‘What a bastard’, ‘dick’, ‘the Yanks want to fuck us over with the kikes’ – this is the language of the judges from Kasta/Antykasta group

Share

Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland

More

Insults addressed to independent judges, ‘jokes’ about Jews, insults addressed to ‘moron’ teachers, some of whom need to be ‘kicked the f**k out...’ – this is how the judges from the new NCJ, the disciplinary commissioners and judges from the ministry of justice spoke [OKO.press’s and Onet’s investigation].



By Mariusz Jałoszewski (OKO.press) and Magdalena Gałczyńska (Onet.pl)

 

‘All hands on deck. Set up dormant accounts, in the names of the wives of your fathers-in-law, mistresses, family. They’ll move everything. We also have to, because it’s the endgame. And then we’ll win [translation of original text – ed.]’ – this was the advice Judge Jakub Iwaniec gave to his colleagues in the Kasta/Antykasta [Caste/Anticaste] discussion group on WhatsApp. Another member of the group, Konrad Wytrykowski, now in the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, wrote ‘dick’ about a judge fighting for the independence of the courts. While Jaroslaw Dudzicz from the new National Council of the Judiciary referred to the Jews as ‘kikes’.

 

‘Another Polish pathology, ZNP [Polish Teachers’ Union]. A mega femonised profession. How I hated these undervalued morons’ – this is what Dariusz Drajewicz, a member of the new NCJ, wrote about teachers. While Andrzej Skowron, a judge working on secondment at the ministry of justice added: ‘The majority of society loathes them, and with a good narrative, you can force them to do some work, and kick others the f**k out.’

 

According to the repentant judge, Arkadiusz Cichocki’s account, 24 lawyers, mainly judges gathered around Łukasz Piebiak belonged to the Kasta/Antyksta group – its name kept changing. He is the former deputy minister of justice, who lost his position in August 2019 after the eruption of the hate scandal revealed by Onet.

 

Now, OKO.press and Onet are returning to that scandal in a joint investigation. We published six articles in recent weeks, in which we revealed new details of the case. We also revealed all the members of the Kasta/Antykasta group on WhatsApp and another group on Signal, Niezłomni [the Steadfast].

 

In two articles, we described the discussions among the judges associated with the so-called ‘good change’ who were gathered around Łukasz Piebiak. This group included two deputies of the chief disciplinary commissioner for judges, judges working at that time on secondment at the Ministry of Justice, and five members of the neo-NCJ (the politicised National Council of the Judiciary) of that time. Several days ago, the Sejm elected three of them for the second term of the neo-NCJ with the votes of the ruling coalition. These were: Maciej NawackiRafał Puchalski and Dariusz Drajewicz.

 

Today, we are publishing further dialogues of the Kasta/Antykasta group to show the climate of this environment.

 

‘It’s not Gwizdak, it’s bastard’. Radzik about the defender of independent courts

 

‘Kaściaki’ [Casters] – this is how members of the Kasta/Antykasta group referred to judges fighting for the independence of the judiciary. Łukasz Piebiak even gave the deputy chief disciplinary commissioner for judges, Michał Lasota, an order to ‘smash a caste member’. Which we wrote up in OKO.press and in the Onet portal.

 

The discussions in the Kasta/Antykasta group involved numerous independent judges, including the now-former judge, Jarosław Gwizdak, from Katowice. Gwizdak often spoke out in the media about the state of the justice system. He was president of the Katowice-Zachód District Court. He promoted courts for citizens, he was a supporter of the introduction of technological innovations into the courts. It was he who co-organised protests in Silesia against the changes in the courts implemented by the United Right group. The disciplinary commissioner initiated clarification proceedings against him for running – unsuccessfully – in the elections for the office of mayor of Katowice, representing an apolitical group in 2018.

 

Late in February 2019, Gwizdak tendered his resignation from the office of judge to Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro. This came as a surprise to everyone. His decision was a protest against what was happening in the courts. Gwizdak also explained that he did not want to be a judge who has little influence on the justice system and only sits buried in files because he has as many as 700 cases to deal with simultaneously.

