Following our breaking report of a Los Angeles Appeals Court panel ruling refusing to unseal recent testimony pointing to possible skulduggery by (former) prosecutors and the (now dead) sentencing judge, the fugitive director has now made that explicit request in the trial court.
.
The appeals panel was reluctant to grant Polanski's request, on the technical ground that Polanski's lawyers had not yet formally made the unsealing request to the trial judge before presenting his "writ' application (which is a form of prejudgment request for appellate review that is heard on the merits in a tiny percentage of all cases).
Roman Polanski's lawyers asked a judge Thursday to unseal secret testimony by the original prosecutor in the director's 33-year-old sex case to help Swiss authorities decide his extradition case—LAT reporter Linda Dutch reports in a Associated Press story filed 60 minutes ago.
Attorneys Chad Hummel and Bart Dalton said they need to submit the testimony of retired Deputy District Attorney Roger Gunson to Swiss authorities who are pondering whether to extradite Polanski to the U.S. after decades as a fugitive.
Roman Polanski's lawyers asked a judge Thursday to unseal secret testimony by the original prosecutor in the director's 33-year-old sex case to help Swiss authorities decide his extradition case—LAT reporter Linda Dutch reports in a Associated Press story filed 60 minutes ago.
Attorneys Chad Hummel and Bart Dalton said they need to submit the testimony of retired Deputy District Attorney Roger Gunson to Swiss authorities who are pondering whether to extradite Polanski to the U.S. after decades as a fugitive.
The motion said the transcripts will prove the extradition request is based on false and incomplete statements by the Los Angeles district attorney's office.
"These transcripts are urgently needed," the motion said, seeking a May 10 hearing before Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza.
Gunson testified this year in what is known as a conditional examination. Such proceedings reserve the testimony of a witness who might not be available for future hearings. Espinoza kept the transcripts sealed based on his interpretation of the law governing such examinations. The defense said the interpretation is wrong.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys were present at the closed sessions in February and March, and the defense paraphrased portions of Gunson's testimony from its own notes in a petition to the state appellate court.
Defense lawyers want to provide his exact words to the Swiss authorities.
They noted the district attorney's office previously asked that all hearings and conferences in the case be public "so as to appropriately respect the public's right to know." They argued that the same right to transparency should apply now.
District attorney's spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said prosecutors would reserve any comment on the motion for its legal filings.
Meanwhile, as extensively reported here--scroll down the acclaimed septuagenarian director remains under house arrest in his Swiss residence in way-cool Gstaad.
30 comments:
POLANSKI SPEAKS!
Well, Blogonaut, I know we won't see eye to eye on this subject; nevertheless, here goes.
As usual, it’s all about Polanski. Polanski wants “to be treated fairly like anyone else.” In other words, since Polanski wants to be treated like everyone else, then it’s time for him to return to the US and face all the consequences of his actions. At a minimum, he needs to serve the rest of his prison sentence for rape—and then he can face prosecution for fleeing the United States. Afterall, we expect all convicted felons to serve their sentences. And since he wants to be treated like anyone else, he must face prosecution for fleeing the US.
But, I digress. Afterall, it’s all about Polanski. Yep, just about Polanski. Perhaps I shouldn’t be so hard on Polanski; afterall, he devoted ONE entire sentence to his victim. Make no mistake; he doesn’t talk about how much his actions hurt his victim. Oh, no: his only reference to his victim deals with her requests to have the charges against Polanski dropped; afterall, Polanski’s concern is to spare his victim from further harassment.
Polanski insists he will be silent no more.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/
roman_polanski_statement_89vOkDeHZ6yGAyFxXYEH4K
We see the issue as one of due process.
Polanski was given a deal that involved him agreeing to enter the Dept. of Corrections for up to 90 days to be evaluated as a person who should or should not be given more time in the joint with the stipulation that if "no" the director would be released with time served.
The answer was "no"--that Polanski does not belong in prison (and the prison authorities should know)--but a corrupt judge reneged on the deal after PolansKi did his time in the joint to be evaluated and exposed himself to the risk that the CDC might have recommended an extended prision stay.
