The Annotated Court Testimonies.

Back to the HOMEPAGE


The annotated court testimonies.

I am presenting here all of the testimonies of the case. What I am doing specifically is presenting it, for the most part in the order that this all happened. There are a few places where I am presenting things slightly out of order. One example of this is the first entry, Jucha’s written report of the incident report. I am doing this because it contains Zaremba’s statement to him at the scene.
So this is how it is going to work. All of the parenthetical additions are mine to try and illustrate my point. I hope this does not bother you, but it would save me time trying to re-explain it over and over and over again. Well, I do that anyway, but never the less, the point is They have been working with lies, and they knew they had been working with lies, and my point is that if you look for them, you can find the lies.
I am sure that Zaremba thought of all of this as a great game. Well, that is not really true because Zaremba was and probably still is deathly afraid of being jailed for what he did. I know that it was his fear and nervousness that led to some of his decision making. Though I am not sure how to explain turning in the estimate from after the second accident. That I would say was either an act of pure stupidity on his part, or the biggest insult to me that it is possible to make. THAT THEY LET HIM, AND HELPED HIM TO DO THIS, THOUGH IS MORE THAN CRIMINAL.
No, I definitely think it was all a great game, but I would say that the lawyers, judges and the whole of the justice system played the game. They are the ones who decided to play with me using lies and nonsense for evidence.
So, you can see for yourself.

#1. The report of Tomas Jucha, the officer who made the arrest. From May 15th at about 4:00pm.

Short office report
1.On the day 15-5 2002, during my patrol in my patrol car with Marcin Zima (an officer) at 2:05pm in the parking lot of the KSP, we were approached by Tomasz Zeremba, fathers name Franciszek, and mothers name Wieslawa, born 18-09-1063, address of Piaski 21 gm, Strachowka….
Who said that at about 1:50pm while riding in his car, a Renault Megan reg. wwl 706c approaching the Place de Bankove square, coming quickly from around an MZA bus came the bicyclist, Mr. Adam Richard Goodman. Mr. Zaremba, seeing this biker started to break his vehicle. (Note the time of day. Jucha is looking at his watch and asking Zaremba when it happened. Zaremba says to him that it all happened about 10 to 15 minutes ago. This will be significant when Zaremba tries to get cute with his cell phone. But the important thing to note here is that Jucha describes Zaremba’s statement to him as “The biker came quickly around the bus…” Zaremba changes his story by the time he sits down to talk about what happened. Set this against the story Zaremba later tells.)
2. And though there was nothing wrong with him, he went to Mr. Zaremba and punched him in his face. And because of this, Mr. Zaremba had a cut on his lip and also the biker hoot and punched the hood of his car and punched with his hand the front window of the car so that it was broken. And after a conversation with Mr. Zaremba, he pointed out Mr. Goodman who was standing near by. (That comment about “even though he was not hurt” must be in answer to a question. I think it is obvious that Jucha understands what has happened. But another point to make about this report is that there is simply no details describing any fighting at the KSP, and certainly nothing to describe that it was an arrest situation or that I was throwing punches there. Again, match this against Zaremba’s stories.)
3. After contacting the police at Wilcza street district KP (police station), both men were taken there where Mr. Zaremba gave testimony about the situation and Mr. Goodman was taken into custody and interrogated with the help of a translator. After, we made our reports. This “short office report” was made at the Wilcza street police station and was presented to the officers there...

#2 Zaremba’s first report to the police desk (on arrival to the station)

Today on the 15th of May 2002 about 2pm in Warsaw, Solidarnoci Street, buy the crossing of Andersa, I was attacked by the biker who hit a few times the car, that is the roof, and the front of the car and the glass and he hit the door.
He opened the door from my side and he punched me a few times into the face.
He cut my lips and broke two of my teeth and he moved a few others. (The doctor’s report denied any broken or loose teeth.)
In the car, he cracked the front glass he damaged the front of the car and the roof and scratched the left back door.
The value of the damages I think is about 3000 pln for my damages (Zaremba said later that the number “3000 pln” came from a “friend”. I don’t know which friend he had talked to between the time of the incident and this report made about 30 minutes later.)
I add that there were some damages to the mirrors… this is all that I can say about this case.
I want him to be punished and I want him to pay for the damages. The one who did this was Adam Goodman; this is all.

#3. Zaremba then was taken into another room and asked to give a more detailed report.

1. I have been told about my responsibility in regards to the law about making this report. Article 233, 1st paragraph. (This paragraph has to do with the penalty for giving false testimony.)
2. On this day on the 15th of May in Warszawa I was driving with my daughter Katarzyna on Solidarnosci Street towards the Praga district in my Renault Megan serial no…Which is my own car.
3. I was coming to the crossroads with Andersa Street; I was driving in the left lane, There was no car in back of me. This is an interesting detail. Match it up against what follows.)
4. In the middle lane, there was a city bus. And the biker was heading to the bus.
5. He quickly changed lanes a few meters in front of me.
6. I made a signal (honked) so that I wouldn’t hit him.
7. The biker then changed back into the middle lane and I came to the crossroads before the lights.
8. I saw in the rear view mirror that the biker was approaching between the bus and the cars that were in back of me in the left lane. (Now there are cars!)
9. When he passed (ominal in Polish) my car, he threw away his bike, and came to my right side and punched three times in my hood (mask?) with his fist. (Threw away the bike and came to my right, the passenger side of the car.)
10. He was screaming something in English and I think he was using vulgarities.
11. He punched a few times into the roof;
12. He kicked the side of the car. (This is again the right side, and after passing and throwing away the bike- and remember that he says I kicked his car while attacking from the right AFTER PASSING!)
13. He punched his fist in to the front window,
14. Then he took the bike and was throwing it into the front of my car. (I returned for the bike and then threw it several times. The verb and tense used in polish implied more than one throw.)
15. Then he took it to my left and he threw it between my car and the divider (How I mistreat my bike!)
16. He was punching the side window with his fist and the roof. (this is now an attack to the left)
17. He opened my doors and punched me a few times into my face and I was trying to protect myself with my hands but I got a few punches into my mouth, my upper lip and chipped four of my teeth. (Four teeth broken?)
18. And two of them were a little broken, and he cut my upper lip. (no, two teeth broken)
19. During this I was calling from my cell phone to number 112 (police emergency) and I heard an answering machine… (He called during the fight! - this is an important part of the story.)
20. But during this fight, this man tried to grab my phone so I put it down. (Tried to grab it…)
21. One moment later this man left the car taking his bike.
22. He got on the bike and began to ride on the sidewalk on Andersa Street toward Nowoliepia Street.
23. In this moment some man said to me loudly that there was a police car in back of me. (Police car in back of him. How long had the car been there?)
24. I went to the patrol car and I asked them to go and stop this biker (He asked them. Later, we will see what they did about his request.)
25. I drove in my car to Andersa Street and I saw this biker riding on the sidewalk between Solidarnoscie and the building Nowalipie 2. (The distance between the spot of the incident and the Police station parking lot is about 150 meters.)
26. I came to the KSP and I asked the police that were standing there to stop this biker and they did it.
27. The biker saw me and started to scream and came at me and, l thought they were holding him back; he managed to punch me in the face. (Remember that he says I punched him and the picture of this fight and put it against Jucha's report.)
28. When I explained the situation they told me to go to KP Srodmieste, and the biker went there too.
29. That’s all I want to say bout this.
30. But, I want to say that before it came to the confrontation, nothing happened (I didn’t do anything)

#4 Tomas Jucha was asked to make another official report: It is about the same as the first, but it is worth showing here:

Today I was on patrol with my partner Mariusz Zima, at about 2:05 at the parking lot of the KSP, when Thomas Zaremba came to us and said that at about 1:50, when he was driving his car, a Renault Megan at bankovy place, that in one moment, the biker rode from behind the city bus.
Mr. Zaremba, when he saw the biker in front of the mask started to slow down.
Zaremba stopped the car in front of the biker, but he didn't injure the biker in any way. (Thank you.)
But the biker went to Zaremba and punched him in the face while standing next to the car.
And the biker kicked the front mask of the car and hit the front glass with his hand, which made the glass broken. And because of this punch, Mr. Zaremba's lips were cut.
After talking, Mr. Zaremba pointed to the biker who was standing near to him, and he was Adam Goodman.
After telling the story to the officers at the KSP, both the men were taken to the Wilzca street station. Mr. Zaremba told about these facts to the policemen, and Mr. Goodman was kept and searched, and there was a translator and the field documents taken. That is all.

#5. The next day, May 16th, Zaremba had a sit down with Prosecutor Wiesniakowski. He had at this time a day to think about his story and the help of the prosecutor.

