Lawyer Responds to Media Allegations During National Remembrance

A Polish lawyer, scholar, and founder of the Wisdom – Law – People center spoke out after a nationwide series of memorial marches marking the 18th anniversary of the death of Saint John Paul II. A Krakow edition of a major daily published material that cast the attorney in a negative light, suggesting he held certain affiliations and had involvement in controversial political actions. The publication claimed he drafted opinions for high offices and depicted him as connected to a controversial organization. It also alleged his involvement in organizing a march in Krakow in defense of John Paul II. The lawyer’s response emphasized that the piece distorted his actual role and affiliations while clarifying the nature of his work and positions.

The response of the accused

The article did not pass without a reply from the lawyer, who used his social media to refute the accusations in seven points. He stressed that he did not defend a pedophile, but rather advocated for a victim, and that he was never listed as an expert affiliated with the cited institute. He also noted that he had not prepared an analysis, opinion, or report for the organization named in the publication.

In a subsequent message, he pointed out specifics to correct the record. He stated that he had not authored any opinion for the Prime Minister, nor had he prepared an opinion that would approve the organization of controversial elections. Instead, he prepared a legal opinion for the Prime Minister’s Chancellery, confirming the legality of an administrative decision under discussion.

1. The lawyer was not listed on the organization’s website, nor described as an expert collaborating with the institute, and he had not prepared any related analysis or report.

Although he sought the status of an expert with the organization, he indicated a willingness to engage with authors who could provide the necessary clarification to merit such recognition. He underscored that this detail about his status was significant for the tone of the reportage.

1. He asserted that he had not written an opinion for a prime ministerial aide nor approved any procedure described in the article.

Instead, he explained that his legal work supported the legality and correctness of a specific administrative decision mentioned by the media source, a point he framed as the core factual basis of his professional activity in that matter.

1. The attorney stated that a client referred to in the piece, sometimes described as a prominent figure, was not a target of his representation for any leadership role in a sports organization. He claimed to have provided defense or legal assistance, but not to have assumed official leadership claims for any group. He emphasized that the person in question is legally excluded from such a position.

The report also touched on a long-running judicial matter in which an elderly individual spent time in pre-trial detention, a phase later deemed improper and resulting in compensation awarded by independent courts. The attorney clarified that his involvement did not extend to defending a broader family network but rather represented a specific victim and the mother of that victim in related proceedings.

1. The attorney denied representing an entire family connected to a pardoned offender, insisting his role was limited to representing the victim’s mother and the victim herself. He argued that this smaller scope is more accurately described than broad claims of representation.

In addressing reader comments labeling him as a defender of a pedophile, he asserted that the truth of the case lay in the specifics of the represented individuals and the nature of the legal actions taken. He stressed the need to distinguish between defending a victim and endorsing other, unrelated opinions or actions.

1. He clarified that he was not the organizer of any march in Cracow supporting John Paul II. He had not claimed such leadership and indicated involvement only with organizers in Warsaw, where he would participate as well, but not in Krakow.

1. Regarding political activity, he stated that he has never been a member of any political party and has not run for political office. He described the Knights of Saint John Paul II as a lay faith association under canon law rather than a political organization.

The attorney thanked readers for the polite acknowledgment of his friendship with church institutions and noted that such associations inspire him. He added that similar themes appeared on other online portals, and he urged fair reporting from media across the board.

He concluded by urging those who support truth and fairness to share his message. He invoked a maxim of faith and called on Catholic men to consider joining the Knights of Saint John Paul II, presenting it as a community of faith rather than a political faction.

In response to the public discussion, the attorney invited readers to consult his explanations as published on the political commentary portal, stressing the importance of verifying information and aligning reportage with reality. Readers were directed to related discussions within the same outlet and several opinion pieces that examined the broader media landscape surrounding Saint John Paul II.

All statements in this account are presented to reflect the ongoing conversation around the case, with due attention to accuracy and accountability in public discourse. The discussion continues as media and legal observers assess the claims and the responses of those involved. The matter remains a focal point for readers seeking clarity amid a web of competing narratives, with emphasis on factual representation and respectful dialogue.