Olsen Gang replies: statements of Warsaw Three [EN]

A week before the first trial an article appeared, revealing parts of the testimonies the three made while in jail, their identities, life experience, medical records – part of the information was also not true.

This was clearly a strategy prepared to divide the milieu even deeper and prevent solidarity actions on the day of the trial. Sadly, this tactics proved successful to some extent, and part of the movement has decided to judge the three yet again based on gossips (this time provided by media) and enemy narrative rather then wait until they will be able to speak openly a week later. On the brighter side, this forced the three to publish statements and breaking the silence.

Below statements of the three Warsaw anarchists:



I write to You as one of Warsaw 3. I write in response to article published in liberal media yesterday. I wish I could clarify all information in it now. Correct some, complete others, and deny the false. Unfortunately I can’t do this, below I explain why.

At the beginning it is necessary to write that there are things that we (wawa3) are still not allowed to talk about. The lawyer claims that we are allowed to refer to what is written in the article, but we can’t discuss what we have actually testified. Some of the people reading will immediately consider it a lie. Frankly – I don’t give a fuck. That’s how it looks from our point of view, considering possible further allegations and new cases.

I will stick to what I can say – and there is not a lot of it. So I want to explain what lead to my testimony and its shape.

“Initially, the anarchists refused to give explanations. After three weeks in the cell the youngest – Tadeusz K. – spoke first” – that’s the beginning of part of article about me. That is true, I testified first. I learned about it after leaving the jail. It later turned out to be „arranged” by prosecutor and my lawyer. I had two lawyers, I don’t think its important to write who they were. Yet – it matters who of them did what. They were allowed to see me only a week after my arrest. I kept the line of not testifying. First lawyer didn’t comment my choice, but the other kept insisting on me testifying.
One day she (the 2nd lawyer) visited me without the first one. She stated that two other comrades wanted to give extensive testimony. Given that – I agreed on it too. That was my first mistake. Even with that information about other two, I should have refused. Only recently i learned that comrades didn’t want to testify, as I was told. I have been misled. I realize I should have done other way, and not follow information from a person I didn’t trust. I have to add, that at the time my trust to all close ones was around zero. Someone, somehow, lead police to arrest us (and that should be our main focus!). I didn’t knew who can I trust, so I trusted no one. On the other hand I felt huge need to trust anyone. So I trusted only people I had contact with – the lawyers. No one from the movement was allowed to visit me. I practically didn’t get any letters. Only feedback from the scene that reached me, was a facebook post of one person, posted right after we got arrested. Author of it declared zero support and no solidarity from him, broadly criticizing the whole action. My 2nd layer showed me this. That was the only information from the movement i got. So – I considered it the movement position.

I was picked up from the arrest by same cops that arrested me, and later questioned me on the police station. Here I will describe how it was. Squatting by one of the cars in a police parking lot I heard noise and heavy boots tramping. I stood up, and within seconds I got knocked to the ground by five, maybe six policemen from the execution department of the capital command. I got kicked and punched all over my body. They searched my pockets and my hands got clasped with plastic clips behind my back. They asked: „who ordered You to do it?”, „what is in the containers?”. I didn’t reply, resulting in even heavier beating. At some point, cops concluded that kicking my crotch, smashing my face with a torchlight, and punching my ribs is not enough. I got shocked with two-pin stun gun. It hit my thighs, back, crotch – repeating the same questions. After some time i was picked up and got kicked in my tailbone. I got knocked to the ground again, few meters away. They brought German shepherd dog. It ignored me when I didn’t move. They explained what is about to happen. If I insist on not responding they will shock me again, so I will shiver, and the dog will jump on me. And so it was. Dog had a muzzle, but it tried to bite thru it, to get my face. My larynx contracted from electric shocks, I started to suffocate. Cops joked that I must be on drugs, to make such a funny sounds when breathing. After some time I got moved to a car, when I got kicked again, this time with no explanation.

After transfer to police station, few people (I write people, I don’t knew if they work in police, they had balaclavas and unmarked clothing) begin questioning me. I lied on the floor, chained, in blooded clothing. I was beaten, shocked with stun gun, and suffocated, constantly questioned, not about that action, but the movement in general. I think it lasted over an hour. I have not answered any of the questions.