1. What I said before I still believe is true, but I want to say something more: this man was riding (his bike) in the right lane and he was in front of my car to my right.
2. When I was approaching him in my lane, he quickly changed his lane without signal coming into my lane. (I asked about specific distances regarding this statement during the trial. See below for what he had said.)
3. Not seeing the possibility to stop (avoid him) I used signals that made this biker change back to his lane and we continued (on our way).
4. When we came to the crosswalk, I stopped on the signal and to my right; the bus had stopped there. This was the same bus that was the one the biker was behind.
5. Normally, a bike should wait in a cue (wait in line) with the others but he was riding between the cars.
6. And after I arrived at the crosswalk he came to me, and without warning punched with his hand the side of the car while passing me. (Now the story is one punch, delivered while passing on the right)
7. He did this because he didn't have enough room between my car and the bus.
8. Next he threw the bike in front of my car and punched with his hands into the hood, the roof and the quarter panel of my car while screaming in English with spit (frothing?) coming out of his mouth. (I am assuming he is talking about my attacking his car again from the right side- and, I would like to point out that I am now PUNCHING THESE PLACES WITH MY HANDS and not “kicking it. Small point, but worthy to note this as the story progresses further.)
9. And I want to say that my eleven-year-old child was with me in the car and she became hysterical.
10. Because of his behavior and my daughter’s reaction, I decided not to go out of the car. (In answer to the question: Why didn’t you try and stop him?)
11. The man then picked up his bicycle and began to use it to hit the bumper of my car. Then he threw his bike to my left between my car and the (tramway) barrier. (Again, a deliberate usage of the bike as an assault weapon. But let me take a moment to clarify: The damage he is suggesting form the bike is a 3 or 4 mm scratch on the bumper of the car. Remember this later when he talks to the court.)
12. And I want to say that before he came to my left he punched the front window, and broke it... (Oh yea, the window. On the fifteenth, when they booked me, they took my fingerprints. Fingerprints were also taken from the car when the police made its inspection report. I will show you that a little farther down. The fingerprints taken from the car however were not mine.
13. He approached my car from my left and began punching my car with his hands on the door, the roof and the window...
14. When he was on my left side he was trying to open the door and punching the door and the roof until he opened the door and was punching my face and my body with his fists.
15. I was protecting myself with my hands and trying to call the police with my cell phone. But when I checked the number, he tried to take the phone away.
16. (And now the witness shows me the telephone and on the screen of the telephone I can see the connection number 112, the date 15.05.02 and the hour 14:00 and 30 seconds. (Match this against the time of the incident according to Jucha's wristwatch. I am not sure I have ever heard of anyone’s cell phone being ten minutes off. Judge Zurawska even had to stretch this one by saying that it happened “sometime around 2:00. Zaremba obviously clicked his phone quickly while standing at the police station, probably after Jucha asked him if he called the cops.)
17. I don't remember if I put away the phone or if the phone fell out of my hands. (From the previous story: But during this fight, this man tried to grab my phone so I put it down.) He was spitting all the time on my car, he was angry and he looked like a crazy man.
18. When he saw the telephone he seemed to understand that I was calling and it made him have a cooler head.
19. After this, he went back to the front of the car and punched the hood (he punched the hood- remember this detail) and then he took his bike and rode on the sidewalk in the direction of the KSP (the main police station) between Andersa Street and the Muranow cinema.
20. I decided to talk to the police, and a man standing nearby told me that there was a police radio car behind me. (I like this phrase. He doesn’t pick up the phone again and call, he just decides it is a good idea. But again, there is a radio car behind him.
21. And I called them and asked them if they would stop this biker which I could see the whole time. I rode down Andersa Street and the police went there as well. (In this story, the cop goes with him. This cop though is not Jucha, but rather some other cop whose name we never hear in the court files. And this is interesting because at least in theory, and especially as Zaremba is describing a long assault, they are a witness.)
22. When I came to the KSP the biker was riding on the sidewalk
23. Then the police came and took control
24. I add two reports about the damages. (A report from the dentist and the report from the inspection of the car made the day before.)
25. What’s interesting is that this man was trying to grab me although the policemen were there and trying to stop him and one time he was lucky enough to punch me. (Nice final statement. And remember that he said it. Here are the two reports that Zaremba turned in. They are important because the first report, the report of the car is vital for two incidents that follow, and the medical report, well, simply put, refute both Zaremba’s description of the fight and about his teeth.)

#6 Here is the report made of the car by the police on May 15th.

1. This report about the inspection of this car was made in natural light and good conditions. The temperature was 18 deg Celsius without rain. (This is important to remember because of a statement Zaremba will make in his next testimony.)
2. The report is about the car Renault Megan reg. no…
3. It is a red car was parked at a parking lot at Wilcza Street no. 26 and it was parked facing the building. The car is standing on four complete wheels. There is a complete registration number is displayed in the front and in the rear. The car is dirty in the back by the bumper.
4. There are visible scars on the bumper that are five centimeters long,
5. And there is a dent on the right hand rear door about the size of a 50-grolch coin (about the size of a nickel- but remember: “ he kicked the side of the car.”-From his first statement, “ and punched with his hands into the hood, the roof and the quarter panel of my car while screaming…” From the second. This right side of the car gets even more interesting in Zaremba’s testimony of August 30th.)
6. There is another dent at the back part of the roof where the antenna is, and another dent on the right-hand cover of the engine.
7. The windshield is broken in the upper right hand corner and is about 20 by 30 centimeters.
8. And the front bumper has scars under the right hand lamp. There are also some scars on the right hand rear doors in the middle.
9. On the left-hand side, on the roof, 10cm from the windshield and five cm from the luggage rails, and this is also the size of a five zloty coin.
10. The front antenna on the roof is broken.
11. There are scratches on the left-hand rear door, 30 centimeters from the bottom and the size is five centimeters long and 80 centimeters from the rear.
12. The left-hand rear mudguard has scars on it near the lamp, and it is three centimeters long.
13. There are two dents, about the size of a five zloty coin in the middle of the roof, 40 cm from the back.
14. And there is another dent on the left-hand rear doors in the bottom part of the doors, two centimeters from the front of the door and four cm from the bottom and it is four cm long. (I don’t know how he wants me to be reaching over to pound on the middle of the roof, but remember these damages during statements he makes later.)
15. There are no other damages.
16. And the conclusion the protocol is in the same atmospheric conditions. On the hood, after spraying the car, we have found fingerprints and they were put into black folders… and were marked as number one. And this is all. (Again, these are not my fingerprints.)

#7 The medical report for Tomas Zaremba.

The first report is from the surgeon:
The patient was hurt in the lips. His lips were a little swollen, and one lip was cut. He didn’t lose consciousness, was not sick, was not dizzy, and two teeth were a little loose.
The next from the ear doctor: His lips were swollen but nothing happened to his nose or ears and those bones were ok.
The next from the dentist: Lips are swollen and show signs of a beating and that Zaremba says he is in pain. A few teeth on the left side were a little loose, but the x-ray did not show that anything was broken in the roots and that the teeth have a lot of life. (NO…BROKEN… TEETH.)
Conclusions:
1. Because of all of what the doctors have said, it is obvious that Zaremba was punched into the face and that he has one lip cut and his lips are a little swollen. And that his teeth and lips on the left side hurt.
2. Zaremba is hurt, but for a time not longer than 7 days, and because of this, I can qualify this under article 7, par 2.
3. The injury was made with a hit, but not one with any great power, and that it could be made by a fist and that it could happen in the time that the case describes.
(And that folks, is all. When you get down to where the court asks Zaremba if he had undergone “treatment” for his “injuries”, remember that you heard it here folks, right from the mouth of the doctor: Zaremba is a liar.
But nevertheless, after all of the statements were given, Prosecutor Wiesniakowski decided to pursue the case against me. I guess the subtleties of the teeth or the lack of witnesses- or that he simply flat out knows Zaremba was lying was not enough to prevent him from going ahead with this. I was unhappy as hell but what was I to do. I made a statement before a judge, declared I was not guilty, and was told that I would be detained in the jail for a period of three months. They called this a temporary arrest. I got a little upset and asked if they would allow for bail. The judge agreed and placed the amount at 4000 zlotys, about $1000. I was not happy about this, but I was not in jail and as far as I knew, I was free to go back to Belarus and do my thing there.
However, this was not meant to be because after I left, the court changed its decision to the following:)

#8- the courts decision about the preventative measure.

17 may, 2002
The court decides to change the decision from the date 17 may about the arrest of Adam Goodman. The new decision will be that the passport will be taken away and he cannot leave the country. The court made the decision about the arrest, but because the accused wanted to pay he doesn't have anyone in Poland whom can pay this for him. The court decides not to consider complaints. And it decides to hold the decision. (I guess what they meant by «the court decides not to hear complaints means that they did this after I left the room. Nice?)
Explanation:
In the opinion of the court regent made to the accused the decision about preventative measure that is keeping the passport and the ban of leaving Poland are enough to insure the right manor of conducting court business. Making this, the hardest preventative measure, temporary arrest would be not adequate to the sort of things that Mr. Goodman is accused of.

(There was a hearing held in June about this decision. The court sent notice of it to the hostel where I was staying, but I was in Gdansk at the time with Tatyana. I had returned to Warsaw by the 11th though and was at the embassy the day before asking about the status of the case. A phone call was made to the prosecutor and the information given to me at the time was that the court was considering giving me back my passport, that it would take a few weeks to do so, and that they would let me know.
Now, this information either came from the prosecutor or from the US Embassy. Somebody refused to give me the real information. Who was to blame? Well, I didn’t actually find out about all of this until September, when the results of that meeting were translated to me from the files. I went to the embassy and asked them why they hadn’t told me. The employee who made the phone call was there, and she clearly remembered what had happened, but the embassy refused to comment on it. Did the prosecutor lie and the embassy was simply duped? Or did the embassy conspire to keep me from the meeting so that I could not leave the country? You tell me.

The following is a letter from F Robert Stolte of the US Embassy. He had been in contact with the prosecutor, and was trying to get me to go to the prosecutor's office, something I was incredibly afraid of. The issue of the "Polish addres" is significant. Stolte implies in the letter that the youth hostel address is not real. He was more direct about this in phone conversations. My feeling is that the prosecutor wanted me to admit to a Polish address so as to minimize the responsibility of the Polish courts for holding me. That Stolte echo's this request though I am sure was aware because of our previous conversations that I had not a thing to do with Poland other than this mess, is also significant.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Stolte, Robert F
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 1:12 PM
To: suhalife19@yahoo.com
Cc: Kirby, Michael D; Hancon, Peter G; Rykowska, Anna; Stolte, Robert F
Subject: Adam Goodman case

Dear Mr. Goodman: We telephoned the prosecutor's office today per your request since you hadn't understood the statements that they made to the courier whom you sent to them. The clarifications are as follows:

1) You, personally, need to appear today at the prosecutor's office before 4 pm, so that he can serve you with the summons. The case is not being dropped by the prosecutor's office.