A link to an article about Gwizdak in Onet was posted in the Antykasta group. Konrad Wytrykowski, currently a member of the Disciplinary Chamber, commented on Gwizdak’s resignation from the judiciary on 1 March 2019 at 14.09 as follows: ‘So there it is. Instead of stating that the slacker left 700 cases, we have info that he left because he has 700 cases because of the bad MoJ’. We are leaving the original spelling everywhere when quoting dialogues from the Kasta/Antykasta group.

 

Comments were also exchanged about Gwizdak on the Antykasta group the next day, namely 2 March 2019. At 22.47, Deputy Chief Disciplinary Commissioner Przemysław Radzik posted a link to an article on this matter in OKO.press. He added the comment: ‘Sorry for the comparison, but it’s not Gwizdak, it’s bastard’. He was supported by the second deputy disciplinary commissioner, Michal Lasota, who wrote: ‘that’s it, that’s it that’s it Mate’.

 

Wytrykowski joined the discussion: ‘The dick did not resign from the post of president [of the court – ed.], it was just that his term of office ended’. Wytrykowski made a correction in Antikast to Gwizdak’s statement to OKO.press, in which he said that he resigned from the office of court president in 2017. It is true that he did not resign, but his term of office ended. But Gwizdak’s point was that he did not seek re-election to the post, although he could have done so.

 

Another participant of the chat, Judge Jakub Iwaniec – then seconded to the Ministry of Justice – suddenly suggested: ‘This will be a to be or not to be campaign of the pink post-communism. They’ll do anything. So all hands on deck. Set up dormant accounts, in the names of the wives of your fathers-in-law, mistresses, family. They’ll move everything. We also have to, because it’s the endgame. And then we’ll win. There are no foregone conclusions. And the big game is also taking place in the web,’ wrote Iwaniec.

How to get rid of an inconvenient judge: ‘Do something about that Biliński’

The discussions of the members of the Kasta/Antykasta group also applied to Judge Łukasz Biliński. He is a judge from the District Court for Warsaw-Śródmieście, the president of which in 2019 – when the discussion took place in the group – was a member of the new NCJ, Maciej Mitera. President Mitera was also a member of the Kasta/Antykasta group, although not very active.

 

Judge Biliński became famous when he was one of the first to start acquitting participants of anti-government protests who were being taken to court by the police for petty crimes. In the justifications of his judgments, the judge reiterated that the citizens have the right to demonstrate and express their views. He referred to the Constitution and the Convention on Human Rights.

 

However, the judge, who was inconvenient for the authorities, was removed from these cases. President Mitera did this, moving Judge Biliński to the family division in June 2019. The Ministry of Justice first liquidated the division where Biliński was trying petty crimes. As transpires from the discussion in the Antykasta group, this decision could have been planned earlier. Jakub Iwaniec wrote on Antykasta on 2 March 2019 at 13.42: ‘Do something about that Biliński’ Maciej Mitera wrote back: ‘I’ll move him to the family division….or to the MoJ?’. And he did indeed make the transfer, explaining it as being for ‘the good of the court’.

 

Professor Safjan is ‘the fabric representing Poland at the CJEU’ for members of the group

Marek Safjan is a former president of the Constitutional Tribunal and a Polish judge at the Court of Justice of the EU. A legal authority. Members of the Antykasta group devoted several posts to him in October 2018.

 

The occasion was the discussion about the CJEU issuing an interim measure in the Supreme Court case. At the time, the EU Court ordered Poland to suspend the provisions of the Act on the Supreme Court regarding the forced retirement of judges at the age of 65.  The objective of the authorities was to push older judges into retirement, including the then First President of the Supreme Court Małgorzata Gersdorf. The Court also ordered the reinstatement of these judges and the stoppage of appointments in their place. PiS withdrew from these changes under pressure from the CJEU.

 

Dariusz Drajewicz of the new NCJ wrote about the declaration of war on 19 October 2018 at 16.35 on Antykasta. And continued: ‘Now we only need to check if someone from the polacks was involved and then attack’. Konrad Wytrykowski added: ‘Safian’. Maciej Nawacki from the new NCJ replied:  ‘We were talking about Poles and not fabrics’. To which Wytrykowski responded: ‘This is a fabric representing Poland in the CJEU’.