I described it all not to praise or complain. I’ve described it, so You can imagine, how I felt when I heard threats on my was to hearing. Driving in a police van from arrest at Mokotów to national prosecutor’s office, I heard that if I don’t talk, “we will go to palace and talk different way, as it was last time” (Mostowski Palace- capital police command, where they took us after arrest).

At the hearing, I first gave minimal version of testimony. Lawyers asked for a brake, and in the corridor, they told me that others are talking about everything, so I should do the same. I don’t need to explain, why I started with minimal testimony. They convinced me, with what they said. I came back to the hearing room and completed the testimony.

With the other two, we wanted to organize a meeting that was supposed to take place after first trial session. It would clarify all inconsistencies and rumors that have surfaced during last year. Since I’m still not sure how much I can say about my testimony – what actually is there, and what is made up by the press, I will hold on until trial starts. But, yes, I do admit that my testimony was extensive. It was caused by belief that other two are talking about everything too (as I was wrongfully informed). That added to realization that if I don’t talk I will have to go thru everything that happened in hours after arrest again.

In the end, I want to thank with all my heart to all those, who, despite published article, showed support and wanted to hear what I got to say. I’m aware of my mistakes – I also know what led to them. I wanted to tell the whole story in the meeting after trial, but situation made me give this scraps of information earlier. After trial I will be able to speak more.

One of the three – “Rebellious teenager”



Facing a publication of article about our case in liberal media, I would like to clarify few things. We were asked to speak a lot of times, but now it’s legally possible.

In the text there is a part about trial about abuse of power and police torture against me. It is assumed it was started on my complaint. This is not truth, the case was open ex officio, based on my testimony in our main case. I did not fill any complaint – I do not expect justice from polish state. If I would believe that complaints and petitions are adequate answer for beating, torture and police murders – I wouldn’t be writing this text right now. It doesn’t change the fact that such a case might have some positive outcomes, even if they boild down to showing the practices of uniformed thugs.

Jałoszewski’s text is partially based on selectively treated testimonies given under isolation conditions at the N unit (high security prison). As part of the process strategy, they do not represent my position. I do not think that what we did was stupid; We made mistakes, but our action was a symbolic response to the sea of brutality and impunity of the polish police. Three weeks after Igor Stachowiak’s murder, one year after strangling of Rafał from Legionowo, almost on the anniversary of Max Itoyi’s death – whose murderer Artur Brzeziński walks seven years in impunity; after years of repression towards me; in the context of 17 thousand complaints about misuse of power by the polish police, which the offices see every year. Facing the zeal with which they always stands on the side of the stronger – the landlord, the owner, the “employer” – and the indifference with which the naïve who seek help are sent away: the beaten and harassed representatives of minorities or the victims of tenement cleaners… The problem lies not only in the systematic training and hiding of the torturers; in the organizational culture that prevents violence and nepotism; in “people” or “distortions”. The problem is that the state police are not and was never supposed to be anything but a whip for society; the rest is a technical issue.

The sooner we get rid of the illusion that there is anything to reform here, the sooner we will find a way to liberate from it.

At the same time I want to point out that this action is not in my opinion an example of the only, best or sufficient way to bring change. It is also not representative of the actions I have taken so far, nor which I plan to undertake.

I would also like to address the allegations about the cooperation with police that come to us. Unfortunately, I can not say everything about the circumstances in which we testified because the trial is not over yet. But I can say that my testimony can not be used to burden anyone, except maybe us three, and to the extent that was obvious because we were caught in the act. That’s all I had influence on since the arrest.

We could not talk about anything in the file, nor could we pass it on to anyone, because there would be severe legal sanctions. This unfortunately gave rise to the development of rumors and accusations, which no one could have evidence of. As a consequence of the unreflective and brutal actions of several people, and the rumors spread by a much wider circle, the police have evicted the squat RC10.

In my opinion, the explanations provided by Tadek are far too extensive, regardless of the extent to which they are true. I never agreed to this line of defense, I was faced with the given fact.

However, it is impossible to judge his behavior without taking into account the circumstances. According to the best knowledge available to me, Tadek did not say anything at the brutal interrogations he was subjected to shortly after his detention. He has survived a nightmare that most of you can’t imagine. He gave the testimony only after a strong persuasion and the manipulation of the only people he had contact with and who were not hostile to him: his lawyers. I am not writing this to justify his behavior; It was a very damaging mistake. Its up to each of us to judge whetherto trust him and to what extend. He lost my trust in this regard. I simply think that we can afford to be more sophisticated conceptualists and be more ethically reflective than soccer-fan militias. There is a difference between someone who sells their own for money, someone who breaks up in torture, and someone who bears it, and later falls prey to lies and manipulation. And if you think there is non because “death to sell-outs”, then I do not know what you are looking for on the left side.

This text because of legal circumstances isn’t and can’t be exhaustive. I will have to refer later to lots of threads.
We have taken this action for our own reasons, in the name of the values that are represented in the anarchist movement. Against the background of the historical and current activities of this movement, the idea of burning two cop cars is nothing special. It did not work, and the authority got the chance to get back on us; we did not expect anything more from them.

We expected something more from you keyboard warriors. There were people who really devoted a lot so that the slogan “solidarity is our weapon” wasn’t left on paper. But it was not you. From you, we got gossip comments.

Enjoy your riot porn.

One of the three – “Angry science fiction teacher”



“In essence, disinformation would be a travesty of the truth. Whoever disseminates it is culpable, whoever believes it is stupid.”

Guy Debord, “Comments On The Society Of The Spectacle”

Yesterday, one of the liberal portals published an article “about” events that took place a year ago. The text evoked, it seems, a tremendous stir in the so-called anarchist circles. On the subject of our trio and the events of the night of May 23, many gossips and speculations were circulated from the very beginning, due to rumors of police infiltration or selling-out. On this basis there was a conflict in Cracow between anarchist squat and a group of anti-fascists ending in the attack of one group on another and a few days later a police eviction took place. The situation began to resemble a bad drama and come close to the grotesque boundaries (which it had actually wandered to from the very beginning), which were passed yesterday, with the publication of the article.

The publication of “reportage” does not reveal anything new in terms of rumors that have been around for a long time. It turns out, however, that the authority of the official liberal press and the public prosecutor’s office has become a confirmation of previously unconfirmed information. Knowing the average level of political reflection of people who consider themselves part of the anarchist movement in Poland, I should not be surprised and I am not surprised. I would suggest that people who exchange sensitive information on social networking sites, mailing lists using such “secure” services like Wp.pl or gmail to have some restraint. Not in my interest or the other two, but in your fucking own.

After the events that took place in Cracow, the portal “Black Theory” (czarnateoria.noblogs.org) called (in my opinion fully rightly): “Fourth, and most important, in the present situation, voice should come from the interested people ie Warsaw three. If someone is accused of something, one should address those charges. We understand the silence of comrades subjected to legal repression is justified, but when it comes to situations such as the RC10, it should be discontinued, by cutting off presumptions and helping people resolve the conflict. ”

I considered this issue at that time and decided not to relate to the matter publicly. Not because of the “legal repressions” and the restrictions that affect me, but the inability to comprehensively show the case. The truths, half-truths, lies and insinuations used by the prosecution, as well as the lack of knowledge of the scope of surveillance we were subjected to before the arson of the cars prevented me from rational evaluation of the position we are in. The fact – regret-full fact – is that we have testified, it is also true that the testimony of one of the people was too extensive (that doesn’t equal whether it was true or not). I’m not going to justify myself or anyone else at this point. However, I consider it important to realize that what happened, that is, our detention and the subsequent testimonies resulted both from our errors as well as the operational knowledge of the police and services (and several other factors, I mention later). We still do not know how they get this knowledge, and information that after the May 23, 2016, circulated in the gossip and now emerged through one of the official media (not related to the scene) in no way brings us closer to acquiring this knowledge. In other words, the causes of our failure with sources in state repressive bodies are still unknown, and what we know does not bring us closer to clarifying the matter, and building theories based on it even gets us farther away. There was not many people in the movment and there are not really many people who want to honestly dig into this. I think the majority would love to judge us, tag as informers and swallowing smooth like pelicans a liberal narrative of three gnomes and sell-outs inspired by government service went quietly to the beds. However, the truth is a bit more complicated and unfortunately not recognized. The services knew about the action somehow and I am sorry to disappoint many – but they did not know it from us.