2) You have a psychiatric evaluation scheduled for tomorrow, at Nowowiejska 27, 10 am. There will be a sworn interpreter there. The siummons needs to be served first.

3) If you appear today, the next hearing at the prosecutor's office will be in approximately 2 weeks time(It turned out to be better than five) at which time you will be represented by court-appointed counsel. (None showed up)

4) If you do not appear today at the prosecutor's offices to receive the summons, the prosecutor can ask the court to suspend the proceedings and can ask for an arrest warrant from the court.

Since we have no valid phone number for you, the situation is very difficult. I tried to reach you at the Youth Hostel, but they didn't have a forwarding telephone number for you. So I left a message. It has been your choice not to provide us with a current telephone number where you can actually be reached. Therefore, I hope that you are reading your e-mail this afternoon. It is urgent that you go to the prosecutor's office today by 4 pm.

Mr. Stolte

About six weeks passed between this time and a meeting held at the prosecutor’s office on August 30th. I was only first allowed to see these stories only in July. At that July meeting I pointed out that there were “water marks” on the hood that you could see in the photos and that these marks indicated that the damages to the car were old. This information was passed on to Zaremba. Though my attorney did not inform me of this, Zaremba was invited to give a statement at the August 30th meeting. He also turned in the following report of Damages at that time. This report was attached to an “expert opinion” that the damages to the car “COULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY A HAND” Not my hand, just any hand. The list of damages were a part of the signing off of work done top the car after the car was sold to the wife of the owner of the body shop who did the work. It includes damages to the following:

#9. The following are the items that were fixed and/or replaced sometime at the end of June.

1. Left lamp and right lamp.
2. Left and right windshield spritzers
3. Renault emblem
4. Left and right wiper arms
5. Front glass. 704 zl plus 90pln labor.
6. Antenna 20pln
7. Roof slat, left and right.
8. Fitted door carpeting of the left door.
9. The left door handle
10. Left door glass
11. Left triangle glass
12. Left window knob
13. Window runner
14. Left door bumper strip.
15. Left and right door gum
16. Trunk gum
17. Carpentry of the roof.
18. Inside lamp
19. Front mask
20. And a left door

Now, obviously a lot of these damages do not match either Zaremba’s story or the accident report made by the police. But again, you must understand that not only was I not told of this, but my own lawyers purposely tried to hide this information from me just as they had hid the fact that Zaremba was going to be at the August 30th meeting. So, I am not told of the contents of the document, which of course is in Polish, and as you will see in the testimony given, even though all of this is known by my attorney, no questions are asked about any of it. Interesting? Check it out for yourself. Anyway, what they did want me to read, and what they all thought was important as heel, was the “expert opinion” about the damages to the car. In this report, made by Robert Kalinowski, He was simply asked if it was possible for the damages to the car to have been done by a hand. Here is that report:

# 10. The opinion of the car expert from 21 August, 2002

Part 1.
1. The car is Renault Megan. Etc. The car was sold, so the numbers changed. Jablonski owns it. The date of registration is 22 April 1996 and the odometer reads 105823.
2. On the car there are no damages which were told about by Zaremba on 15 may. The front glass was not broken, and had been changed. The parts that were described as damages on the date of 15 May were painted and were fixed. The roof was painted and the middle part of the roof was fixed and in the back lip was changed. The back left door was painted and the front mask was changed. The back left door was fixed.
Part 2. The experts opinion:
1. On the car there are no damaged described as having happened on 15 may. On the basis of the photos I claim that the front glass was damaged and it was replaced. It could have been damaged because of a bare hand.
2. I say that the roof was damaged and it was fixed. The photographic document does not show the size of the damages. On the basis of the size of the fixed parts and how far it was from the side of the car, I say that the damages could have been made by a bare hand.
3. 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. (This one was important later on. I’ll remind you.)
4. On the basis of the inspection of the car, the damages 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.
5. The value of the damages as described as happening on the 15th of May was written in the cost estimate that was included with the expert’s opinion and uses about the middle price for fixing them. (Now obviously, Kalinowski was not told of the subsequent accident and his remark here shows this. However small though, remarks such as these, especially in the hands of an outrageously prejudiced court can be damning. And, of course, they were.)
Part 3: The conditions of the estimate.
1. The cost estimate was based on a middle price for work per hour, which are normal for Renault cars in Warsaw.
2. The prices of work per hour could be different because of insurance, etc: 4225.29pln
(Eventually you see, this was the number the court decided was the correct amount to charge me. I hope I am making myself clear. Anyway, Zaremba comes to Wiesniakowski’s office. I have, of course not been told of this. Here is his interview. )

#11. Zaremba’s third interview, taken at the office of the prosecutor August 30th, 2002

1. I have been informed about your responsibilties and now I testify.
2. I completely confirm that I had given before.
3. Today I have been given the documents in my case as a victim and I am awear of what I have said.
4. There might be some small differences but that they have no influence over the whole situation. (This in responce to what I have pointed out already.)
5. There might be some differences in the order of the events about bumping into the car. (But Zaremba wants to make a statement this day. I don’t know why he tries to do this, but go ahead and read the following sentences.)
6. Today I remember that on the car there was a mark on the right side that goes from the back of the car to the mat protector on the rear door, a little under the window or the glass.
7. This scratch was in black color, probably coming from the driver of the bike or one of the grips that were on the handlebar. (He will explain about this later in this statement.)
8. The amount of 3000 zlotys is a minimal amount, but I will let this stay. And this is all. (This is in reference to the number for the damages given in the second report of damages that comes to 4225.29 pln. The following is in response to a question regarding the condition of the car before our confrontation.)
9. From the question of the prosecutor: My car, before the day that I met Mr. Goodman, had one dent on the running board on the right side.
10. 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. (Forget that kick, I guess. It doesn’t fit the story. This is not as small of a point as it seems. You will understand when he finally gets to the court.
11. (Why didn’t you report this to the insurance company?) I had bought insurance but I didn’t report the damages.
12. I didn’t report this because in my opinion, as far as I know, insurance doesn’t cover…
13. The firm that makes insurance doesn’t cover losses if the person who has done the harm is known. (This is an important point to make as well when juxtaposed against his court testimonies. I say this because when he does eventually admit there bier being previous damages, that those damages were paid for by the insurance firm is a given. If he tries to report this accident to the company, his premiums go up dramatically. There is also the thought that if the insurance company paid on a previous claim, there would be pictures taken and an estimate made. And though Zaremba can do what he likes with the insurance money, should those estimate photos show that the glass of the car was already cracked at that time, Mr. Zaremba goes directly to jail without passing go. And of course, none of my four attorneys nor any single person from the court ever contacted the insurance company to ask about any such existing photos.)
14. While I was getting to the junction, my car didn’t have and contact with Mr. Goodman's bike,
15. (Adds) at before the described incident, While I was driving on the left lane I saw the bus which was getting to the crossing in the middle lane.
16. I had to brake, so I would not have a collision with the biker, who was earlier cycling on the right lane,
17. Then on the middle lane and then almost perpendicular, he came into the left lane.
18. During this time there was no contact between our vehicles because I slowed down and I signaled with sound which made the biker to go from the left lane into the middle one. (Now, read this carefully. He is saying He can see me, I am in front, and then I go in front of him. This will also be made clear as well in court when I ask him about the distances between his car and the bus.)
19. He was behind me when I got to the junction.
20. Behind me, there were other cars, at least three which were standing behind me, and only in that moment did he come between the cars, and between the bus which was standing on the middle lane, he came to the front of the junction
21. He had problems with fitting between the vehicles and the bus, and it seems that this made him angry.
22. When he was passing my car, he was rocking on his bike
23. He hit into the roof several times with his fist, and after driving (riding) in front of my car, he threw his bike down on the ground… (Now I have not only hit his car several times but also he makes it very clear that I rode on the bike to the front of the car, just as he has said in each of his previous statements. I mean this is clear and an important part of his statement: He didn’t block my way and I could “ride” past him.)
24. And his following behavior I described in my previous testimony. (I think he stops here so as to avoid any more detail problems about his idea of the order of the attack. But next he talks about that black mark he wants to charge to me. Now remember, I have hit his car while passing no times, one time and several times…)
25. If we are talking about the damages on the right of my car that they hadn’t been noticed during the inspection: The inspection was DURING THE RAIN and my car was wet, and those marks that were made on the right side weren’t deep. (Now he is obviously trying to deflect my “water damage” observances here, but his trying that the detail was missed because of the report being done in the rain is an obvious screw up. The guy who did the report said: “ This report about the inspection of this car was made in natural light and good conditions. The temperature was 18 deg Celsius without rain” Right there in the first sentence of the report. And concludes by saying “ And the conclusion of the protocol is in the same atmospheric conditions.” However, Zaremba really decides he likes this alleged black mark. He likes it because he thinks he can make a point about this during my testimony to the court. I talk about that more later.)
26. (He adds) I didn’t notice this for a few days, and they are not on the list of damages.
27. (Why did you sell the car?) I sold my car because my wife found it to be bad luck and my daughter, after this incident with Mr. Goodman felt some aversion to this car.
28. (from the question from the accused) I state as I testified on the junction, there was not enough room to make it possible for the bike to go between them.
29. I state that my car was the closest to the bus. (My question)
30. The biker was riding towards junction between the vehicles standing in their lanes of movement.
31. (question) Why did the witness put the car so close that the accused could not go between the vehicles? (I love this answer!)
32. (answer) Because I was surprised by the discussion of the cyclist to go between the standing vehicles. The cyclist shouldn’t have been riding between the vehicles. The law does not allow him to do this. (Read that again. First of all, if we are speaking of his version of the story, he made a driving maneuver in reaction to an event that has not as of yet happened. If we read this from my side of the events, he is admitting to purposely driving in front of me and telling us he did it because he wanted to teach me something about biking. If we read it this second way (The first is somewhat comical) it is called an admission of criminal intent. So, hearing this at the time, I asked this:)
33. (question) Was this a form of punishment?
34. (answer) No. Because I hadn’t seen the reason in punishing a cyclist. (Are we getting clearer by now? Why didn’t you tell him you were a cop?)
35. I haven’ shown my police identification because it wouldn’t do anything, and I didn’t have time, and I didn’t have time for it because of what he did later.
36. (question) Why did he get in my way that there wasn’t room enough for me?
37. (answer) I hadn’t stood in his way? If he couldn’t fit, if he didn’t have enough room, he shouldn’t go through this space.
38. (answer) I didn’t bar Mr. Goodman's way, I was just driving on my lane, and I was driving as the rules allow. (The last two answers were made by the prosecutor himself. The prosecutor then moved us along to deal with the issue of throwing the bike at the car.)
39. (question from the attorney) I confirm that Mr. Goodman was throwing his bike into my car. He did it in such a way, that he picked his bike up and threw it on the front of the car, on the bumper of my car. It was once from the front. He precisely threw his bike, allowing the bike to leave his hands, and then from the left side of the car. I am not sure if this was throwing or just pushing car (the bike?) between the fence and the car. (Now this is a small point, but you got to remember that he said this when he gets around to constructing his court testimony. You see, what he is saying, and specifically he gestured as if he was throwing a paper airplane, is that I threw the bike at the car, as a weapon. He said that I threw the bike away, then picked it up AFTER ATTACKING FROM THE RIGHT, and then purposely throwing it at the bumper (!). Do you understand this? This is his account of what happened at the crossing. When we get to the court statements, if you don’t understand what they did by then, you need to buy property in Poland.)
40. In this place the witness was shown a photo. #2 of pictures taken this day and he showed the damages to the bumper in the photo in which there are scratches to the paint.
41. The attorney has no questions.
42. I don’t know if the perpetrator damaged his bike.
43. I don’t see a difference in the times of throwing the bike in my testimony.

(We had pretty much fallen apart during the questioning. I kept trying to ask questions about the car's position but the prosecutor refused to allow me to claiming I was asking the same question over and over again. Perhaps it was too subtle for the translator to translate, but more likely, they were simply not interested in having Zaremba’s story attacked. I refused to sign the document. I think that the whole of this was pretty obvious.
I went to my attorney the following Monday for a meeting. They were insisting on filing a complaint based upon that meeting. This is that complaint.)
#12. The 2nd complaint from Attorney Wotczech Tomczek

6 September, 2002
The exact value of the things that have been fixed needs to be made more complete.
Twardowski is to be a witness.
The bike was not damaged, and the police agree to this.
We want for Goodman to make another testimony.
All of the information needs to be given to Mr. Goodman in this case.
The reasons for this are that the experts made all of the costs of fixing the car including damages that could not be caused by Goodman.
This included the rear door and the front mask.
The monies charged to Mr. Goodman should be less.
Twardowski should be a witness because he could say something of a decision by the experts about the bike and that the decision of the experts is missing.
And I want Mr. Goodman to make another testimony because we want Mr. Goodman to tell the story again on the same day that they put the courts final documents together, and because of this, all of the information could not be known by Mr. Goodman.
(Now, this all seems pretty reasonable. Except that you must understand a few small points.
1. I had been held from May 15th to August 30th and I wanted desperately to get back to Belarus.
2. My attorney’s DID NOT TRANSLATE THIS DOCUMENT FOR ME; NOT DID THEY TELL ME THE CONTENT OR LET ME READ IT BEFORE IT WAS SENT.
3. They had not told me that Zaremba would be at that meeting, so I had no chance to prepare and questions ahead of time
4. My representative at that meeting did not want me to hear the contents of the report, which showed the damages.
5. At the Monday meeting in which they said they wanted to send this document, they were screaming at me that I was guilty and that this would go better on me.
6. And, because the last time that the lawyer complained, all that happened was that the prosecutor made me stay longer in Poland.
I told them not to complain unless they heard from me. They sent the complaint anyway. I told everybody from the embassy, to my lawyer to the prosecutor that I had not agreed to any complaint. However, the point was moot because the prosecutor decided to reject the complaint anyway and file a motion for trial. His doing this was also hidden by my own attorneys, thank you very much.)

So at this point I put together this really big report on what all I thought was nonsense about this case. I did this because I was told by an aspiring attorney that I could sent any information about the case to them and the prosecutor could not stop the information from going. So I made the report in the hopes that the judge in the case would be somehow less corrupt than the prosecutor. Well, of course, you realize I am still writing about this some 20 16 months later, so you know the answer to that question.
I wrote the first part of that report in Power Point, and I think really that it was very, very good. I made a point of illustrating how ridiculous his original description of the events was. I tried to prove how illogical such a dance would be, not only for me to do it, but also for bystanders to allow it to happen without any interference. I also tried to show that the claim of there being a cop car just in back of him is also a crazy story because that cop would have been a witness to such things as my flinging my bike at his car, or walking around the vehicle and banging on it for several minutes. I even put in the pictures to show that the actual level of damages he was claiming was so minimal compared to the story he was telling. I mean really, it is not just the order of event, if I had been bashing on his car the way he describes, there would have been a lot of damage there and not just the sort of scratches one accumulates in normal driving.
But then I made a point of concentrating on proving that he had previous damages. As I said, you could see from the pictures that there were streaks of dirt steaming backward from the little dents you could see in the pictures of the hood. These streaks are on all cars when they are driven in the rain because the wind pushes the water back toward the windshield. So I found this weather site on the web
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/12375.html
And it plainly said that it had only rained before our little to-do at the crossings, and after. And, because his interviews at the police station were time stamped, We know he was inside the police station giving his reports during the second rain.
So his claim that I had damaged his pristine car were false.
I turned in the report on October 7th, but of course, nothing happened. Officially, the report was never read and we proceeded to trial. I was first to give testimony and I repeated basically what I have written here: He drove his car into me when he drove around me, skidded to a stop just in front of me, causing me to have to ride into the bus, and I punched him for doing it.
I was not however allowed by the court in any way to address any testimonies made by Zaremba. This was made clear from the start that I was to stick specifically to my own account.
If there wan an interesting moment, it came when Zaremba tried to question me. I guess he was looking for some proof of his “black mark” theory. Or maybe he was really into this “was it even possible that” argument, this to go along with the expert opinion that there was a possibility that the damage could be caused by a hand. At any rate, his attempt to ask his lone question was comical. Twardowski was the translator, and this is a word for word recount of the entire questioning:

“Zaremba: 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?
Zaremba: Tak.
Twardowski: Yes.
Goodman: No, I think I made a clean stop.
Twardowski: Nie, myślę, że to było czyste zatrzymanie.
Zaremba: (do sądu:) Czy mógłbym wykonać pięciominutowy telefon?
Twardowski: May I please be excused for five minutes to make a phone call?”

Now, Tatyana was sitting outside and watched him make this call and huddle with Jablonski and Jucha who were there as his witnesses. I have always assumed that he called Wiesniakowski because as far as the court was concerned, Zaremba had no lawyer. I don’t know if it was the prosecutor who was advising him, but whoever it was, Zaremba must have believed he had let the cat out of the bag. The court though gave him his five minutes, and when he returned, he said he had no further questions.
It was a month later when it was Zaremba's turn. This is a long statement. If I knew then what I knew now, I think I would have had a hell of a lot more to say. But be that as it may, here’s the transcription.

#13 Zaremba’s testimony to the courts:

