protects the bandit, but imposes on the owner of the premises an work to keep this bandit!!!
The owner, in order to get free of specified a bandit, protected by the state, must direct the case to court for eviction. Of course, he has to pay for it, and if after a year, 2 or even later he gets an eviction order, he has to pay the bailiff (at least respective 1000 zlotys) who... doesn't gotta evict (about this even later, at the alleged occasional lease).
If a "sage" or a home-grown "lawsman" gets distant with saying that the owner can get compensation, then I propose that he first learn what, even through a bailiff, can be enforced: from a individual working "black", from a individual even working on a contract, but on a paper earning the lowest national? I will make it easier for him to answer – NIC!!!
And what can be enforced from lazy and naked? The rhetorical question!!!
The ruling of the alleged court, in specified matters, can be framed and hung on the wall, so as to remember all look, and what a bandit country we live in!!!
Oh, dear, I forgot, it's a "democratic state of law"!!!
I can already hear the grunting and satisfaction of many of the pupils of the communists, post-communists or intellectual post-communists – let the mediate tenement houses endure further!
I have bad news for them (not to mention the comment on their intellectual properties) – the vast majority of private apartments, of which more than 1 million empty apartments in Poland, are not alleged "stonemakers", but those who purchased their premises after 1989.
And the vast majority of these empty dwellings are not rented precisely due to the existence of existing BANDYCKI rules (such provisions have nothing to do with the LAW, but about this further), regulating, first of all, property and alleged possession, and, above all, possession in bad faith.
It is about the provisions contained mainly in the KC, but besides in the KPC, in the Act "On the Protection of Rights (Rights? - Good to Himself!!!) of the tenants...", but besides in the Criminal Code (here not only accepted by the prosecutors absurd, contrary to any civilized legal interpretation, explanation of Art. 193 of the KK, but besides deficiency of many provisions that should penalize the above described banditism – occupying someone's property without a legal basis) and in the Criminal Procedure Code.
There are most likely tens of thousands of people affected (no 1 leads any statistics) but:
knowledge of what may happen to us, if we rent our property, our apartment, that is, zero income from the premises even for many years, the devastate of the premises, but besides – the work to keep for years the people we have allowed into our premises, is increasingly common;
Unfortunately, it is besides increasingly common to know that you can live for free and FREE in someone's flat and at the expense of the owner of the apartment; even an idiot will draw conclusions about the trend of the phenomenon here.
Is it any wonder that even if from our investment in real estate, in its purchase, (and this is our LAW) we could get income from the lease, then with specified BANDYCK'S regulations, many people are afraid to hazard renting the premises, due to the fact that possible incomes have nothing to do with the scale of problems and the scale of losses.
For "snappers", "sages" and "intelligents differently" (although they alternatively have problems with reading and thinking, due to the fact that "thinking hurts" – so they did not read to that point) below texts that show not the "top of the iceberg" above the indicated PATOLOGY, but – at most – the pole of this "top":
You, who is presently a pensioner, with a pension of PLN 1800, have saved up for years to supply yourself with additional retirement income, so you invested in buying a studio flat for rent. Now not only will it not pay any income from the purchased apartment, but – in order not to lose the flat – it must pay rent from its modest retirement (so-called "administrative") for the apartment, taxes and another claims for young Fraud (BANDY, protected by the applicable regulations) - ]]>https://woman.onet.pl/emeritus-with-punches-holds-wild-lover...]]>
The text says that the woman who helps the pensioner "will bring the substance to an end." Probably. Just a question – erstwhile and how much will it cost (what will the losses be).
Some smart-ass asks, "Why would she invest in real property and rent? So let this smart guy say, what was she expected to invest in? possibly she was playing in the stock market. Not everyone should be a gambler.
Here is simply a akin example from Silesia: ]]>https://www.fakt.pl/events/Polish/slask/jaworzno-urszula-kozub-walcz...]]>
And, by the way, in addition, the unveiling of a fragment of another pathology: there are people who from state aid made themselves a origin of livelihood. The article mentions a couple (who does not work and most likely does not intend to work) with 5 children surviving at the expense of the owner of the apartment, but above all, at the expense of all.
For "suckers" who work for a minimum national or for small more, information: specified persons, as described in the article, with 800+, from another kid allowances, from housing, fire, etc., from a number of another benefits will draw much, much more than the national average. And if you get a kid or children with disabilities (and if your parent drinks or is pregnant, what is the probability?), then ..... (I will not finish here due to the fact that this PATOLOGY offends all average person).
