"Заява МЗС України щодо указу президента РФ про спрощений прийом в російське громадянство українських дітей-сиріт" (Опубліковано 31 травня 2022 року о 16:50).

"Comment of the MFA of Ukraine on the decree of the President of the Russian Federation on simplifying the procedure for obtaining Russian citizenship for Ukrainian orphans" (31 May 2022 16:50).

JUST.A.1/ASD/cw 1737098; A/Ares(2022)5692227 (23 May 2022; PDF, 7a5aa34fddb5250f).

A civil society organization calls on the Mayor of Dresden,¹ to clarify his work in the case of humiliating a family in Christmastime. He was presented with the case on 22 December 2021.

Behind the criminal influence and blackmail perpetrated by the social workers against the child and mother, the case also includes a possibility that the social workers of the Mayor are helping the lawyers to steal the taxpayers' money in the family proceedings. Additionally, the organization indicates that the concerned proceedings should never be instituted.²

The social workers responsible to the mayor of Dresden,¹ Germany, attempted in 2021 to force a child and his mother to spend their Christmastime for the second time on the floor of a hypermarket. The social workers are blackmailing the child right before a court sitting set on January in the family proceedings.² They try to extort from the child some declarations supportive for their claims that the child should be separated from the child's mother and should have no contact with her. The Christmastime humiliating is only one part of the blackmail. The mayor's workers additionally send the child, without any cause or need, to the so-called psycho-education, allegedly being a form of therapy and consultation for people who are psychiatric patients or have similar conditions. The mayor is being called to stop threatening the child to be falsely classified as a member of a family burdened with psychiatric illness.

On 22 December 2021 the Stowarzyszenie Wolne Społeczeństwo (SWS, Free Society Association) urged the mayor of Dresden to take immediately the following administrative actions:

(1) To stop abusing Christmastime to humiliate child and mother.

(2) To abandon the “psycho-education with (...)” (“Psychoedukation mit (...)”) his subordinates organize for the child.

(3) To organize the Christmas meeting of the child and his mother on 23 December 2021 in the mother’s home.

In his organizing of social services, the mayor of Dresden shows a remarkable brutality and seemingly follows the pattern of abuse of psychiatry tested in the Soviet Union. Abusing Christmastime to humiliate child and mother is a disgraceful act. Influencing a child through blackmail and through humiliating in order to manipulate court proceedings in the family case of that child constitutes not only a major breach of German law, a crime, but is also an evidence of the ineffectiveness of European norm of the rule of law.

Stowarzyszenie Wolne Społeczeństwo (SWS, Free Society Association) appeals to the Government of the Netherlands to take the initiative of establishment of a common and uniform European standard of independent judiciary with guaranteed participation of citizens in judicial decisions and with independent civil monitoring of judiciary.

On 9 September 2021 the SWS called the government of the Federal Republic of Germany to respond to the petition for participation of the associations and self-help groups from the member states of the European Union (EU) in matters of child custody in court proceedings in the EU at the request of a parent. The petition resulted from the numerous failures of the realization of the rule of law revealed in Germany and Poland in family proceedings. The SWS hinted that:

(...) the German judiciary became a harmful propaganda example for judiciary organization in Poland despite the consensually acknowledged lack of respect for democracy and for independence from political parties within the German judiciary, and as such an example it constitutes a grave obstacle for establishing a democratic rule of law in Poland and in the European Union; (...)

As expected, on 18 October 2021 the Polish ministry of justice announced that if the Polish judiciary does not fulfil the norm of independence from politicians, then the German judiciary also should not be considered to be independent of politicians.

The Polish ministry equates political control with democratic control. At the same time, they are acting in a breach of constitution in the procedure of nomination of judges in Poland. Articles 4(2) and 187(1)(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland provide for the popular election of fifteen judges for the National Council of the Judiciary, which is the body that chooses the judges appointed by the president of the Republic. Additionally, the pool of candidatures presented to that body might be narrowed to the candidatures previously selected in another popular election.

Judicature in democracy may not escape democratic control of its daily quality. In Poland the postulated National Council of the Judiciary composed of at least fifteen members chosen in popular election could take the role of an independent disciplinary body for judicature.

The political struggle within the EU about power over judiciary may destroy the political and legal foundations of the EU because it is the fact that not only in Poland among the member states of the EU a real independence of judiciary from politics has not been achieved. The argument about equality of the member states will therefore be convincing.

On the other hand, a common and uniform European standard of independent judiciary may create a basis for the revival of the EU with important role of European civil society.

The Government of the Netherlands seems to value democracy and the rule of law in a greater extent than the governments of Germany and Poland. The SWS appreciates the declarations of the will to stop the EU financial support for Poland in consequence of the refusal to respect the rule of law. The firm governmental support for a common and uniform European standard of independent judiciary with guaranteed participation of citizens may be the key to the new EU.

In the family case in Dresden the activities of the judge appointed by a politician, by a minister, show that the victim of a crime committed by a judge in Germany has no real legal remedy at her or his disposal.¹

Stowarzyszenie Wolne Społeczeństwo (SWS, Free Society Association, Polish NGO), calls the Federal Government of Germany to delegate the representative of the Federal Government to attend at the sitting of the family court (Amtsgerticht Dresden, Abteilung für Familiensachen) in Dresden on 10 November 2021. No support for the rule of law in the European Union had been received from the the Polish governmental officials.

Video: HD 720p50, SD 360p25, LD 288p25; local IPFS: HD 720p50.

The Polish family consisting of a child and the mother who parented the child alone from the birth on, has been attacked by the judge, when she de-registered her child from among the inhabitants of Dresden, Germany, as she needed support from her family in Poland in child care, when she was to start her professional work again. On the ground of the law of the European Union, the mother was fully entitled to move with her child to the neighbourhood of her family in Poland.

When only the judge got notice of the mother moving out, he organized the abduction of her child, and he deprived the mother of her parental and guardianship rights in such a hurry that he did not manage to initiate appropriate court proceedings and had to re-use the proceedings, with its case number, that was already decided on its merits and finalized with the valid decision. The judge obviously violated the rule of the legal validity of the decision.

The intervention of the German court in the maternal care and the disintegration of the family caused by the court had no factual reason. Those actions had been taken within the breach of the law of the European Union and against the Polish jurisdiction that was determined by that law after the child and the mother moved out from Germany. Those actions had been taken within a few weeks after the same judge decided to keep the full parental rights of the Polish mother, and had been taken despite that there was no change in the circumstances of the case beside the move from Germany to Poland. The change through 180 degrees of the position of the German court in the case and the illegal change of the decision concerning the child were not preceded by any change in the situation of the child.

There is the glaring lack of any opinion on the situation of the child expressed by a person independent of the judge. There was no examination of the situation carried out independently of the judge. The judge falsely imputed an alleged mental illness to the mother against the evidence in the form of certifications he had at his disposal, completed by German specialized doctors, who stated the absolute lack of any ground for any doubt about the mother's full mental health.

Before German courts, the mother received no legal help from a lawyer that was independent of the judge. German lawyers working with family cases depend on the judges because the judges have discretionary powers to decide about the financing of the lawyers' services. A German judge may in practice even deprive such a lawyer of his means for living.

The court proceedings in the case of the Polish mother and her child is abundant in evidence of the acknowledged by the European Parliament discrimination by German judges against foreign parents in Germany. Additionally to the findings of the European Parliament, the physical violence against the mother in the time of her meeting with her child has been revealed in the case. The mother has been assaulted and beaten by the court's representative during her meeting with her child. The mother and her child are victims of a regular degrading treatment during their meetings organized by the German court. They have no privacy during those meetings.

The perpetrator of the assault and battery against the mother in the presence of her child goes unpunished. His legal defence had been organized by the lawyer's office in Bonn. The lawyer's office has a personal connection with the German federal government.² The recording of the assault and battery on the mother in her child's presence has been declared by German court to be an inadmissible evidence on the ground of an alleged protection of privacy of the court's representative.

Because of the legal complaint against the judge's misconduct which was submitted to the superiors of the judge, the mother has been in Germany presently accused of an alleged libel against the judge with regard to corruption. The family proceedings in German court is organized in secrecy.

Fundacja Wolne Społeczeństwo (FWS, Free Society Foundation) requests that the European Commission and Ms Ursula von der Leyen personally, in a supplementary "State of the Union address" publicly present all the relevant responses of the European Commission to the dramatic calls of the European Parliament of 31 January 2018 and of 29 November 2018 concerning the lack of family protection in the EU and Germany, as well as present the European Commission's official activities aimed at judiciary monitoring and family protection in the cases of the mobile EU families, bi-national couples and cross-border family proceedings.