1. On may 15th, at about 2:00 PM I was driving in my Renault Megan which was my personal car. This was in Warsaw, on Solidarnoci, and we were going towards the Praga district. My daughter was in the car with me, 11 year old Katergina who I had taken from school and was heading home with.
2. We were riding towards Bankove Place at a distance of about 150 meters from the crossroads of Andersa. I was riding in the left lane in the middle lane was a city bus, which was slowing down because there was a red light. On the right side of the road I saw the biker who was riding very slowly and swerving. (Now, listen to this story carefully. This is the first time he is giving his story of the distance from the stop my moving in front of him took place. I of course say that I had already passed around the bus when he tried to drive around me, but he wants this to take place 150 meters from the stop. Now the main difference between these two locations is the speed we would all be going. The bus and Zaremba would both be going like 50 kph. Now he has me behind the bus, but moving slowly. How can this be? Read on and it will be clearer.)
3. In one moment he drove left, almost perpendicular to the left lane-in which I was driving-from one lane to another. In that place there are three lanes of traffic in one lace. In that time when the biker rode into my lane, I had to hit the brakes quickly so that he wouldn’t hit me. I used my horn, because I was afraid of contact because he was so close to my car. The biker reacted to the horn and went into the left lane. After slowing to a quick hard stop, I continued driving in the left lane. I went to the crossing. I stopped first at the lights. Behind me, there were a few cars, which had stopped on the left lane. (So, I move out of his lane, and end up behind the bus. Have you got the picture of this in your head? He and the bus are both moving at speed, but I am going slowly, but I swerve into his lane and he can stop and avoid the collision.
11. After stopping, I saw in the right rear view mirror, I saw the biker riding between the cars which were standing behind me on the left lane and the bus standing on the middle lane. I saw that he had troubles fitting between the cars, especially that he had the bus on the right, which was taking up almost all of the lane. During this ride, he was kicking his feet along the ground, rocking back and forth on the bike. (I tried really hard to make a point about this remark in several of the subsequent essays I wrote. As I was on a fixed wheel bike, a bike without a freewheel so the pedals turn along with the rear wheel, you can’t really make this move where you walk a bike along like you can on a regular bike. Small point, but I thought it important to add. But the bit is as important as any point there is to make about the believability of Zaremba’s story. You must remember how he has previously described the incident. This is what he says now.)
12. 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. (This again about the black mark theory.)
13. When he was in the middle of my car, he punched the roof three times, and kicked the front mirror… (At first there was no contact, I rode past but did nothing. The second account has me delivering a hit and the third several hits. Now it is three hits and a kick at the mirror- I am getting more violent as I go on. But READ WHAT HE SAYS NEXT:)
14. …He then lifted his bike up in front of him, and then he lifted it and threw it in front of the Renault, the bike hitting the front bumper. (Did you hear what the man said? Now, I did not ride past and then throw away the bike, return to the right side of the car and beat the roof and the window, here, I MUST LIFT THE BIKE OVER THE CAR, AND IN MY THROWING THE BIKE TO THE FRONT OF THE CAR, THE BIKE HIT THE BUMPER. This is not only a change in story; it is a statement I am sure he is making in an attempt to get his story closer to my own account so as to add credibility. Me, I said the same story every time, and turned in reports; Zaremba is bending his story to fit my description in the hopes of increasing his credibility…)
15. That man, yelling something in English, was acting like he was crazy. He hit several times in the front on the hood of the car on the right side, and he was kicking the right front mudguard… (Now, you see how he has reshaped the attack. And remember he is not telling the story in December, some six months after the incident. But also remember how I pointed out the differences in the damage reports? I think that that front mudguard was seriously damaged in the second crash. There is no damage at all there from the May 15th report. I don’t know how I can be taking the trouble to try and damage his car without actually causing any. )
16. He hit the front glass a few times with his fist, but not with the knuckles, only with the heel of his hand. He hit two or three times with his fist. Then he pushed the car, he was still yelling, he stopped for a moment next to the right front doors. (Ignoring the comedic melodrama of the following second, he is making an interesting picture of my fighting him while trapped next to the bus.)
17. In this moment when that situation began, my daughter started to cry, and started to become hysterical, and she was trying to hug me. I think that the look of this child made that man calm down for a moment. (But not calm enough because…)
18. But, after a few seconds, he want to the front, he picked up the bike and threw it between the barrier and the left side and my car. The some part of the bike into my car. The accused went over his bike, I mean I am not sure if he was standing on his bike, but he appeared on the left side of my car. He punched several times to the glass of my left front door and to the roof also a few times. He opened my door and punched me into my face.
19. I protected myself with my hands, the accused blocked the door with his straight leg and his body, he didn’t let me shut the door. He punched a few times into one side of my car, and as I think that he grabbed the antenna. (Now this bit would be while the door was open. Poor Zaremba is just sitting there while all of this is going on. No kick to the sternum, not shot at the testicles- no defense at all…)
20. I didn’t see that, but I heard the knocking of something metal into the roof. Then he was trying to get me out of the car, and he sent me a few punches more. He was punched into my face three times, two times into my jaw, and a few times into my shoulders, my sides, and my hands, which I was defending myself. (This is straight from Batman! Bam! Boom! KaPow! What does he do to defend against this 12 to fifteen punch combination?)
21. I leaned back into the chair, and I tried to push him with my legs out of the car. With my right hand, I took my mobile phone, and I chose the numbers 112, after hearing the voice of the answering machine, I was listening to the recording for a few seconds, but I had to defend myself… (Stop laughing! I mean it! This is serious. Wham! Bam! Boom! But only then does he try to call, he says he dials the number-forget about the clock on the phone being ten minutes off for a second- and this time actually gets to listen that the police will not be coming to save him because he only gets an answering machine. And remember, the medical damage to his person from this myriad of blows delivered by a very large New York City messenger was all of one mildly cut lip. Been in a fistfight lately? What happens to your body if you bump into something or stub your toe?)
22. Only the look of the phone, and that in was trying to use it, unbelievably calmed down the accused. I think he realized that I was calling for help, because I heard from his yelling the words, “from to police”. (From… to… Police… I can’t even justify speaking of this.)
23. He shouted a few more sentences, but a lot quieter, he left my door, he went in front of the car, and in his way. He pushed the rear view mirror and standing in front of the Renault, he leaned with all his body, like he was throwing himself on the front of my car, directly on the hood. (Now in the 2nd damage report, after his crash the hood apparently had become completely off its hinges. In the picture of the car from the 15th there is nothing like a great big dent on the hood: It is straight as an arrow in the picture and the police report confirms this. Again, If I really did what he claimed, I would have dented the hood quite deeply, yes? Why does he add this detail? And also, why does he want me, while my bike is apparently sitting now to the left of his car, to walk back in front of a running car just to lean on the hood. And if I did, why the hell didn’t he try to run me over? Well, I’ll tell you why: In the second report of damages, the hood is off its hinges. Zaremba want’s to blame me for this. This detail comes up again in a minute, and really this is a very foolish remark for Zaremba to make. But for the moment, let’s go back to the issue at hand. Now remember that according to this story, all of this must have taken a long time. I pointed this out in my Power Point. Remember that there is supposed to be a cop car behind us. Why hasn’t anybody done anything to help him?)
24. Then he picked up his bike, he sat on it and rode towards to Solidarnoci street, and on the passage which is next to the Muronow cinema and Andersa street. At this moment he was riding away, a man came to me and said and he said that behind me there is a police car. I looked at what the accused was doing. He was riding forward and backward through the passage, and looking at me. (We are 150 meters from the police station. There are at that moment 40 cops standing there out in front. There were also probably 40 people standing there waiting for the buses, the tram or waiting to cross the street.)
25. I ran to the cop’s car a few meters behind me and I asked for help. I asked for them to stop the accused. They used the siren and they went to the left and to Andersa street and I did the same with my car. The cop’s car was blocked by another car, and so he left behind, and I drove Andersa street, and then we went to the parking lot next to the KSP. (Again, if this radio car was only a few meters behind him, are you telling me that they didn’t see any of this? But what exactly happened here? Did the cop use the siren and go, or was he blocked? And wait a while and you will here a second version of this later in this testimony.)
26. In the parking there were several cop cars there, there were a few uniformed policemen who were standing next to the cars. I asked them for a reaction in the accused case, who was still riding in the passage. After a few minutes, sorry, I don’t know how much time did it take, a few policemen went in the direction of the accused and he stood up from the bike and he went in my direction yelling something, and again he was trying to hit me. The policeman split us up. (Now get this straight as well. HE GETS THE POLICE TO STOP ME, BUT I MANAGE TO GET ALL THE WAY OF TO HIM DESPITE THIS. And remember that the last line of the second story was “then the police took control”. )
27. After telling the story, they took out documents, the accused, and mine and then after using the radio, they sent us to the police station. There they checked the car, and photos were taken. I told the story the story. And for now this is all that I have to say... (They handed him a copy of his previous statements)
28. After READING: Agrees. I noticed certain differences in some evidence I ascertained, that accused more than 2 times threw the bike… In some moments, there are places where there are differences in the order of chronology… (That was all he said, and apparently this was satisfying enough to the court. Someone asked him how long this attack lasted.)
29. This event lasted 2-3 minutes and it is necessary was to specify lots of facts. (I don’t know if he is admitting that he needs the attack to go on for a long time so that he can justify what damages he wants to claim or not, but this line sure sounds like it comes from my report.)
30. Certain things I do not remember and I did not talk about in earlier testimonies. Some of my details were not following in the same order, and I simply may have forgot forget about some others.
31. ON QUESTION OF LADY PRESIDENT: I confirm what I witnessed in preparatory conduct. In preparatory conduct I said that accused, after being stopped by the policemen, struck me in face. Today I say that former this was only an attempt to hit me. (I though he made it all quite clear that I hit him. He said it twice quite plainly enough. I guess he could not get any of the police to testify that they saw this.)
32. I want to correct this and to say that accused tried to strike me in face but me but did not because I avoided this by dodging and shielding my face with my hands. (Ahaaa… The following are all answers to questions that are not written in the text.)
33. FROM QUESTIONS OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: The glass of the car did not come out, but had a starry crack in it. I did not replace the glass after the event. I sold the car with this with damage after 1 and 1/2 months.
34. I did not notify the insurance company about the damages.
35. My daughter was locked to my right side in the front seat with a shoulder strap. As far as estimating the cost of the damages, I consulted with familiar varnisher. (STOP. If we are talking about his initial claim, made at the station on May 15th, there was no way for him to have spoken to the man between the time of the incident and the time it took to drive to the police station. And, if he is talking about the estimate following the SECOND ACCIDENT, HE IS DIRECTLY CHARGING ME WITH THESE EXTRA DAMAGES IN COURT. The familiar car painter would be I suppose his witness Jablonski, who will talk later in the day. This though folks, is an admission of perjury. What does he say about this?)
36. In preparatory conduct I said that sum given by the expert does not embrace all of costs. (He confirms this. He is saying that the estimate of the costs WHICH INCLUDE DAMAGES CAUSED BY A SECOND ACCIDENT ARE ALSO INSUFFICIENT TO COVER THE DAMAGES. He said it in court folks.)
37. ON QUESTIONS OF DEFENDER: (Now this is my guy Boris asking questions. Borus as far as I know had never said one single word about the differences in the estimates and I didn’t know about it until months after this. And clearly, no one was going to make a big point of telling me either. )
38. Before the sale, the car was not repaired. I sold the car to the wife of Jablonski. (Who insured the car?)
39. Car was insured in Cigna Company S.
40. When accused was getting to my car along the line between the autobus and me. I saw this in the right mirror. When he was halfway to the front of the car, he lifted up the bike and then made several steps in front of my car, and then threw the cycle on the street and some of the bike fell on the car and on the bumper. (OK, so now this is a new variation on the theme. Now, I am not standing there and fighting, Now, I am not riding past while delivering 1, 2 or 3 kicks- How many different ways can Mr. Zaremba try and tell the stupid story? The real difference here though, is by changing the basic premise of the story to account for that “black mark”, is admitting to a picture that is pretty much the one I tried to show as being the truth from day 1. I wrote a long essay about just this moment. If it is possible for me to pass by the back of the car, but not the front, that implies that the car was stopped at an angle and not straight. Now remember we are in tight quarters here. There is only about 60 cm between the car and the bus, and of course the bus is taller than I am. It would be very easy to close the gap beyond the limits that my bike could ride through. But if I can only pass the back and not the front, he must have stopped in that way- or skidded to a stop in that way- and this has been my point all along. The following are all answers to questions. )
41. I stopped nearest of bus from regard to Wyprofilowanie Street because the lanes there go in the direction I was going. I am not enemy of cyclists, and rather believe that for Goodman drivers of cars are his enemies. It does not hinder me that cyclists will ride with the cars, but is this was not peaceable with the rules.
42. But cyclists should watch out not to be in conflict with cars because there could perhaps be an accident. (Again, if he is trying to tell me that he was trying to run me over for my own good because he didn’t like my being in front of him, I would say he could go straight to hell. But, listen to what he says next about that car that was allegedly in back of him. Now, you must understand that this cop car is not Jucha. It is someone else who has never had the slightest thing to do with this situation regardless of the potentiality that they would be a witness to the events. Borus asks him what happened to that car.
43. This radio car, which was found behind me at the crossing probably went on command, but I am not certain. (It was important enough for them to use the siren. It was important enough for them follow (or lead) Zaremba to the station. Where are they now? How many times did the lights change?)
44. I am not in a position to say how many times they changed. They surly changed several times because the bus and the cars all went on. (OK, but I thought you said that the radio car was blocked? Again I asked what happened to the radio car?)
45. The Radio car stood in the right lane ready to turn on Marszalkowska Street. I do not know whether I asked policemen from this of radio car whether saw this event. I went before everyone to try and make the arrest of the accused. (In my report from October I took the speed limit of the of the street and figured how many seconds a radio car would have the ability to see an event taking place. If Zaremba wants to insist that this was a more than one-minute event, and specifically that the bus left the scene, there is no way these cops could not have seen anything. And what is more, he now moves them from several meters in back of him, to the right lane. And better yet, look again at the picture; Zaremba is not in uniform. What does he say to the cops to get their attention? To even get them to turn on the siren? I am sorry folks; this man is not speaking from his memory, but from his imagination. Now, that being said, I seriously do not understand this next remark at all. I believe that it has something to do with smirking at me about how little help I got in fighting my case. In any case, it is adding insult to injury.)