Moreover, all of these sources of income above indicated are free from repo. Even after winning the case and having the compensation, the owner will not recover any gold from the rent she did not receive, but besides from what she had to pay – due to the force of a bandit state – to keep this “pair”.
Of course, I don't think of people working hard to support themselves as "suckers," possibly due to the fact that I've worked hard all my life, both mentally and physically, to know what I know and to have what I have.
Unfortunately, people who live at our expense, although formally at the expense of the state, think differently – they see people working differently, just as "suckers".
What is more, they are convinced that what they receive from the state – they are entitled to it. This is widespread, unfortunately, not only in Poland, the glories preached by communists/lefts (clear or hidden) nonsense about the alleged "social state", about the fact that benefits and allowances from the state are "human rights" and "they belong", and even that having housing by everyone (including lazy, unemployed, etc.) is "human rights".
This will be further discussed in this article, here I will only quote M. Thatcher:
"There's no specified thing as public money. If the government says it will give individual something, it means it will take you due to the fact that the government has no money of its own.”
I'll say it differently – there's nothing "free", "air". If individual gets something for free, individual else pays for it.
The point is - additionally, nevertheless - that what will be given "for free" (from the noblest even the most noble conditions) yet besides generates PATOLOGY, passing at all times to subsequent generations.
This is simply a common pattern, not only in Poland, but besides in the United States, where allowances for certain groups of people, introduced as "compensation" for slavery (the question: what compensation a slave who lived 2 centuries ago will receive), influenced by a sense of shame (responsibilities, etc.) for slavery, made millions of beneficiaries dependent on benefits and "healed" them out of their desire to change their status.
To the subject - there are even more interesting cases than the example from Silesia, described in the article under the above link: for example, a parent before the age of 30, having already respective children (4-5), sometimes already surviving with another partner or without, frequently in another pregnancy, calls about the lease of an flat and.... is outraged that individual does not want to rent it, after all, is paid.
And here she calculates – her income from social assistance (800+ and others), but besides from the alimony of erstwhile partners is much more than PLN 10 thousand.
Of course, the court judges alimony from ex-partners, but these alimony payments are paid by all of us, besides by persons who physically for the lowest national, due to the fact that these erstwhile partners are "unexecutive" (working black, abroad, etc.). Formally, specified "mothers" are paid by the Alimentative Fund.
]]>https://www.nik.gov.pl/newest-information-about-results-controls/dlugi-fu...]]>
That's the kind of "mother" from having babies, she's given herself a livelihood. Hurra, there will be more of us – there will be more Poles!!!
Formally (on paper) - yes, but, with these "family" patterns, who will these "Poles" be? How much will NAS cost to keep specified generations? And let's not anticipate them to work for someone's pension (as the politicians and any journalists lobbying for 500+ have argued).
More lyrics, no comment:
(a) ]]>https://www.bankier.pl/message/Polacy-boy-in-house-in-house-N...]]>
(b) ]]>https://www.troj miejsto.pl/home/Unfair-rented-earner-escape-a-siding-pomo...]]>
Hundreds of thousands, or possibly even a million – 1 million 8 100 1000 flats stand empty, in large part due to the fact that the owners are afraid to rent them, and at the same time – mainly commules of all shades – shout that in Poland we have "a housing gap", ranging from respective 100 1000 to even more than 1 million dwellings, and it is widely assumed that a large part of this "luca" is in the largest cities (agglomerations).
And it is in these cities (agglomerations) that there is besides the largest stock of empty housing, usually comparatively new, in very good method condition, belonging, for example, to people presently surviving abroad.
Komuchy proclaims everything and to the fact that you gotta taxation owners who have 2 or more apartments, due to the fact that according to their leftist logic, it will force these owners to rent these apartments. Of course, intellectual moronism is portraying specified a "think" as a remedy for a housing gap.
Firstly, many apartments stand empty due to the fact that their owners – having only 1 flat – live elsewhere: e.g. abroad. So how would they feel forced to marketplace these apartments on the lease marketplace ("the idea" of commies – so far – does not include them).
Secondly, people who have 2 or more properties (as previously described by a pensioner from Szczecin) will actually feel the consequences of this "think" financially, but in the vast majority they will grind their teeth and pay another hare and will not rent their property anyway, due to the fact that the scale of losses generated by possible rents can be much, much greater than the taxation to pay.
I can guess – the commies will start yelling that taxation rates should be raised. What's next? Expropriation? How about a forced lease, like in PRL?
Here, on the margins – many lawyers, but not only, will be outraged and will be smart, that we have a alleged "emergency". I'm sorry to refrain from commenting.
