Endre Kónya wrote his story in a Facebook post, which we publish in its entirety.
"Let the other party listen too!
After many years of being dragged and humiliated, I have decided to speak out and reveal the other side of the coin about the events that happened more than seven years ago in the children's home in Bicske, the subsequent proceedings, which to this day divide the opinion of the population of the small town and the more recent, political In connection with the media hysteria against a target person (the president of the republic) with a background of
If these events hadn't happened to me, I wouldn't even believe that in 2016 and thereafter, all this could have happened to a teacher who has grown gray in integrity, followed the law all his life, and is honest, in a European Union country, where now in the case of taking action against pedophilia, it is dark under false pretenses. a witch hunt reminiscent of the Middle Ages is being carried out against President Katalin Novák, who granted me a pardon, and against me, and the role of the inquisition is played by the media and profit-seeking parties without knowledge of the facts that led to the pardon. The most varied lies, slips and accusations are increasingly hurting people's feelings and unfairly inciting a tsunami of hatred.
I can say right now that if I know that grace stirs up such storms, even though I had every reason to do so, I don't live with it, and I even thought of asking for its withdrawal, but that is no longer possible.
I was not, am not and will not be a pedophile, I most definitely condemn any form of pedophilia, I sympathize with the victims and I have never helped anyone commit or cover up a pedophile crime.
In fact, on the contrary: he is the secondary defendant of those convicted in the criminal proceedings against the former director of the children's home in Bicske, who was sentenced to 8 years
he was a teacher whom I brought down, as I consider pedophile crimes to be condemned in the strongest terms.
In the spring of 2016, a foster parent reported to me that a foster parent had committed sexual abuse. I immediately confronted the educator with what I had heard, and he admitted his actions and submitted his resignation. I informed my senior colleagues about this disgraceful incident at a management meeting, which is how he was later accused and then convicted. What is completely incomprehensible is that this former educator,
who admitted to the court that he was guilty of having a pedophile sexual relationship with two minors, received a prison sentence of only one year and six months suspended for 3 years.
After my voluntary departure from the children's home in Bicske, I did an impeccable and well-regarded job as a teacher in two other educational institutions, but I was fired from both places as a result of the RTL-Klub's "pedophile" campaign.
After that, I worked as a helper, then became unemployed, until I went to prison in November 2021.
In addition, after leaving the orphanage, I also took action against sexual harassment in one of the educational institutions where I worked as a physical education teacher.
In the boys' locker room of the gymnasium, a boy in a higher class tried to sexually harass some younger and physically weaker children. As a careful teacher, during the inspection of the boy's locker room, I caught the perpetrator in the act, which turned into a police case. The parents expressed their gratitude that their children did not have to suffer lifelong harm.
I will explain the essence of the clemency application prepared by my wife and submitted in July 2022, supplemented by some important legal additions. Now, I would like to quote the statement I made in prison, because it sums up my opinion about the charges and sentences against me:
"I didn't admit my guilt, I didn't commit the acts blamed on me, two people with direct knowledge of their absence also testified about me that I didn't commit any influencing or bribery behavior. Therefore, they were convicted wrongly and in violation of the law. I am convinced that the charges brought against me are conceptual, the process was unfair, and the sentences were unfounded and illegal."
And my wife wrote this in her pardon application:
"I am convinced that vulnerable children must be protected from pedophilia, but whoever commits this heinous crime should only be convicted on the basis of evidence beyond all doubt, during a fair court process, but in the strictest possible way. The ordeal of my decent, honest husband, who was innocently dragged away and destroyed in the "heat" of the scandal related to pedophilia in the children's home in Bicske, shocked our immediate environment, relatives, friends, and acquaintances, both in the motherland and in our homeland, Transylvania."
The main role I played in my speech was to share: what facts and knowledge were available when the partial pardon decision was made in my case. Why did I become worthy of mercy?
I cannot know what exactly went through the president's mind when she made her merciful decision, but I am well aware of the facts on which the decision was based. My conscience is clear and that of the pardoner must be, because they made the right decision.
I feel it is immeasurably unfair and I am very sorry that the president who pardoned me and the former justice minister are being dragged in this way.