 

How Radzik broadcast from the ‘battlefield’

At times, discussions on Antykasta even turned into live coverage of various events. This was the case on 8 March 2019. That day, the Disciplinary Chamber at the Supreme Court was to hear the disciplinary case of Judge Robert W. in the first instance. The judge was accused of stealing electronic equipment from, among others, a shop in Wałbrzych. The case was publicised throughout Poland, because the authorities used it to strike at the judiciary.

 

Regardless of the criminal case, the judge also had disciplinary proceedings. The case in the Disciplinary Chamber was being handled by a panel consisting of Piotr Niedzielak, Małgorzata Bednarek (case rapporteur) and a lay judge. Both deputy chief disciplinary commissioners for judges, Radzik and Lasota, appeared at the hearing at 9.00. 

 

At 10.12, Radzik wrote on the Antykasta group: ‘Letter from the battlefield. 1 motion for adjournment because of the failure to notify the defence counsel who was not at the case. The cruelists won, the motion was dismissed. 2. Another motion to remove all Supreme Court judges. Fierce arguments of the cruel ones. Decision at 12’.

The ‘cruelists’ or ‘cruel ones’ are Lasota and Radzik. This is what the participants of Kasta/Antykasta called them. Dariusz Drajewicz of the NCJ reacted to this with applause, while the then Deputy Minister of Justice, Lukasz Piebiak posted a thumbs-up emoticon.

At 12.10, Radzik again reported – almost certainly from the courtroom: ‘We have moved’. To which Piebiak responded with an emoticon of a clenched fist, Lasota with emoticons of biceps. At 13.13 Jakub Iwaniec asked: ‘How’s it going?’ Radzik: ‘We’re questioning 2 witnesses. Then 2 more.’ Konrad Wytrykowski later wrote on Antykasta: ‘They planted a memory stick on the guy’. To which Piebiak ironically asked: ‘Bad people?’. And Radzik continued to report: ‘This monitoring [from the store – ed.] is shocking. The witness comments on the record from the monitoring on an ongoing basis’. To which Wytrykowski added: ‘This is how it was supposed to be’.

 

The Disciplinary Chamber examined four witnesses that day – the security staff and the store’s employees.  The hearing ended at 19.00. The Chamber postponed the publication of the decision until 14 March 2019. And on that day, Radzik reported again on Antykasta: ‘We won. Pendrsjw thrown out. Bravo to us.’ He received applause from other participants of the chat. Only Michal Lasota complained. At 15.44, he wrote: ‘But there were teeveens [in the courtroom – ed.]. And there is not trace there. Because there should be good about the SNSD [Disciplinary Chamber – ed.] and about the commissioner’.

 

However, the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court has not considered the appeal against the decision in the Judge Robert W.’s disciplinary case to this day. The rapporteur in the second instance, Professor Jan Majchrowski, resigned from the Chamber. In the meantime, the courts were closed by the coronavirus, and then the CJEU suspended the Chamber’s activity. However, regardless of this suspension, the Chamber continued to operate. For example, it indefinitely suspended judges questioning the status of the new NCJ’s nominees. It is precisely because of Poland’s failure – specifically that of the Disciplinary Chamber – to comply with the CJEU’s interim measure suspending the Chamber that Poland has had a penalty of € 1 million per day charged since 3 November 2021.  It is almost certain that the penalty will soon exceed PLN 1 billion.

 

‘Dissolve the Teachers’ Union’, ‘kick some of the teachers the f**k out’. In the background Radzik’s ‘big ears’ standing in the ‘queue for his wits

 

In March 2019, members of the Kasta/Antykasta talked about teachers. At that time, the atmosphere in schools throughout Poland was heated – teachers were demanding pay rises and more money for education, among other things. The strike was becoming increasingly likely; it started in early April 2019.

 

Judges from the Antykasta group exchanged their comments on this on 16 March 2019. At 16.24, Notary Arkadiusz Nikiel posted a link to an article from the pro-government portal niezalezna.pl for the group with a statement from the head of the Polish Teachers’ Union, Sławomir Broniarz. The title of the article on the portal was: ‘No Polish pupil will pass to the next grade? Broniarz’s shocking words addressed to the government’.