The Foundation proposes to ensure that the democratic rule of law in the European Union (EU) will prevail as the steering normative base for the EU practice of family protection, and that the "State of the Union address 2021" of Ms Ursula von der Leyen delivered on 15 September 2021 will not turn out to be only a mimicry of the democratic and constitutional practice of the United States of America.

The member of the European Parliament considered for their calls a great number of cases. The Commission should present the Commission's work on that cases in the realization of the freedom of information rights. The legal ground for the request is the Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

The postulates of the Recommendation of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 31 January 2018 show the complete failure to establish the family protection in the EU despite the knowledge how to do it, and despite the good Slovakian example:¹

(...) 3. Calls on Member States to reinforce all safeguard measures (...) focusing on (...) mechanisms to evaluate the performance of the judges; (...)

5. Calls on Member States to avoid discrimination or disadvantaged judicial and administrative procedures against foreign parents (...), and establishing the necessary structures able to provide the concerned EU citizens and residents (...) counselling and legal support to all parts involved in the proceedings (...)

9. (...) highlight the successful practice of the Slovakian Central authority directly negotiating and signing bilateral agreements (...)

11. Calls on Member States to put in place monitoring and evaluation systems (...) within a national coordinating framework on cross-border cases involving children; (...)

15. (...) stresses that proper monitoring of the post-judgment situation is pivotal, including when contact with parents is involved; (...)

17. Reminds the huge amount of petitions received on the German Jugendamt system filed by foreign parents complaining that they are systematically discriminated (...)

22. Calls on Member States to consider offering free of charge and accessible legal assistance, in adoption, custody or guardianship national and/or cross-border cases, to families with low or no income and to those facing risk of poverty or being below poverty line; (...)

33. Is deeply convinced that the EU should monitor and check more closely procedures and concrete practices on family law matters with cross-border implication adopted by the Member States competent authorities having an impact on decisions concerning parental responsibility, visiting rights and maintenance obligations (...)

34. Calls on Member States to provide a list of support structures to foreign parents who find themselves in a situation of potential removal of parental rights; (...)

37. Recommends the establishment of family support centres in Member States offering comprehensive advice by international and interdisciplinary teams of lawyers, social workers, mediators and psychologists for mobile EU families requiring assistance in their cooperation with social services; calls on the Commission to fund NGO's offering practical support to mobile families making use of their rights deriving from Union citizenship; (...)

The European Parliament resolution of 29 November 2018 on the role of the German Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt) in cross-border family disputes (2018/2856(RSP)) evidently exposed the ill-will of the European Commission and the lawlessness of the EU:²

(...) 1. Notes with great concern that problems concerning the German family law system, including the controversial role of the Jugendamt, denounced through petitions by non-German parents, still remain unsolved; underlines that the Committee on Petitions continuously receives petitions by non-German parents in which serious discrimination is reported as a result of the procedures and practices concretely adopted by the competent German authorities in cross-border family disputes involving children; (...)

4. Stresses the obligation, as provided for in the Brussels IIa Regulation, for national authorities to recognize and enforce judgments delivered in another Member State in child-related cases; is concerned about the fact that in family disputes having cross-border implications, the German authorities can, allegedly, systematically refuse to recognize judicial decisions taken in other Member States (...)

5. Regrets the fact that for years the Commission has not implemented accurate checks on the procedures and practices used in the German family law system, including the Jugendamt, in the framework of family disputes having cross-border implications, thus failing to effectively protect the best interests of the child and all other related rights;

6. Recalls the Commission's reply with respect to the petitions on the role of the Jugendamt in cross-border family disputes; reiterates that the EU has no general competence to act in matters of family law, that substantive family law remains the sole responsibility of the Member States and cannot be monitored by the Commission, that, in case of concern about the functioning of the Jugendamt, redress must be sought at national level, and that if parents consider that any of their fundamental rights have been violated, they may lodge a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, once the domestic remedies have been exhausted; (...)

8. Emphasizes, in accordance with the case law of the CJEU, the autonomous notion of the 'habitual residence' of the child in EU law and the plurality of the criteria to be used by the national jurisdictions to determine the habitual residence;

11. Calls on the Commission to assess in the petitions in question whether German jurisdictions have duly respected the provisions of the Brussels IIa Regulation when establishing their competences, and whether they have taken into consideration judgments or decisions issued by jurisdictions of other Member States;

12. Condemns the fact that, in cases of supervised parental access, the failure by non-German parents to comply with the Jugendamt officials' procedure to adopt German as the language during conversations with their children has led to the interruption of conversations and to a ban on contact between the non-German parents and their children; believes that this procedure adopted by the Jugendamt officials constitutes clear discrimination based on origin and language against non-German parents; (...)

16. Reminds Germany of its international obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, including Article 8 thereof; believes that major improvements must be made by all German competent authorities to adequately safeguard the right of the children of bi-national couples to preserve their identity, including family relations, as recognized by law without unlawful interference;

17. Considers that in light of Article 81 of the TFEU the Commission can and must play an active role in ensuring fair and consistent non-discriminatory practices towards parents in the treatment of cross-border child custody cases throughout the Union;

18. Calls on the Commission to ensure that accurate checks are carried out on the non-discriminatory nature of procedures and practices used in the German family law system, including by the Jugendamt, in the framework of cross-border family disputes;

19. Reiterates that the principle of subsidiarity applies in matters of substantive family law; (...)

23. Recalls the importance of providing non-German parents without delay, from the outset and at every stage of child-related proceedings, with complete and clear information on the proceedings and on the possible consequences thereof, in a language that the parents in question fully understand (...) calls on the Member States to implement targeted measures aimed at improving legal support, aid, counselling and information for their nationals in cases (...)

24. Stresses that the denounced instances whereby non-German parents are prevented from communicating with their children in their common mother tongue during visits constitute discrimination on the grounds of language, and are also contrary to the aim of fostering multilingualism and diversity of cultural backgrounds within the Union and in breach of the fundamental rights of freedom of thought, conscience and religion; (...)

28. Calls on the Member States to implement targeted measures aimed at improving legal support, aid, counselling and information for their nationals in cross-border family disputes involving children (...)

29. Reiterates its call on the Commission and the Member States to co-finance and promote the establishment of a platform providing assistance to non-national EU citizens in family proceedings; (...)

Confronted with the brutality and lawlessness of the EU, the FWS demands from the European Commission (PDF: 27196644.fws) publication of all the documents of the Commission that contain or refer to any legal opinion concerning the above quoted statement that: "substantive family law remains the sole responsibility of the Member States and cannot be monitored by the Commission", or concern the legal implications of that statement, especially the lack of legal basis in the EU law to recognize the validity of the provisions of the Brussels IIa Regulation in regard to the transfer of jurisdiction and for national authorities --- to recognize and enforce judgments delivered in another member state within the transferred jurisdiction and concerning parental responsibility, parental rights or the removal of the parental rights for any other purpose than for interim measures.

The FWS demands also from the European Commission a public presentation of the total numerical sums for each year between the years 2003 -- 2021 of the parents from every member state of the European Union that have been deprived of their parental or guardianship rights by a judgment delivered in these years and concerning parental responsibility, parental rights or the removal of the parental rights of a parent being a citizen of another member state than the state of the judgment's origin.

The Free Society Association (SWS, Stowarzyszenie Wolne Społeczeństwo) submitted on 10 September 2021 to the government of the Federal Republic of Germany the petition "Return German and foreign children to their families". The petition defines the need for the participation of independent civil society organizations in all family proceedings in courts of law in parental authority or child custody or guardianship cases. SWS demands at the same time the full implementation of the democratic rule of law by German judiciary and presents the court crimes caused by the lack of the respect for that rule, showing that the German state organizes criminal child abductions.