In addition, they forget to mention that the pardon decision exempted me from the consequences of my criminal record and from being banned from teaching, but left me with a suspended prison sentence of almost two years, which means that in the event of another intentional crime, this period will also be suspended i should sit During the vicissitudes of the past years and 17 months in prison, I had plenty of time to draw the right conclusions, after such antecedents, it cannot be assumed with common sense about me, as a person with such an impeccable past, that in the exercise of my profession - if I were to return as a teacher - I would not strictly observe the rules.
I most definitely refuse to be a pedophile who is dangerous to a society, who, so to speak, cannot control his instincts, and cannot wait to attack children!
Already during last year's grace - the favorable bv. allowed after a court decision - I ended up in reintegration custody, because I served a significant part of my sentence (as much as the pedophile ex-educator I brought down got suspended!), I awaited the end of the remaining period fitted with a tracker in my home and doing community work. I would have been released on parole on January 22, 2024.
President Katalin Novák did not release me from behind bars.
I was so confident in my own innocence and the power of the law that I took my case to the Court, but I was unsuccessful, and that's where the media found out that I had received a partial presidential pardon.
No one did anything illegal, no one asked for anything for this decision, there is no mysterious background deal, I have no background connections that many people are now mentioning. My wife submitted an application in which she brought up a number of admirable personal circumstances on my side and also talked about the dubious evidence and dubious procedure on which I was sentenced. By the way, among the pardon documents, there was a favorable opinion on the execution of the sentence and an environmental study, which found me worthy of a pardon, stating, among other things, that relapse is unlikely, that I will do everything possible to successfully reintegrate and reintegrate into society.
The whole thing can also be approached in the way that against the final conviction, which I could not accept for many reasons, I applied for correction in two directions: on the one hand, with a review to the Court, and on the other hand, with a request for clemency to the President of the Republic. With its decision last September, the Court could not go into the facts of the judgment due to the constraints of the facts, and did not consider the raised procedural and material law violations to be substantial. However, during the Pope's visit in April last year, the lady president took pity on me out of mercy.
Of course, the question may arise: why didn't I withdraw my review request when I received the pardon?
I could have accepted that my case was closed with a partial pardon, but it was precisely because of my sense of justice and the hope of justice due to my innocent arrest that I believed that I could achieve a full acquittal. Let the one who would not have acted in this way cast the first stone at me!
About myself: my qualifications are physical education teacher, psychologist, developmental teacher, ski instructor, I have a coaching diploma in several sports. I come from a family of Transylvanian Reformed teachers, my parents are honorary citizens, the local sports hall bears my father's name. Two of my aunts and two uncles were also teachers, my paternal uncle was a school director for 30 years, and my maternal uncle wrote a village monograph. Due to my family background, I was raised to be loyal and humble towards my nation and my profession.
My wife and I have been living in Hungary since 1990. My wife is a high school teacher, master pedagogue, mentor teacher, specialist consultant, and has been a respected teacher at a high school in Budapest for 20 years. Unfortunately, our child was not born, perhaps this explains why, until 2016, for more than 25 years at the Bicske Children's Home, outside of my official working hours, I tried to help the cumulatively disadvantaged children and young adults living in state care at the Bicske Children's Home.
In my career as a teacher, I had a creed that "only those who have sought and found how to serve others will be truly happy" (Albert Schweitzer). Since I also have a qualification as a physical education teacher, from 1991 I participated in the international sports meetings of the V4s in four sports with the most successful children of the orphanage. I took the children to sports competitions and soccer tournaments from Warsaw to Paris, and organized ski camps for them in Austria on several occasions. For the last time, between October 13th and 17th, 2016, we were able to represent Hungary among the national teams of 32 countries from four continents at the Danone Cup World Championship in Paris with our child protection U12 team, which won the national championship.
I was respected in all my workplaces, my expertise was recognized, my students respected and loved me. In the clemency petition submitted to the president, my former school principals, students and their parents spoke highly of my work.
With the indictment brought against me, my nearly 4-decade-long career as a teacher, my selfless vocation with people in state care, and my mission in child protection sports in Hungary have come to an end.
Since then, my life has been one of drag, and it looks like my ordeal is far from over. Moreover, at the moment, through me, they are also trying to slander the country's respected public figure by flooding the country with a flood of lies.
My story is as follows:
In the spring of 2017, the Investigative Prosecutor's Office of Székesfehérvár brought charges against me in the spring of 2017 in connection with the pedophilia case that broke out in the Bicske orphanage in the fall of 2016. Without having participated in a police hearing, I became a secondary accused in the crime of 1 degree of coercion in official proceedings and 1 degree of bribery in official proceedings.
In the above criminal proceedings, on November 25, 2019, the Székesfehérvár District Court 16.B.933/2017/89. I, the second-order defendant Endre Kónya, was declared guilty of 1 rb. coercion committed as an accessory to crime in the crime of coercion in official proceedings and 1 rb. for the crime of bribery in official proceedings, for which the court - despite my clean record - sentenced me to 3 (three) years 4 (four) months imprisonment, 5 (five) years from all activities related to the education, medical treatment and care of persons under the age of 18 as an occupation sentenced to disqualification, as a secondary punishment 4 (four) years disqualification from public affairs. Imprisonment must be carried out in a prison level, from which parole may be released at the earliest on the day following the completion of two-thirds of the prison term.
The Székesfehérvár Court of Appeal, as a court of second instance in Székesfehérvár, on July 6, 2021, issued the 2Bf.17/2020. at the public appeal hearing held in case no. He changed his judgment No. 89 and classified the crime against the administration of justice by the defendants János Vásárhelyi Ir and Endre Kónya II as an attempt. In other respects, he upheld the first-instance verdict.
I entered the Baracskai BV Institute on November 2, 2021, and was placed in reintegration detention there in March 2023.
The facts underlying the judgment were compiled by the prosecution, and then by the court, from testimonies from witnesses that contradict each other and in themselves, and in several cases had indirect knowledge, which did not form a closed chain, based on which it was possible to establish my guilt with absolute certainty. In addition, many emergency witnesses requested by the defense were not questioned.
In the case of one of the incriminating witnesses with indirect knowledge, they did not allow me and the defense to ask questions, so my right to confront the accusing witness did not apply either.
After the charge was amended several times, I became a second-degree defendant for the crime of coercion committed as an accessory to crime in the official proceedings. What actually happened was that on September 24, 2016, the director at the time, who had been released from work the previous day, asked me, as the head of the professional group, to accompany one of the 14-year-old children who voluntarily returned from running away and his 15-year-old aunt, who was also being raised in a children's home ( his sister's daughter) to my deputy director's office and wait until they describe the events of the previous 24 hours that the foster child spent outside the institution, in which he tells why and how he left and why he came back to the orphanage.
I was not on duty, but the deputy director on duty was not notified, and since the student belonged to my professional group, there was no question for me that I would go in and talk to the student, as I had done on other occasions. At the same time, it was customary to record and write down extraordinary events. The child protection guardian took the foster child to Budapest in such a way that he had to escape not from the children's home, but to an external, pre-arranged location outside the territory of the children's home, which no one from the children's home was aware of. The indictment used the term "escape", but the foster child returned to the orphanage the next day with the help of his aunt to "clean himself up", because he felt that he had been tricked by those who encouraged him to leave the orphanage.
The next day, on September 25, the colleague of the deputy director on duty, who "came out" in the meantime, had a similar document prepared with the student. On the same day, the foster child described the same content to his guardian as he told the head of the guardianship office the following day (September 26), i.e. that he wants to stay in Bicské and does not want to go back to Budapest, everything he told his guardian at the orphanage is not true regarding his director and wants to change guardians.
The student also told the court that I did not influence, I did not intervene in anything, I did not even comment on what was written, while they wrote, I sat by my computer and administered.
The victim of the crime of coercion prepared a statement with the same content at the request of three people within 48 hours (to me, the deputy director on weekend duty and the child protection guardian), and the next day, Monday, he also told the head of the Járási Gámhivatal verbally.
It is also included in the justification of the second-degree judgment that two other documents were prepared in parallel with the document prepared in my presence.
I was only present until the student prepared the document at the director's request and secured the location (the deputy director's office).
The prosecutor was aware that the student had written the same statement at the request of the other deputy director, since during my interrogation he showed me the two statements in the presence of my lawyer and asked which one the student had written in my presence. I was able to identify the statement by seeing the dates (the difference was one day). Charges were brought against me, and the colleague was never held responsible for this, despite the fact that he prepared the document, while I was only present when it was prepared the day before. At the court hearing, the victim answered the judge's four consecutive questions that he would have written down what happened along with the request for a change of guardian. This was entered into the trial record as a defense attorney's comment.
The court's position is incomprehensible that if the victim testified to this, and even repeated it 4 times, then who forced him to do this act.
At the same time, it cannot be ignored that several members of the children's home testified with me, in Hungarian, children testified with me at the court hearing when it was clearly not in their interest, but they still did not claim that I persuaded MKI to retract the testimony against the director convicted of pedophilia. t!
At the autumn 2018 court hearing, to the judge's question, MVV (Vani, MKI's aunt) reported the following:
"Uncle János gave him orders, because he was the boss, you had to do what he said. He said that Karcsika would write down on a piece of paper that it didn't happen as he said, but I don't know if he said that in front of Uncle Endre."
"We went to uncle Endre's office, Karcsi wrote down what he needed, I helped him by dictating, but we discussed together what should happen, but I decided in the end, and Karcsi wrote what I said, then he wrote on his own, because he wanted to stay there in Bicské and I also wanted him to stay there."
"The Karcsi wrote the paper and we gave it to Uncle Endre, who didn't say anything, didn't promise, at least I don't remember it anymore."
"I don't think Uncle Endre in the office heard what Uncle János asked of us, I think Uncle Endre only came in afterwards."
Excerpt from MVV's police statement:
"The three of us went to Endre bá's office, János didn't come with us, and there my brother wrote that there was nothing between him and János, he just wanted to answer the Julians."
At the court hearing, MKI answered the following regarding K. Endre's role:
"Vani and I went to Uncle Endre's office. ... Uncle Endre said that I should describe the honest, as I would like, what is in my heart to be on my mouth. He understood me and was normal even then. Vani helped me write the paper because I was confused about what had happened. I wrote it, but Vani drafted it. Uncle Endre heard all this, but didn't say anything.
He didn't encourage me, he didn't tell me to fix it, he didn't intervene in anything. Uncle Endre always wanted to help us, he never influenced us in anything."
This is what he said during the investigation a few days after the incident:
Excerpt from MKI's testimony:
"Then he called Uncle János Endré Kónya on the phone, who came in his free time and we went to his office, where we wrote down on an A4 paper how this whole thing happened. How I got to Budapest and how I got back. And that I want to change guardians.
I wrote this down on paper and I came up with the lyrics with Vani, so no one dictated what I had to say."
So I was a witness to the writing of the statement, without being aware of its immediate antecedent (the director's coercive influence).
The prerequisite for committing a crime as an accessory to coercion in official proceedings is that the perpetrator is fully aware that the content of the confession made with his participation is untrue and that its creation was preceded by coercion or threats. In the evidentiary process, no data emerged, and the court did not give such a justification that I was aware that the previous statement of the minor Iván M. Károly contained the truth, and the content of the retracted statement was false.
The indirect knowledge testimony of an overage youth, whom I had previously taken to drug rehabilitation in my free time after he was released from the children's home, played a role in my conviction. The principal banned him from the institution because he was a bad influence on the others.
He became the initiator of the pedophile scandal, he made the report and, according to our information, he also played a role in obtaining and distributing compensation to the victims.
The basis of the charge of bribery in the official procedure was that a young adult, who was under guardianship, bordering on mental disability, and based on a psychological opinion, a "pathological liar", a former foster child, claimed that I had promised him 4,000 - 5,000 HUF "face to face" , if he withdraws his testimony against the director.
I never promised him that.
Since I always supported the foster, the foster also told during the court hearing that I called him during his stay at the summer camp, I also took him to Austria to ski, and sought out the foster in his twenties with the intention of helping him. After the new director asked him to leave the orphanage due to his age, I wanted to find out how I could help in the future (I was a member of the Board of Trustees of the Mentsvár Foundation). The foster child was temporarily taken in by a former foster carer, who was in daily contact with the former staff member who handled and managed the unfortunate events at the children's home related to the director's case.
He and his circle of friends "suspected" that I wanted to influence the student, which was discussed in front of the student, who is under guardianship that generally limits his ability to act, and can be influenced due to his vulnerable situation. The inmate was not accompanied to the conversation with me, even though they could have been, since everyone had to have one goal in mind: to help the adult inmate who was left homeless. After the face-to-face conversation that took place between me and myself, the former employee "managing events" personally called the prosecutor's office in Székesfehérvár and informed the prosecutor of the general prosecutor's office about the bribery attempt. According to the reasoning of the verdict against me, since the victim told me that I wanted to bribe him to the 2-3 people who were related to the ex-collaborator who managed the events and who took him in temporarily,
for the judge, based on the psychological opinion, the "notorious liar" young man can be trusted, I am of "poor morals".
His former tutor, who was summoned to the trial, also said about this young man that
"his credibility and intellectual ability were below average, people treated what he said with reservations, he could be influenced."
In the course of my work, I also experienced that he claimed things that did not correspond to reality. Since I intended to leave the children's home after the director's case broke - which I did within two months - why would it be in my interest to pay the young man to retract his police statement? It doesn't seem logical why I should have helped the remand director back to his previous position, when I wanted to change jobs at the request of my wife for a long time, several times.
Two years later after the alleged bribery, at the court hearing, the brother of the young man who testified against me, as his guardian, stated the following "authentically":
"The HUF 5,000 is such a fresh memory that T just told me this half an hour ago. This amount has never come up before, I just found out."
Regarding the procedure, I would like to say the following:
I consider the procedure to be a conceptual procedure. The entire court proceedings took place based on a pre-arranged script, on the basis of pre-assigned roles. In October 2016, the former employee who managed the events stated on the Hír TV program that the deputy directors were also "accomplices", and from that point on it was clear that the deputy directors were also "targeted". At that time he still used the plural, and later I was the only one who seemed the most suitable for the role of the scapegoat. It seemed obvious that someone else had to be brought to the dock for the case to succeed.
Different media, mostly tabloids, often stated that I was the only one who knew about the principal's crime against children. Why didn't the other two deputy directors know? Because just as I didn't know, neither did they.
For the first time, this matter was discussed when a colleague who was openly in conflict with the management of the home "exposed" it. The victim of the crime of coercion made the same statement at the request of four people within 48 hours, yet I was the only one charged, I seemed to be the most suitable person for this role. From this point of view, I consider the prosecution to be unfair and illegal.
According to the lawyer who acted at the second level and is highly respected in his profession
"the facts established by the first-instance court are partly unfounded, because the verdict is wrong in relation to the accused, and it concluded incorrectly from fact to fact. In addition, in my opinion, in the case of the I. situation, the legal classification is illegal for both defendants."
Unfortunately, according to the Hungarian legal system, it is almost impossible to change the verdict at the first instance at the second instance, since "the facts cannot be challenged".
The court did not consider any of the defense's witnesses worth hearing (none of our 8 witnesses was heard).
The Fejér County Prosecutor General's Office handled the case superficially, their spokesperson misinformed the public on several occasions, thereby creating an atmosphere.
In the bribery case, the victim in the documents released by the Attorney General is listed as a minor more than 10 times (the spokesperson refers to him as both a child and a minor), even though the victim was close to 22 years old; they were also unaware that the one convicted of pedophilia alongside the principal was an educator, not the deputy principal. The news portal origo.hu described on the basis of their announcement that
"the deputy director should also go to prison, as he sexually harassed the pupils", which was an obvious slander, since it was a pupil whose pedophile act I had uncovered.
After a foster parent informed me that a foster parent had made a sexual offer to her, I confronted the foster parent with what I had heard about him. He admitted his crime, but only received a suspended prison sentence. Of course, we asked the portal for a correction, but since such an outrageous and unjust verdict was passed against me, we no longer considered it worthwhile to sue origo.hu for defamation (several other portals also picked up the news).
The documents we requested were not made available to us, or were made available to us only late, so our lawyer did not have time to prepare and react to what was said or to the incorrect data in the minutes. During the proceedings, the court did not send me a single protocol, so I could not check whether the content of the protocol corresponds to what was said at the previous hearing.
On several occasions, the witnesses were not allowed to answer the questions asked by me or the 1st accused (e.g. I asked the witness that if I had wanted to bribe the victim, it would have been appropriate before or after giving the statement to the police make an offer?).
The judge acted threateningly towards a witness when the witness wanted to say that he did not find the student trustworthy. Due to the "influence" of the judge, the witness changed his original position.
The court and the prosecution worked from different documents than the defense, so it was not always possible to follow and interpret what was said at the trial.
Despite our lawyer's protest, the judge granted the request of the adult victim of the main case, according to which I could not be present at his testimony in court, in which the witness stated untruths. Since the court did not send me any records, I could not learn that he had made false statements in my absence. During the justification of the second-degree judgment, I became aware that the justification of the judgment also contains new facts that do not correspond to reality, but since we are talking about a final judgment, I was not in a position to refute the untrue statements of the second-degree, even if it was necessary to prove this I would have known with the testimony of the rescue witnesses before the notary public.
I feel that not only has my right to a fair court procedure been violated, but also, since the case has a "political background", the judgment was influenced in accordance with political expectations, the proceedings against me are part of a conceptual lawsuit, the judgment is unfounded, but at the same time draconian.
The lawyer acting in the first instance was shocked by the verdict, he admitted that even during the 2-year-long proceedings at the first instance, he could not find out who was/are behind the case. The course of the case reminds me of the movie "The Witness": "Comrade Vírág, this is not the indictment, this is the verdict."
All along, behind the character assassination committed against me was a vengeful, uneducated ex-colleague, a person acting as a "trainer" of a Budapest-based foundation, whose work left a lot to be desired, which I mentioned several times as his immediate superior, and I made a report on his omissions. We had more hopes for his work. His employment at the children's home did not end the way he wanted, which I was also a part of. He ensured the support of the staff of the tabloid channel, who influenced the work of the court by their constant presence, by influencing, organizing and managing the victims, by transporting them to the hearings, or, if the situation required, by their absence.
We have experienced that this tabloid channel can not only fly "celebrities" to the top of the pyramid, but also trample decent people into the mud, stating amazing untruths, which the Hungarian justice system seems unable to defend against.
Since 2016, when I got a job as a primary school physical education teacher, the tabloid channel threw me out of two jobs. First, they approached the school district director and asked him to account for why he employed a teacher who had been indicted by the court. At that time, the court proceedings had not even started. In the morning following the shocking first-degree verdict on November 25, 2019, the tabloid channel already "took its position" in front of the school, where parents, students, and colleagues stood by me and refused to say "bad" things about me.
Despite the parents' and students' requests, the school did not, could not, continue to employ me, my employment was terminated by mutual agreement, and my career as a teacher ended once and for all.
After that, I only found a job as a helper in the construction industry (at the age of 62), but due to the Covid epidemic, this opportunity also ended after 2 months.
From then until I went to prison, for a year and a half, my wife took care of me. He also got out of the humiliations that befell me. During the search of our apartment, they confiscated his phone and laptop, even though I warned them that the laptop belonged to his institution and that it contained documents essential for his work, not to mention the other seized data carriers, which had to be replaced at our own expense.
According to my wife, the last time the Securitate searched her apartment, we never thought that we would have to experience the same thing in the motherland 25 years after the regime change. To this day, I have not received my phone, which was confiscated in prison.
As a result of the pardon, even though my criminal record was erased, I cannot find a job in my profession despite my moral certificate. The victims of the main case were able to collect damages of several million forints by excluding the public, I was financially disabled and will be imprisoned and stigmatized for the rest of my life.
I am convinced that the proceedings against me are part of a concept lawsuit, the judgment is unfounded, but at the same time draconian. Of course, I wanted to file an appeal against the verdict. My defense lawyer, who acted in the first instance, was also shocked by the verdict, he admitted that during the 2-year-long court proceedings, he could not find out "who is behind the case, who is moving the strings". Unfortunately, after learning about the background of the case, the lawyer who represented me in the second instance refused to take on the case any further, he did not even appear at the second instance sentencing, which lasted for more than a year, he sent his son in his stead, which I assume was that he had previously been informed about the judgment and did not he compromised himself, counting on the presence of the RTL Klub staff.
After three months, I managed to find a lawyer who was outraged by the unfair process and undertook to take advantage of all possible legal remedies to provide my further protection (review request, retrial, international court). I had already been in prison for five months and the lawyer, who was unfortunately considered unreliable, had not done anything yet. He was of the opinion that "the case has a political background" and therefore he was no longer interested in the case. For the review against the judgment, it was finally possible to find a lawyer who prepared and submitted the review application with great difficulty.
Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, my age and my state of health, I felt it necessary and justified that the President of the Republic of Hungary grant me an individual pardon pursuant to Article 9 (4) point g) of the Basic Law and thereby exempt him from the consequences of the said criminal proceedings and that the said proceedings against me be terminated as soon as possible.
Of course, I also wanted to take advantage of all legal remedies in Hungary, which is why I turned to the Manor. Unfortunately, the Court rejected my review request. Honestly, I don't think that after all this, the truth will ever be revealed in Hungary and a fair verdict can be reached in my case.
As I wrote, I deeply condemn pedophilia, but I think that if the script was written in such a way that a "scapegoat" had to be found besides the director, then the deputy director who happened to do the most for the children should not have been blamed.
It seems that "the goblin from Székely" was the most suitable person who could be placed next to the director convicted of pedophilia as an "accomplice". If the court was supposed to "severely" punish the pedophilia case in the Bicske children's home, then
I don't understand why the person who really committed this vile act alongside the principal (an educator) "got away" with suspension, and why the teacher who did his job conscientiously and exposed pedophilia went to prison.
Knowing the facts, I am not sure that the purpose of the court was to "draconian" punishment for the pedophile act that crippled the lives of innocent children, it seems that the harsh sentence was passed against me rather "on order" or out of compulsion to comply. As a teacher, I stood up for children who were bullied at school, and with my conscientious work I tried to uncover and prevent these incidents in time. I also did this at the local elementary school, as I wrote before.
Finally, I would like to say that the victims, who appeared on the RTL Klub program in the fall of 2016 and reported on the harm they suffered, received many million HUF in compensation. As far as I know, they originally demanded HUF 50 million in damages per person through a civil lawsuit from the maintainer and the director. Since an out-of-court settlement was reached, the main victim of the case handled the payments through a law firm. In the course of the compensation, the victims received fabulous sums of money, which an aging teacher like us wouldn't even dare to dream of. There are people who pose with their Rolex watches on Facebook, there are people who have already spent the compensation they received and, unfortunately, live on the streets again.
I am convinced that vulnerable children must be protected from pedophilia, but whoever commits this heinous crime should only be convicted on the basis of clear evidence, in a fair court process, but in the strictest possible way.
Unfortunately, many questions remained unanswered regarding the former director's pedophilia case, and I became the victim of this dubious case.
In the "heat" of the scandal related to pedophilia in the children's home in Bicske, I was innocently dragged away, and my life lived in decency and honor was destroyed. My ordeal shocked our immediate environment, relatives, friends, and acquaintances, both in the motherland and in our homeland, Transylvania.
At the end of a career that was partly in our native land, but mostly in the motherland, my wife and I spent the last years of our teaching career not about the well-deserved recognition, but about the shameful drag. As Transylvanian Hungarians, we had many trials during the "cursed" era, which is why we wanted to raise our children in the motherland, who unfortunately were never born, but today I take it as a consolation that I will not leave behind offspring in a country where such a thing can happen.
In our hearts, we always felt like Hungarians across the border, more than thirty years ago we were happy to choose Hungary as our country, unfortunately to our damnation. My wife and I lived every day like a nightmare for the last nine years, which affected our work and consumed our health. It will be the happiest day of my life if I can return at least to find eternal peace in my homeland with my elderly mother, where I belong, where God created me.
God protect Hungary!
Endre Kónya
Budapest, February 10, 2024."
Featured image: Illustration/Pixabay
