40 Years Ago Today ….. And Here We Sit

It began with a phone call from a friend, a photo assignment for Vogues Hommes to photograph various young women for the magazine. What resulted was a forty-year smear campaign against Roman Polanski that has not abated. Today is the anniversary of that ill-fated meeting between Polanski and Samantha Geimer, the young woman at the heart of this pursuit for Polanski’s blood. There is the notion that it was “all Polanski’s fault” for not stopping when Geimer kept saying she said, “No”, but with her chronic memory lapses as to what actually happened, and her dogged campaign to get Polanski cleared of the charges, it’s still a little difficult to take her seriously. Given how many trees have been killed to write copy defaming Roman Polanski, and the amount of byts and kilobyts to continue the smear, one has to wonder when and if the press will finally step up and answer to their part in all of this. When you consider the way they’ve sat back on the charges from Jane Doe 43 who leveled charges of child rape at Donald Trump in the days before the 2016 American Election, I don’t see any time soon where they will actually apologize to Roman Polanski for all the disgusting things they’ve said about him. Not to mention all the talk-show pundits who have continued the smearing solely for ratings. But then when you do look at the ones who have stepped up to the plate, including The View’s Whoopie Goldberg who said it wasn’t “rape rape” and the amount of shit thrown at her for even considering it wasn’t real rape, it’s a wonder anyone would be willing to step up…. but they must. Considering the way they’ve stepped up to defend themselves against the “fake news” rhetoric spewing from The White House of late, they now know what it’s like to be on the shit end of the stick. It would be nice if they returned the favour and began their contrition for calling Roman Polanski every single name in the book, those things that three psychiatrists shot down when they interviewed Polanski at Chino State Prison. So forty-years later we’re still sitting here waiting for the day when Roman Polanski can finally jump on a plane and go anywhere he pleases without fear of being rearrested as he was in Switzerland in 2009. Now some would say, “Well it was his fault, if he didn’t rape that child….” The point is, no rape occurred and nothing was harmed, certainly not a child. Polanski committed at best a morals crime, but hardly enough to have warranted the shit storm Judge Laurence Rittenband conjured when he reneged twice on the plea deal that should have ended this case forty-years ago.

Who is to blame for this travesty of justice? Some would point to Polanski whose moral turpitude brought all of this on. However, we still have to look back on the incidents that preceded these events. Those ones that happened back in August of 1969, and beyond. Those events of the cold blooded murder of Sharon Tate, Roman’s eight-and-a-half-month pregnant wife at the hands of the Manson clan eight years before. Upon his return to the United States after the bodies of Sharon, Jay Sebring, Voytek Frykowski and Abigail Folger were found stabbed, beaten and shot in the house and on the grounds of the Cielo Drive rented ranch house, Roman called into question the motives and the words of the press who wrote reams of copy on how the victims brought it on themselves. In his press conference, Polanski shamed them for stating what they did about Sharon, and calling the Cielo Drive home an orgy house. He invited them to come and see, see the blood, the baby books, the baby clothes, the newly painted nursery…. Everything that flew in the face of what they were saying about these people and why they were murdered. I mean baby books and baby clothes, bassinet and bottle warmers sure weren’t signs of Satanic rituals, Sex Magick rites, and drug parties. That certainly didn’t show that these four victims were bringing it on through sitting around a pool, taking photos, listening to music, going out for a late dinner at El Coyote now did it? Yet by connection what happened to Roman in 1977 had a direct correlation back to that press conference. They were shamed, therefore they would shame back, making up all kinds of scenarios to class Polanski as this evil dwarf who is out to rape any young girl or baby. Better lock up your girls world, Roman Polanski is out there….

There is still no desire on any of the media to go and look at the actual evidence in this case, you know, the lack of toxicology showing level of intoxication of the girl who’d been taking drugs since she was eight, the lack of fluids where in her oh so damning Grand Jury hearing where she claimed he performed “cuddliness” on her against her will, and the dry humping double sodomy that produces no evidence of assault. That Grand Jury hearing that The Smoking Gun and others like to point out to show what kind of deviant Polanski is. What I’d like to know is, where in that hearing does she say he raped her? She never uses the word. Ever. Never has, with the exception of the statutory part of the offense, though Polanski was charged with the lesser offense of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse With a Minor that is included in 261.5, not the statutory rape part of the charge in 261. Yet he is sill called a “child rapist”. More character assassination. Seems though a woman can lie about rape, but a guy who admits to “grabbing women’s pussies” becomes President of the United States, even though there was an underage rape case being files from Jane Doe 43 who wanted her day in court against Donald J. Trump, but Samantha Geimer has been screaming from the treetops to end this case. You know, the one that never was. But hey, whats one rape for another non rape, right? Just so long as one can chew gratuitously on the naughty bits.

Samantha Geimer has made a cottage industry for herself in the last twenty years since she “came out” as Polanski’s “victim”. She’s been able to carry on a career, despite the fact that at whatever point along that curve she either doesn’t want to be known as that, or does. I can’t keep it straight sometimes. She likes to receive emails and letters from him. Nice that. I didn’t want anything from my rapist, only his very painful death either at his own hand, or fate. I never cared which. Only that I read his obit one day. Samantha Geimer knows that when Polanski goes to the Great Beyond, she’ll be mentioned in his obit. The glorious director’s film career reduced to being a notch on Geimer’s bedpost. And again the press will not call her out on her lies. No, they’d rather have the salacious bits to chew on. The child rape, the drugging, the sodomy, the pedophilia. All those nice sound bites that make a great newscast gain ratings. Yet nothing is farther from the truth.

I’m still angry at Marina Zenovich, director and producer of the 2008 documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted & Desired and Roman Polanski: Odd Man Out that she never once brought up the lack of evidence in either of her documentaries. Was she so enamoured of getting Geimer’s participation she felt to include the lack of forensics would make her seem less valid? Ask that of Making a Murderer filmmakers Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi who took ten years to bring the wrongful convictions of Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey to the world-wide audience, exposing the lack of evidence in their cases. They brought to the world the conclusive proof that neither Dassey or Avery could have killed Teresa Halbach because like Polanski, evidence did not add up. So the world has banded together to celebrate Dassey and Avery as the innocents they are, yet Roman Polanski still remains a convicted rapist, hence the inequities of truth. Unlike the masses of Youtube videos and websites dedicated to Dassey and Avery, there’s only a handful of us who have dared to take on the truth of the case against Roman Polanski and to bring those lies out of the shadows to the light. Where there’s no blood to speak of in the rape and murder of Teresa Halbach, there is equally no blood, semen, saliva and whatnot in the assault on Samantha Geimer. But there is no one like Kathleen Zellner who is willing to take on the case, crack open that evidence and reveal the truth.

So forty-years after the events of March 10, 1977 we’re still grappling with the State of California V. Roman Raimund Polanski and the decision from one starfucking judge who refused to accept the plea agreement that could have ended this back in February 1978. The time where Roman Polanski didn’t have to make that fateful decision to leave the State of California, and the United States to flee to his home country of France where he must watch which countries he goes to lest they have an extradition treaty with the United States. There’s the rub there, those uniformed asshats who say he “is in exile in France”…. Um, France is his place of birth. Can’t be “in exile” in the country where you were born. If so, then I guess I’m in “exile” in Canada. Some would say that “if he’d just come back home and serve his time….” Point is I’m beyond understanding their rank stupidity. The United States was never his home. It stopped being that as of October 1969 when Polanski left to for Italy after the capture of the Manson family for the murders of Sharon and the rest. As for serving his time, according to Deputy District Attorney Roger Gunson, the original prosecutor in the case and a man without guile or an angle in the case, Roman Polanski served his time. The 42 days at Chino State Prison for Men that was to be all the sentence he was to receive, that Judge Laurence Rittenband agreed to … TWICE. What more can the State of California let alone the United States of America want from Roman Polanski? Certainly it couldn’t be the perp walk replete with the leg irons and chains on an eighty-three year old film director? A man who has two children and a wife and friends who when they stand up for the man they know, they’re frequently called “pedophiles” or “pedo supporters”, not quite unlike those of us who support Polanski and the inequities of the legal system that did not protect him in the same way it protected Geimer. You know, those other six or eight men she admitted to having had sex with. Those ones who were not charged under the same legal system that keeps pursuing Polanski to this day. Ah, the insanity of it all.

On this day, the anniversary of the fast fuck heard around the world, I’d like to say this: Roman Polanski is by and large an innocent man. As innocent as those other men who’d had sex with Geimer. Todd, the two Steves, the father of her eldest son, Bob, the boyfriend of her mother. That’s five. Five men who got away with it where Polanski was held to a different standard. The only thing Roman Polanski was guilty of in my eyes, was having sex with the wrong person. Someone who couldn’t keep her mouth shut and just have that knowledge that she’d had sex with a well-known director. Now no one need say that another girl likely would have been more traumatized. The point here is that had this been another “girl”, Roman Polanski wouldn’t have had any interest. Samantha Geimer was unlike any other “girl” back then. She was ready and willing and on more than one occasion, able. She loved having sex, she told us that in her book. Loved exploring her own body and allowing for her own independence to the point of not listening to either parent when it came to that autonomy. But then I’d kill to have a conversation with Sean Kinney, the photographer who shot that very infamous “schoolgirl with the books looking slyly over her shoulder” the previous December. Where is he and what would he have to say about the Gailey/Geimer tag team? What stories would he be able to tell if he could? I’d kill to find him and mine his noodle. But he’s not been seen or heard from, and is only known from the credit on the photo that had been printed in the many periodicals lo these many forty years. Where was the interview with him Ms Zenovich? Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi did their due diligence in their docu-series, why couldn’t you have done yours to end this cloud of disgusting name-calling that hangs over Roman Polanski and his reputation.

Forty years later and Roman Polanski is no closer to being free of this albatross because as of February 24, 2017 a day when his case was to be heard by a new judge, it has again been put on indefinite hold. Will it be another forty years before Roman Polanski is finally cleared? I hope not. Forty years as it has been is more than enough, and as an online friend of mine keeps saying, I hope Judge Laurence Rittenband is in hell, burning for all eternity for what he did to Roman Polanski. And what he did was renege TWICE on a plea bargain that would have ended this back in 1977. And before anyone says that it’s well within a judge’s right to refuse a plea deal, you’re right in certain circumstances. Those cases where a plea deal in which a serial murderer Dennis Rader also known as the BTK (Bind Torture Kill) received life in prison in lieu of the death penalty for telling all he knew about his crimes and the whereabouts of all of his victims. In that case the Judge Greg Walker agreed that the information Rader had was more important than imposing the death penalty for the murder of ten human beings. The same thing was done in the case of the Canadian “Ken and Barbie Killers” where Karla Homolka, wife of Paul Bernardo, was given a sweetheart deal of twelve years for the murders of teens Kristen French, Leslie Mahaffey and her own sister Tammy Homolka in exchange for her testimony against Bernardo. A deal that included the codicil that if it was found out she participated in the crimes beyond what she testified to, she might face further penalty. When VHS tapes turned up showing that Homolka had indeed taken part in the crimes and did so of her own accord, the deal was re-examined by the Provincial and Governmental authorities as to whether Homolka violated the terms of that deal. It was decided that while she did violate it, to have rescinded that plea deal, would have undone the case against Bernardo, but also undone most of the plea deals struck by prosecutors all over Canada. So when those people say that Judge Rittenband had the right to impose more of a sentence on Polanski than the 42 days or even the 48 days often bandied about when discussing this case, they clearly don’t understand the application of the plea deal as a ways and means of seeking justice in a court-of-law. While the judge does have that discretion, that discretion is often times not employed when seeking to close cases, and it is in that vein that what Rittenband did was not only wrong, but criminal in and of itself. The plea agreement is not an arbitrary thing, it is part of the bulwark of the judicial system. Polanski wasn’t treated special. In fact, he was treated abysmally by the same justice system that jerked over the seven accused in the McMartin Pre-School case.

What’s left now? Nothing. Until this new judge sees fit to allow Polanski’s lawyers to unseal Roger Gunson’s 2010 deposition and accept his word that Roman Polanski has served all the sentence that was agreed to by Rittenband, we’re in a holding pattern. Roman Polanski is in a holding pattern…. At 83-years-of-age, and his want to be able to visit his daughter Morgane where she is attending school in London, and if the reports are true that Polanski wishes to come back to the United States to go to Sharon Tate’s grave before he dies, then I have little hope that he will be able to do this. That is the real travesty here.

And here we are forty years later……

“Roman Polanski: Wanted & Desired” Watch

I found on Youtube an upload of the documentary ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED AND DESIRED that begs a re-watch. Why? There are certain message board posters who believe that Judge Laurence J. Rittenband would have gone easy on Roman. That is not the truth. At the 25:14 minute mark, Assistant District Attorney Steve Barshop has this to say about Rittenband:

“Rittenband was known as a hammer.That means that he was a tough judge and a tough sentencer. If you didn’t make a deal, and you didn’t have the deal in place when you went in there, you were in trouble.”

So to Veritas-Lux-Mea I have this to say to you, any belief that Rittenband was only going to sentence Polanski to the remaining 48 days left on the psychiatric diagnostic, is very naive my friend. That and his admission to his country club friend of his intention to “Throw the book at that Pollocko” proves more than adequately his intention to indeed, throw that book at Polanski no matter the sentencing guidelines at the time, and the result of the written reports from the court-appointed psychiatrists and the probation officer. So please save us the hyperbole that you think you know more than those involved or than those of us who have investigated this case since 1977.

And to Numby if you put the slider ahead to about 31:00 minutes, you’ll see Polanski with his attorney Douglas Dalton who is giving a press conference where Dalton is asking this:


(Dalton)
The facts indicate that before the… – the alleged act in this case, this girl had engaged in sexual activity. That’s contained in reports that we now have. We want to know about it. We want to know who was involved, when. We want to know why these other people were not prosecuted, and this is a thing we want to fully develop.

Concrete proof of other men Samantha Geimer had slept with, yet they were not charged. That is called selective prosecution. Then later on Anthea Sylbert asked the question of why didn’t Susan Gailey keep Samantha out of that circle. These are valid questions when you consider all the shit that has been thrown at Polanski these last four decades. I love what the French journalist says about how Polanski had made a name of Natassja Kinski, so it was expected that he would do the same for Geimer. Then Geimer has the audacity to say to, “give my mom a break.” Yeah, right Sammy. I’ve documented my rape in another post and I’ve also stated about the ambivalence I had for my mother from that point on to the point that when she died in May 2015, I was upset, but not overwrought because to me, our relationship fractured that Winter of 1977. I felt at that point I could no longer trust her. That Geimer can be so blase about Susan Gailey’s conduct, speaks volumes. In fact, it speaks more than volumes, it’s blaring.

WHEN IS DELUSIONAL … WELL, DELUSIONAL?

A signature from a certain poster on the Polanski IMDB board:

How a Roman Polanski supporter debates:

“I order you to kill yourself, NOW!”

It appears that Lazy has lost it again. With this signature, he/she/it points out the totality of his/her/its stupidity. that is the thinking of someone who wants to control the message because it upsets their version of the ‘truth’…as they see it.

See, the problem with Lazy is that he/she/it seems to think that if you post something, it’s not the truth until he/she/it says it is. NO matter that there is documented proof to the contrary. Lazy seems to think that it’s perfectly okay to make stuff up as it suits and to do whatever it takes to make sure everyone else believes his/her/its word to the letter. See, this is what is called delusional. Lazy seems to think that stating and using direct statements from the participants in the Polanski debacle is tantamount to lying. It makes no never mind to this person that Roger Gunson as well as Samantha Geimer are solidly on Polanski’s side in this. Lazy seems to think that I’ve made up everything I’ve posted both over at the IMDB board for Polanski as well as here, even calling into question the story I posted on my own rape. It seems Lazy has also gone to calling me a slut, prostitute as well as a liar.

I’ve never made any bones about the nature of my sexuality. When I recounted my rape story, and like it or not there Lazy, I was raped, I told the truth. I told the truth about trying to be provocative that night, however, I at no time lured Mick (pseudonym) to me lair to entice him into a night or moment of sexual gratification. If going up to my room to prepare for bed once the guests that night left is considered to be ‘provocative’ in terms of clearing my bed off of the records I’d used that night to discjockey, then fine. I’m guilty. Burn me in oil, stone me or better yet, place me under a board and crush me under rocks. I suppose in Lazy’s eyes, I’m responsible for the witchery that permeated Salem in the 1600s, or The Plague that riddled medieval Europe during the Dark Ages.

See this is the reason Lazy fails to comprehend anything in his/her/its useless life, to state that we Polanski supporters believe in any way that we “Order you to kill yourself….” doesn’t understand the full breadth of the fact we know what happened to Polanski in his young life. We remember the fact he lost his mother when he was six to the Death Camps that took six million of his kind. We remember that Bula was five months pregnant with Polanski’s sibling when she was taken and mainlined straight to Auschwitz where she was put straight into the gas chamber and murdered without pity. We remember Polanski’s father was imprisoned at Bergan Belsen and kept from Polanski until the boy was twelve. We remember that Polanski was kept by gypsies until he was reunited with Rychard after the war ended and the Death Camps were liberated. To say in any way that we support any kind of death or suppression of free speech means he/she/it has no ground to stand on.

Lazy is just a spewer who likes to hear him/her/itself speak. Lazy likes to believe his/her/its own delusional thinking. It means he/she/it doesn’t have to do anything other than listen to the voices in his/her/its own head. When he/she/it refuses to read and understand what Gunson has told them, then it’s time to pack it in. This doesn’t mean copitulate. I will not capitulate on my stance on the Polanski Case. I know in my heart that what happened that afternoon at Jack Nicholson’s Mulholland Drive cul-de-sac was consensual sex. Samantha Geimer has in effect said it was. But for someone like Lazy who will not read and understand no matter how much information one provides, when he/she/it decides that whatever you post back to them it’s not the truth or as Lazy says, “And you’re taking the word of someone else, so what’s your point? Oh yeah, you don’t have one,” when you point out that Roger Gunson gave a sworn depositon to Polanski’s attorneys in Chad Hummel, Douglas and Bart Dalton regarding the matter of Polanski’s sentence which Gunson says he completed, then one has to assume that Lazy is either stubborn or a dolt. I believe the latter.

Now one might ask me, “Samskara, aren’t you just making it worse by calling Lazy ‘he/she/it'”. I say, “No!” Why? Simple. This person has not even shown he/she/it comprehends anything he/she/its been told. Lazy just sits there at his/her/its keyboard typing blindly because he/she/it believes what he/she/its saying. Truly. There’s no rhime or reason in what Lazy posts. There’s no understanding of what he/she/it is being told. When it all comes down to saying that quoting or posting facts about Roger Gunson and what he did to support Polanski in his extradition fight and this is not believed despite the fact that there is Google, Yahoo, and any other number of search engines available to their fingertips, then what else is there to say? So from here on end, I’ll be posting various comments here instead of to IMDB. I’ve allowed Lazy the opportunity to come over here to spread his/her/its own lunacy. I’m suspecting Lazy won’t. I really don’t think he/she/it would allow him/her/itself to be open to the more intelligent mass of the blogosphere. Those who do use the internet for more than a plaything. Those who do know this case efficently and those who support Mr. Polanski know the truth. We know what he has been through and what Samantha Geimer, herself, has said happened that afternoon. If one simply refuses to listen to or understand what has been told to them by the participants involved, then I’d say it’s little chance they’ll change. Lazy certainly has never shown any instance of understanding or wanting to understand what happened. He/she/it has also show little compassion for what I went through the night I was raped. Instead like a petulent child, he/she/it clings to a fantasy that I was some sort of hooker out to get laid. Which I was not. Rape is not something one talks about with the notion of a high five mentality. Which is how Samantha Geimer describes it. Rape is a violation. A violation I sustained and survived. It’s not something that leaves one when it happens. It’s something that stays with one for a lifetime. It colours ones outlook and makes all further decisions about life that much more acute. One doesn’t lie about rape. One doesn’t admit to and related their story like I did for brownie points. It’s a painful regurgitation. It’s like having that penis shoved into your mouth one more time and for Lazy to have done his/her/its revisionist view of what I wrote, should be ashamed.

Now I know what the common thinking is, “Samskara, why did you put your story out there if you didn’t want someone picking it apart?” Simply, I didn’t know there were sick fucks out there who’d take it upon themselves to decided what happened to me that night. Then want proof of it. Now where did I put that DeLorean with the Flux Capacitor? They’re like those passing motorists who like to roll down their windows and gawk at the accident or the seventy car pileup to see the blood and body parts. Lazy wants to see what I went through solely for his/her/its own purient thrills. I can just see Lazy sitting at his/her/its computer mastubating while they’re reading what I posted. And that’s the feeling I get. This person has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I tried to find some, but there is none. So I’ve decided that sooner than try to appeal to Lazy’s sense of right thinking, I’m going to stick solely to the content of his/her/its own posts and dissect them here for my readers to extrapolate and mock.

Fair game there Lazy.

ROMAN POLANSKI: A FREE MAN

Polanski free, Swiss reject US extradition request
Mon Jul 12, 9:03 AM

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100712/world/roman_polanski_6?printer=1

By Bradley S. Klapper,Frank Jordans, The Associated Press

BERN, Switzerland – The Swiss government declared renowned film director Roman Polanski a free man on Monday after rejecting a U.S. request to extradite him on a charge of having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl.

The Swiss mostly blamed U.S. authorities for failing to provide confidential testimony about Polanski’s sentencing procedure in 1977-1978.

The stunning decision could end the United States’ three-decade pursuit of Polanski, unless he travels to another country that would be willing to apprehend him and weigh sending him to Los Angeles. France, where he has spent much of his time, does not extradite its own citizens, and the public scrutiny over Switzerland’s deliberations may dissuade other nations from making such a spectacular arrest.

The Swiss government said it had sought confidential testimony given on Jan. 26 by Roger Gunson, the Los Angeles attorney in charge of the original prosecution against Polanski. Washington rejected the request.

“Mr. Polanski can now move freely. Since 12:30 today he’s a free man,” Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf declared.

The Oscar-winning director of “Rosemary’s Baby,” ”Chinatown” and “The Pianist” was accused of plying his victim with champagne and part of a Quaalude during a 1977 modeling shoot and raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy, but pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.

In exchange, the judge agreed to drop the remaining charges and sentence him to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. However, he was released after 42 days by an evaluator who deemed him mentally sound and unlikely to offend again. The judge responded by saying he was going to send Polanski back to jail for the remainder of the 90 days and that afterward he would ask Polanski to agree to a “voluntary deportation.” Polanski then fled the country on the eve of his Feb. 1, 1978, sentencing.

Based on references to Gunson’s testimony in U.S. courts, the Swiss said it “should prove” that Polanski served his sentence after undergoing 42 days of diagnostic study, the statement said.

“If this were the case, Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the U.S. extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation,” the ministry said.

The Justice Ministry also said that national interests were taken into consideration in the decision.

“The 76-year-old French-Polish film director Roman Polanski will not be extradited to the USA,” the ministry said in a statement. “The freedom-restricting measures against him have been revoked.”

Polanski’s lawyer Herve Temime said the director was still at his Swiss chalet in the resort of Gstaad, where he has been held under house arrest since December.

Switzerland’s top justice official said he could now leave.

Temime told The Associated Press by telephone from his office in Paris that his client was ready to enjoy his freedom.

“This decision was certainly not expected,” Temime said.

He praised Swiss authorities for making the responsible decision.

Approving extradition had seemed the likeliest scenario after Polanski was arrested on Sept. 26 as he arrived in Zurich to receive a lifetime achievement award from a film festival. Polanski had also suffered a series of legal setbacks this year in California courts.

Switzerland handles about 200 extradition requests a year and only about 5 per cent are rejected, Widmer-Schlumpf said.

Widmer-Schlumpf said this decision was not meant to excuse Polanski’s crime, saying the issue was “not about deciding whether he is guilty or not guilty.”

The government said extradition had to be rejected “considering the persisting doubts concerning the presentation of the facts of the case.”

Beyond the legal confusion, Polanski’s extradition is a complicated and diplomatically sensitive because of Polanski’s status as a cultural icon in France and Poland, where he holds dual citizenship, and his history as a Holocaust survivor whose first wife was murdered by crazed followers of cult leader Charles Manson in California.

Widmer-Schlumpf said she informed authorities in the United States, France and Poland, in addition to Polanski’s lawyer.

___

Klapper reported from Geneva. AP correspondent Angela Charlton contributed from Paris.

**********************************************************************

Switzerland won’t extradite Polanski to the U.S.
Swiss release director, claim U.S. failed to share confidential testimonyVideo Switzerland won’t extradite Polanski to U.S. .Photos Roman Polanski’s life, career .Timeline Roman Polanski: Tragedy, scandal and success .
.
updated 2 hours 34 minutes ago
BERN, Switzerland — The Swiss government declared renowned film director Roman Polanski a free man on Monday after rejecting a U.S. request to extradite him on a charge of having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl.

The Swiss mostly blamed U.S. authorities for failing to provide confidential testimony about Polanski’s sentencing procedure in 1977-1978.

The stunning decision could end the United States’ three-decade pursuit of Polanski, unless he travels to another country that would be willing to apprehend him and weigh sending him to Los Angeles. France, where he has spent much of his time, does not extradite its own citizens, and the public scrutiny over Switzerland’s deliberations may dissuade other nations from making such a spectacular arrest.

The Swiss government said it had sought confidential testimony given on Jan. 26 by Roger Gunson, the Los Angeles attorney in charge of the original prosecution against Polanski. Washington rejected the request.

“Mr. Polanski can now move freely. Since 12:30 today he’s a free man,” Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf declared.

Authorities in Los Angeles and Washington cannot appeal the Swiss decision. Sandy Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, declined to comment.

Case dates to 1977
The Oscar-winning director of “Rosemary’s Baby,” “Chinatown” and “The Pianist” was accused of plying his victim with champagne and part of a Quaalude during a 1977 modeling shoot and raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy, but pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/38201135/ns/today-entertainment/?GT1=43001

Today is indeed a good day for Samskara Impressions. After months of legal wrangling and secretive shennanigans on behalf of California District Attorney Steve Cooley and his henchman Dave Walgren along with the complicity of Supreme Court Judge Peter Espinoza, the Swiss under Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, refused the request by the United States to hand Roman Polanski over to the US. In what may have come as a shock, Justice Minister Widmer-Schlumpf denied the extradition application due to the petitioner’s failure to provide full disclosure on the case at hand. What in particular Justice Widmer-Schlumpf wanted was a deposition given by former District Attorney Roger Gunson on Rittenband’s conduct, which has been held under seal by Judge Espinoza.

By her order, Justice Widmer-Schlumpf has stated for the public record that Roman Polanski had not only served his time for his offense, but also denied the United States from issuing any further extradition warrants for Polanski.

LAW ABIDING CITIZEN

LAW AIDING CITZEN STARRING GERARD BUTLER AND JAMIE FOXXI recently watched a film on my local cable company’s on demand service that is interesting in that it posits the aspect of what is a ‘law abiding citizen’?

The film stars Gerard Butler (“Lara Croft: Cradle of Life”, “Reign of Fire”, “Gamer” and “300”) as Clyde Shelton, a fringe worker for the CIA and whose wife and daughter are brutally murdered by two men. Enter Jamie Foxx (“The Kingdom”, “Miami Vice”, “Collateral” and “Ray”) as Nick Rice, at the beginning of the film and assistant district attorney for Philadelphia assigned to prosecute the killers of Shelton’s family. In the end, Nick is forced to take a plea on the case in which the actual killer walks on a lighter sentence as the other man involved in the Shelton case, is sent to Death Row. As the other man leaves for a five year prison sentence, Clyde watches as Rice is approached and it looks as if he’s in league with the real killer. Some years later Clyde puts together a plan to make all those who allowed the killer of his wife and daughter to get away with it. That plan Clyde puts into motion is as a law abiding citizen to make those pay who allowed the ‘deal’ with the devil as it were. The twist on this story is that Clyde only puts those in those positions of power in his line of fire. Everyone from Rice to the mayor (Viola Davis) are targets as far as Clyde Shelton is concerned due to their complicity in the system. Thus lays out the basic plot of the film. Shelton begins to get revenge on those he holds responsible for the miscarriage of justice that allowed the killer of his wife and child walk.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in the Polanski case? Plenty.

It seems as though it’s perfectly fine for those condemning Polanski and his decision to run back in 1978 to deride his decision, then to condemn the one responsible for that decision Polanski made. Polanski played by the rules as far as his case was concerned. As the Marina Zenovich documentary ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED & DESIRES succinctly summed up, there were gross incidents of judicial misconduct on behalf of the presiding judge, Laurence J. Rittenband. Most of which the film documented, however, there is a greater picture here. While Roman Polanski submitted himself to every hoop Rittenband presented to Polanski to jump through, Rittenband himself remained above that law he swore to uphold.

Going back to that epiotme of uprightness, some of the posters on the many boards I’ve posted, perused or lurked on, have stated that the issue here isn’t what Rittenband did, but what Polanski did. Granted, had Polanski ‘kept it in his pants’, a valid argument at any time if indeed there was a rape for Polanski to have been guilty of, the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ was allowed to propigate by Rittenband’s actions, but Vannatter’s actions and by the system itself. One cannot expect to have the air of propriety without a system that cannot be used by those chosen to uphold that law, to then turn around and crap on it. What am I talking about? Simply this. Polanski complied with all that was asked of him. Now what was asked of him? Here is what he did:

  • When ordered to return from Germany after the Oktoberfest photo that was shown Rittenband by David Welles, Roman Polanski returned as he was required to do by law.
  • When ordered to Chino for the psychiatric report, a thing that was not required under the law at the time, Polanski reported.
  • When the psychiatric and probation reports were completed, there was no need to hold him any further and it was the probation officer who ordered him released as per the fact that no psyche report takes the full 90 days to complete.
  • When ordered into court, Polanski presented himself. On those off days when it was only pro forma details for the lawyers, he did not have to report…as per the law.
  • Even when he was ordered to report to read from Rittenband’s prepared script, Roman Polanski still reported.

Those are the facts. Now whether it was required of Polanski to submit himself to harm other than what was required under the statute and Rittenband’s continued illegal conduct, it wasn’t up to Polanski to do so. Rittenband was the one who was conducting his court in an illegal fashion. Now the next statement I’ll likely get is: “OKay, if Polanski was feeling he was being ill-treated, why didn’t he stay and fight it?” Legitimate question, certainly, but not the reality Polanski was living with. He’d submitted himself to all that Rittenband demanded, but Rittenband was still renegging on the plea deal. And for those who’d say that it doesn’t matter, a judge is allowed to reneg all he wants. I say, no a judge is not. If the deal hammered out by both sides and in this case, on behalf of the so-called ‘victim’ and her lawyer and her father, also a lawyer who was the one who came up with the deal to begin with, all Rittenband had to do was to sign off on it…unless he felt that there was some pressure put on the ‘victim’. In that case and only that case, is the judge allowed to question the deal. In this case, and this case alone, no one wanted jail or prison time for Polanski. No one. Not even Geimer or her mother or father. What did Rittenband consider this as well as the court ordered reports from the probation office as well as the psychiatric reports? He considered it a whitewash. A whitewash only because it didn’t comport with his belief of who he thought Polanski was. And that is not his right by law. He can think whatever he wants about Polanski’s conduct or his life, the point here is that it means nothing in terms of applying the law. And what Rittenband did was illegal.

Going back to that assumption that Polanski had to lay himself at the feet of the corrupt judge to accept his ‘punishment’, no noe has to submit themselves to something that is over and above what the statute itself states. Polanski took the only out he felt he could to escape Rittenband’s machinations, and that was to flee to France. And if Rittenband wanted to make sure Polanski didn’t have that ability to run, he should have confiscated Polanski’s passport, which Rittenband didn’t do. So is it Polanski’s fault that Ritteband failed to do so? No. Should Polanski have given that up when he returned from Germany? No. It wasn’t required by law for him to do so. So this returns me again to what Polanski did do in order to comply with what the court ordered. And what he did do was comply at all turns. The only time he didn’t was when he felt he was being treated unfairly. If he hadn’t run, which Rittenband wanted Polanski to self-deport himself anyway…something Rittenband had no legal right to demand, Polanski did what Rittenband wanted. He left the United States.

So now where onto the law abiding citizen part. LIke Clyde in the film, he did what was required of him by law to do. He believed that the law would do what it was designed to do and to punish those responsible for the deaths of his wife and child. Even if it meant that Nick would loose his case for whatever reason, at least according to Clyde, Nick would have tried. Which would have been all Clyde would have asked of Nick. To try. What does this have to do with Polanski? Simple. It could try to address this fairly and swiftly for all involved. But somehow like Judge Laurence Rittenband before him, Steve Cooley and Peter Espinoza feel that they don’t have to follow the law. They feel that it is their word and nothing more. I asked in a previous post, what is Steve Cooley afraid of. I’ll ask again, if there is nothing to hide, why continue to keep Roger Gunson’s deposition under seal? What is to be gained by it? Gunson gave this deposition to the Polanski side to help him nad them in understanding what actually happened with Rittenband, and this comported precisely with what Douglas Dalton has always contended. There’s no mystery here. And for Polanski to quit his fight from Switzerland with so much still in question as per the original procedings, then Swiss law would be in breach of its own Geneva Convention about turning prisoners over to a system that will not comport with that law.

Like Clyde Shelton, Roman Polanski expected to be treated like any other citzen of the United States. Be given equal treatment and not centred out for his celebrity, which despite what those anti-Polanskites seem to think, worked against him. It didn’t help him. It didn’t protect him. Rittenband on the other hand gained off of Polanski’s fame and then continued to treat him above and beyond what the law required. That is not prosecution, it is persecution. The fact that Rittenband didn’t pay for his treatment of Polanski is a shame. He should have been pulled from the bench and taken to task for his misconduct that went over the line of justice. And yeah, yeah, yeah…I’ve heard that one again about Polanski keeping it his pants. But he didn’t. In the end, he expected to be treated fairly and without prejudice. Despite what Polanski did or didn’t do, whether the said double anal rape occurred according to the evidence collected and tested…oh wait, failed to be tested, the facts still remain the Californai legal system still refuses to play by the rules. Not surprising since Steve Cooley hasn’t seen fit to prosecute those involved in decades old abuses by the California Archdiocese of the Catholic Church given they’re contributing to his run for Attorney General of the State of Californai. Not surprising at all.

Oh, I should also mention that just recently, The Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger has reduced civil servant’s paychecks to minimum wage. Considering California is facing a budget shortfall by winter, the fact that Cooley is wasting funds on this case to ‘get Polanski back’ is ridiculous. Espinoza, have the guts to sentence Polanski in absentia and have this over and done with. You’ll look like the bigger man for it. Instead, you just continue to look like the Rittenband abstructionist you are. Some legacy.

STEVE COOLEY: WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?

DA opposes Polanski’s request for sealed testimony

1 hour, 52 minutes ago
By The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES, Calif. – Prosecutors are asking a Los Angeles judge to reject a request by Roman Polanski’s attorneys to unseal transcripts of closed-door testimony in the case.

Polanski’s attorneys want a judge to unseal testimony earlier this year by the original prosecutor handling the case, Roger Gunson. They say it will help their efforts to fight Polanksi’s extradition from Switzerland, where he remains on house arrest.

Prosecutors on Thursday argued in a court filing that Polanski’s motion should be rejected because he remains a fugitive.

A hearing on the issue has been scheduled for Monday afternoon.

Los Angeles prosecutors want the Oscar-winning director returned to face sentencing on a charge he had unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

Original Article

It seems Steve Cooley is doing everything he can to make sure Rittenband’s actions that caused Polanski to flee, never see the light of day. What I’d like to ask is: What exactly is Steve Cooley afraid of?

I’m not quite sure if it’s because he feels that without Polanski physically present, he’s not going to get…what, elected? Is he so insipid he must attach his name to Roman Polanski’s in order to get his 15 minutes? I truly do not understand this man. He claims to be for ‘law and order and the American Way’, but what exactly is he doing in prolonging this case? Does he think he’s going to get some kind of karmic cookie in the end?

This case has already gone on long enough. Thirty three years is enough. Roman Polanski has taken all he should be required to take at the hands of the California Legal System. It abused him at the time his wife, Sharon Tate and four others were murdered at his home in 1969, and it abused him again in 1977 with this case. Everyone else excepting Steve Cooley, Dave Walgren, Peter Espinoza and the ghost of Laurence J. Rittenband want this case over and done with. Roman Polanski wants to go home to France and be a father and a husband. Samantha Geimer wants this case over and done with so she can…do whatever it is she does…Douglas Dalton wants this case overwith so he can retire knowing he did what he did do and finally cleared Polanski’s name, Roger Gunson wants this case over and done with because he may be ill and wants to know justice was finally done. What is so wrong with that? All parties win. Steve Cooley seems to want to shoot himself in the foot while running with scissors. He’s a calamity. Someone who doesn’t know when they’re acting like a fool.

I’d like to know what is in that transcript Roger Gunson gave to Chad Hummel and Bart Dalton (Polanski’s attorneys) that is so incendiary that Cooley seems to think it cannot be opened? Cooley it seems is practicing his own version of the law. Is the defense not allowed to offer their evidence? Are they not allowed to defend their client and be certain that everything the can use, will be used without having to be hamstrung by a zealous prosecutor? It seems to me that Cooley has his foot caught in a trap and is trying to chew it off without the benefit of painkillers.

The only thing that I can think of that would make Cooley so desperate is that he thinks if Polanski is seen in the orange jumpsuit with the chains and the shackles, it won’t look good for the PR campaign he needs to keep positive for his upcoming election. “Wow, Mr. Cooley…wouldn’t that look neat seeing a 76 year-old man being brought to California on your watch in chains?” There is absolutely no reason to not allow the unsealing of Gunson’s statement. To have the appearance of transparency, allowing this to be opened would make Cooley look like he’s at least playing by the rules. To fight to keep it secret still, is only showing how Cooley not only doesn’t play fair, but that his continued persecution of Roman Polanski is nothing but a smokescreen for his other failings in not prosecuting those of the Archdiocese sex scandal currently plaguing California. Add to that, the class action lawsuit filed by his fellow DAs and ADAs who have charged Cooley with fraud and invasion of privacy. But hey, that’s just a minor point. Cooley has had not one, but several law suits filed against him. Roman Polanski has had one. Who is the dangerous one Mr. Cooley?