This "woody prosthesis" – the provisions on the occasional lease, intended to be a remedy on the above-mentioned BANDYTYZM, only make additional duties and additional costs, but do not give any warrant that they will defend the tenant from unfair "locators".
This is what happens when, alternatively of eliminating the origin of PATOLOGY, you effort to “sugar” this PATOLOGY.
This is 1 of the texts, where the author does not compose the conductors detached from reality, but presents how the alleged " occasional rental" functions in practice -
]]>https://we're all farmers.pl/nam-obvious-a-back-osw...]]>
The ideas of the communists in no way solve the problem of "a housing gap".
And they are nothing but another manifestation of BANDYTISM!!! Who gave them the right to interfere in the property of others? Property not only legally, but besides legally acquired?
I propose taxing – and advanced – the property of the communists looted in the Polish People's Republic and the property taken over after 1989.
Of course, they became owners "legally", but did "rightly" (legally)? Did they gain their own property? The question rhetorically – just as "hard-working" as their successors, calling now for further interference in individual rights, in the ownership of these individuals (people).
These hundreds of thousands of flats which are now empty can enter the marketplace and "burden" the alleged "housing gap" only erstwhile the owners of these apartments will be certain that their property is adequately protected by the state and anyone who harms them by renting their flat will be held liable for damages and, in the case of "being in bad faith" - besides for criminal liability and for payment of compensation.
Above mentioned cases of banditism, but besides thousands of others, break into public opinion, are known to politicians and officials in ministries.
Tens of thousands of people live in a feeling of harm caused not only by people occupying their premises, but – above all – by the state!
Hundreds of thousands of people like to have their flats empty, due to the fact that – under present bandit laws – they fear to let anyone into these apartments.
Moreover, the current situation generates tremendous social costs besides on the part of tenants and possible tenants, but besides on the part of the general public!!!
Hundreds of thousands of apartments, if introduced to the rental market, would not only liquidate, or importantly reduce, the alleged "housing gap", but would origin a revolution on the rental marketplace - rents would should be reduced, thus besides the availability of apartments would increase significantly.
What does that mean? The alleged "rental gap", i.e. the deficiency of financial ability of the data of persons to be a tenant, would besides decrease (more people would be able to rent apartments).
Komuchy proclaims programs - implemented for billions (ours, or general citizens) of PLN, but with microscopic effect, the construction of apartments for the alleged "cheap rent".
Of course, sooner or later, with municipal oversight, both these apartments and full buildings will be degraded. Then another generation of communists will preach that these apartments must be sold for a penny to tenants (because it will be cheaper).
By the way, it is proposed to learn what happens to the alleged TBS: how much percent of people actually "come to ownership", and if already "what money" how much monthly fees, etc.
What are the causes of the above-mentioned PATOLOGY described above?
Reason one: rules on possession, including possession in bad faith.
In the legislature (i.e. in a totally unnecessary chamber, but costing US hundreds of millions of PLN per year) work is reportedly underway on some, of course cosmetic, changes in the rental of premises. Of course, quite a few bullshit, noise, wasting money, but it's not gonna work.
What's interesting about that? Representatives of 2 ministries were invited to comment "on the subject". They stated that everything about the lease is OK and no changes are needed.
I think that these representatives of the ministry are people with the "education" of the alleged "law" (but I may be incorrect – in this "system" everything is possible). How is it that these officials can claim that the universally present PATOLOGY and the universally present BANDITYZM, associated with the rental institution, as well as the universally present PATOLOGY and the universally present BANDITYZM, protecting possession in bad faith, contrary to the rights of the owner of the property, are OK?
For me, this attitude is shocking for many reasons, but I will only address 1 possible reason – 1 of the possible reasons that may explain why current regulations of possession are being maintained.
The crown argument here is that possession is an institution derived from Roman law. Of course, this is simply a message of fact – specified an intuition has been in Roman law since around the 3rd century BC.
There is simply a further claim that since it is an institution having specified a centuries-old binding in the European legal tradition, including the legal regulations of the II Republic, it is correct, etc.
(I will leave out the fact that possession was a legal institution variable even in ancient Rome already in the era of the republic, not to mention the pricypate and the empire. I will besides overlook the fact that the judiciary in II of the Republic of Poland acted completely differently than today, as otherwise was the execution of judgments).
The thing is that we live in the 21st century of our era, not e.g. the 3rd or 1st century before our Common Era, and although the strategy of many modern states is amazingly akin to the strategy of the end of the Roman republic, there have been many solutions which were not available then, for example, the eternal book.
Posessorial protection in ancient Rome served, first of all, to destruct the self-will in a situation where it was not known who was entitled to property rights or... to a slave, etc. This law, on certain principles, thus protected a factual condition which was clear, which could be easy stated or proved.
This protection did not in any way entitle a individual who came into possession of a trickery (e.g. on the basis of "reception of the premises after his grandmother", or on the basis of "conclusion of the contract, cessation of payment and business of the premises despite failure of the right to the premises") or force.
And it must be added that it is not possession, but the property rights of private persons were the basic "actual" right of that person, the most protected. Its essence was the anticipation of having a given thing for himself.
And finally, the question – do you think that the owner in ancient Rome had to bear tremendous costs for years before he regained possession of the property/thing owned by him, if the holder of his property did not have any legal title for this thing (he was a holder in bad faith)?
The rules on ownership inactive in force today, contained in the civilian Code, date back to 1964.
Possession, including possession in bad faith, is an institution much more extended than the institution of property, and already a complete curiosium is that the chapter entitled "Protection of Property" besides contains mainly provisions on property protection, not property protection. The only property protection that KC provides is the right to bring an action to court.
And the owner?
Art. 343 § 2. KC "The property owner may immediately after a self-infringement of possession reconstruct the erstwhile condition to his own action..."
At the same time, the civilian Code confers specified a right not only to the holder in good religion (with any legal title to the property), but besides to the holder in bad religion (taking the property without any legal basis) even erstwhile it acts against the property owner!!!
Kuriozum and utmost BANDYTISM!!!
What can the owner do? The owner CAN NOT do what is allowed even the holder in bad faith!!! due to the fact that the police and the prosecutor will take care of him!!!
Furthermore, the definition of ownership, as enshrined in Article 140 of the CCC, is derived from the Polish People's Republic: this state (through the laws) decides what property is owned by the persons concerned.
Of course, this evidence is already BANDYTYSM and is not to be defended in the context of even the alleged "human rights", but all the more so is not to be defended in the context of everyone, by the very fact of being human, the rights that can be described as sovereign "personal" rights of the human individual: the right to life, the right to freedom, the right to property.
Each human unit besides has its another sylving rights, which are circumstantial in the "common space", e.g. in the state, but about it later.
Cause 2 – the binding doctrine of the law (what is the law).
Apart from any discussion presently in force, not only on the European continent, the knowing of the law is this: the law is an order of a sovereign – a state, packed in a bill with a constitution at the head, addressed to a citizen.
The creator of this definition from over a 100 years ago, Georg Jelinek supplemented his definition of the law with limitations of this state's power, including those arising from human rights, but the state is inactive a sovereign and a citizen subject to that state.
Other concepts emerged later, going beyond legal positivism (and supplementing, for example, Jelink's concept with elements related to the constitution, as a basic standard), but de facto the definition of the law as an order of the state to its subject, the citizen, "kings".
The paradox is that after the Second planet War, declarations and pacts have been passed that each person, as a man and as a citizen, has rights.
(Fact commonly known, and I have appealed to this fact in my books and in many articles since 2009, so I do not make this topic)
The thing is, not only in Poland, theorists of the state and the laws declare that these human rights and rights of the citizen are as enshrined in the laws.
Human rights are so not seen as separate from "lex" – from laws, a set of standards. The full law is "lex" – laws.
What Parliament will pass, the president will sign – is "law"!!!
Wonderful concept! But, in that case, I have questions:
On 15 September 1935, in Nuremberg, they were passed by Reichstag
(Parliament III of the Reich) Act, later called the Nuremberg Act. Were they besides "law" according to this concept?
You don't? And in that case, what would consequence from the claim that it was not a "law" erstwhile it was "legally" adopted by a "legal" parliament?
Perhaps individual here would like to argue that it was Hitler, the dictator, the later murderer of millions of people, who decided that these laws should be adopted.
So let me remind you first that Hitler came to power legally, by election. Moreover, it was not Hitler who passed the bill but the "legal" parliament.
(Hitler reached "legally", through elections, to power, in order to destruct the Weimar Republic – but this is not the subject of this text, but the fact of what happened and how it happened to the Wiemarsk Republic can be a informing to modern republics, called unjustly "democracys").
Now, who de facto decides that the bill is to be passed?
Isn't that, by chance, the organization chief?
Someone may object that there is, after all, a Constitutional Court!
Yes, yes, it is: it was called in the PRL in 1982 (reminiscent to any - during the highest period of martial law) for the accomplishment of certain political goals of the powerholders.