In the opinion of the SWS the urgent action is necessary in the current situation composed of the following circumstances:

(1) until 2021 the consensus has been achieved to a great extent between independent actors --- politicians and journalists --- of the public debate in Poland and Germany that there is no independent judiciary in Poland as well as in Germany;

(2) the European Commission, the government of Poland and the federal government of Germany refuse to participate in the democratic assessment of the failures in the building of democratic and independent judiciary in Poland and Germany, as well as they refuse to support such an assessment being democratically carried out on the civil society side;

(3) Polish citizens bear the most costs and negative effects of the lack of democratic and independent judiciary in the European Union, especially in Germany and Poland and especially in international family proceedings;

(4) the German judiciary became a harmful propaganda example for judiciary organization in Poland despite the consensually acknowledged lack of respect for democracy and for independence from political parties within the German judiciary, and as such an example it constitutes a grave obstacle for establishing a democratic rule of law in Poland and in the European Union;

(5) the finalized in 2020 hostile takeover of the judiciary in Poland by political parties removed the foundation of the sovereignty of Poland by establishing foreign influence on the judiciary through the political parties in Poland as the political parties in Poland since at least 2020 act strictly within the cartel party model in a hidden and informal cooperation between so-called opposition and so-called ruling parties, and --- instead of representing the interests of Polish citizens and Polish voters --- represent on the political scene the interests of the state administration officers in Poland as well as the interests of the foreign donators of the money to the political parties who need the money to keep their ruling positions.

SWS demands from the government of the Federal Republic of Germany an urgent governmental response to the petition under the title "Return German and foreign children to their families", and additionally demands in the case of the illegal court decision in Dresden, Saxony, from the federal government of Germany: the suspension of all financial claims from the state or public side against the mother defending her family and child, as well as the suspension of all enforcement proceedings in that case and the protection of the child and mother from local authorities and local criminals in Dresden in connection with the proceedings instituted against the crimes of judiciary in Saxony.

The role of the civil society organization

From numerous criminal activities of German judiciary, the SWS chose the case of the illegal court decision in Dresden, Saxony, in the family case of the child of a Polish mother, as an example of obvious court crimes ("Rechtsbeugungen"). The mother and child have been assaulted by German officials who used a false, illegal court decision to abduct the child when the mother formally moved from Germany to Poland with the child.

Illegal and hostile takeover of the judiciary in Poland by political parties and the following conflict among the politicians and their principals, domestic and foreign as well, over controlling and commanding Polish judges through political parties, opened the debate about political dependency of judges in the member states of the European Union. In effect, journalists in Poland could at last admit that a judge in Germany is only a clerk hired by politicians. The journalist however still had to certify an untruth, claiming that while politicians hire those clerks they allegedly do not exploit them:¹

(...) In Germany the position of a judge as a governmental quasi-clerk --- and not as a holder of a separate and independent authority, has not only a long history but also many years of practice of non-interference of politicians who theoretically would be allowed to do it but do not exploit the possibility because their voters would not take it well.

For German politicians it is an old and simple problem of illegal judiciary organization, but a new one for many voters as it was well hidden by German journalists:²

It seems inappropriate, provided the obligation to fundamentally guarantee the independence of judges is taken into account, that the judges who belong to the branch of authority that is autonomously separate from the executive authority are appointed to their posts through the executive authority by the superior governmental official in the same manner as the governmental clerks.

The political conflict over controlling and commanding judges in the member states of the European Union has a potential to initiate true efforts for a real democratic rule of law. The commentator indicated the pivotal moment in 2021 on the side of the Polish government:³

The Minister's political philosophy is to turn the reality upside down: instead of repairing imperfect solutions in Poland and other EU states, the ministry of justice follows the rule: "if other children are allowed to destroy their toys, then we should also be allowed to destroy our toys".

The commentator identified also an example of a lost opportunity for such efforts:⁴

(...) German public prosecutors are not provided with an appropriate guarantee of independence (...)

To stay on the way to the democratic rule of law, one should not allow restricting the debate to closed or hidden political negotiations, like those involving commissioner Věra Jourová representing the European Commission in Poland in August 2021. The role of a civil society organization, among others, is to protest against such negotiations and to demand justice when court becomes a scene of a state crime.

State crime

The illegal court decision in Dresden is a grave example of the great distance between German court practice and the democratic rule of law. In 2014 the German judge appointed by politicians organized a criminal kidnapping of the little son of the mother, who was leaving Germany and moving to her family in Poland. The judge initially upheld the exclusive parental rights of the mother without any reservation, but then immediately deprived her of her parental and guardianship rights as soon as she dared to leave Germany with the child. The court fraud was the simple one: the judge issued a second decision on the merits of the case, although he was only entitled to issue a decision about the costs of the proceedings ("Kostenentscheidung") as the case was already settled on its merits with the previous decision that became valid. The rule of legal validity forbids any decision on the merits of the case if the case had been already validly decided in that scope. The second decision is invalid, but the German officials refuse to admit the invalidity. After 7 years, in 2021 the mother is still awaiting justice. For all those years, the case has not been audited by an independent judge or jury. The single Polish mother in Germany receives no support in executing the law broken by the state pretending to fulfil the rule of law.

Voters do not care about foreigners

It is possible that in great number of cases German politicians do not exploit the possibility of influencing judges because their voters indeed "would not take it well". However, the voters may not be interested or may be completely unaware of some important areas of court activities where human rights are at stake. Such is the case of the systemic discrimination against foreign families, among others. Voters do not care about foreigners and about many other problems. They do not have time and resources to act otherwise. Therefore, the above quoted reasoning concerning the alleged "practice of non-interference of politicians" is a baseless propaganda. Therefore, the European Parliament, Committee on Petitions, the Working Group on Child Welfare Issues proposed on 31.1.2018 an additional, independent protection against judges and social workers:⁵

(...) 22. Calls on Member States to consider offering free of charge and accessible legal assistance, in adoption, custody or guardianship national and/or cross-border cases, to families with low or no income and to those facing risk of poverty or being below poverty line; (...)

This call was a part of a long political debate in the European Parliament:⁶

(...) many European parents continue to be systematically discriminated against by judges and the Jugendamt services, and are separated from their children (...)

(...) This procedure adopted by the Jugendamt officials constitutes clear discrimination based on origin and language against non-German parents. Members asked for mechanisms to be put in place to guarantee that non-German parents and their children can communicate in their common language. (...)

(...) Condemns the fact that, in cases of supervised parental access, failure by non-German parents to comply with the Jugendamt officials procedure to adopt German as language during conversations with their children, led to the harsh interruption of conversations and to a ban on contact between the non-German parents and their children; believes that such procedure adopted by the Jugendamt officials constituted a clear discrimination based on origin and language against non-German parents; (...)

Bafouant en toute impunité deux principes fondamentaux de l'Union --- la non-discrimination à raison de la nationalité et la libre circulation des personnes, l'Allemagne, expose des citoyens européens à la plus cruelle des injustices: être définitivement séparés d'un enfant.

Independent control for judiciary

The preface to Jutland Law, that King Valdemar gave, and the Danes adopted (1241), stipulates the rule of independent control for judiciary in the same area the European Parliament tried to embrace with the additional protection:⁷

It is the duty of the king and the country's chiefs to monitor judgments and to do justice and to save those who are being wronged, such as widows and defenseless children, pilgrims and foreigners and the poor --- those are mostly wronged, and not to allow evil people, who do not want to improve themselves, to live in his land; (...)

Today, after 780 years, the same "widows and defenseless children, pilgrims and foreigners and the poor" are still among those who are the mostly wronged. The European Union, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Poland do not meet the King Valdemar's standards from 1241. It is shameful, and it's a democratic opportunity at the same time. The member states of the European Union have now the opportunity to initiate an open and democratic debate on the truly democratic rule of law in the heart of the Union, and to start repairing their courts.

The political parties should not be "allowed to destroy their toys" because these "toys" are other people's lives. Voters often do not care or do not know about them. For that reason, the political parties are able to destroy many lives and many families. Poland is a good example. There are only false or empty declarations from the Polish government; inaction in the face of lawlessness in the European Union. The Polish government remains silent when they should defend the rights of the Polish families in Germany against court crimes. The Polish government deceives Polish families, depriving them of the due legal protection. As history shows --- today also the tragedy of Afghanistan --- democracy and the rule of law may only exist as an emanation of a strong civil society. The government payed out of foreign pocket will not last long. In this regard, Germany has the key role to play in the decline or in the revival of the European Union.

The Fundacja Wolne Społeczeństwo (FWS, Free Society Foundation) demands from the European Council (Council) and the European Commission (EC) a decisive support for securing rule of law within the European Union (EU) on democratic basis, by enacting in the EU member states proper democratic institutions for independent control over judiciary and judges, such as: juries, popular elections of judges, elected disciplinary bodies for judicature. FWS especially demands support for enacting of Articles 4(2) and 187(1)(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland giving to the Nation (citizens) the right to choose fifteen judges for the National Council of the Judiciary.

