Roman Polanski arrested for extradition (merger) - Page 5 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Steve · #61 (**permalink**) 09-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Drake

Joey Buttafucco only got 6 mos for a long affair involving many repeated acts. It was suspended and he only served time after continued misconduct violated his probation. In his case he drove, and almost certainly conspired with, his underage paramour to attempt killing his wife, and he was never even tried for that.

So what?

Should Polanski not be held to account for his crimes because someone else wasn't?

Quote:

Polanski pled guilty under a plea agreement which was then reneged on

Do you even know the first thing about the case, and how the sentencing was handled?

No?

Okay then...

Quote:

and after it became obvious he was actually being further punished for being a foreigner, making controversial movies, and somehow for the 'guilt' of being married to a famous murder victim.

Well, thank God Polanski's not black, or you'd be whining about racism, too.

What "controversial" movies? "Chinatown"? "Oliver Twist"?

As for being a foreigner, that's just silly.

And John Woo would tell you so...

Quote:

He's had a terribly truncated career due to his inablilty to work in the movie capital of the world.

Poor little fella'.

Fuck him.

He raped a child, and you whine about his "terribly truncated career"?

Quote:

American "justice" allowed his beautiful young wife to be brutally murdered and would probably have never caught her killers had not one confessed while imprisoned for something else.

Which means complete dick with regards to whether or not he should be held responsible for what he did...

Quote:

Meanwhile, how many Edward Garridos continue to flaunt their abducted sex slaves for decades while being generally ignored by all and sundry but law "enforcement" in particular. This should go in the dictionary as a textbook illustation of the word "travesty"

You know, there's no reason, whatsoever, to believe you know a single fucking thing about the Polanski case, as you clearly don't even know about a case that you're referring to.

Who the fuck is Edward Garridos?

Quote:

One symptom of a decadent and declining culture is a paradoxical breakdown of justice. It will frequently persecute people mercilessly for small or medium transgressions while letting egregious and harmful violators off with little or no punishment at all.

So you believe that the rape of a child is a "small or medium transgression"?

Voland · #62 (**permalink**) 09-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

The US does agree to extradite its own citizens, and has done so. It all depends on the the kind of extradition treaty a nation can negotiate with another and its terms.

Polanski pled guilty to the charges so he was no longer just accused. He is guilty of the accusation by his own admission and it is an established fact. One common extradition treaty reservation regards shared criminality of the particular act at issue. In other words, the accused or proven crime in the jurisdiction seeking extradition is also a crime in the jurisdiction in which extradition is sought. Polanski's admitted act is a crime in both jurisdictions.

But, France will not agree to extradite one of its own citizens unless it consents and that was therefore made a condition of the US-France extradition treaty. It can consent, however, to do so. The treaty also allows the French to perform the prosecution of people accused of violating US laws against one of its citizens in France should the US permit it. Given the French tolerace of Polanski's vile conduct and flight from sentencing from a crime he had already pled guilty in CA, that was common sense. The US wanted Polanski sentenced in CA where he fled, and asked for his extradition, but France refused.

As for the French reaction here, it's shamful and condoning of a child rape and flight from prosecution from it. French Minister of Culture Frederic Mitterrand is already taking Polanski's side claiming he had already suffered enough in his life. What a load of tosh. The man admitted to drugging and raping a child and they've protected him from any accountability for it.

The Zurich Film Festival has also cancelled Saturday’s ceremony and condemned the arrest. And shame on them too for sticking up for a fugitive child rapist. Heck, IMO, they should stay cancelled until they get some basic human decency and ethics.

Ok, in that case I "plead guilty" to have been misinformed.

Thanks for the clarification.

O'Sullivan Bere · #63 (**permalink**) 09-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

With regard to the fact that he has appealed his guilty plea, I don't think fugitives should have any access to the courts. If he wants to appeal, he should have to present himself in order to do so.