And to this day, small has changed – it is inactive cast by the organization mafie!
And this kind of thing is expected to stand by the alleged "constitution"?
B) Were all the laws passed in the PRL "law"? No, and this is
Why? They've been passed legally!
And if so, everyone who "violated" these laws, including all opponents, violated the "legal" order. Then why do we resent being detained and imprisoned? Why do they request compensation and honors?
Why are we besides outraged that all of us, the vast majority of citizens of the Polish People's Republic of Poland, were deprived of a number of possibilities (freedom): freedom of expression (such as censorship), freedom of travel, a number of "economic freedoms"?
You would like to compose that we have been deprived of a full package of OUR RIGHTs, well, but if, according to the above, but widely accepted concept, we have as many rights as we are assigned "power" (state) in the laws, what we were "pultling" about and what we are inactive "pultling about"? After all, everything was in accordance with the "law" – means "legally" established laws.
(C) In Russia and Belarus there are parliaments that "legally" establish laws
To destruct the opposition? Are they the law? They were "legally" accepted and approved!
(D) There are mass protests going on in Iran, quite a few people were killed, even more in prison. Yeah, but there's a parliament in Iran, but it's a one-visbian (Islamic Consultative Assembly). And this parliament passes the “law” (laws). Are all those who protest this troublemakers, breaking the “law”? And why are we accusing Iran of being a dictatorship?
E) In North Korea, the full society was turned into slaves, in China the full nation – the Uygurs are subjected to mass surveillance and recovery, including physical methods.
In China and North Korea, the "law" constitutes "parliaments" by law. So everything is “legal”, but is it all “legal”? According to this concept, this should be the case.
(F) In Singapore, a city-state, supposedly ideal, and considered a “democracy”, all resident is subject to full surveillance, and his life (of course – “more luxuriously there”) is “managed” by the state under and under laws. Is this besides “law”, “all law” and “only law”?
G) The European Union has a mad, deranged policy of destroying the European economy (I urge Dragi's rapprochement: "The future of European competitiveness", but besides driving tens of millions of people into "energy poverty". Is the European Union's government besides "law", "all law" and "only law"?
I could bring up hundreds of another examples here. I say the argument will be drawn that most of the countries indicated were not or are not "democracy". The "democracy" at the next point.
Here the subject of consideration is what the law is. If we presume that this law – only and exclusively – "lex", the bill, what would consequence from distinguishing states into "democratic" and "non-domocratic"?
What standards would decide that certain laws (which? all of them? or possibly just a part of them) passed "legally" in the "undemocratic" states are not "law"??
The point is that all concepts identifying the Law with laws should be thrown into the garbage of the past of discipline along with the liquidation of the Weimar Republic, as should all concepts of the state in which the Weimar Republic "placed".
Finally, by the way, what "democratic" legitimacy does the European Commission gotta impose on us a full series of "rights"? I am ignoring the European Parliament and its (unquestionably) legitimacy to act as a 'law', due to the fact that that will happen later.
A man, himself, of the very fact of being a man, has a number of rights: both individual rights: the right to life, the right to freedom, the right to property, always existing and everywhere, regardless of the state in which the individual lives. And beyond any state.
It is the work of the State to confirm and uphold these rights. No criminal, no gang, or even the general public is entitled
(this explanation – the right does not be by itself, is simply a "derived" right) to interfere with these rights.
Of course, neither the right to life nor the right to freedom (including individual freedom), are absolute rights. Similarly, the right of property, even this right of property closest to a individual – the law whose object is its own body, is not an absolute law.
In the case of property rights, in many circumstances it cannot be protected at all (e.g. property acquired by crime, fraud, etc.) erstwhile the property was created by violating the rights of others.
These references to the sovereign rights of the individual, including property rights, are needed in this text to explain why PATOLOGY and BANDYTISM, described earlier, are not the RIGHT but the BANDYTISM (PATOLOGY).
However, this is not the subject of this article. I described these issues more in my books: "In search of a sovereign. Are we all sovereign?", 2009, "Democracy", 2013, "Postmonarchy or Democracy", 2013 and in many articles.
Reason 3 – preaching that oligarchical republics,
such as Poland, owned by POLITICAL MAFIE, is "democracy".
In the first half of the 19th century, a traveller from France went to the United States and "swallowed" – he saw a fairy tale world, for himself", in which people can enjoy their individual rights, described above, practically without restriction, but for restrictions arising from the rights of others.
Of course, there were millions of slaves in these states who were deprived of these rights, just as the vast Indian population was not only deprived of its property, but besides systematically exterminated (murdered). someway this traveler over this aspect of "the fairy tale world" did not compose down.