FWS also demands that the Council and EC take immediate measures for the EU action against every execution of a death "penalty" in every country where an EU citizen had been sent to by a state decision against his or her will or where she or he had been sent to for an international "adoption". In support of the UN experts' call for clemency, the EU should take an immediate action to stop on the ground of mental illness the killing (execution) of Ms Lisa Montgomery scheduled for 12 January in the United States of America (USA).

Civil society for democratic rule of law

The quest for the rule of law in the EU, with the main battlefield in Poland and Hungary, shows the ineffectivity of the EU in supporting civil society. The EU did virtually nothing to support civil society in Poland, although there is no imaginable way of building rule of law in the EU without civil society. The UE and Poland need common standards for judiciary ensuring the democratic rule of law with democracy in the first place, accordingly to the values of the EU. Law and rule of law are in a democratic state only tools of democracy, and have no value on their own. Since law is not an optimal tool, it should always be subordinated to the democratic control and to the decisions taken by citizens supported by civil society organizations.

If the EU pressure on the Polish government in 2020 is exercised to create an effective incentive for building the rule of law in Poland, it can not be narrowed to the rule of law devoid of democratic control. Polish judiciary has been a domain of politicians all the time after 1989 because the peaceful negotiations for democratization, held with the Polish "communist" party, could not be feasible if the "communists" would face any real and fair court proceedings in Poland. Today's "judiciary" in Poland is a political domain by design. There is no chance that people in Poland will massively support such a "judiciary". On the contrary, every EU policy of defending current form of Polish "judiciary" will result in fuelling Polish opposition against the EU.

The money transfers from the EU into the hands of political parties in Poland after 2004 have eroded democracy and strengthened political parties in Poland because the great imbalance between state administration and political parties on the one hand and civil society on the other hand, a legacy of communist era, has been only deepened by the weight of the EU money. The members of the Council should be aware of the destruction of civil society in Poland and of the impossibility of building democratic rule of law without civil society.

Law is only an imperfect and rough projection of a right decision about a specific case. The Danish Code of Jutland (Jyske Lov) indicated in 1241 the inferiority of law to the "truth" established for a specific case. Law was to be used out of necessity in a society that was already too large to be able to search together for the "truth" in every case:

(...) no law is as good as the truth, but if one wonders what the truth is, then shall the law show the truth. (...)

A compromise solution for justice and truth-finding in a large society is jury in court proceedings based on law. Jury may decide about grave cases and may decide about recall of a judge from office. The role of jury in court proceedings is a great example for a distributed decision making in democracy. Jury is not only a court institution but is also a part of a system of government, since it may for a specific case even nullify the law ("jury nullification") and thus may give elasticity to a static legal system of a state. No central government will by able to equal in knowledge and wisdom numerous juries working allover a democratic country.

The democratic decision must not be considered to be the exclusive decision of the politicians who gathered at some moment in time, by true or false promises, more support then their opponents in an election or in an acclamation. For a true democracy, the democratic will has to be expressed both in a broad scope as well as in local and individual scope. The true power of democracy may be revealed only by institutions which distribute decision making among citizens appropriately to their knowledge of specific or local affairs and of their devotion for a specific good.

Return the courts to the citizens from politicians

Poland is an example of the destructive influence of the evolution of the political scene into a system explained by the Cartel Party Theory: political parties representing state administration instead of electorate, and cooperating with each other and with the state administration against citizens.

The key outcome of the agreements ending the communist era in Poland was the politicized judiciary being the main obstacle for further democratization of Poland. That burden was to be removed in 1997 with the new Polish constitution. The constitution removed the entitlement of communist nominees to act as judges in Polish courts and established the rule of law in Poland by stating that "The organs of public authority shall function on the basis of, and within the limits of, the law".

Unfortunately, the corrupting influence on democracy of the power relations within the political parties and within the state administration in Poland, resembling a cartel cooperation, exceeded at the time of enactment of the new constitution already the level of control over the state that civil society could ever achieve in Poland during a quarter of century after 1989 without receiving institutional support. The new constitution was therefore never fully implemented until at least 2021. The politicians allowed the communist nominees to act undisturbed as judges on the condition that they will provide court protection for political parties and state officials in criminal activities. Furthermore, the politicians did not bother to pass legal regulations for the procedure of appointing judges in Poland which was required by the new constitution. With the verdict of 29 November 2007 (ref. no. SK 43/06) the Constitutional Tribunal in Poland nullified the provisions of law being the legal basis for nominations of judges in Poland and stated that the entitlement of the National Council of the Judiciary to formulate the criteria of the assessment of the candidatures for the posts of judges violated the Polish constitution. The verdict has been fully ignored by Polish politicians. They continued illegal, political nominations of judges. Hundreds of political judges have been nominated in Poland since 2007 against the law and against the constitution. The illegal judges in Poland are working now in a relation to the politicians that has been identified by sociologists as a "dirty togetherness", a relation of community in crime or immorality. Those illegal Polish judges are in a great number hostile to civil society, and they are the main hindrance for building civil society and democracy in Poland.

In democracy there is a need for legal responsibility of politicians. Therefore politicians must not be empowered to elect judges who will protect their electors. Popular election should be a part of the legitimization of the procedure resulting in appointing a judge. Articles 4(2) and 187(1)(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland provide for the popular election of fifteen judges for the National Council of the Judiciary which is the body that chooses the judges appointed by the president of the Republic. Additionally, the pool of candidatures presented to that body might be narrowed to the candidatures previously selected in another popular election.

Judicature in democracy may not escape democratic control of its daily quality. In Poland the postulated National Council of the Judiciary composed of at least fifteen members chosen in popular election could take the role of an independent disciplinary body for judicature.

The EU's support for child trafficking and abuse

One of the main goals of the EU was to establish a common market in a way that will not destroy the interests of the participants. Influential business groups in Europe receive therefore a great protection from the EU against the forces of the EU common market, even at the price of destruction of foreign businesses, as it was in the case of excessive support for agriculture in Europe, causing the destruction of African agriculture and subsequent influx of migrants to Europe. The relation of the EU to African states is a deep moral issue with complicated human rights aspects. The migrant workers and their families who were citizens of the EU as well as the child and family protection institutions in the EU member states did not receive any protection against the great forces of international business and criminality stemming from the EU common market. The EU relation to its own citizens in international family matters is not only a deep moral issue, but also an area of grave violation of the EU law and human rights. The EU plainly supports profitable child trafficking and abuse hidden behind professional state care and "adoptions".

The EU's support for child trafficking and abuse hidden behind state care and "adoptions" is not only an international criminal activity of the organization (EU), but also a breach of political commitment of the EU which was heralded by the EC before the EU enlargement encompassing Romania among other states. Banning cruel practices of international "adoption" was a prerequisite for Romania's accession to the EU. Romania banned international adoption and the accession followed. Some time after the accession the EC with the USA forced Romania behind the scene to remove the ban. In this way the EC perpetrated a political betrayal of those supporters of the EU in the new member states who seriously took the offer of the "community of values" of the EU.

The activists of the FWS were among the betrayed supporters of the EU. Trying to protect children and families in international relations they met the legal system of the EU having little basis in the EU treaty law but being very convenient for child trafficking and abuse at the same time. The fundamental part of that system is the "Brussels IIa Regulation" that establishes jurisdiction in family matters for a child out of the child's country of origin, but fails to provide legal definitions and strict boundaries of respective family matters and fails to ensure the legal oversight at the EU level in the area of adjective law for family matters.

On 10 May 2020 (26697791.fws), in continuation of previous correspondence, the FWS notified the EC about the criminals acting in family matters as "judges" in Germany, continuing previous correspondence. One of them, sitting in family court in Dresden (Amtsgericht), organized child abduction followed by an assault and battery perpetrated by the judges's minion on the child's mother. Earlier, on 27 January 2020 (#26335233.fws), the FWS notified the EC about the criminal cooperation between the EU politicians and the representatives of the USA, in child trafficking from the new member states of the EU to the USA. The FWS informed the EC also about the illegal child trafficking within the EU borders, of children under state-established custody.