The victim's mother agreed to ther deal.
The victim--who is now 40--wants the case dismissed.
Who are we to argue with the victim's wishes--especially with the other complications the case presents?
kellygreen,
Not only is it about Mr. Polanski, but it is about us. His rights are our rights. Before you make a snap judgement, I recommend you view the HBO documentary, Polanski: Wanted and Desired. After being present for Phillip Spector's two trials, what happens inside the courtroom isn't necessarily depicted in an accurate manner in the media.
There are two schools of thought on Polanski:
1. He had sex with a child of 13. The law and procedure be damned. If we cannot rip him to pieces, let’s throw him in prison for life—which is too good for him anyway.
2. A deal is a deal. Polanski should have the benefit of his original bargain that the prosecutor approved, the judge approved, and that that the victim’s mother signed off on. Besides, if the 40 year old victim (who was THERE 32 years ago) says that Polanski was punished enough by the original time he spent in state prison being evaluated; how can the “victim’s rights” advocates in camp #1 justify disregarding her wishes?
We tend to see things in less black and white terms.
Los Angeles in the 70’s was a far different place that Wisconsin or Minnesota in the year 2010—and the acts in question took place in Jack Nicholson’s hot tub (THE EPICENTER of this ambiguous morality). The victim was by all appearances far older than 13, and was sexually experienced and willing.
This is not a defense in California to a statutory rape charge—never has been.
But Polanski was also going though a very rough time (his beautiful wife was recently murdered by the Charlie Mansion gang) and he showed very poor judgment. He was remorseful, and paid the victim $500,000.
So let’s not lose our heads and lynch Polanski from the highest tree either.
It was 32 years ago, and it is time to move on.
Oh, NO! You don’t really believe victim’s requests out weighs the importance of protecting society?
I’m all in favor of victim’s rights—and honestly, who’s not? But I’m very concerned when a society infers the rights of the victim are more important than laws. We’re not some third world country that allows victim to mete out mercy or punishment—we’re the friggin’ USA. We are a nation of laws. No one will ever confuse me with an attorney—but if we allow Polanski’s victim to dictate his punishment, then will it become acceptable for every victim to determine the perp’s punishment? Afterall, every action has a consequence.
More importantly, if we allow victim’s to dictate perp’s punishment, then we create a situation in which we allow perp’s to re-victimize their victims. We know spousal abuse happens; so what happens when abused wife has a change of heart and begs the DA to drop all charges? Spousal abuse rarely happens only 1 time. We all know it’s just a matter of time before the wife “pisses him off” again. So he continues to beat her; and yet, after every beating she begs the DA to drop charges. Well, there’s no doubt the wife is a victim—so do we allow the wife to dictate his punishment? She’s willing to not only forgive him but also take him back—so why do we, as a society, believe he must be tried, and if he’s convicted, serve his sentence? Afterall, every action has a consequence.
And then there’s the whole issue of child abuse. Do we allow children to determine their parent’s punishment? Of not! Afterall, every action has a consequence.
As to Polanski’s sentence for rape, I don’t believe I’ve every mentioned locking Polanski up for an outrageous amount of time. To the contrary, I believe Polanski owes the State of California the remaining time on his original 90-day sentence (some 45 days?). I do, however, take great issue with Polanski fleeing the US in order to avoid serving the remainder of his agreed upon 90-day sentence. It was unacceptable when Andrew Luster fled the US and it was unacceptable when Polanski fled the US; therefore, perhaps the feds have a case against Polanski. Polanski needs to suck it up and accept his punishment. He needs to serve out the remaining time on his original 90-day sentence; and if he’s convicted of fleeing the US, then he must serve out that sentence. Afterall, every action has a consequence.
Aloha, it’s completely disingenuous for you to not only suggest I not believe everything in the media but also suggest I should view the HBO special regarding a deliberately slanted view of Roman Polanski. Fortunately, my momma taught me not to believe everything I see, hear, or read.