46. If this would have been a conflict or a quiet conversation between participants I suppose that it would not be a problem finding a witness. But from the regard that he was acting like a raving madman, I rate that this was why nobody hurried with giving help. (He is next asked why he left the scene of the accident?)
47. I do not know whether it was right to leave then, but most important for me was to arrest the accused. I was afraid that the accused would escape from the place of the event, I saw him 200-300 meters away and I drove after and covered the way. I do not remember if during incidents I said something to the accused. (My feeling is that he left because 1. I was heading straight to the police and 2, his car was stopped at an odd angle in the street and he would rather not have to explain that. I never heard this previous statement about why he had no witnesses. Twardowski didn’t translate it well and the point was missed. The Judge asked him if he had in fact tried to break my finger during our altercation. During my testimony, I had mentioned that I was pointing my finger at him.)
48. I was at such a moment in defending myself and blocking punches that I seized finger of accused. It was while protecting myself. I do not remember whether this was before I was pushing the accused with my legs or after. I held this finger and I tried to twist it off. (Of course you know, I was pointing that finger at him while I was telling him that he was an ass for having driven into me. I thought that the court was really on my side at that moment, but of course, it wasn’t. They asked him about the damages to his person)
49. During this incident, I experienced disturbing of teeth on the left side of my face. Two of them became chipped. I had hemotoma (a cut) on my upper lip on the left side The bones in my cheek ached and all the left side of my face. I had difficulties from speaking; I felt pain at touching and turning with head. (Again though, the medical report does not agree that his teeth were broken. And, this is a really small amount of damage if he is going to claim 10 to 15 hits. He was asked where he was going that day and a few questions about Wiesniakowski’s telling me in front of a witness that Zaremba said he had wanted to get a gun and shoot me.)
50. I planned to take Solidarności over the Ślasko-Dąbrowski Bridge to Radzyminską. As a policeman I work for the Department Of road traffic KSP. I have the right to bear weapons just like every policeman. On this of day I did not have any weapons with me. I absolutely did not say in presence of the public prosecutor that I had intention to use weapons in relation to the accused. (At this point it was my turn to ask questions. I thought I wanted to hear more specifics from him, still figuring his story could be proved false. I asked him his relationship to the bike when he passed Orla Street, about 250 meters from the stop by my measurement. Orla street figured in my estimates of how much time that alleged cop car would have had while driving towards the stop.)
51. ON QUESTIONS OF ACCUSED: Exactly I will not be able to qualify when I most likely passed Orla Street (But I knew that this was my chance to catch him in a lie about his story. I think from the beginning, I laid all of my hopes on the real difficulty in constructing a believable story from lies. The problems lie in preparation and in details. Now certainly, if you got the whole of the court system simply giving it to you no matter what you say or do, this adds some extra ground. But I thought that this was my chance to really crack his story. And, in fact I did. Well at least as far as rational thinkers or actual justice types might be concerned. I wish I had known more than I did. But nevertheless, This was my questioning: How far from me were you when you first saw me?)
52. I do not know how far I was from the stop when I first saw accused. (When I made my so-called move in front of you, what was the distance between you and the bus?)
53. Distance between my car and the bus was a good 5 meters. I was going about 40-50km/h. (Now this is big. I mean, it is really big. Now, remember that he wants us to believe that my move to cut in front of him was 150 meters before the stop. Well folks; look at the picture he is making. If the bus is only five meters in front of him, that, means that the bus is also going about the same speed he is. Now first of all, remember that he testified that he saw me out in front of him riding slowly toward the bus. Now, this is probably a visual memory (a real one) because it implies that the bus has stopped and I am about to go around it. In my account of course, the guy decides to tear around me like and idiot, and then tries to hip-check on the way past. In that case, the stories kinda mesh. But if he is saying that the distance between he and the bus was five meters, the only possible picture he would make was that HE WAS FIVE METERS BEHIND THE BUS AT THE STOP WHEN I WENT AROUND THE BUS. This would also be as well perhaps a justification for his actions. BUT HE DOESN’T SAY THIS. What he says is that this happens 150 meters back and at speed. And let me tell you folks, if it did happen this way, than Einstein is rolling over in his grave because it is a physical impossibility in this world. Firstly, I would have top be going at the same speed as the bus. Not only is this really hard to do, but he said it wasn’t the case. But secondly, think of the size of the bike- He want’s us to believe that I can cut in and cause a problem within a distance of only five meters; This…simply… can’t… happen. I would have to do this in the space of 1/3 of a second. What is 1/3 of a second? Say the word “second” out loud. 1/3 of a second elapsed in the time it took you to get to the letter “c”. He reconfirms that he has no idea what he is talking about a few sentences later. It is a lie. Get it? He lied! Anyway, I went on: Do you know the speed limit there?)
54. The speed limit for his place is 50km/h. On the left lane in front of me there was no car. I speak about section of crossing Al. Solidarności and Andersa. I was going slower than the limitation of speed, because I was getting to crossings. (Just a note, if he is telling us he was going slower than the limit, this is also a lie. Polish drivers are speed freaks and ten minutes spent out at the intersection would tell you that people do not even apply their brakes until about 80 meters from the stop, about the time they reach the fence of the tramway. Was the bus stopped?)
55. The bus was not stopped. (‘Nother small point. But lest us remind ourselves of what we heard only a few short minutes ago: “ We were riding towards Bankove Place at a distance of about 150 meters from the crossroads of Andersa. I was riding in the left lane in the middle lane was a city bus, which was slowing down because there was a red light. On the right side of the road I saw the biker who was riding very slowly and swerving.” This was the second statement of the text. Not from questions, this is what he himself wanted to say. The bus is moving at the same speed as he is, he says he sees me for a good long time, and he has said in the past that he “saw” that I was “getting to the bus”. Am I making my point clearly? His story works great if he would just admit that we were at the stop and he bloody well drove around me like a lunatic. He story doesn’t hold water and it gets worse. When was the first time you saw me?)
56. I do not know exactly when was the first time I saw the accused but taking under consideration my distance to the crossing with Andersa it would be about 200 meters before. Mr. Goodman went slowly and zigzagged into the right lane. (Now, I know I have him. And if the court was following or had even the slightest care to have a clue, they would have gotten it too. )
57. I did not pass the accused when he came around the bus because the bus was in front of the cyclist. I do not know whether I went the same speed as the bus, I did not measure the speed of the bus. The bus was nearer the crossing and had to stop at the signal. The cyclist surely moved slower than bus. When cyclist wanted to cut in front of my way I was about 120 meters from the crossing. (Now I would say he knew he was caught in a lie. OI say this because his next statement was:)
58. I am not however sure exactly. (Anyway, I hope I made my point here. The bus is but five meters in front. I am both riding slowly and at sufficient speed to deal with the bus and the car. Folks, even if we are not at the stop, if the bus is slowed down sufficiently for a slow moving zigzagging biker (And I was riding slowly, too) We are at the stop and not some 120 or 150 meters away. Even his next statement about seeing me the whole time, while probably true, could also not be true if the bus was riding along with him five meters in front of him- or even moving at all for that matter.)
59. Of course I braked, especially in the moment when I noticed that the cyclist came into on my lane. From moment of noticing the accused to the moment of getting close by the bus at the crossing, I saw accused almost the whole time. When I passed the accused I remember that I did not see him (in the moment). (I asked him again to describe the angle. It was the same problem of translations as had been in the prosecutor’s office and both Zaremba and the Judge jumped on me about repeating questions. I argued that I was not repeating the questions, but they now stopped me from asking more.)
60. I already said in previous testimony, that the cyclist entered my lane in almost a straight angle to my lane I feel that the accused did not occupy completely the left lane. He made his cut into the left lane and after I applied the brake and used a sound signal, (he) rode down center lane. (How far was my bike ahead of you when this happened?)
61. In this time when accused, making an almost straight line, (he) entered my lane about 5-7 of meters (ahead of me). (Were there any cars behind you?)
62. Behind me was one car. Used to be no cars, but why quibble. If he remembers things a little differently, these are small matters when we are only dealing with a couple of years of a man’s life. But I obviously am asking good questions because he really, really needs us to know how important it is for him to get me. Listen:)
63. On the center lane was a city bus. I did not see how many cars were in the lane. The most important thing for me was the situation with the cyclist. (How many cars were behind you?)
64. When I stopped before the crossing behind me there were at least 3 cars. Exactly I do not remember. I am not in a position to describe the relationship to the wheel of this cycle. I received for the car exactly 17,000 zlotys. (I couldn’t think of any more questions. If I was doing this now, I mean if I could have heard all of what he had said when he had said it, rather than having to find this stuff after I finally had these documents translated, some three months later, I certainly would have made this all a but more clear. This however, was not the case. I was certainly not prepared and more so, I was not thinking very clearly. The court record shows:)
65. The accused and his defender have no more questions to witness. (At this time we took a beak for lunch. When we went back in, the questioning continued from the prosecutor:)
66. ON QUESTION FROM THE LADY PRESIDENT: I was struck in the side of (my) face. The accused opened the car door but I tried to hold (it closed). (The Judge asked him if it was true that he grabbed my finger. This was a detail in my testimony where I said that I was pointing my finger at him and telling him what an ass I thought he was. I guess, as this detail had always escaped Zaremba- he was very gentle in he defense from me don’t you know- he had neglected to mention it.)
67. I seized the accused’s finger and pushed him away with my legs. I purchased the car in November 2001. It was a used car. It was 5 years old. (Now folks, my thinking was that the judge was really on my side here because of what she asked next. Looking back, I don’t know why I relied on subtlety rather than directly asking, but anyway, she did and we got an answer. Why the trial did not come to an end at that moment, I will never know. And really, and I am not joking because it simply wasn’t translated, I didn’t hear what was said next at that moment. I really wish I had. She asked him if the car had had a previous accident.)
68. This car had an accident in January or February of 2002. I drove off the road and I struck a tree. The results of the damage was a broken front bumper, front belt, broken headlamps, the dummy, as it is called; the hood, the cooler and condenser of the air-conditioning. The roof was not damaged. The car was repaired in a workshop and an insurance firm paid for the repair. This workshop is found at the corner of Ząbkach and Księcia Skorupk Street. The records of the repair are at the insurance firm. This was at the end of January. (Now this is Jablonski’s shop. He tells us straight out that he makes his living by being able to undercut the legitimate body shop. Zaremba got an estimate from one place, and Jablonski did whatever he did to repair the car for something less. But be all that as it may, he just admitted to being a fraud from the start. However, his fraud does not come to an end at this time. Right here, he is going to try and tell us that he can tell you the differences in the damages. But listen to what he says about the hood:)
69. As a result of the events of the 15th of May the following was damaged: A small flaw on right back mudguard and right back door. An indent to the right of the front mudguard, an indent and unhinging of the cover of the engine…(Ok. The unhinging of the engine cover is something I have pointed out before. I don’t know why Zaremba wants to even try to pin this on me. But he does, and he adds in the story of my leaning with all of my weight on the hood. Wanna know why we really shouldn’t believe him? Because the “car expert” himself, Robert Kalinowski told us so in his “expert opinion”: “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.” And this is a good call because the hood in the pictures is quite obviously straight. I believe that statement was point number three. But for the sake of moving along, how do we really know there was indeed a second accident? Well, for one thing the damages in the two reports don’t match. But better, even though no one asks Zaremba about this during this testimony (And I wasn’t even aware of the damage report!), Jablonski, one of Zaremba’s own witnesses will tell us about it later on in the day. Zaremba goes on)… a crack of the windshield on the right side near upper corner, dents of the roof on the right and left side, scratches on the bumper, a broken off radio - antenna, an indent on the roof from the back center near the antenna of the cellular telephone. I do not remember if it was possible, that there were other damages. I did not execute the repair at my own cost. (He just doesn’t remember if there were other damages. He has two accident reports, he is claiming damages in court, he has had six months to try and concoct this cockamamie story, but he just don’t rememba… I can’t stand it folks, he just can’t rememba…The judge asked about his teeth.)
70. As a result of the hit I went to the dental clinic. I had dental treatment but I do not have any record of the payment. I do not have any of the bills connected to this. (The Judge asked him to clarify that statement:)
71. I clarify that I do not remember whether I have any bills connected to this. (Can you feel me? He just can’t rememba… Zaremba can’t rememba if he had any medical bills. It just slipped from his mind, effortlessly and on gossamer wings. Such a trivial thought. And all of it so very trivial. So very, very trivial…)
72. Because of what I was told when I sold it, the car was sold below value. On the day of the sale, this car this was worth about 22-23,000 zlotys. I sold it for only 17,000 zlotys. (How have you been harmed? This again from the judge.)
73. Harm to my person connected to this is first of all with the stress connected to my daughter. This money then is for satisfaction for doing me harm. I want to add that from regard to specific work done (to my teeth) I did not continue treatment. (Uh… right. I got to ask questions again, but the Judge determined that I was asking the same questions again. I really didn’t know what to ask. I hadn’t heard all that was said, I didn’t know the form: I simply couldn’t do the job that needed to be done. I wish I could have done better, but I didn’t. I asked two more limp questions before they shut me out completely:)
74. The accused entered into my lane crossed the white line in front of my wheel. I do not know what the distance from this of line was.
75. ON QUESTION OF DEFENDER: (Why didn’t you report this to the insurance company?) Insurance - Firm does not have to pay indemnity, if the originator is known. I stopped my car insurance.
And that was that. I think all of that was clear enough. But apparently it was not clear enough for the court. We got to hear from Zaremba’s two witnesses at these point. I should point out, as this was an item in my appeal that the prosecutor claimed that Zaremba’s story would be backed by at least one witness. Zaremba brought with him Jucha and Jablonski. Good old Marcin Boris was as unprepared as could be, and me- well, I am sure it does not reflect well on me, but I simply could not believe what I was hearing, or why these guys were witnesses. And, when Jablonski tells us about the second incident, just as with Zaremba’s story about the crash, it was simply not translated. I did not even read about it until about three months later. Such is polish Justice.)

The first witness we would hear from would be Tomas Jucha, the arresting officer, and the author of those two wonderful reports that stated clearly that Zaremba had told him at the scene that he had driven around me and stopped in front of me. Here is the text of his statement, in full, and without interruption of commentary from me.

#14. Tomas Jucha’s court testimony:

1. 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.
Borus advised me not to ask any questions. He was really adamant about it. I didn’t. There you go.
Jablonski was next:

#15. The court testimony of Stanislaw Jablonski’s testimony:

1. I know why I am here In the court. I bought this car from Zaremba. Zaremba called me to fix the car, and I bought it. This cars front bumper was damaged and broken. It had a broken light, a broken front glass. It had a dent in the roof, on the back of the roof, the antenna, in the middle part, I don’t exactly remember, the left front wheel cover and the back right wheel cover. I painted many parts, I don’t remember. 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. (Now some of the damages of course don’t match. But here it comes:)
2. Broken front light and a crooked mask(hood) in the front were caused by a car accident about which was told to me by Zaremba. The accident happened just before my buying the car. I bought that car in June or July of this year Zaremba told me something about the car hitting something. Broken front light and a crooked mask in the front were caused by a car accident about which was told to me by Zaremba. (Did you catch that? The court didn’t. And there are two points to make. Firstly, Jablonski is telling us rather specifically that there was a subsequent accident and so this accounts for the second estimate’s differences. But also he is specifically pointing out where the hood was damages IN THAT SECOND CRASH. By saying this, he is of course calling Zaremba a liar: “ As a result of the events of the 15th of May the following was damaged: a small flaw on right back mudguard and right back door, an indent to the right of the front mudguard, an indent and unhinging of the cover of the engine…” See my point? )
3. The accident happened just before my buying the car. I bought that car in June or July of this year. The bumper was cracked, and the front mask and I think the left wheel cover. I made the roof smoother and I painted elements which were damaged. I found out from Zaremba that the damages were caused by some fight. I don’t want to say anything more. (Now, Jablonski has been coached in the art of subtlety by whoever was coaching Zaremba. I guess they thought that my translator’s inability to translate might allow them to hide what they were saying. It did. Not cool. Not fair. Not justice. He makes the previous statement, and then goes on in a monotone about other damages, sort of hiding what he had said in the text, deflecting the weight of the statement. Too subtle for this court, too subtle for my lawyer, too subtle for my translator…)
4. After reading testimonies-I don’t remember exactly how much they paid for the car, but I bought it I think for 17,000 pln. This was a very good price. At the day of buying the car, the value was 22 or 23 thousand or more. In a professional workshop, they have much higher prices than mine. Insurance firms have their books where they have middle market prices. When I bought that car, this is what happened. I don’t know how much the they would pay for fixing the car. I didn’t count it. The proper owner of the car is my wife. I don’t remember if Zaremba, when he was selling me that car, if he was telling me something about any other damages, and because of the damages I told you, I bought that car for 17,000. I put a new glass in. (And that was the end of that day.)