On 10 November 2020 (EC, Ares(2020)6549434) the EC, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, refused to support the efforts of the FWS for the rule of law within the family court proceedings. Those efforts were based on the adjective law only, and concerned court protection of parental authority, rights or responsibilities and custody or care for a child in migrating worker's family within the EU borders. Since the jurisdiction in the area has been established solely on the ground of the EU adjective law created by the EC for family matters, and since the said FWS's efforts ware of formal-only nature, the EC's refusal of the support should be considered to be an obvious and grave breach of the EC's responsibility to protect the EU citizens against the unlawful actions of the member states empowered by the EU law. All the cases presented by the FWS brought strong evidence of systemic and purposeful violations of the legal norms of court proceedings in a member state. The merits of family nature of those cases were out of the scope of the FWS's efforts.

The EC knowingly created the legal situation allowing child snatching covered by the EU law. The above mentioned German court presented a real banditry in family matters. An English court in Chelmsford organized adoption of a child of a Polish migrant family and referred the "Brussels IIa Regulation" as the legal basis for the adoption. The Court did not care that the Regulation excluded adoption from its scope. It might easily happen because the EC claims that "The European Commission has no general powers to intervene with the Member States." (EC, Ares(2020)6549434). There was no assistance in the proceedings despite lacking mental capacity to make legal decisions on family side. The court stopped the civil society organization from participating in the proceedings.

The EC legal policy of avoiding protection of child and family within jurisdictions established by the EU law, and of promoting of the rule of law without democracy, as for Poland and Hungary, has no basis in the values of the EU and in the EU law. There is no ground for the concept that the EU treaty law creates legal basis for establishing jurisdiction and entitlement to create adjective law regulations in family matters, but does not establish at the same time legal basis for oversight of the implementation of those regulations. There is no place within the EU treaty law for legal empowerment without legal oversight and without independent democratic control.

There should also be no place in Europe for an international organization (EU) that claims to offer a "citizenship" and at the same time allows to traffic its "citizens" abroad for abuse or rape as it was with children "adopted" internationally from Poland to the USA in recent years.

The EC has a deep knowledge about the child trafficking between the new EU member states and the USA, had been previously opposing such criminal activity, and has great means to stop it now. The EC should return to their previous policy of blocking child trafficking. Allowing the abductions of the EU citizens to the USA under the guise of "adoption" created the obligation to react to the human rights violations in the USA. The return to the EC's policy of blocking child trafficking should begin with fulfilling this obligation.

In order to protect the victims of child trafficking from the EU and to protect basic human values among nations, the EU should immediately protest against the planned killing ("execution") of Ms Lisa Montgomery, and officially respond to the human rights expert calls ("UN experts call for clemency for Lisa Montgomery, as US reschedules planned execution"; https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/12/1079192) in her case:

(...) UN independent human rights experts expressed serious concern on Thursday, after the United States Government rescheduled the execution of Lisa Montgomery for 12 January, just days before new President Joe Biden, an opponent of the death penalty, is due to be sworn in. (...)

The EC should recognise their legal obligation to forcefully forbid state killing of a victim of crimes beyond comprehension:

(...) the victim of horrific life-long cruelty that began when she was 11, when she was subjected to multiple rapes, and later forced into prostitution, aged 15. (...) In 2004, shortly before Ms. Montgomery killed a pregnant woman, cut the baby from her stomach and pretended the child was her own, her former partner had threatened to take custody of her children. (...)

The virtue of humanity is to be upheld even against such a deed that allegedly committed Ms Lisa Montgomery.

Stop the vassalization within the EU

The Council's dispute about the money transfers from the EU into the hands of political parties in Poland and Hungary should not be excused by the values of the "rule of law", but should be seen as a struggle for political influences, even "vassalization", in the new EU member states, which further destroys democracy in those states.

The politicians of Poland and Hungary may be steered by the money transfers from the EU. The EU money avoids the civil society needs by far and goes to the politicians. This is not a way to democracy. This is the way to the vassalization within the EU. The politicians paid with the EU money are now in the search for castles for themselves, as the Hungarian journalists inform:

(...) the son-in-law of the Prime Minister also contributed to the establishment of a joint stock company whose subsidiary acquired the Tura Castle. (...)

The new castle owners in the EU are evidently in a grave need for international political protectors. The Belgian handling of the "Brussels male sex party attended by anti-gay Hungarian MEP" of 27 December 2020, and the timing of the "event" in connection with the Council's dispute about the EU money transfers, are an example of a source of political influence that may on demand easily distort democracy through the use of closed knowledge about politicians who exist politically only with the foreign support.

The Council should stop the vassalization within the EU. The rule of law may only be realized within the EU supported by civil societies in member countries, and not by political vassals. The EU needs truly democratic rule of law, and needs measures of legal and political responsibility of politicians. The criminal data presented or gathered for law enforcement or for state intelligence must not be misused for political competition or influencing. The EU money should build civil society institutions, and not be spent for castles for vassals.

Above all, the EU should remain the community of values. Humanity should be the core value of the EU. Therefore the FWS requests the EU intervention in the case of killing (execution) of Ms Lisa Montgomery. The EU may always represent humanity among nations.

26792255.fws

Polish governmental political party Law and Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, PiS) commands the constitutional tribunal in Poland to void the provisions of criminal code on criminal liability of officials. The political party may seek impunity not only through obtaining a regulated in the Polish constitution judgement ending the binding force of an legal act, but also do it through an unconstitutional judgement stating an allegedly proper way of interpretation of an act. Such an unconstitutional judgement may by obtained easily, because the political party has previously taken over the tribunal by appointing politicians from among them to judge as the "tribunal". The tribunal is in fact a political parliamentary commission. (URL https://www.rp.pl/Urzednicy/310169919-Bezkarnosc-urzednikow-PiS-kieruje-wniosek-do-Trybunalu-Konstytucyjnego.html https://www.rp.pl/Prawo-karne/309189963-Dr-Witold-Zontek-Bezkarnosc-plus-jest-nie-do-obrony.html)

The independent Polish civil society organisation Stowarzyszenie Wolne Społeczeństwo (SWS, Free Society Association) calls for civil cooperation and support for the law-abiding Polish judges in order to stop the Andrzej Duda's usurpation of the position of the President of Poland for the next term in office. The SWS fully acknowledges the legal argumentation for cancelling the presidential election in Poland presented by the Stowarzyszenie Sędziów "Iustitia" (Association of Polish Judges "Iustitia") in the statement on 2020-08-03, cited below in draft translation from the Polish text (www.iustitia.pl, 2020-08-03 ):

On 3 August 2020, the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs created within the Polish Supreme Court with officials illegally appointed by president Andrzej Duda through an extremely politicised nominating process, adopted an invalid resolution on the validity of the election of Andrzej Duda for another term. We would like to remind you that the Chamber was appointed in its entirety by the President at the request of the new National Council of Judiciary, despite the writ of prohibition issued by the Supreme Administrative Court for applications for preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice of the EU in Luxembourg, which will soon be decided. Any decision given by the Chamber and its new judges is invalid, as decided by the Polish Supreme Court in the resolution of its three joint chambers of the on 23 January 2020 (ref.: BSA Act I-4110-1/20). Thus, in view of the invalidity of today's ((2020-08-03)) "resolution", there has been no Supreme Court's declaration of validity of the election of the President of the Republic, which is required by Article 129 (1) of the Polish constitution.

At the end of July 2020 the International Chamber of Amsterdam’s District Court has stated that the current Polish judiciary should not be considered to be independent of the government and parliament. Two months earlier a Polish civil society organisation demanded sacking the judges of the Polish supreme court because of their illegal and undemocratic appointments to the court’s posts.

The Dutch court in Amsterdam decided to refer the question of the Polish judiciary to the Court of Justice of the EU to get a preliminary ruling for deciding about the further execution of the European Arrest Warrant received from Poland in a criminal drug case.¹

The Dutch court’s decision is a formal confirmation that the judiciary building process in Poland had failed. Unfortunately the failure has been noted only at its termination phase in criminal proceedings although its symptoms had been notified to international institutions of the EU and of the Council of Europe by Polish civil society activist for many years to the point where the whole judiciary in Poland should be scrapped.