Regarding your friends Phil and Rachelle: I do believe PS is, indeed, responsible for the death of Lana Clarkson. I do, however, commend you for attending your friends’ trials. IIRC, you were in attendance nearly every day of each trial. You certainly devoted more time to PS than did any of his long time industry friends. You are, without a doubt, a true friend to the Spector’s.
OK, back to the case at hand.
Right or wrong, a deal was struck, and Polanski did his time under the deal.
Speaking of laws, the trial judge not only reneged on the deal, he had improper ex-parte communications with the prosecutor wherein the judge announced an intention to max the director out.
None of that was exactly according to Hoyle.
And the victim is now 40, not 14.
So were does that leave us?
One must disregard the law to do anything except sentence Polanski to time served AS AGREED by the court, the victim’s mother and the people BEFORE Polanski (in reliance on the deal) entered the CDC for evaluation and took the risk that they would decide to keep him for 2 years.
As for the flight, can you honestly say that fleeing a corrupt judge and a corrupt prosecutor merits any additional time at all?
Let’s have some common sense here.
PS: The HBO special interviewed the witness and additional sealed testimony was just received to back the charges up.
PPS: Let's not be judging people by association. With a notable exception, everyone is welcome here. This is an open forum. Let’s keep it that way :).
OK, back to Polanski. Obviously, you know a lot more about this case than I do. I don’t have HBO, so I won’t be watching the Polanski video—Charter already gets way too much of my money!
I’ve never really bought into the idea that the judge intended to sentence Polanski for an additional 2 years. I believe Polanski’s decision to flee had less to do with a potential 2-year sentence and more to do with being deported from the US. Therefore, my questions revolve around when did Polanski’s team know without a doubt that the trial judge was crooked? Before he fled? Or after he fled? It’s too easy to blame a dead judge and prosecutor who can’t defend themselves.
As you know, I believe, regardless of the circumstances, it’s absolutely unacceptable to flee the US in hopes of avoiding prosecution, skipping out mid-trial, and fleeing to avoid sentencing. And wouldn’t Polanski’s life be a whole lot simpler if he voluntarily returned to the US? Afterall, he’s not going to serve any more time than originally agreed upon. Now, I’m not clairvoyant—but here’s what I see happening: Polanski returns to the US; and in exchange for accepting the originally agreed upon sentence a/k/a time served, Polanski agrees to drop his “was the judge corrupt or wasn’t he corrupt” crap. And I don’t really care if Polanski’s deported. However, should Polanski decide to push his corruption “theory”, I see the feds going full bore after him. Just think—had Polanski returned to the US in September, he would be walking around the world as a free man.
My take is that Polanski no longer trusts the legal system in Los Angeles.
The very outcome you propose was floated by Judge Fidler some time ago—except that Judge Fidler allegedly conditioned the whole thing on Polanski’s sentencing being televised (which was the deal killer).
Of course 32 years later the political climate has done a 180 with respect to sex crimes.
Instead of being offered a statutory rape conviction if the whole thing happened today Polanski would have been charged with offenses exposing him to decades behind bars—which is another reason for Polanski’s reluctance to return.
As to how Polanski found out what was afoot 32 years ago, word filtered out—and it turns out he was correct.
The California Court of appeal “strongly suggested” that the Los Angeles County District Attorneys Office investigate the improprieties in the case, and to date they have refused to do so.
It does not make sense to us that because Polanski feared being deported and put on a plane to France that he fled by plane to France.
We think the time Polanski spend in the CDC being evaluated convinced the director that he could not handle 2 years in the joint.
I do not want to over dramatize this, but more time in the joint with Polanski’s “jacket” would have exposed him to a substantial risk of death. At a minimum there would have been daily taunting and frequent beatings.
When I referred to Polanski’s deportation, I should have been more precise. I, too, believe Polanski didn’t fear leaving the US; I believe he feared once the court issued an ordered that required his deportation, he feared he would NOT be allowed to return to the US. All along, I’ve believed Polanski was afraid he would never be allowed to re-enter the US; thus, preventing him an opportunity to visit the gravesite of his wife and baby. In other words, I believe Polanski wasn’t afraid to leave the US—he was afraid he couldn't come back to the US and participate in work or personal issues. Incidentally, does having a deportation order on one’s record make it difficult to enter countries not under the US flag?
Because there is no judicial order pertaining to Polanski’s deportation, can he enter the US? Yeah, yeah, I know he’ll be arrested—but other than an imminent arrest, is there an order that prohibits Polanski entering the US? For the love of god, Polanski should just come back to the US, get his hand slapped, and return to his family in France.
I think we agree, Polanski isn’t going to serve another day in prison for the rape—there must be a law preventing the court from applying present sentencing guidelines to a crime adjudicated long ago. Right? We do, however, disagree about the appropriate resolution as to Polanski’s decision to flee the US—and that’s OK. Normal, sane, rational, and decent people can respectfully disagree. (Like, I say potato and you say potatoe—well, you didn’t think I was going to say potatoe, did you?)
PS: Why do you think the Swiss notified the US State Department of Polanski’s plan to travel to Switzerland?
"Why do you think the Swiss notified the US State Department of Polanski’s plan to travel to Switzerland?"
We did not know they did. We thought he was thee to get an award, and that it was widly reported in the press that he would be there.
Blogonaut- Have you recently travelled to Santa Monica?
Note to "Anon" from Santa Monica who posted about a certain politician at 5:05 am today:
We primarily deleted your comment because your comment was ghost written by a banned commenter.
We would also note however, that political contributions are a matter of public record and that a church may not make political contributions to a political candidate without losing its tax exempt status. Therefore there is no need to speculate that a certain political candidate takes money from “pedophile priests” and the accusation is preposterous.
Finally, the corruption alleged to have occurred in the Polanski case happened 33 years ago and not on the incumbent’s watch.
Regarding Misinformation Given To The Swiss Authorities By The County of Los Angeles District Attorney's Office In Order To Arrest Roman Polanski
Why would the 1977 County of Los Angeles Judge Rittenband after ruling that Roman Polanski was not a mentally disordered sex offender want Polanski to be evaluated again psychiatrically for 90 days before the Santa Monica Judge would commit to 90 days being the final sentence, or before the Judge would commit to a different sentence?
If the Santa Monica Judge intended to commit to a different sentence after the 90 day evaluation, this would be equivalent to giving Roman Polanski two sentences.
The second sentence dependent on the first.
But more importantly the Santa Monica Judge ordering a second 90 day psychiatric evaluation of Polanski was redundant since the Judge had already ruled that Polanski was not a mentally disordered sex offender on Sept 19th 1977, the very same day that the Judge ordered the 90 day in depth diagnostic evaluation.
Maybe the Judge was in need of an evaluation himself since the two rulings were conflicting & incompatible.
Dear Anon:
Since he has now passedon to that JAMS-ENDISPUTE in the sky, we will never know Judge Rittenband's thinking behind his decision to violate the plea agreement + the cannon's of judicial ethics by discussing his intentions ex-parte with a member of the (then) Los Angeles District Attorney's Office.
Clearly the incumbent DA (who was but a young lawyer and NOT District Attorney 33 years ago when the misconduct occurred) is not responsible for the above.
Nor, in view of his run for AG, is it in his interest politically to bee seen as "soft on Polanski".
We think it will ultimately be up to the Swiss authorities to do the right thing by dismissing the extradition request and allowing the septuagenarian director to go back to his wife and kids in his native France.
The 40 year old victim wants the case dismissed and has twice written to the court that Polanski has been punished enough.
The plea deal (approved by the court, the victim’s mother, and the DA at the time) was for Polanski to do no more time than recommended by the CDC (NO PUSHOVERS) who recommended no additional time.
Polanski paid the victim $500,000 in cash compensation in 1980 dollars.
The prosecution case stinks to high heaven, is tainted by judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, and the adult victim believes that Polanski has been punished enough and wants to let it go.
What more needs to be said?
What needs to be said is that it is a malicious prosecution now at Roman Polanski's expense. He is 77 years old, not 43 years old and the timing is off.
This is also at the expense of his life and his family's life. It is Kafkaesque, extremely humiliating for him and the woman involved
It is also taxing on film makers world wide. Big Brother is Watching You and will Pluck you up from any Country if they don't like you or the content of your movies!!!
and the District attorney's office wants another notch on its belt and media attention so as to be the next Attorney General of Los Angeles.
Even if the current DA was not around 33 years ago does not mean the LA DA is not cashing in and using Polanski's vulnerability now for his own benefit in his winding walk up the stairwell to heavenly higher office.
And it does look as if Roman Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest To Safe Harbor In Paris
And 32 years later two incompatible Los Angeles Judicial decisions made simultaneously on Sept 19th 1977 kept Roman Polanski’s sentence vague & ambiguous, enabling Los Angeles prosecutors in Sept 2009 to misinform the Swiss Authorities as to Polanski remaining sentence which at worst is 48 days and at best is nothing.
And even if 48 days is outstanding it is not 6 months, the magic number for extradition.
So Bottom Line - Much Ado About Nothing -
But the end result does get District Attorney Steve Cooley some much needed media attention
Well, Anon, it’s time for you to remove your tin-foil cap and step away from the Kool-Aid. If this were truly, as you say, “Much Ado About Nothing”, Polanski would be with his family at their home in France. During the past 3 decades, Polanski has had ample opportunity to return to the US and resolve his legal problems. As you accurately state, he will serve no more than 48 days in prison—so why doesn’t Polanski just return to the US? Until Polanski returns to the US, he risks extradition every time he travels to a country that has an extradition treaty with the US—and Polanski’s ‘people’ acknowledge Polanski doesn’t travel to England because he KNOWS he will be extradited to the US. So even if Switzerland doesn’t extradite Polanski, every time he leaves France, he’ll be looking over his shoulder. Why doesn’t Polanski just return to the US and resolve his legal problems?
But I must congratulate you: your declaration regarding Big Brother is the BIGGEST LOAD OF SHIT I’VE HEARD IN A WEEK! Now, I realize it’s really easy to cower behind the nameless and faceless identity of anonymity; so I’m sure it’s easy for you to foist your paranoid fantasies that Big Brother is out to get everyone. Contrary to your delusions, the feds have better things to do than pluck anonymous people off the street to declare them enemies of the State. Polanski was arrested because he had sex with a child. He had sex with a child. Polanski was not arrested because an anonymous federal agent disliked his movies or his politics. Do you just make this shit up?
Kelly asked why doesn’t Polanski just return to the California and just resolve his legal problems.
The first reason is Polanski does not like facing discrimination and corruption in the legal system here, he cannot trust the legal system, and I don't blame him.
Roman Polanski ran away from a Santa Monica Judge who was shouting off with his head, like a mad hatter Judge out of Alice in Wonderland.
Roman Polanski’s wife Sharon Tate and his child and his friends had been brutally murdered in the 1960's in California, I remember it well, and he was tortured by the California authorities and press at the time, because the murderers were not instantly found.
Polanski had already served his sentence at Chino prison, and all of a sudden was facing another illegal sentence from the Santa Monica Judge Rittenband for the same crime.
why on earth would Kelly Roman think that Polanski would voluntarily want to return to tinsel town in USA under these circumstances
and Polanski was not in hiding for 33 years, he was highly visible filming in Germany.
Big Brother Steve Cooley like a vampire wants to suck the blood from Roman Polanski, Polanski's fame, so Steve can get some world media coverage as the Los Angeles DA that nailed Roman Polanski for running away from California's injustice towards Polanski.
Its ALL ABOUT STEVE’s run for higher office, and
having another notch on his belt.
California and Santa Monica Judges and California Appeal Judges couldn’t give a shit about sexual assault victims. C’est des conneries!
In fact Santa Monica Judges stage hearings specially to injure sexual assault victims who report sexual assault. Yes courtrooms are used like back alleys to cover up sexual assault. And the Judges have gotten their promotion that way from the prior Governor to the California appeal Court. Yes the same one that decided Polanski's case, second district.