Whoever is a little bit interested in the tactics of power directed at people who question it, especially modern ones, should be aware of how often used and powerful weapon is disinformation. It is not based exclusively on lies, it is more often simply the selective use of truth – so one can’t call users of it liars. So let’s think for a moment about the purpose of publishing this text now. There is just one week left to start of the first hearing. On May 31, there is a scheduled demonstration under the court where the trial will take place. Posters informing about it are massively ripped almost immediately after they are hanged. The event on FB is very likely hacked. In the case of the three there are the subjects of provocation of secret services, and police torture and in the media the murder by the Wroclaw police has exploded [Igor Stachowiak case]. Then out of the blue, suddenly, an article about anarchist Olsen’s gang pops out, mixing the quotations from testimonies with the narrative led by a journalist in a cheap pulp sensation style, based only on the prosecutor’s materials. Given the prosecution is after all an integral part of the forces at which our action was aimed. The fact that it was published in order to break up the demonstration seems very likely. This aspect is sometimes seen by people who are active in or are connected to the movement. But no one is paying attention to the number of bait hooks that are there. Moreover, judging from the web-activity of keyboard activists exchanging various information and trying to collectively build scenarios of events using facebook forums, many people already lured these baits and dangle on the hooks. So take into account my dear anarchist gossip boys and girls that if you throw accusations on either one of us or the three of braking-up, co-operating and selling-out, then we’re really a tiny percentage of tens, not hundreds of police cooperators letting the police and the services discover networks, create engagement maps and deepen movement infiltration. Fuck! People, you send sms threats! It’s not a text that promotes a security culture, so I will not be writing about how easy it is to read other people’s messages, ear drop on conversations, break into email or facebook accounts. But you should fucking know it! Because even such an anarchist Olsen gang as we did not do it.

By ignoring the many inaccuracies and uncertainties that have arisen on this issue, I want to write what I am sure of. Tell this story with a bit of another perspective. Start with the keyword which is: error. Not all – I immediately mark – I can say. Why? I leave it to those more reasonable. The decision to take this action was spontaneous, without much thought. This is the first mistake. In my case, it was a simple rage. Those who actively participate in movement activities know what the realities are. As every now and then we struggle with false allegations, beatings by the police, surveillance, wiretapping, the intrusions on our families and friends. The article states that I had “bad experiences with the police”. That’s true, but it’s not true that this was the reason for this action. The police is simply a repressive hand of authority, baton is its last argument. With the police you can not have experiences other than bad if you are on the side of freedom. It happened that there was a wave of police repression against many people in the movement, not only my loved ones, and I already had enough of our helplessness and going to complain to GW [Gazeta Wyborcza- liberal newspaper].

Another mistake was to decide for direct action with people I did not actually know, which led to more mistakes. We did not know what to expect, we did not trust ourselves.

Indeed, we have lost the ability to rational assessment of the situation. We were aware of how poorly prepared we are, yet we have gone with it. I went with it in the name of what I believed, and in what I still believe.

After the arrest we were beaten, shocked with electricity, etc. I will not cry, but such are facts. Then, stigmatized as terrorists by actual state terrorists, we were completely isolated from the world. Without a plan, without confidence, I had to fight with myself for every rational thought that would help me in analyzing the situation. It was not an easy fight. Throughout my stay in isolation, I was fed with misinformation and also obvious crap, like that I’m facing 20 years sentence. Realizing the seriousness of the situation I had no idea what was going on outside. Have the repressions started? Who is in danger? I knew what a great excuse could be this situation for the authorities. And here I made mistakes too. I can not say about these errors, cause it would be another mistake.

After leaving, however, I did not complain about the cold head deficit. However, this gap has fulfilled, by others already mentioned. This is not my whole point of view. This text will continue. I will also talk about my case at the meeting after first hearing on May 31st, which I invite You to. Also come to the demonstration in front of the court at 12:00. This is not a demonstration only of solidarity, it is also a demonstration against power. Every power. See you!

One of three – “Urban gardener unreconciled with injustice”

This entry was posted in english and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.