A civil society organisation in Poland, Fundacja Wolne Spoleczenstwo (FWS, Free Society Foundation), demanded on 2020-05-27 the dismissal of those justices of the Polish supreme court who were not appointed to their posts in the court through nominations by the National Council of Judiciary acting with the fifteen members of the Council democratically chosen by the people (nation) as the Polish constitution prescribes.²

The organisation stated that a great number of judges in Poland knew very well that they obtained their posts illegally. Since 2020-07-30 the FWS prepares the court proceedings for the removal of a lower court’s judge from his office where he may cooperate with political parties to obstruct justice in a case of parliamentary supported stealing by a private business of public money for fictional medical services feigned with the use of medical files stolen from a closed state owned medical entity.³

It is a horrendous crime of the USA to use the political and military power they have to organize the abductions of children from loving families and from their countries, and to deprive them of legal and social protection in order to freely abuse them within the criminal practice called "re-homing" in the USA. It has been done to the Romanian children around 2001 and, as it seems now, 2019, it has been done to Polish children. In both cases the Americans offered their political and military support in exchange for money and children. It is inhumane. It is also disgraceful and insulting towards the people of Poland, Romania, the people of the whole world and towards the US Army too. It is not a deed of a perverted political minority. The ruling politicians of the USA and Poland are consciously violating international law prepared to protect the most vulnerable from abuse and from so called "enforced disappearance". (PL: polski)

PETITION: https://petitiongo.org/en/petition/stop-inter-country-adoptions-of-children

We call both Poland and the USA:

(1) to immediately stop inter-country adoptions of children;

(2) to protect all victims of inter-country adoptions of children, on the basis of an open and honest co-operation with non-governmental organizations from the involved countries, beginning with a complex independent legal and factual assessment of all individual situations resulting from inter-country adoption where an adopted person, a sibling of such a person or a parent or a guardian of such a person remains alive;

(3) to compensate all victims of inter-country adoptions of children, and to enable them to restore all their ties to their real families and their native countries;

(4) to fully ratify the two protective conventions: the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, as well as to consider the abolishing of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-country Adoption;

(5) to punish all the perpetrators, including politicians and judges, of crimes committed against child or child's family within the process of inter-country adoption or in a connection with such a process.

As the politics has been made into a pure game for money and power, and democracy made into a theatre of acclamation, it attracted people of substandard moral qualities who are more than willing to abuse whomever they can, the poor, the weak, children and women. It is obvious in the politics of Poland and the USA as well as in the politics of the EU. American politicians are known in the world for their devotion to organizing child abuse through forged inter-country adoptions of children from abroad who are in a good and professional foster care abroad or may stay there with their true families with only a little support from community or state.

The politicians pretend to care but in reality they are deceiving people and intensely helping people to deceive themselves to believe that there is a law at their disposal for their protection and for the protection of the vulnerable. Poland and the USA did not fully ratify the key international conventions on child protection: the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, of 20 November 1989, and the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, of 6 February 2007. They however ratified the so called "Adoption Convention", the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-country Adoption, of 29 May 1993, which has no real protective function if applied without the above mentioned protective conventions which are aimed against child abuse and enforced disappearance.

The American and Polish politicians did it on purpose: they use the Adoption Convention for their own profit to legalize inter-country adoptions in the countries where such adoptions are illegal as in Poland. They know that there is a great number of wealthy people desiring a child for many reasons and willing to pay for the child significant amounts of money or show their gratitude in another way. As the democracy falters and becomes a system of acclamationism in Europe and the USA, the politicians get more and more tools to perpetrate their crimes unpunished. In Poland the politicians have illegally filled the judges' posts, even in the supreme court, with their nominees or with the ex-communist court functionaries called "judges" in the communist Poland, who do for the posts whatever the politicians want. The illegal Polish judges criminally sell Polish children abroad on the sole and false ground of the Adoption Convention. Therefore, there is the need to urgently stop all inter-country adoptions, to fully ratify the two protective conventions: the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, as well as to consider the abolishing of the cruel Adoption Convention. It could only be done by people's common effort. The victims must be protected and compensated so far as it is still possible. The perpetrators must be punished. Politicians will only pretend to care. They are the perpetrators.

PL

Ohydnym przestępstwem USA jest wykorzystywanie posiadanej przez nie siły politycznej i militarnej do organizowania porwań dzieci z kochających rodzin oraz z ich krajów, oraz do pozbawiania ich ochrony prawnej i społecznej celem ich dowolnego wykorzystywania w procederze zwanym "re-homing" w USA. Czyniono to dzieciom rumuńskim około 2001 r. i, jak to widać obecnie, w 2019 r., było to i jest czynione polskim dzieciom. W obu przypadkach Amerykanie oferowali swe polityczne i wojskowe wsparcie w zamian za pieniądze i dzieci. To jest nieludzkie. To jest również haniebne i stanowi zniewagę wobec narodów polskiego i rumuńskiego, narodów całego świata, a także wobec armii USA. To nie jest czyn zwyrodniałej mniejszości politycznej. Rządzący politycy w USA i w Polsce świadomie gwałcą prawo międzynarodowe przygotowane dla ochrony osób najbardziej narażonych przed wykorzystywaniem i tak zwanymi "wymuszonymi zaginięciami".

PETYCJA: https://petitiongo.org/pl/petition/stop-inter-country-adoptions-of-children

Wzywamy zarówno Polskę, jak i USA:

(1) do niezwłocznego zatrzymania międzypaństwowych adopcji lub przysposobień dzieci;

(2) do ochrony wszystkich ofiar międzypaństwowych adopcji lub przysposobień dzieci, opartej o otwarte i uczciwe współdziałanie z organizacjami pozarządowymi z uczestniczących państw, rozpoczęte od kompleksowej niezależnej oceny prawnej i faktycznej wszystkich indywidualnych sytuacji wynikłych z międzypaństwowej adopcji lub przysposobienia dziecka, w których przy życiu pozostaje osoba adoptowana, rodzeństwo takiej osoby lub jej rodzic lub opiekun;

(3) do zapewnienia rekompensat lub odszkodowań dla wszystkich ofiar międzypaństwowych adopcji lub przysposobień dzieci, oraz do umożliwienia im odtworzenia wszystkich ich więzi z ich prawdziwymi rodzinami i ich ojczyznami;

(4) do pełnego ratyfikowania dwóch międzynarodowych konwencji ochronnych: Konwencji o prawach dziecka, oraz Konwencji o ochronie wszelkich osób przed wymuszonym zaginięciem, jak również do rozważenia zniesienia Konwencji haskiej o ochronie dzieci i współpracy w dziedzinie przysposobienia międzynarodowego;

(5) ukarania wszystkich sprawców, włącznie z politykami i sędziami, przestępstw przeciwko dziecku lub rodzinie dziecka w postępowaniu dotyczącym międzypaństwowej adopcji lub przysposobienia dziecka, lub w związku z takim postępowaniem.

Jako że polityka została przemieniona w czystą grę o pieniądze i władzę, a demokrację przemieniono w teatr aklamacji, przyciągnęła ona ludzi nie spełniających norm moralnych, którzy są bardziej niż chętni do wykorzystywania każdego, kogo tylko mogą wykorzystać, ubogich, słabych, dzieci, kobiet. Jest to oczywiste w polityce w Polsce i w USA, jak również w polityce w Unii Europejskiej. Amerykańscy politycy są znani w świecie ze swego oddania organizowaniu wykorzystywania dzieci poprzez fałszowane międzypaństwowe adopcje lub przysposobienia dzieci z zagranicy, które przebywają za granicą pod dobrą zawodową opieką zastępczą lub mogą tam pozostać ze swymi prawdziwymi rodzinami z niewielką tylko pomocą gminy lub państwa.

Politycy udają troskę, ale w rzeczywistości oszukują ludzi oraz bardzo pomagają ludziom w samooszukiwaniu się, by wierzyli, że mają do swej dyspozycji prawo dla swej ochrony i dla ochrony osób najbardziej narażonych. Polska i USA nie ratyfikowały w pełni kluczowych międzynarodowych konwencji o ochronie dziecka: Konwencji ONZ o prawach dziecka, z 20 listopada 1989 r., oraz Konwencji o ochronie wszelkich osób przed wymuszonym zaginięciem, z 6 lutego 2006 r. Państwa te jednakże ratyfikowały tak zwaną "Konwencję adopcyjną", Konwencję haską o ochronie dzieci i współpracy w dziedzinie przysposobienia międzynarodowego, z 29 maja 1993 r., która nie pełni żadnej roli ochronnej, gdy jest stosowana bez wyżej wspomnianych konwencji ochronnych skierowanych przeciwko wykorzystywaniu dziecka i wymuszonemu zaginięciu.