 

The head of the Polish Teachers’ Union suggested then that if the government does not talk to the teachers, they might ultimately not promote pupils to the next grade. Łukasz Piebiak commented: ‘Dissolve the Teachers’ Union’. Dariusz Drajewicz of the NCJ joined in: ‘Another Polish pathology, ZNP. A mega femonised profession. How I hated these undervalued morons’. Andrzej Skowron, a judge working on secondment at the ministry of justice: ‘They’re not morons, just slackers who have been delighted with their privileges. Don’t dissolve them, just take them away bit by bit’.

The discussion then focused on complaints by group members about alleged ‘rabid leftism’ in state schools. Deputy Disciplinary Commissioner Przemysław Radzik wrote, among other things: ‘Guess why I have such big ears? When asked by a chat room colleague if he stood in the queue for his ears, he replied: ‘As a result of leftist education. Somehow I couldn’t remember that teachers should be loved and respected. And I stood in the queue for my wits. They didn’t give this, they just pulled me by the ears’. Piebiak continued: ‘I am now sending my daughter to a private school, even though I have always opposed this. Unfortunately, the vision of frustrated teachers with a leftist worldview tiring and distorting my offspring convinced me. The final argument is the LGBT+ card of those cretins ruling the capital.’ Andrzej Skowron added: ‘The majority of society loathes them and, with a good narrative, you can force them to do some work, and kick others the f**k out.’

According to the Franco dictatorship laws, Jews are ‘kikes’ and the Silk Road should be built with China ‘to spite the Yanks, who want to fuck us over with the kikes’.

Members of the Kasta/Antykasta group also shared their thoughts on historical and social issues. And so, Dariusz Drajewicz, from the new NCJ, reported on 18 October 2018 at 16.36: ‘Today. I’m at the Centro de Estudios Judicios in the library with the journals of law from the times of the Franco dictatorship’. He was most probably referring to the Centro de Estudios Juridicos, or Legal Research Centre in Madrid. Judge Rafal Stasikowski (currently in the Supreme Administrative Court) reacted to his post: ‘Bring back some ready-made solutions’. Drajewicz wrote back: ‘Of course, And not just one’. At the end, he added an emoticon of a smiley.

 

Another time, the discussion touched on the Jewish theme. On 17 March 2019 at 11.24, Konrad Wytrykowski informed the group: ‘We are going to the resistance fighter today. I waited until they were screening it at DKF because I won’t give Agora (Helios) any money’. ‘The Resistance Fighter’ is a film by Władysław Pasikowski inspired by the story of the ‘Courier from Warsaw’ by Jan Nowak-Jeziorański. The discussion on Antikasta then turned to films. To which Wytrykowski suddenly reacted with the post: ‘Only pigs eat in the cinema’. And Łukasz Piebiak next wrote: ‘The Jews from Cinema City can also stay away from my cash’.

 

That same day, late in the evening, the group discussed an article from the niebezpiecznik.pl portal and the dorzeczy.pl portal about the Signal and WhatsApp messengers (the Antykasta discussion group was on that messenger). At 22.39 Jakub Iwaniec, then working at the Ministry of Justice, wrote: ‘Communicators have financiers, Kom Trojstr, Bilderb and others. Namely Kikes. It is as they described it in my link [to the article in Do Rzeczy – ed.]. The Chinks and the Ruskies have the rest. There aren’t any safe ones. Only orally,’ Iwaniec emphasised.

 

Maciej Nawacki from the new NCJ asked:  ‘What about the communicator that journalists use’. Iwaniec: ‘It always goes somewhere [the record of activity on the communicator – ed.]. And it remains there. But are we [most probably the Kasta/Antykasta group – ed.] so important?’.

 

Nawacki answered him: ‘Of course, one leak and the elections could be over’.

 

Jarosław Dudzicz from the new NCJ joined the discussion about communicators: ‘I prefer the Chinky communicators, at least they don’t have any gripes with is [almost certainly ‘us’ – ed.] (…). I prefer them to the Kikes, Yanks, Ruskies and Krauts’. Dudzicz continued his thought: ‘And it would be better to build the Silk Road with the Chinks to spite the Yanks, who want to fuck us over and the Kikes. That’s the truth.