Zaremba's daughter

I don’t know why I thought I needed to bring in Zaremba’s daughter as a witness. Certainly Borus was wanting to do anything he could to help Zaremba win. I published a lot of our letters from that time, and I was sick as hell over what had just happened. Zaremba admits that he had been lying. His story has more holes than a golf course. The be perfectly frank, I really don’t see how the case even went on. I pointed out in the book that there were two cops waiting outside the courtroom. I was so paranoid, I thought they were for me, but looking back, they quite possibly could have been for Zaremba. Just a little support would have been nice.
But I did press for the daughter. I pressed because I had no idea if the court was listening to me or not. But I also pressed for her because I wanted Zaremba to really know what he was doing to me. It was a tactic more than anything, and though I didn’t really want to do (check out my letters to Borus and you will understand this) I was handing Zaremba a paradox: If his daughter actually and truthfully testifies, she tells the court that the bum hit me with a car, and that is the end of that. But in order to tamper with her, he must ask his daughter to be a liar in court. Now, maybe this is my rose colored glasses view of the world coming back to haunt me, or maybe I simply underestimated how little the truth means to the Zaremba family, but Zaremba seemed to have no quandary about using his daughter as a shield. None whatsoever.
Now, the girl did admit that she was coached be her dad. And there are some parts of her testimony that are obviously of that coaching and some other parts that are flat out storytelling. But even though the psychologist who was there to see if the little girl was “showing signs” of confabulating admitted these things, the court decided to say that she supported he father’s claim. And, it is important to note that I was not allowed to directly question the girl. I was not even allowed into the courtroom. I got in a few question though as you will see, and the response to those questions depressed the hell out of both Zaremba and the prosecutor. But of course, all of that is as they say “Gone with the wind.” And frankly my dear, after 20 months of this crap. I really don’t give a damn any more.
Here is the Daughters testimony.

#15 The transcription from Katerjina Zaremba.

The witness Katergina Zaremba sat with her parents and the psychologist.
1. I don’t remember what exactly happened when I was riding in the car with my dad, but I remember most of it. It was late spring, about 2pm, and my dad took me from school and was taking me home. I was riding in a Red Renault Megan. (Stop laughing…)
2. At first we were behind a bus, then, we moved to the left, stopping first before the lights. Behind us a few other cars were standing. (I said stop laughing! I wish I could show you the pictures. The girl is eleven years old so she is not very tall. The pictures of the car with her in it clearly show that she can’t see over the seat. I mean, good for her that she memorized her dad’s story, you know. Give her a good grade for the work, but also, give me a brake, huh?)
3. Mr. Goodman was riding between us and the bus. But before we stopped the man rode in front of us. I actually didn’t see the movement when he cut in on us, but I know that my dad had to slow down quite quickly. When we stopped at the lights, that man got off the bike, he threw the bike into the car, I am not sure, but I think it was the back. (Ok, let me stop you again: Not a lot of detail to be sure, but let’s hear that statement again: “ When we stopped at the lights, that man got off the bike, he threw the bike into the car, I am not sure, but I think it was the back.” What in the hell does this mean? How can she think there was bike throwing if she couldn’t see it? Now Zaremba keeps telling all about this bike throwing business, but is it right for the girl to TELL US THERE WAS BIKE THROWING IF SHE COULDN’T EVEN SEE IT? And for get about Zaremba’s change of stories… ah hell, just read on.)
4. He punched several times into the roof and the glass from my side. I was sitting in the front of my car next to my dad. Then he walked to my dad’s side. I was sitting in the front seat next to my dad. Dad was trying to lock the door but he couldn’t. That man punched my dad in he face with his fist. My dad was trying to defend, and calm him down, but the man didn’t want to. Then he left when there was a green light- he got on his bike and drove in the direction of the Mirinow theatre. I went with my dad to the police department. The policemen caught him there. I don’t remember more details.
5. (In answer to the prosecutor’s question:) my dad didn’t tell me why he had to slow down. I figured it out myself that someone had cut in. I was frightened at what all had happened. I had my face in my hands and I cried. Before it happened, when we were driving, I remember seeing the man on the road. I don’t remember where I saw him.
6. (in answer to the question from the auxiliary prosecutor (Zaremba)) I remember that when my dad was slowing down he used his horn. The bus we were following was in front of us. I don’t remember the moment when the biker was riding between us and the bus. I think that the man, when he went to the drivers side, he punched with his hand, but I’m not sure of it.
7. (The psychologist has no questions.)
8. (in answer to a question from the defense attorney:) I saw Mr. Goodman in front of the car, but I don’t remember which lane he was riding in, I think it was the middle. Mr. Goodman was riding on my side of the car, and to the left of the bus. The bus was in the middle lane, Mr. Goodman too, and we stopped to the left. I don’t remember if this was where there was a screech of the tires, but I know that it was fast and hard. (This does sort of sound like it is all happening at the bus doesn’t it?)
9. We weren’t going very fast, rather slowly, and we were getting close to the lights. I am not sure, I don’t remember if my dad was yelling something after putting on the brakes. Mr. Goodman was hitting my dad in the face and my dad was defending, but gently. (Such a good dad.)
10. He was pushing with his hands and trying to close the door. After this hitting with the bike, about what I told you, I didn’t see. (Didn’t see the hitting with the bike either.)
11. I saw him when he rode away with the bike. I don’t remember how many times the lights changed. I wasn’t looking at the lights. We stopped at the parking lot of the police station there were policemen and dad told them to stop him because he attacked us. I don’t remember details of the arrest. When we were standing at the crossroads my dad didn’t talk to anyone else. (This was a good question because Zaremba always tells us about that alleged radio car, but here the daughter tells us that he never even got out of the car, but rather, simply drove over to the police station when he saw that that is where I was heading. I also would like to point out, that in Zaremba’s description of the fight in the car, he is getting hit about the head and shoulders and leaning away and defending and making unfortunately unanswered phone calls to the police. I wonder why it never occurred to anyone that if this was the case, he is laying on top of his daughter during all of this. He even said that she huddled close to him when she was hysterical (though how she could do this even though she was tied into the shoulder harness is questionable as well). Anyway, no mention of anything like this in her story, and if she can remember a bit of bike throwing that took place in back of her, she certainly would have remembered two men beating the crap out of her about 10 cm away!
12. I think that my dad wasn’t getting out of the car, but I don’t remember. At the tramway station, next to the crossing, a few people saw this. I didn’t see the situation a the police station that Mr. Goodman came to my dad. At that time I was in the car.
13. (in answer to the question from the psychological expert:) I wasn’t watching when I was in the car if there was some situation. Before I came to the court, my parents told me about the situation because I didn’t remember. (That was a simply enough answer to a simple question now, wasn’t it? But she covers…)
14. They told me that I had to tell the truth exactly how I saw it. It wasn’t that my dad told me anything in another way than I remember there was not such a situation. (I was allowed back in and heard a translation of what was said. I asked a few questions and then got tossed out again. )
15. (In answer to a questions from the accused:
1. Did she wear a safety belt,
2. Was she thrown to the left or to the right when the car stopped at the lights,
3. Was the back of the car pointing left or right at the time of the stop,
4. Was the father angry or were the quarreling,
5. Does she feel safe riding with her dad? (I wouldn't, would you? She answers:)
1. I was wearing safety belts,
2. I don’t remember left or right,
3. I don’t remember the angle of the car,
4. dad wasn’t angry before the situation, he wasn’t talking to me about the situation and were weren’t arguing after school, before we drove into the lights we had no problems,
5. I feel safe riding in the car with my dad. (Like I said, when I came back in to hear these answers, everybody on the other side was depressed as hell. I guess the professionalism of the answers was a bit much for them. Anyway, Judge Zurawska took over at this point and wanted the girl to make better answers that were more to her liking. The phraseology here is Zurawska’s I am sure. My guess is that Zurawska is sick of all of this penny ante nonsense that she is getting from Zaremba. I think she is deciding that if we are going to be dirty, by God let’s at least do a good Christian job of it. This is what happened next.)
16. (in answer to questions from the leading judge:) That man, when he got off the bike, he came to me as if he was in great fury. When we came to the crossroads Papa wasn’t next to the cyclist. There wasn’t some move where my dad some move to drive into the biker.
17. (from the defense attorney:) I think that the accused at the crossroads was saying something in English, I think they were vulgarities because he was talking with a loud voice. I don’t remember how many times he hit my dad.
18. (in answer from the question from the prosecutor:) During the situation, I wasn’t looking at the lights, I looked there when the man was riding away, and I saw that it was green.

And that is the end of that. The court carried on for several more months though before the court decided to find me guilty. On the day that that happened, I was advised that I could appeal the decision and what the limitations were on that. They tried to hide this from me as well, but I told them to go to hell and wrote the thing myself. You can go and check out the court justification for its decision here in this site. And you can read my appeal as well. I think I made the point clear enough. I think there were a couple of subtleties that I still had missed by the time I wrote the appeal. I know I did not talk about Zaremba’s attempting to attribute the unhinged hood to me, or the issue of the daughter telling us about bike throwing that happened in back of her. But all in all, I think all of this simply has to be rather clear. The railroaded me. The set up a contrived situation and made me sit their while they played these stupid little intrigues, rather than dealing with the truth of the situation which was plainly that Zaremba was very busy trying to rob me.
It was all pretty crappy for Tatyana and me. It was a long, long time sitting there feeling sick as hell while these people took pride and pleasure in abusing me. Why did Zaremba do what he did? I wrote an essay about that and said that I thought that it was about road rage. But to tell you the truth, I really think that the guy was simply a fascist pig jerk, and his brain told him it was well within his rights to try and hit me with his car. The guy is a cop, and because of this, necessary and unnecessary force is blurred distinctions. The guy just did a really bad thing to me and I reacted to it my hitting him in the mouth for it. His reaction to that was to try and steal as much money as he could. Well, I guess my final words about what I want concerning this I can borrow from Mr. Zaremba himself.

“ I want him to be punished and I want him to pay for the damages.”


Back to the HOMEPAGE
E-mail me at beinghad_mail@yahoo.com