Amerykańscy i polscy politycy uczynili to celowo: Konwencję adopcyjną wykorzystują dla własnych korzyści do legalizowania międzypaństwowych adopcji lub przysposobień dzieci w państwach, w których takie adopcje lub przysposobienia są nielegalne jak w Polsce. Wiedzą, że wielką jest liczba zamożnych ludzi pożądających dziecka z wielu powodów i skłonnych płacić za dziecko znaczne kwoty pieniężne lub okazać swą wdzięczność w inny sposób. Gdy demokracja słabnie i zastępowana jest systemem aklamacjonizmu w Europie i USA, politycy zyskują coraz więcej narzędzi do bezkarnego popełniania swych przestępstw. W Polsce politycy nielegalnie obsadzali stanowiska sędziowskie, nawet w sądzie najwyższym, swymi nominatami lub byłymi komunistycznymi funkcjonariuszami sądowymi zwanymi "sędziami" w komunistycznej Polsce, którzy dla swych stanowisk robią wszystko, czego chcą politycy. Nielegalni polscy sędziowie przestępczo sprzedają dzieci za granicę, na wyłącznej i fałszywej podstawie Konwencji adopcyjnej. Dlatego konieczne jest niezwłoczne zatrzymanie wszystkich międzypaństwowych adopcji lub przysposobień, pełne ratyfikowanie dwu konwencji ochronnych: Konwencji o prawach dziecka, oraz Konwencji o ochronie wszelkich osób przed wymuszonym zaginięciem, jak również rozważenie zniesienia okrutnej Konwencji adopcyjnej. Można to uczynić jedynie wspólnym wysiłkiem ludzi. Ofiary muszą otrzymać ochronę i zadośćuczynienia w jak najpełniejszym osiągalnym jeszcze zakresie. Sprawców należy ukarać. Politycy będą tylko udawali troskę. Oni są sprawcami.

As a platform, Hubzilla holds a tremendous amount of versatility and depth in what it can do. Mike Macgirvin, the platform’s creator, has famously quipped that the system does not have a commercial analogue to draw comparisons to — it’s not just a social network, it’s not just a forum, it’s not just a cloud storage solution, and it’s not just a content management system.

https://medium.com/we-distribute/the-do-everything-system-an-in-depth-review-of-hubzilla-3-0-692204177d4e

According to the definition on the project website:

Hubzilla is a powerful platform for creating interconnected websites featuring a decentralized identity, communications, and permissions framework built using common webserver technology.

(...) Hubzilla is best suited towards people who want to host their own websites that can also act as a cloud storage provider as well as a decentralized social communication platform. It is meant for the homesteaders of the Internet generation, people who want to withdraw from third-party services and data providers.

https://medium.com/we-distribute/got-zot-mike-macgirvin-45287601ff19

https://medium.com/we-distribute/a-quick-guide-to-the-free-network-c069309f334

https://thoughtshrapnel.com/2018/05/31/protocols-for-the-free-web/

https://medium.com/@tamanning/nomadic-identity-brought-to-you-by-hubzilla-67eadce13c3b

https://www.howtoforge.com/tutorial/how-to-install-hubzilla-on-ubuntu/

As the expectation of the complete publication by media and journalists of the unprecedented appeal of Polish educators for the international protection of Polish families has not been satisfied, the Free Society Foundation presents the content of the appeal on the basis of the information obtained during the legal dispute with the employees of the office of the president Andrzej Duda for the public access to the appeal.

The Free Society Association points out that the media operating in Poland in the conditions of German financial influence and domination in the media industry consistently omit in their publications of the appeal its content covering German crimes against Polish children.

Open letter - Appeal

Dear Mister President,

In reference to the actions of officials from your Chancellery and of the government of the Republic of Poland to date, which should lead to children removed by the Jugendamt being placed in “culturally non-alien” families, we believe that this is less than a half-way solution.

We, the undersigned, as the academic community, appeal to the President to launch an international diplomatic campaign and to implement legal solutions aimed at returning to Poland children taken away to date by the German Jugendamt and similar organisations in other southern and northern European countries as well as at returning to Poland such children in whom these organisations develop an interest in the future and decide to take them away from their Polish parents.

It needs to be taken into consideration that children of Polish citizens temporarily staying abroad, i.e. without citizenship in the other state, still remain Polish citizens. Therefore, it is astounding that in essence such children are being appropriated by the countries of their temporary residence. Hence we appeal to the President to initiate a diplomatic campaign and relevant legal procedures as soon as possible to ensure that the need for the Jugendamt (or other similar organisations) to intervene, leading to the removal of children from their parents’ custody, ends in a direct transfer of such children to Polish embassies in the given country, which will then pass them to the Polish social welfare system.

We all remember the fate of around 200 - 250 thousand Polish children taken away from their parents by Germany during WW2 for the purpose of their Germanisation. After the war, the government of the Polish People’s Republic refrained from recovering such children, taken away in inhumane conditions. History cannot be reversed, but let the suffering and multiple fatalities among those children be a voice demanding that the fate of Polish children is not repeated in new political circumstances.

We believe that the Polish state, which provides wide-ranging material support to foreign citizens, is able to take all Polish children under its care. It should be the task of Polish judicature, here in Poland, to make decisions on what is to happen next with such children - naturally after verification of their family situation and after contacting their biological parents. The second part of our appeal is a postulate to immediately prohibit international adoptions, as in practice there is no certainty that the outcome will be positive for such children. A ban on international adoptions should be accompanied with an in-depth verification of the legality of the practices currently used in that area (bodies/foundations conducting them) and of the situation of children already put up for international adoption (nota bene, this is a requirement of the currently applicable Polish procedures, but it is usually not fulfilled).

Poles do not have an obligation to offer their children even in case of the most noble international offers; but they do have sufficient capabilities to look after and bring up every child who loses their family.

As teachers, we will gladly engage in the necessary correction of the Polish welfare system so that it is able to provide care for such children.