Courts already have broad abilities and discretion to do that and IMO should invoke that discretion here to all allowed extents so long as he remains a fugitive. It's called the 'fugitive disentitlement doctrine.' He made his own luck by fleeing before sentencing, because if he had fled after sentencing and whilst his case was on appeal, you can bet the farm the court would have dismissed the appeal once he fled and he'd be stuck with his convictions and sentences as a closed case. For more on the equitable court doctrine in detail:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

481 F3d 173 Gao v. Gonzales | Open Jurist

Marcus1124 · #64 (**permalink**) 09-27-2009

Quote:

O'Sullivan Bere
Agreed, and courts already have discretion to do that and IMO should invoke that discretion here so long as he remains a fugitive. It's called the 'fugitive disentitlement doctrine.' For more on it in detail:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

481 F3d 173 Gao v. Gonzales | Open Jurist

That's very useful, thanks. Is there a similar doctrine governing the trial in absencia of bail jumpers?

O'Sullivan Bere · #65 (**permalink**) 09-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voland

Ok, in that case I "plead guilty" to have been misinformed.

Thanks for the clarification.

The sentence of the court is guilty without further penalty.

Quote:

Guilt Without Further Penalty Statutes

Title 42 Pa.C.S.A. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure

Part VIII. Criminal Proceedings

Chapter 97. Sentencing

Subchapter C. Sentencing Alternatives

§ 9723. Determination of guilt without further penalty

If in the light of all the circumstances, probation would be appropriate under section 9722
(relating to order of probation), but it appears that probation is unnecessary, the court
may impose a sentence of guilty without further penalty.

http://pcs.la.psu.edu/GWFP_statutes.pdf

daddio · #66 (**permalink**) 09-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stapo

Which unhappily, as I already ackknowledged, I didn't know of until reading the article.

Anyway let's see whether the Swiss will really send him to the USA.

we could always send a Seal team to fetch him. better still a special Ops team and noone will be able to figure out how he disappeared.

O'Sullivan Bere · #67 (**permalink**) 09-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

That's very useful, thanks. Is there a similar doctrine governing the trial in absencia of bail jumpers?

That depends on the particular jurisdiction in the US whether and/or when they allow it and the procedures for it.

But where and when it is allowed, here is the general way it works: They can be tried as if they were present in court, and they bear the loss to themselves for any handicaps caused by their own absences. For example, they cannot claim ineffective assistance of counsel for anything that is a product of them handicapping their counsel in preparation and avenues of possible defences, they cannot claim that their right to testify on one's own behalf was violated, they cannot claim errors relating to properly identifying them, etc. Moreover, they cannot file an appeal of the convictions and sentences so long as they remain absent, and the time periods for filing will toll as if they were present. In short, they are supposed to get no benefit from their wrongdoing and take what comes with it.

Some countries like France, however, do not recognise trials in absentia as being valid and the US-France extradition treaty permits France to deny extradition to anyone who was convicted in one of them.

This is exactly what happened in the case here in PA regarding Ira Einhorn (a/k/a 'the Unicorn Killer').

Ira Einhorn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Einhorn fled on bail to Europe after being charged with killing his girlfriend Holly Maddux, and he eventually settled in France. Given passing years and concerns that key witnesses and evidence might become not longer available though death, forgetfulness, deterioration, etc, Philadelphia finally decided to try him in absentia and he was convicted.

When Einhorn was finally found in France, they refused to extradite him unless he was granted a new trial because they do not recognise or allow trials in absentia. PA then had to pass a special law--called "the Einhorn Law"--allowing anyone sought via extradition to have a new trial upon request who was convicted in absentia and the other nation refuses to extradite unless a new trial is offered and granted to them. He was eventually returned, given his new trial, and was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. I actually watched the key part of that re-trial given I had handled and finished a case in another courtroom at that courthouse on the day the key evidence was presented.

Sunshine · #68 (**permalink**) 09-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

This is where Hollowood does indeed go wrong IMO, at least ethics-wise. The false and politically motivated talking point is that liberalism in the motivation. The real issue IMO is the culture of Hollywood of always supporting other actors and entertainers regardless of propriety because it serves their individual and collective business purposes.

One thing I never hear any actor say about another is an unflattering comment or opinion. No matter if the director, actor or entertainer is a total POS personally and/or professionally, they'll always say how great they and their work is, how much of a pleasure it was to work with him/her, etc.

Example:

Q: "So, Mr/Ms X, what did you think of the new screen release of Blood Beach VI?"
A: "Oh, director Y is a genius in his directing and script writing, the plot was tremendous, lead actor Z was outstanding and the supporting cast was terrific and talented, blah blah blah."

Nobody will ever admit the film and/or actors completely suck. From all I've ever observed, there's very clearly an unwritten rule that no entertainers or actors will bash another. So long as they all say wonderful promoting things about each other, then they'll all benefit from the mutual backslaps and seal claps. When the talents of Paris Hilton and the Kardashians, et al, and other no talent a-holes with screwed up lives get sung to high heaven, it's easy to tell that it's just the standard BS that stinks to high heaven.

They are all in the union.

Sunshine · #69 (**permalink**) 09-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

It just seems like such a plastic and dirty business in so many respects too. For example, I'll hear someone singing the praises of someone because that is the expectation (and if you want to keep your job prospects going and get reciprocal praise instead of smears and daggers thrown at you) but you won't get some frankness that's deserved, like:

Q: So, Mr/Ms, X, what did you think about working on your new film project?
A: Well, I hated it but hopefully the money will make it all worth it. But I hated it. The director is a coke addict and he likes to only hire women who fuck him. He basically has the job because of his family and friends connections in the industry, not because of any particular talents. In fact, it's others in the crew that do the good work that's been made possible for him given his connections, but he takes all their credit. A few really talented actresses didn't get the part because Ms Y started fucking him to get the part. She's a wooden actress and took loads of coaching, but her lack of talent still shows, and that brought down the quality of the film and we are all going to lose some money on account of her poor performance. She's also a cokehead so they partied and fucked and she not only got the part but also special treatment on the set. She'd show up late, under the weather, and not prepared very often, thought she was hot shit because she's banging him and mistreated the cast as a result, and he's a real asshole to anyone not on his 'pet list' which made working the set really frustrating. Hell, we would have loved to have called the director's wife to tell her what a scumbag her husband is and spread the word about her to get even, but of course we didn't want to get blackballed for other jobs by people who don't want to deal with anyone who speaks out.

And then you have to deal with all the niche groups and cliques, even cultish religions like the Mormons and Scientologists who have influence and pressures, etc.

The only actor I ever saw make a negative comment about a movie he was in was Robert Blake. He said the movie sucked. I saw the movie he referenced, and it did indeed suck. I think he had problems with the producers throughout the movie and even tried once or twice to quit.

And then there were the Hollywood feuds, ala Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. But you are too young to remember those days.

And then there's the 'casting room couch.' I worked with a guy who was married to a woman who had been a rising Hollywood starlet back in the late 50s / early 60s who came home to TN because she wouldn't do what it took to be famous in Hollywood. I can't post a link, sorry, but I recall reading several years ago that the casting room couch was as much of the deal for child actors as it was for adult actors. Between that and the drugs they were given as children, is it any wonder so many of those 40s and 40s actors grew up to be such sick fucks.

SO, if the chickens are coming home to roos, it's about time, IMNSHO.

Marcus1124 · #70 (**permalink**) 09-27-2009

Quote:

O'Sullivan Bere
Some countries like France, however, do not recognise trials in absentia as being valid and the US-France extradition treaty permits France to deny extradition to anyone who was convicted in one of them.

In otherwords, the arrogant United States respects French legal tradition, but France is not as respectful of ours...go figure.

O'Sullivan Bere · #71 (**permalink**) 09-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine

. . . And then there's the 'casting room couch.' I worked with a guy who was married to a woman who had been a rising Hollywood starlet back in the late 50s / early 60s who came home to TN because she wouldn't do what it took to be famous in Hollywood. I can't post a link, sorry, but I recall reading several years ago that the casting room couch was as much of the deal for child actors as it was for adult actors. Between that and the drugs they were given as children, is it any wonder so many of those 40s and 40s actors grew up to be such sick fucks.

SO, if the chickens are coming home to roos, it's about time, IMNSHO.

It's sadly well overdue when it comes to children on that couch and especially for this sick f***. And his rape of Samantha Gailey (now Geimer) and then just a 13 year old girl is as sick as it comes along the lines of the casting room couch.

This is what this suck f*** did:

Quote:

Sex crime conviction

In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now known as Samantha Geimer). It ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[25]

According to Geimer, Polanski asked Geimer's mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue, which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, "Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him." She added, "It didn't feel right, and I didn't want to go back to the second shoot."

Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the Mulholland area home of actor Jack Nicholson in Los Angeles. "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there." She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. "I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!", and then I didn’t know what else to do,” she stated.[26]

Geimer testified that Polanski performed various sexual acts on her, including oral sex, vaginal intercourse, and anal sex.[27][28][29] after giving her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug.[30]

Charges and guilty plea

Polanski was initially charged[31] with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[32] . . .

Roman Polanski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that this sick f*** even got the deal he did is scandalous and I can only think that his fame (inexcusable reason) and the victim's minor status and trauma for which Polanski got an evidentiary advantage from his own wrongdoing were the only reasons why he got it. He'd never get a charge bargain deal like that today...and yet the guy even fled from that before sentencing.

But I'm hoping he gets a 2009 style sentence for what he did given the charge to which he pled, plus the full book thrown at him for any and all charges relating to his fugitive status, such as prosecution and a stiff sentencing for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution, contempt of court charges with a stiff sentencing, etc.

Kyle · #72 (**permalink**) 09-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by stejay07

I don't like how the fact he is a convicted pedophile, and say what you will, he would have been convicted, is seen with such a rose-tinted view. The media want us to believe we must feel sorry for him over the murder of Sharon Tate, and that he is a genius film-maker. Whilst both may be true, they do not even go a slight way to pardoning him of child molestation. Plus, he is a fugitive, which makes him a much worse case of human being, in that he could not face the consequences of his actions, and the penalties of his actions, he fled. Never mind the fact he ruined the life of a 13 year old innocent girl, he even runs away from punishment. Not only that, he is celebrated, and revered for it. One publication even called him "brave" for fighting against something that could have ruined his artistic side. HE IS A FUGITIVE, and a pedophile, 2 of the 5 worst things I can think of, along with rape, murder and cheating. The man does not deserve praise, he deserves condemnation, and I woud like some from the Attorney General Holder to do so.

Polanski is not a pedophile. Look up the definition of pedophile - Polanski doesn't fit. He also has never committed the same crime again so that should be taken into consideration.

What he did may have been wrong, but Samantha wasn't 'innocent' - she'd had partners before and some even argue the sex was consensual.

Whatever the case, I hope he puts up a good fight. Let him go and leave him alone.

O'Sullivan Bere · #73 (**permalink**) 09-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

In otherwords, the arrogant United States respects French legal tradition, but France is not as respectful of ours...go figure.

You bet. And if you really want to grab your nose, just look at this:

Quote:

Noriega to be Extradited to France

S. Renee Greene

April 10, 2009 *Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

General Manuel Antonio Noriega was today denied his appeal for extradition to France, where he was convicted in absentia of using the proceeds of illegal drug trafficking to engage in financial transactions (what we would call money laundering) in violation of the French Customs Code. . . .

http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/view/97885

They have so much chutzpah it would gag a buzzard.

Kyle · #74 (**permalink**) 09-27-2009

Quote:

Geimer testified that Polanski performed various sexual acts on her, including oral sex, vaginal intercourse, and anal sex.[27][28][29] after giving her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug.[30]

I assume there was physical evidence to support her statements? If he did indeed force her, there would have been evidence.

Or did everyone just assume he attacked her, and that the sex wasn't consensual?

Mrs. M · #75 (**permalink**) 09-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle

Polanski is not a pedophile. Look up the definition of pedophile - Polanski doesn't fit. He also has never committed the same crime again so that should be taken into consideration.

What he did may have been wrong, but Samantha wasn't 'innocent' - she'd had partners before and some even argue the sex was consensual.

Whatever the case, I hope he puts up a good fight. Let him go and leave him alone.

WHAT???? The child was 13 years old!!!! He was an adult and he RAPED HER after drugging her!!!!

Just how is it you know that he never committed the same crime again???? Maybe he did and didn't get caught. I'd love to see the bastard dead but since he won't get the death penalty, I hope he's raped every single day he serves.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode