When Is One Extradition Not Like The Others?

When one is an American border guard who shoots to death a fifteen-year-old Mexican youth, and the other is a French-born film Director whose one-night-stand has gone on for forty years.

U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, U.S., October 3, 2016. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

Today the Supreme Court of the United States was debating the case of an American border guard who shot to death a 15-year-old Mexican who was caught trying to get back to Mexico. Mexican authorities have sought the extradition of the border guard to Mexico to try him for murder. American authorities are stating they will not produce him and the case before the Supreme Court is an appeal from the boy’s parents seeking justice for the death of their son. The United States State Department has refused to hand the guard over, citing “conditions in Mexican prisons” as their main reason for the refusal. This is in stark contrast to their constant pursuit of Roman Polanski and their bulldozing through Polish and Swiss courts to try to get Polanski back to the United States. They seem to want their cake, but not have to eat it. What hubris for demanding Polanski’s extradition based off of an illegal bench warrant from Judge Rittenband, to that of a murdered Mexican teenager’s parents seeking justice for their loss. However, the extradition request for Polanski is based on nothing. It is only because former district attorney Steve Cooley felt his spleen was displaced because of the Marina Zenovich documentary that rightfully, called foul on Judge Rittenband’s behaviour. This is the exact same issue Italy faced when it called for the extradition of four CIA agents for the wrongful rendition of one of its citizens on suspicion of terrorism. But then it’s never America that has to cough up the goods, only other countries where America feels it has had its rights deprived. Only in this case with Polanski, he already served his time and no further time was required of him.

THE MADNESS CONTINUES

Read this:

The 34 year conspiracy that’s keeping Polanski out of the country

by lazarusryu 15 hours ago (Tue Dec 13 2011 10:58:45)
UPDATED Tue Dec 13 2011 11:03:00

Whenever Polanski’s case is brought up or whenever people inquire as to why he would return to America, Polanski apologists tend to refer to a conspiracy revolving around the 1977 case.

Now, I never really get into any conspiracies and generally think they’re bullsh_t since they mostly rely on mass assumptions and the cherry-picking of evidence; especially with the Polanski conspiracy. But today, I’m willing to have an open mind and I have some questions regarding the conspiracy.

Let’s just say every bit of the conspiracy is true. Alright. So why’s Polanski so afraid of Judge that’s been dead for almost eight years and a woman (Who supposedly set up Polanski) who had publicly forgiven him? It seems very much like an irrational fear even if the Judge wasn’t dead. And if he’s worried about a judge wanting to “finish what the other judge began”, that would just make him paranoid and maybe even a little insane.

Sorry, it’s his supporters who make these claims as to why he won’t return, I’m just stating what others general think of these excuses; so please don’t bite my head off or gang-up on me for having questions or thoughts that are not your own. And please, Polanski fans, don’t jump into insults or patronizing replies. Try and be civil, for once, with people who don’t share the same option as you. Thank you.

Now, re-read the boldened portion…..

See, this is my buddy Lazy trying to be funny. It seems as if he still hasn’t quite grasped the smaller points of the Polanski case. And at this point, I’m not sure he ever will. Why don’t I hold out any hope for Lazy? Read my response to him:

by prometheus1816 9 hours ago (Tue Dec 13 2011 17:49:07)
——————————————————————————–
Try and be civil, for once, with people who don’t share the same option as you. Thank you.

——————————————————————————–
Yeah there Lazy, like you’ve EVER been civil to anyone on this matter. And let’s not even mention how you mocked my rape and continue to mock it. So trying to be civil with you is like asking me to believe you. Not likely unless an apology is in order.

Now his response back to me:

by lazarusryu 6 hours ago (Tue Dec 13 2011 20:51:43)
UPDATED Tue Dec 13 2011 21:43:03

In other words, you’ve got nothing and have no answer for my question.

Oh and you’re a supposed rape victim who has less evidence that her rape even happened than Geimer, yet you’ve dedicated so much time into bashing her. That’s comedy gold right there, so sorry that you can’t see the funny, honey.

And FYI, I never made a single insult until the one I debate with begins insulting. So yeah, if you or any other Polanski apologist has a problem when I insult them, they can just go ahead and blame themselves, you more especially; you seem to have such a natural condescending tone in everything you write that it’s sickening.

And yet, another response on another thread with my response to someone else included for clarity (the text included in the italics are from a poster on the Polanski IMDB board by the name of :

by lazarusryu 6 hours ago (Tue Dec 13 2011 20:48:11)
UPDATED Tue Dec 13 2011 20:49:15

——————————————————————————–
by – prometheus1816 on Tue Dec 13 2011 17:29:36

by sfmar 1 day ago (Mon Dec 12 2011 16:10:13)
——————————————————————————–

Your revised/expanded bio:

You know my life is really complex. You know how a normal person gets up…rants and raves about Polanski and goes downstairs and…rants and raves about Polanski, eats breakfast…and rants and raves about Polanski, kisses somebody goodbye, and…rants and raves about Polanski, goes to a job, and…rants and raves about Polanski, you know?

You really need to get a better life, you know?

——————————————————————————–
The Wicked: Think like me or I’ll demonize you!
——————————————————————————–
Isn’t that pretty much what you do to anyone who disagrees with you on this issue?

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Lazy seems to think that his and only his opinion matters and refuses to read the proof supplied to him on this case. I’ve tried to be civil, but Lazy is just plain Lazy.
——————————————————————————–

Coming from a person who’s dedicated entire websites, blogs, and online profiles to defending Polanski and thrashing Geimer AND thrashes anyone who doesn’t share your opinions, that’s pretty funny

For anyone who doesn’t believe me, here’s one of her sites. You’ll notice that she’s dedicated some of it to sh_t talk about me too lol:

http://samskara.org/journal/

So now the kicker here. Lazy has in his signature section of his posts this little treasure:

The Insane: Think like me or I’ll kill you!

The Wicked: Think like me or I’ll demonize you!

First of all Lazy, to disabuse you of some FACTS here. That word I know escapes you and your so-called civility.

1) I have only one blog on the Polanski issue and it’s this one. the other blogs are from people, not me, who have done extensive research beyond mine in this case and have put together an exhaustive and dedicated response to all the whacknuts who seem to think that Polanski either “got away with it” or “raped a fragile, delicate little dolly carrying virgin”. Those blogs are listed in my blogroll on either the left or right depending on what theme I’ve created or uploaded. So check them out. All of which you’ll see are from people who were either intimately involved in the case, such as Richard Brenneman who was a reporter at the time the case was active in the LA Courts, to Barry Dank who writes on sexual polices involving consenting adults and policies that are somewhat archaic in today’s world. The other two are from Jean Melkovsky, an incredibly gifted Russian gentleman who managed to do what I could not. And that was sum up the case and Samantha Geimer’s endless and evolving litany of lies. Thanks Jean for that work of art. The last one is Novalis Lore who did the Herculean task of breaking the Polanski case down to its bones and making heads and tails out of the morass the Polanski case became and is still continuing to be. Novalis, I am humbled at your efforts.

2) Lazy pointed out my so-called tendency to insult instead of conducting the aforementioned so-called “civil” discourse. To note, I have always conducted myself in the way I wish to be treated, with civility and respect. However, when someone so blindly puts their hands over their ears and their eyes in a sort of childish< "I'm not listening...nah, nah, nah, nah" then I refuse to be civil when they have denied all FACTS shown them. Lazy and his types are given FACTS then take on this self-entitled snot-nosed punk ass attitude in terms of calling those of us out who have done the extensive research on this case as “nutjobs” or now here it is, wait for it….POLANSKI APOLOGISTS. No Lazy! What we are are a group of people who want it known what the mainstream press won’t report….THE TRUTH. And when we point out those truths, those of you in the peanut gallery of the Johnnie-Come-Latelies sit there with their smug shitfaced stupidity and then call us names. I’m not entirely sure how long both Jean and Novalis have been with this case, but I’ve been with it since it happened back in 1977. And ones like Brenneman and I have little time or care for those who still continue to beat the “Polanski raped a baby” drum when all FACTS point to something else. There’s only so long we who know this case can tolerate when addressing the continued idiocy of such pupertal minds as the Lazyites who refuse to read what we have spent hours upon hours, or in my case, years upon years, researching. It’s just like saying that anyone who has extensively investigated 9/11 are whacknuts when the call into question the 9/11 Commission’s weighty tome on the events of September 11, 2001. Those who refuse to do the groundwork deserve our rebuke and deserve our backhand when they continually sit there behind their computers, typing endlessly on their keyboards about their version of what happened in the Polanski case despite what the evidence refutes and what Samantha Geimer has told them didn’t happen.

3) This is to Lazy himself. He calls into question my rape story. He continually mocks my story as something of a concocted fantasy unsupported by evidence. Fine. Turnabout is a bitch Lazy. What evidence other than her continued revolving statements has she submitted to support the fantasical tale she told the Grand Jury back in 1977? What evidence does she have that supports that she was actually raped, if evidence of mine is expected? Simply, she has none and she knows it. Lazy seems to have made this personal against me. For some reason, this person saw fit to take what I posted here and turn it into some sort of mockery of a real rape victim’s story. I posted my story in hopes of showing anyone willing to seek it out, the difference between what rape is and what it isn’t. And what it is, simply, is a violation…and I’ve called it nothing but that. Samantha Geimer seems to change her story when it suits her and depending on what talk show or aim she has in getting her story out. It’s called THE HORSE’S MOUTH. In this case, Samantha Geimer’s. Lazy also seems to believe that it’s not somehow appropriate or “okay” to call Samantha out on her mistatements and her myriad of conflicting statements. As if she is some sort of sacred cow that we must raise up and sanctify for her plight. Instead of mocking me Lazy, mock her mockery of extending her fifteen minutes to a 33 year plus campaign of self agrandisment. But then one recognizes one’s own kind in a crowd, right Lazy? You’re just like Geimer in a way. The constant need to flail your arms around to say, “Notice me. Notice me. Notice MEEEEEEEEEEE!” So in future, when you’re expecting someone to treat you with respect, then the same should be expected of you and for you to do the one thing you Polanski haters and Geimer appologists seem to not be able to do: LISTEN. That’s all. It’s that simple.

And what “online profiles” have I dedicated to defending Polanski? Talk about making stuff up. If you’re talking about my nicknames on the various message boards or blog postings, I seem to recall I’ve only two that I’ve created to do so. My Prometheus1816 nic on IMDB and other places, and Samskara. So I don’t hide behind anything. I speak my mind on the FACTS I’ve investigated lo these many decades to a case that was flawed to begin with. Don’t like it Lazy, tough! Now onto those precious lines in your IMDB signature. The one about “the insane/the wicked”. Seems you’re talking about yourself again. Sad that. When the FACTS are laid out before you and you ignore them like the petulent child you are, how can anyone take you seriously?

3) Okay, to the ‘trashing’ of Geimer. I don’t have to do that. She does a pretty good job of that everytime she opens her mouth. One cannot take seriously her plight of being this victimized person when she refuses to call herself that and takes to task anyone who puts that on her. She also cannot be taken seriously when she’s campaigned for at least fifteen years now to get the charges against Polanski dropped, his plea deal expunged and any notion of rape erased from the public discourse. In fact, she has about a half a million reasons to want this all to, “Go away.” I’d say that’s incentive enough to change her story.

4) Here is the point of which none of Polanski’s detractors or attackers seem to want to address head on. And that is the fact that they seem to forget that Samantha Geimer admitted in her Grand Jury testimony that she had in fact, had consensual sexual relations with two others prior to her daliance with Polanski in 1977. The first was when she was eight, the other was shortly before the Polanski affair with her then (debated age) boyfriend, Steve Kronblet (identified through the Grand Jury transcript as available online everywhere). Kronblet was either 17 or 18 at the time he had full on sexual intercourse with Samantha Gailey. Now the laws according to the State of California about Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Minor, the charge Polanski pled to, reads as this:

According to the Sexual Assault Glossary of Terms, it defines statutory rape as “sexual intercourse between an adult and a minor. The adult can be found guilty of statutory rape in courts of law even if the minor was a willing partner.”

According to the laws of California, Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Minor is defined as:

  • an adult can be guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse if he or she has sex with a minor.
  • a minor can be guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse if he or she has sex with another minor.

What are the penalties for Unlawful Sexual Intercourse?

1) If a person is no more than three years older than the minor with whom they have sex, that person is guilty of a misdemeanour and can be imprisoned in the county jail for up to one year or fined up to $1,000.00.

2) If a person is more than three years older than the minor with whom they have sex, that person is guilty of a misdemeanour or a felony. If convicted of a felony, that person can be imprisoned in state prison for up to four years.

So now let’s look at how old Steve Kronblet was, According to several documents, he was either 17 or 18 at the time he had consensual sex with Samantha Geimer. When I read the penal code for Unlawful Sexual intercourse With a Minor, I don’t see any exception made when your name is Steve Kronblet. I don’t see any subsections or any other things giving an exception to Kronblet in terms of having had sex with Samantha Gailey. I don’t see that if Roman Polanski is found to be guilty of the the offense, that Steve Kronblet is suddenly protected of having done the same. So instead of the law being blind and equal, it is being punative due to the exception of the bigger fish to fry and the smaller fish in the bowl who has no value in terms of the amount of press that can be generated by the District Attorney’s office of any given state. The law in this case not only centered Polanski out but it became vendictive. While not asking the same of Joe the Plumber Kronblet, it decided that he wasn’t responsible for what he did. And according to the statute under which Polanski was charged, even Samantha could have been charged with having had sexual intercourse with Kronblet. So again the question Lazy and his ilk refuses to answer: Steve Kronblet had sexual intercourse with minor Samantha Gailey, is he not as culpable as Polanski? The answer to that would be met by Lazy and his type with the standard: Silence.

While they demand quickfire answers when they ask questions, they either refuse to or blatantly ignore any valid questions those of us who have explored this case have of them. And this is even big stripey and bold when it comes to the culpability of Susan Gailey in allowing her little ‘darling’ off with not only Polanski, but photographer Sean Kinney only a scant months before Polanski became the poor schmuck-of-the-month. Kinney was responsible for taking the infamous ‘schoolgirl with the books, shyly looking back over her shoulder’ photo of Geimer. I’d post it here, but then I’d have to hurl. It can be Googled…No, I’ll give the link to one of the images [ HERE ]. There, that way I don’t have to have that demonic look on my blog and have to look at it when I visit my own pages. Anyone caught by her surprising resemblance to an MKULtra project gone bad? It does me.

So here’s the $64,000.00 question to Lazy and the Polanski attackers: Let’s say you sleep with someone underage but it is consensual and you are say 43. You are charged with the crime, but then you find out someone who is 17 or 18 sleeps with the same underage girl and they don’t get charged, even though that is illegal under the statutes of the state in which the both offenses are committed….buuuuuut, that other person isn’t charged. Would you not feel that you are being centered out for being the bigger fish and the other guy who is ordinary citizen isn’t? I’d hope you’d say yes….and I hope you’d be as angry as Polanski was knowing that Steve Kronblet was out there and being protected.

5) Susan Gailey: Same apologists as the Steve Kronblet ones. Samantha says that everyone blames her mother for what happened. Well, hell….yeah! She was the adult and the mother, according to the law. She had the requisite DNA link to protect her youngin’ with all her heart and soul from exploitation and ruthless and soulless directors wanting to double ass fuck their little baby. Correct? See, my standard for this is Roman Polanski’s murdered wife, Sharon Tate who fought for the life of her unborn child to the point that when the knives being weilded by her killers took her life, she did that one single thing to make sure her unborn son was protected: She used her arms and legs to protect her abdomen and to protect that child from being harmed inutero. When that child was taken from her body during the autopsy, there were no slash marks, stab wounds nor any trauma inflicted on that little being. So this shows Sharon Tate did that one thing a mother by virtue of being the birth giver did in order to see her son was protected; she used other parts of her body to protect her stomach. Unlike Susan Gailey who it appears has no qualms about sending her little angel off with men not her father, brother, uncle or grandfather. And further, why wasn’t Susan Gailey charged with being a bad mother? Considering that it was noted that both her daughters seemed to be ‘off the rails’ in terms of not being monitored. Kimberly, Susan’s oldest daughter, had been in and out of rehab facilities for an addiction to Quaaludes. Her qualifications as a mother can also be called into question considering that she also allowed her then boyfriend keep drug paraphernalia around the house in clear veiw of a minor child. Again, another prosecution not carried out. It seems the LA District Attorney’s office may have been understaffed and or underfunded in that regard to carry out multiple investigations of the Gailey family. Is this pertinent to the Polanski matter? Yes, it certainly is.

If Roman Polanski was arrested and charged for an illegal act, than Steve Kronblet, Susan Gailey and Kimberly Gailey should also have been arrested and charged for their illegal crimes. Oh…what was that again? Ohhhhh, I see. U(nited) S(tates) vs THEM meaning them weird looking and weird speaking foreigners and bigger fish. I see there is no double standard when it comes to the law nor its supposed blindness and…equalness.

6) Addressing Lazy’s question about “thrashing those who don’t share the same opinions….” I’m willing to be civil and courteous when discussing aspects of anything with people willing to actually READ what I’ve posted. When it comes to people who gloss over the parts that don’t support their version of their so-called facts, I have little time. Particularly when I’ve stated the same things about a billion times over the past ten years I’ve been posting to IMDB. There is something to be said about ‘sharing opinions’ and actually addressing questions asked without resorting to name calling or mocking a person who has shared something as personal as a rape story, then I have little if no time for those people. Hear that Lazy?

7) Talking about ‘shit talking’: Isn’t that what you did to me there Lazy when you did your so-called analysis of my rape? Didn’t you decide to be judge, jury and executioner of your version of idiocy when you made that aforementioned mockery of my rape? Didn’t you in fact declare war with that one? And then you had the audacity to state that I had no evidence of my rape and demanded me to ‘show’ you proof. Sans Delorean-ing you back to December 21, 1977 and letting you see what was done to me, what ‘proof’ would you like? While you point out I have no proof of what happened to me, I state to you, neither does Samantha Geimer. You’re no different then Judge Laurence Rittenband who made a mockery of the justice system he took an oath to uphold then summarilty trashed it with his illegal exparte communications, ill use of his robes in terms of ordering Polanski’s deportation and then renegging on a plea agreement to which all sides agreed. So don’t go crying on IMDB about your so-called ill-treatment. Believe me, when someone is on top of you taking away any power, voice or security you have, you’ll know what ill-treatment is. Until then, shut your fucking yap you fucking asswipe. I’m tired of you Rittenband/Susan Gailey/Steve Kronblet/Susan Gailey’s Boyfriend xenophobic apologists who when trying to argue facts, have none in your arsenal. Then you go bellyaching about being called a name or two when you refuse to acknowledge the FACTS in this case.

8 ) And further to Lazy: Why do you care so much about Samantha Geimer? Are you related to her? Do you share some sort of shared experience with her in when telling a story of something that happened to you, you weren’t believed? Are you somehow superimposing on her some sort of related victimhood? If that is the case, stop! She does not care what you think, in fact, she’s told you to more or less shut your yap and stop trying to make what happened something else it wasn’t. She’s sick of people like you trying to get some sort of fame whoring off of her. Unlike you and your ilk, I don’t need that kind of whoring. I don’t need that kind of validation. The FACTS speak for themselves. I don’t need to concoct things or try to build myself up to be bigger than I think I am for some sort of validation.

In closing. I know I’ve come down hard on Lazy. I know to some my statement above may seem as if I’m unfeeling, but I’m so sick of having to retype the same FACTS over and over and over again. It’s so damn tiring to have to rehash things that have been ignored due to some ignorance or in Lazy’s case, pure idiocy. People like Lazy make me sick. They make me wonder what type of education is being sold these days. Did they learn nothing about how to research and break apart the mass in order to examine the individual pieces? Are they so totally stupid they don’t know how to Google something they need to know? Are we in such a fast food culture that only the sensationalistic sound bites become their truth? Are they so addicted to the so-called ‘reality’ TV they can’t disseminate between reality and fiction? The thing too that makes me so angry is that most of this is coming from people who were born after the events of March 10 , 1977 and who have no cultural background for what it was like during the time I grew up. They’ve conscripted my generation as theirs and changed the paradigm because they didn’t and don’t want to understand it. It wasn’t like “One Tree Hill” or “90210”. It was more like “The Ice Storm” and all that entailed. It was darker, less formed, more fluid in terms of personal space and what was considered being a minor. Girls back then weren’t walking and talking Zwinkies speaking in that concocted vocal fry trying to be some sort of cloned Kim Kardashian. Back in my day and age, we were the Kim Kardashians who actually talked the talk and walked the walk. And we didn’t go on television to apologize for a marriage failure. We owned our bodies, our minds and our deeds. And Samantha Geimer certainly has owned hers…to a point. So to Lazy, stop trying to control a message you don’t know how to form. Stop trying to make sense out of something you know nothing of. Until you begin to start discussing without mockery, don’t expect to be treated as anything else but the snivelling little brat you are.

Next discussion…….

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.

MAKING THE GRADE

After some time away from this issue, I came back to find that I had a boatload of comments awaiting approval, trashing and commenting on. What I found was a wide range of things from links to porn sites, free Viagra, seeing photos of Rachel Bilson (never heard of her) naked, and several sites for free downloads of movies. While I trashed about 200 of these like posts, I approved of some that were to say the least, condemning of what I’ve had to say on the topic of Samantha Geimer and her supposed ‘ordeal’ with Roman Polanski some 33 years ago. I’ve responded to many approved comments from people who stopped by simply to accuse me of being a hypocrite, to others who believe I had what was coming to me from this IMDB poster who annotated my story of my rape. I also had a wide range of comments that I did trash who were outright stupid, and still others who I believe should never see the light of day considering they were just plainly, bad.

I have one thing to say though on those who wish to comment on the Polanski case without providing their facts in the form of links or a page of testimony or even something that can back up what they’re saying. I’m going to state this with clarity: If you are going to try to argue this case with me without providing proof in the form of an actual page of testimony or something that is in the public record of the case, I’m saying don’t bother posting. It won’t be accepted nor approved. I have very little time and patience for those who refuse to aquit themselves with the facts and claim such things as, “her boyfriend never came to her place….” Etc. You clearly show a lack of intelligence when you refuse to make yourself even aware of the issues in this case. Further, like it or not, Roman Polanski’s rights were abused. Samantha Geimer, it appears, received her payment in the form of a half a million dollar payout given to her by Polanski and confirmed by her lawyers. She received her ju$tice. Roman Polanski has as yet, to receive his in the form of fair treatment at the hands of the California Justice System. Until he does, this blog will continue to raise the pertinent issues regarding that injustice. This blog will also point out the errors made by stupid people who refuse to even believe that Polanski was treated unfairly. And for those who believe that it’s perfeclty okay for the current DA of Los Angeles, one Steve Cooley currently running for California Attorney General, who still refuses to try any one of his buddies in the Catholic Arch Diocese for molesting and raping children going back decades. He is a joke and a disgrace.

To finish, I’m tired of having to continue to post and repost stuff on message boards and other blogs about this case. It’s tiresome and frankly, getting to the point of ridiculousness. In this day and age where Google is available and readily handy with any facts you care to avail yourself of, there is no excuse for the lack of research not done.

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?