This traveler was A. de Tocqueville, and his work, describing this "Fair World", titled "About Democracy in America". And that's why he made rather a mess of naming systems.
The United States of America was, of course, no "democracy" but according to the efforts of the alleged "founders' Fathers" (including G. Washington: holder of tens of thousands of acres of land and... hundreds of slaves), a Roman-type republic, managed by a narrow group of oligarchs, mostly called WASP ((White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) .
Besides, the alleged "founding fathers" straight appealed to the tradition of the Roman republic, and all efforts to grant the anticipation of deciding about the state and the right for "the mob", were definitely fighting.
It is besides worth noting that electoral rights at the time were only granted to white men.
Moreover, the point is that the anticipation of voting does not mean the anticipation of deciding (participation in the exercise of power) about our country; we can clearly observe it here and now, in Poland.
The anticipation of voting and the anticipation of actually exercising their political rights (actual participation in the exercise of power) are, as yet, distant phenomena.
The U.S. then and now are an oligarchic republic, where only a narrow group of people, to an degree narrower, especially the richest ones, actually decides the state.
Of course, "democracy" can be called everything, even dictatorship (here PRL), but if we mention to certain patterns (e.g. ancient ones), then we must at least "kick" to what was an immanent feature of this pattern.
And the immanent feature of ancient democracy, specified as Athens, was that all citizens (of course, only men at the time) participated, or had the chance to participate, in the actual decision-making of their country.
As you can see, Jas, oops – Alex "did not read" and made a mess for II centuries. The comic thing is that since then - I have written about it in my books - tens and hundreds of theoreticians of the strategy in the planet (because in Poland there are only "pollutions after washings") trying to specify and describe democracy or make its model, through the prism of what surrounds us, that is... through the prism of the republic (where the alleged "power" is created by a peculiar group of people, and the general public is actually expropriated from their political rights).
That's a "minor oversight"! Is it amazing that:
not only have they failed to describe any modern state as a democracy, due to the fact that the "something" has gnawed;
they failed to make any model of democracy that could stand and be widely recognised, due to the fact that they created it through the prism of existing states which are not, after all, democracies, but, at most, oligarchic republics of the Roman type;
more than 300 definitions of “democracy” were formulated, and... they all went to the dumpster.
Each of us, apart from "personal rights", besides has a number of rights that are circumstantial when, together with another people, we make any "common space", e.g. the state. But it is each of us in the state who is sovereign, due to the fact that only each of us has the right to "all by itself."
The nation (ethnic or objtaelian) is simply a collective sovereign, and the state, or contemporary form of organization of this nation, is simply a sovereign “outside”—to another states and another entities.
However, the state does not have any sovereign rights to inside, towards its citizens. He has only "power" given him by sovereigns, by citizens.
(These issues were the subject of my books, including those already cited here.)
That's right! That's the law!
Paradoxically the Constitution of the 3rd Republic of Poland of 1997 confirms declaratively these our rights in Articles 4 and 1 (but inactive does not contain provisions that would warrant us these rights)
And what is reality?
We have a "democratic state of law", where the full "dimension of the law", that is, the alleged dimension (not) of justice, is in a full blow.
The entity who should be in charge of the Constitution (the alleged Constitutional Court) – which, by the way, was never feasible, with its organization cast – now only eats our money, but is so discredited that it should be liquidated as shortly as possible.
Our sovereign political rights, the rights enshrined in Articles 1 and 4 of the Constitution, are encroached upon by the POLITICAL MAFIE, which strive for an even wider appropriation of the state.
There can be no "tripartition of power" in the modern state, due to the fact that all power belongs to the sovereign, to the general public, to the nation. However, we can talk about entities in a country that have functions: legislative, executive, control, judicial, fiscal, information, etc.
The political cabaret, which has been observed for years (but with drastic consequences for us – citizens), is simply a fierce fight by POLITICAL MAFIA to master another specified entities, especially those with judicial, control, etc.
Those with legislative and executive functions (but besides informational functions) have long been systematically acquired by the POLITICAL MAFIE, which exchange only their control. So what chapter of the legislative "power" from the "executive" can be referred to?
"The Jump" for our sovereign political rights, carried out by the POLITICAL MAFIE, with tools specified as the decently procured Electoral Code, or through millions of grants to these MAFIA from our taxes, etc., then allows them to make further "jumps", specified as "jumps" of an economical nature.
Here I will usage the quote from Rancha: "...you're already screwed! State with your own resourcefulness of theft, as lice that you have occupied and blood drink as much as you can!"
Is it amazing that many areas of our reality are in a state of permanent collapse, since they are managed by organization (maphic) “specialists”, according to rules, commonly ridiculed in the PRL:
(a) ‘My husband? The husband is by profession director" (film of S. Bareji);
b) “We will give the lake here and let it stand in the green” (i.e. about the residential block).
I know “a nodding specialist” (of “intellectual resources” will not speak), and in this case the teacher of WF, who almost 20 years ago “tipped” into (p)the donkey referred to earlier. And his career fired: he became head (in a large city) of the city's sports and recreation centre (without appropriate management experience), then the city's heating company, supplying heat and hot water to tens of thousands of apartments, and then... the infirmary manager (in another city).
“Bareja is always alive”.
This image of our full systemic reality, in which we are de facto deprived of the ability to exercise our "public" Laws, was needed to show any of the reality.
POLITICAL MAFIE, by making a "jump" on our political rights and then on another sovereign rights of this nature, at the same time have no opposition to violating our "most valuable" Rights, those of a individual nature, including property rights.
They think they can, on the basis of their "seeing me", on the basis of "seeing me" of whether or not "capo di tutti capi", or on the basis of "seeing me" of any insignificant MAFIOZA, freely interfere with these rights.
Described in many films, Italian mafias, nipponese mafias, or mafias present in America, have never gained specified opportunities as POLITICAL MAFIE, possibly called mockly "political parties", due to the fact that those mafias never had the anticipation of "legal" making regulations not only across the country, but even in any part of it.
Those mobsters are (were) hunted and put in jail. What about "higher format" MAFIOS?
IV. Reason 4 – the appropriation of the 3rd Poland by "Komuchów".
Once, an actress, possibly for naivety, and possibly for another reasons – possibly on commission, announced to everyone and to the tv that: "On June 4, 1989 communism ended in Poland".
Of course, there were any systemic changes at the time, but at the same time there was another act of the performance (agreed by the communists in the Zawrat villa, then the optics in Magdalena and sold to the general in the form of round-table theatre), the embodiment of the communists and the selected alleged "opposition", including agents of these communists, in the newly-shaping reality.
The operation was a success. It is enough, for example, to check how many later presidents and prime ministers of the 3rd Republic of Poland participated in drinking in Magdalena, and later in the theatrical "round-the-clock" law. And if they weren't even there (though by age), then who put up their candidacy for these functions.
If it is besides difficult, I propose to analyse 1 case: who was the 1st Secretary of the PZPR in Włocławek before 1989, what business (and with whom!!!!) he did after 1989, what land – of course "legally" – took over in Włocławek and outside Włocławek, what is his current state of possession.
It is besides worth checking who the present president Włocławek worked with and who supported him afterwards, in his "political career".
In the 20th century, 2 types of BAND: fascists and communists systematically denied individual rights, sovereign rights of individuals.
First they performed a "jump" on these people's political rights, to then deprive them not only of all their rights, which are carried out in public space, e.g. in a state (example here is the right to proclaim their views), but even the rights of the PERSONS: the right to life, the right to freedom, the right to property.
Hitler, Mussolini and insignificant capo di tutti capi lost, and fascism was delegated; calling (inciting) to fascism is commonly pursued and punished.
Stalin won, and communism not only in Poland, but besides in the overwhelming offices of the European Union, is inactive great.
Fascism and communism are 2 duplicate “ideologies” (in quotes – due to the fact that can calling for full BANDYTYSM be considered an ideology?).
Communism, or “red fascism”, or even “fascism plus” (because it systematically negated property and deprived hundreds of millions of people of their property) is not prosecuted and not punished.
As long as the proclamation of communist views and the incitement to the introduction and introduction of communist “ideas”, will not be delegalised and will not be punished, so long will the PATOLOGY and BANDYTYZM, both “top” and “bottom”, persist.
And millions of people will inactive be hurt!!!
These, as described above, 4 premises determining our reality and generating PATOLOGY and BANDYTISM, have been presented, possibly even besides extensive, so that we know what we have the Law, who is liable for depriving us of our political rights (de facto) and what are the consequences of this "in the area" of our individual rights, including the Law of Property.
In the future, this may be useful for making claims for damages and for compensation, aimed individually at those who violate our rights and origin us material and intangible damage.
Because individual should be responsible. However, it would be incorrect for the general public to pay for their banditism.
This image of the 4 premises determining the existence of described PATOLOGY and described BANDYTISM, is besides to make it clear what needs to be changed to destruct these PATOLOGIES and this BANDYTISM.
The changes must yet be holistic, cover the full state system, but can be started with partial changes eliminating these PATOLOGY and this BANDITY, which are described in the first part of this text. You have to:
otherwise specify the property of an individual (a natural person),
eliminate provisions protecting the property holder (or any another thing) in bad religion erstwhile it acts against a individual having a right to property or against a individual having a right to property conferred by the owner, a physical person;
introduce the criminalisation of property ownership (and another things) in a situation where the individual afraid does not leave the property at the request of the rightholder.
That's the absolute minimum. The following is simply a proposal for amendments to the ‘Law on
Protecting the rights of tenants...“, in KC and KK; outline indicating the direction to act for appropriate, obliged entities.
To the Act of 21 June 2001 on the protection of the rights of tenants, the housing stock of the municipality and the amendment of the civilian Code Entries shall be entered:
1) The article “1a” gives a fresh numbering, e.g. “1 c”;
2. Add the following Article ‘1a’: ‘The Act shall not apply to rental contracts concluded by tenants who are natural persons, including contracts concluded by those persons in the course of their business activities’
3) Add the following Article ‘1b’ as follows: ‘In so far concluded by tenants who are natural persons of contracts, the provisions resulting from the application of the Act of 21 June 2001 ‘on the protection of the rights of tenants...’ shall be declared invalid by law, and in their place shall be governed by the applicable civilian Code.
In the Criminal Code, the fresh wording of Article 193 § 1:
“Who enters individual else’s house, apartment, place, area or
The fenced area shall be subject to imprisonment from 1 to 5 years. The same punishment applies to those who, contrary to the request of the rightful person, do not leave specified a place.”
(The current wording of the provision allows the procurator and the courts to usage the abstract explanation that the punishment is not subject to those who do not leave in/in places if they enter into possession without ‘interrupt’, e.g. the previously described ‘grandson method’.
The lifting of the “seekers” of the punishment is intended to prevent specified cases from dying, for example, due to “little social harm”; by the way, this phrase is another manifestation of communist banditism: the injured individual may endure immense material and intangible losses, endure trauma for the remainder of his life, but... “A social act has small harm!!!!)
The civilian Code should be amended:
1) Article 140 to date should read as follows:
The owner, who is simply a natural person, may exercise his or her right to property, in peculiar his or her right to own the property for himself, to dispose of the property and to enter into contract obligations relating to the property of his or her property, within the limits of the rights of another persons and within the limits of the right (legally) acquired rights of another entities.
Any breach of the law described in paragraph 1 may be committed only for public purposes on the basis of a bill adopted by representatives of the general public and approved in a national referendum. The adoption of the Act requires the support of the bill by a majority of 3/4 representatives, with the presence of 3/4 of the full representatives. The approval of the bill in the referendum requires its support by the majority of all persons entitled to vote.
The infringement of the right of property described in paragraph 2 above may only take place for compensation and for reasonable compensation. Compensation and redress must be effected with appropriate circumstances in advance before the infringement is committed.
Within the limits laid down by the laws and the principles of social coexistence, the owner, who is not a natural person, may, with the exception of another entities, usage things according to the socio-economic intent of his law, in peculiar may collect benefits and another income from things. Within the same boundaries, he can control things.
2. The erstwhile Article 222(1) should read as follows:
(a) If the individual who does not have the power to control the thing does not immediately give to the individual who owns the item, the property of the property, the owner may enter into possession of the items with the assistance of the police and, in the event that the police do not grant it assistance, with the usage of the defendants (authorised self-help and permitted assistance). The owner of the goods is besides entitled to appropriate compensation and compensation from a individual who has not given him a call.
3) The “Protection of Property” section of Articles 224 to 231 KC contains a number of provisions protecting not the owner who is simply a natural person, but a BANDITY which violates the right of ownership of that person. These provisions SHOULD BE CHANGED, to the provisions actually intended to defend the property of individuals and the rights of another persons arising from contracts concluded with the owner, the natural person.
In Title IV „Has“:
(a) Article 339 - to the basket;
(b) in Article 341, the second conviction is added: ‘This presumption shall not apply if the property in question is the property of a natural individual or the property in question has the right to wield the property of a 3rd organization with which the proprietor has concluded a contract of regulation or obligation’;
(c) Article 342 to the basket;
(d) in Article 343, the word ‘holder’ shall be replaced by ‘holder in good faith’.
Article 3431 To waste
Article 344 to waste
This is the absolute minimum of changes that SHOULD BE implemented in 1989!!!