Prof. dr hab. Janina Kostkiewicz – Uniwersytet Jagielloński
Prof. dr hab. Franciszek Wojciechowski - Uniwersytet Jagielloński
Dr hab. Anna Gaweł - Uniwersytet Jagielloński
Dr hab. Beata Gola - Uniwersytet Jagielloński
Prof. dr hab. Stanisław Palka - Uniwersytet Jagielloński
Dr hab. Małgorzata Michel - Uniwersytet Jagielloński
Dr hab. Dorota Pauluk - Uniwersytet Jagielloński
Dr hab. Mariusz Sztuka - Uniwersytet Jagielloński
Dr Barbara Łuczyńska - Uniwersytet Jagielloński
Dr Małgorzata Piasecka - Uniwersytet Jagielloński
Dr Bożena Czerska - Uniwersytet Jagielloński
Dr Krzysztof Polak - Uniwersytet Jagielloński
Dr Jolanta Nazaruk - Uniwersytet Jagielloński
Prof. dr hab. Bogusław Śliwerski – Przewodniczący KNP PAN, Uniwersytet Łódzki, Akademia Pedagogiki Specjalnej im. M.G. Warszawa
Dr hab., prof. APS Jan Łaszczyk – Akademia Pedagogiki Specjalnej im. M.G. Warszawa
Dr hab, prof. US Małgorzata Makiewicz – Uniwersytet Szczeciński
Prof. dr hab. inż Janusz Morbitzer - Akademia WSB w Dąbrowie Górniczej
Dr hab., prof. UMK Dorota Siemieniecka – Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika Toruń
Prof. dr hab. Bronisław Siemieniecki – Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika Toruń
Prof. dr hab. Stanisław Juszczyk – Uniwersytet Śląski Katowice
Dr hab., prof. APS Józef Bednarek – Akademia Pedagogiki Specjalnej im. M.G. Warszawa
Dr Ewa Lewandowska-Tarasiuk – Akademia Pedagogiki Specjalnej im. M.G. Warszawa
Dr Zbigniew Łęski – Uniwersytet Hum-Przyr. Im. Jana Długosza Częstochowa
Dr Justyna Bluszcz – Akademia Pedagogiki Specjalnej im. M.G. Warszawa
Ks. dr hab., prof. UR Janusz Miąso – Uniwersytet Rzeszowski
Dr Janusz Kłoniecki – Akademia Pedagogiki Specjalnej im. M.G. Warszawa
Dr hab., prof. ChAT Marek Piotrowski – ChAT Warszawa
Dr hab., prof. UP Barbara Kędzierska – Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. KEN Kraków
Prof. dr hab. Włodzimierz Gogołek – Uniwersytet Warszawski
Prof. dr hab. Maria Czerepaniak-Walczak – Uniwersytet Szczeciński
Dr hab. Jarosław Horowski – Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika Toruń
Dr hab. Alina Rynio – Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
Dr hab., prof. KUL Ryszard Skrzyniarz – Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II 3.
Dr hab. Wiesław Partyka – Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
Prof. dr hab. Marian Surdacki – Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
Dr Elżbieta Stoch – Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
Dr hab., prof. KUL Danuta Opozda – Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
Mgr Izabel Głodzik – Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
Dr Agnieszka Linca-Ćwikła – Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
Dr Aleksandra Borowicz – Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
Ks. Prof. dr hab. Marian Nowak – Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
Mgr Urszula Krzyżanowska - Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
Dr Małgorzata Łobacz - Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
Dr Sławomir Nazaruk – UM Lublin
Dr hab., prof. UP Andrzej Ryk – Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. KEN Kraków
Dr hab., prof. UP Katarzyna Potyrała - Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. KEN Kraków
Dr hab., prof. UP Jolanta Zielińska - Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. KEN Kraków
Dr hab., prof. UP Krzysztof Gurba - Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. KEN Kraków
Dr Agnieszka Lasota - Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. KEN Kraków
Dr hab., prof. UP Joanna Łukasik - Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. KEN Kraków
Dr Olga Wyżga - Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. KEN Kraków
Dr hab., prof. UP Adam Mikrut - Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. KEN Kraków
Dr hab., prof.. UP Piotr Majewicz - Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. KEN Kraków
Dr hab., prof. UP Danuta Wolska - Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. KEN Kraków
Dr hab., prof. UP Jolanta Baran - Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. KEN Kraków
Dr Agnieszka Suplicka - Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku
Dr Joanna Dąbrowska - Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku
Dr Łukasz Kalisz - Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku
Prof. zw. dr hab. Elwira Kryńska - Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku
Dr Anna Młynarczuk-Sokołowska - Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku
Dr Artur Konopacki - Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku
Dr hab., prof. UP Paweł Sajdek – Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. KEN Kraków
Dr hab., prof. UJD Wiesława Sajdek – Uniwersytet Hum-Przyr. im. Jana Długosza Częstochowa
Dr hab. Wiesław Wójcik - Uniwersytet Hum-Przyr. im. Jana Długosza Częstochowa
Dr hab. prof. UJD Adam Olech - Uniwersytet Hum-Przyr. im. Jana Długosza Częstochowa
Dr hab., prof. UJD Maciej Woźniczka – Uniwersytet Hum-Przyr. im. Jana Długosza Częstochowa
Dr Grzegorz Sitek - Uniwersytet Hum-Przyr. im. Jana Długosza Częstochowa
Dr Ryszard Miszczyński - Uniwersytet Hum-Przyr. im. Jana Długosza Częstochowa
Dr Mariusz Oziębłowski - Uniwersytet Hum-Przyr. im. Jana Długosza Częstochowa
Mgr Michał Płóciennik - Uniwersytet Hum-Przyr. im. Jana Długosza Częstochowa
Dr Henryk Popowski - Uniwersytet Hum-Przyr. im. Jana Długosza Częstochowa

Democracy is a method to decentralize and distribute control and regulation over the state and public matters. The primary efficiency advantage of an actual democracy results not from the freedom which it may occasionally give nor from the protection which it may provide to its citizens, but from the use of the vast pool of thought and knowledge involved into the democratic process of decision making.

https://petitiongo.org/en/petition/initiative-for-family-protection-in-europe

Those countries that are democratic have the advantage of social wisdom that they may use for public benefit. Those countries that only claim to be democratic have the disadvantage of being centralized and controlled by small group of people who took power in some historical moment by sheer luck or by foreign help and keep it by all means the power of the state may provide. As a small group of people can not have the knowledge and the thinking potential of millions of minds, they have to concentrate on their vital problems that obviously and almost exclusively focus on their gain and well being. Sometimes such a group will accept new members if without them the group could not keep the power and position in the state which they captured.

Poland provides the excellent example of a captured and perverted state being some form of oligarchy in reality that is falsely presented as a democracy by members of the ruling cartel of political parties cooperating with judges and state clerks chosen carefully by these parties. Poland has a long democratic tradition broken by the loss of sovereignty for almost two hundred years but not destroyed. The tradition produced the historic Solidarity social movement in the last quarter of the twentieth century. The social movement of Solidarity had no political ambitions. It was aimed to create new policies. It was not meant as a tool to get political posts or to get personal political power. Now, in the first quarter of the twenty-first century, the tradition is the basis of the quest for the new political offer, for new politicians and new political parties. That quest cannot succeed because the current political system supported by financially the European Union has enough wealth to buy or to discredit every new political initiative. It may even forge such a political initiative and present it a new political offer created allegedly in opposition to the political system. What is though theoretically possible is the new political activity made again by a social movement without the political ambitions.

Undemocratic, communist Poland was a centralized state. The Poles knew exactly that the centralization is the main reason for the decline of the state and the economy. The political system could not achieve enough knowledge and power of thinking to govern a centralized state in the time of new technologies, international communication, competitive market economy, and globalization. The government was just too stupid. There were jokes about it.¹

The CivilFreedom initiative aims to explain the possible new ways of establishing real democracy in Poland through the means of distributed control and regulation of state and public matters. It should help in the exposing of the unreasonable and perverse nature of a centralized government and provide the evidence that even small non-governmental organizations may make a key difference raising the level of knowledge and rationality in the process of decision making. There is an obvious need for public information and scrutiny. It was well understood in the times of the historic Solidarity movement: "For a conversation to be a conversation, one must speak the truth. So it is with work, for work to be work, it must achieve its truth. Bread must be bread, a word — a word, and a question and its answer must meet on the same plane. Faithfulness arises and grows where clarity reigns. In the darkness everything becomes suspicious. Man must know with whom he deals and what matters are at issue. He must be ready to reveal himself in the whole truth. The more man yearns for faithfulness, the more powerfully he must repeat, "more light!".² We need more light for democracy. The centralized government will do everything it can do to hide its real nature behind all possible security and privacy concerns. Such excuses should be dismissed altogether.

The goals of the above-proposed community democracy should be achieved first and foremost in the most vital area of interests of every people: in the protection of families and children.

It is a great shame for the Polish people that for years the politicians in Poland organize trafficking in children from poor or troubled families. In Poland, almost every foreign adoption is a criminal act. Children taken away from their natural or foster families in Poland are sold abroad for adoption. In Europe and the European Union, Polish children are now treated as trading goods. They are picked and abducted for profit, because of the commercialization of child care, and for the public money supplied to caregivers by the member states which defend themselves at all costs against the demographic crisis.³

The Polish non-governmental organization Fundacja Wolne Spoleczenstwo (Free Society Foundation, FWS) urgently asks for protection for Polish children that are being illegally sent to the USA to be offered for sale into adoption⁴. The organization asks now for a thorough clarification, documenting and assessment of the situation of the children during their stay in the USA. The children come from state-funded foster care homes in Poland and involuntarily participate in US hosting programmes being a part of criminal adoption proceedings carried out without any independent control. There is a ground to be afraid that the children could be subjected to abuse. There is a possibility that the children are in danger of human trafficking as almost all of them have their families in Poland and no need to be adopted abroad. Even if their natural families are dysfunctional, the children mostly stay in emotional contact with their siblings and other relatives and get some protection in that way. The possibility of financial adoption frauds in the USA may be suspected as there is information available online about public the gathering of money in the USA for adoption proceedings of foreign children presented untrue to be orphans having no means for their living in their own country. The children living in state-funded foster care in Poland have however good living conditions formally accepted on the EU level.

The last known case is a flight to the USA of a group of children from the foster care home "Dom Dziecka w Grotnikach"⁵ in Grotniki near Zgierz. The departure of children from the Chopin Airport in Warsaw (Okęcie) was planned for Sat, December 15th, late night in Poland. The FWS informed the State Prosecutor’s Office⁶. The case has been on 12.15.2018 sent from there, marked as “very urgent” (“Bardzo pilne”), to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office⁷ in Warsaw and the police. Unfortunately, no more information was given to the FWS about the investigation and importantly about any protection measures. Similarly, the FWS got no information from the police station at Warsaw Chopin Airport⁸. It is a reason to be deeply concerned with the situation because the FWS has been refused all information about the case although the activists supporting the FWS have a profound experience in the legal protection of families in Poland and the European Union, also in legislative proceedings where they achieved amendments to the family law in Poland.

Do the "privacy concerns" justify the secrecy about the risk of exploitation of children? "Man must know with whom he deals and what matters are at issue".