 

‘There’s something in that,’ Lukasz Piebiak commented at 23.01. Rafal Stasikowski (currently in the Supreme Administrative Court) also joined the discussion about WhatsApp. He wrote: ‘I have an idea about this Wotsap problem but orally…’. ‘Everything orally,’ Iwaniec emphasised.

 

OKO.press and Onet asked the judges mentioned in the text whether they were members of Kasta/Antikasta. We did not receive a response.

 

Translated by Roman Wojtasz

 

The article was published at OKO.press and Onet.pl on 17 May 2022.



Author


Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland


More

Published

May 20, 2022

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroEuropean CommissionCourt of Justice of the EUjudgesjudicial independenceNational Council of the JudiciaryEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemEuropean Court of Human RightsMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekdemocracymuzzle lawpresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Kamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerBeata MorawiecPiotr SchabPrzemysław RadzikFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterJulia Przyłębskamedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19National Council for JudiciaryMichał LasotaPresidentfreedom of expressionŁukasz PiebiakCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawdisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiNational Recovery PlanOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynAnna DalkowskaNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaelectionsStanisław PiotrowiczJarosław WyrembakAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenmediaimmunityCouncil of Europe2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaRecovery FundP 7/20Justice Fundneo-judgesPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaProfessional Liability ChamberJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikorasuspensionJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesReczkowicz and Others v. PolandUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej Miterademocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJrecommendationTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiHuman Rights CommissionerMarek MazurkiewiczCCBEAndrzej MączyńskiThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentOKO.pressZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskitransferPiotr GąciarekKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gatehuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencycoronavirusXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020Mirosław WróblewskiCivil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMariusz Kamińskiinfringment actionsurveillanceEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauENCJJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiIsraelŁukasz Radkeforeign agents lawpolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościLGBT free zonesAct sanitising the judiciaryequalityMarek AstMaciej FerekChamber of Extraordinary VerificationEdyta Barańskahate crimesCourt of Appeal in Krakówhate speechPutinismcriminal codeKaczyńskiGrzęda v Polandright to fair trialPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasŻurek v PolandMałgorzata Wąsek-WiaderekSobczyńska and Others v Polandct on the Protection of the PopulatioparliamentlegislationRafał Trzaskowskilex Wośmedia lawRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtPrzemysła RadzikAntykastaSenateStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczMarcin WarchołKatarzyna ChmuraElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiGrzegorz FurmankiewiczJacek CzaputowiczMarek JaskulskiPrzemysław CzarnekJoanna Kołodziej-Michałowiczlegislative practiceEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaENAPaweł StyrnaZbigniew BoniekKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoOmbudsmanMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiKraśnikEmilia SzmydtNorwayTomasz SzmydtNorwegian fundssmear campaignNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał DworczykC-487/19media pluralism#RecoveryFilesArticle 10 ECHRmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentRegional Court in Amsterdamrepairing the rule of lawharassmentOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentBohdan BieniekSimpson judgmentMarcin KrajewskiChamber of Professional LiabilityForum Współpracy SędziówMałgorzata Dobiecka-Woźniakpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek Mazurpopulisminterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal treatmentabortionprotestsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońCT PresidentGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUmedia taxStanisław Zabłockiadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióSLAPPLIBE CommitteeStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationFrans TimmermansGazeta WyborczaUS Department of StatePollitykaBrussels IRome IISwieczkowskiArticle 2Forum shoppingadvocate generalDariusz ZawistowskitransparencyEuropean Economic and Social Committeepress releaseSebastian KaletaRights and Values ProgrammeC-156/21C-157/21C-619/18Marek Piertuszyńskidefamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardNational Prosecutor’s Officeintimidation of dissentersWojciech SadurskiBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberjudgeTribunal of StatePechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageAmnesty InternationalHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr Bogdanowicztrans-Atlantic valuesPiotr BurasLSOauthoritarian equilibriumlawyersArticle 258Act of 20 December 2019clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officerepressive actPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisKoen LenaertsMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteKrakówRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy