What Do Roman Polanski & Sam Sheppard Have In Common? EX PARTE

So who you ask is EX PARTE. According to Law.com, ex parte is defined as such:

ex parte

(ex par-tay, but popularly, ex party) adj. Latin meaning “for one party,” referring to motions, hearings or orders granted on the request of and for the benefit of one party only. This is an exception to the basic rule of court procedure that both parties must be present at any argument before a judge, and to the otherwise strict rule that an attorney may not notify a judge without previously notifying the opposition. Ex parte matters are usually temporary orders (like a restraining order or temporary custody) pending a formal hearing or an emergency request for a continuance. Most jurisdictions require at least a diligent attempt to contact the other party’s lawyer of the time and place of any ex parte hearing.

However, when ex parte is heard outside of the lawyers of a defendant by say a judge having a conversation about a case, they must refrain from having said ex parte communications as it violates the rights of the one on trial. Particularly when it comes to outsiders of any case where there is not a vested interest in such case by that outside party. In the case of Roman Polanski is was the ex parte communications Judge Laurence J. Rittenband had with at least two or three different people when it came to presiding over Polanski’s case. Those people were Deputy District Attorney David Wells, Santa Monica Evening Outlook court reporter Richard Brenneman, and at least one person at his Hillcrest Country Club where he told this person, “I’m going to throw the book at that Polocko.” In all cases this is most certainly illegal. There is no fudging about it, no matter how much people want to think what Rittenband did was not pressing to the Polanski Case. It of course was.

The ex parte principle was used in the case of murder suspect Sam Sheppard who was convicted of the murder of his wife, Marilyn who was raped and bludgeoned to death in 1954. Journalist Dorothy Kilgallan in her article for The New York Journal-American, wrote about the judge in Sheppard’s case that he had an ex parte communication with her at The Overseas Press Club. Judge Edward J. Blythin in a discussion stated to Judge Blythin, “Why are you here?” in relation to the case that had a whole lot of salacious things like sex, drugs, murder…. Judge Blythin stated, “I don’t know why you’re here, he’s guilty as hell.” Dorothy kept the information quiet for nine years until the judge died then took it to Sheppard’s attorny F. Lee Bailey who used the information in his appeal. It was the main reason why the Supreme Court overturned Sheppard’s conviction releasing Sheppard. Later in 1998 DNA testing proved that Sheppard did not in fact kill his wife. The DNA held that it might have belonged to Richard Eberling, a family friend. None of Sheppard’s DNA was shown to have been on Marilyn’s body. Evidence in swabs and smears from Marilyn’s body showed it tested positive for semen belonging to Eberling. Due to the results of the DNA testing the court posthumously exonerated Dr. Sheppard in the murder of his wife.

To those who believe that what Judge Rittenband did was not wrong, look to Ohio’s ruling in Sheppard. If one judge is guilty of it, it does indeed mean another is too. Rittenband’s disgusting behaviour both in and out of the court room is suspect and is illegal. This is why it is imperative that Polanski get another hearing, or the higher appellate court’s ruling for sentencing him in absentia is the correct thing to do. Can we expect California to do what is right? Not likely. They haven’t so far. At no point has that court ever ruled fairly for Polanski. It’s always ruled for it’s own self-interests. This is the reason too why former DA Roger Gunson’s transcript must be unsealed. His statement given under oath is a clear record of Rittenband’s conduct. It is relevant to the current proceedings in which Polanski’s new attorney Harland Braun is seeking to have Gunson’s testimony unsealed. All it takes is for a fair ruling by a fair judge to have that happen. I would also love to have those panties tested again. This time with the new advances in DNA testing we might get a true return on who that stain belonged to. If I were to go over and under of the likelihood of it belonging to Polanski, I’d have to say there’s a clear ZERO percent chance it does belong to Polanski. The next step would be to find out who it did belong to and if those panties were indeed the ones Samantha wore that afternoon. There is still a severe chain-of-custody issue surrounding those panties in that Det. Phillip Vannatter did not go with Samantha when she retrieved them from the laundry room at her home. And again there is the forensic findings the stain belonged to a man who was sterile. If I were to take an over or under assessment of who the stain belonged to, I’d give a 100% chance it belonged to Susan Gailey’s boyfriend, Bob. But then that would take someone with the guts to want to actually test them. If it is proven the stain doesn’t belong to Polanski, then I’d say someone has some explaining.

Now you’ve met ex parte. I hope you’re now more educated on why it is illegal and that there is indeed precedent.

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.

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?