So this is less about the crime and more about a quest for power with hungry officials exploiting sexual assault cases for promotion to higher orifice
And Putain de merde, et Va te faire foutre, I don’t make this shit up, and your tone was not nice.
Dear Anon:
You kind of walked into kelleygreen's left hook with the "big-brother" comment.
(You have to excuse our friend kelleygreen--we have all had it up to hear with "conspiracy theories" of late.)
We happen to agree with many of your points, except the claim that Polanski was prosecuted because of his views.
The fact is, that even though LA circa 1977 had a very different moral climate than it does in 2010 (today, anyone in the director's shoes would be facing multiple years in the joint), even though the girl was 13 going on 30, did not look 13, and was sexually experienced, and even though it was probably a set-up by the mom for money (Polanski reportedly paid the family $500,000--and "mom" dropped her daughter off knowing she would be alone with RP in Jack Nicholson's house)--THE DIRECTOR STILL GOT CAUGHT WITH HIS HAND IN THE COOKIE JAR.
Yes, I agree that after all of this time and with all of the circumstances of this bizarre case (especially the now 46 year old victim's wishes) that its time to let it go.
And yes, by definition, the office of district attorney is political in every county (not just LA), and yes, moderate Cooley is facing a tough Republican primary fight and has to "run to the right" to get to the general election--but never think for a minute that Polanski was arrested 33 years ago because some DA or judge did not like his political views or that the decision to seek the director’s extradition was about Polanski’s art or his politics.
And the only directors who have to fear Big-Brother are those with outstanding fugitive warrants out for their arrest, so let us not over dramatize.
Do keep one thing in mind, though.
We Californian's tend to think the rest of the country thinks like us.
But the fact is that often, they don't.
Emotions run real high when the discussion turns to a 40 year old man having anal and vaginal sex with a 13 year old girl--and whatever mitigating circumstances exist in this case that is one core component of the case that cannot be brushed aside.
Yes, the case should be dismissed per the victim's wishes. Yes, the misconduct back in 1977 should be looked into.
But let's not over play our hand either.
Are you married to Kelly Green since you speak as the Royal We, or just good friends?
Re: Big Brother and Left Hook. Not really.
I believe that Polanski was picked up in Switzerland because of the film Polanski Wanted and Desired because it ridiculed the County of Los Angeles judicial & Prosecutorial system by showing it for what it is - stupid, corrupt - not a just system.
Also underlying the retaliatory arrest is a useful maneuver which puts LA District Attorney Steve Cooley on the map of the World's press because of the arrest of famous film director Roman Polanski who has been a fugitive of injustice for 33 years.
It is newsworthy because of the uncompromising stance taken by both sides on both sides of the Atlantic
Why wouldn't the arrest of Polanski be in retaliation for Zenovich's sins in making the documentary Polanski Wanted and Desired which exposed all the Los Angeles corruption.
Also even The Ghost Writer may have sparked problems on both sides of the Atlantic since there are so many comparisons to real Officials, and certain January 11th dates that have a bearing not just in Polanski's case.
I am coming from a different POV to you through personally witnessing corruption and a staged hearing in the Santa Monica Courthouse. So there have been at least two staged hearings in the Santa Monica Courthouse and possibly more.
From my perspective even if Polanski committed a sexual crime
because the County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Court does not prosecute sexually assaulting College instructors who are molesting their students in classes run by the State then
A Double standard.exists as to who the County of Los Angeles District Attorney's Office selects for prosecution and who it does not, with the Californian's getting a free pass, but Polanski a Franco- Polish National not.
Also you have mentioned anal sex but that is not the charge for which Polanskis may or may not be extradited, since that charge was dropped. The victim or her mother may have mentioned this but it is not evidence, and it has never been proven.
And today it looks as if Gloria Alred and the DA Steve Cooley want to do the same thing as was done in the Phil Spector's trial by all of a sudden finding new English actress victims after 33 years who have allegedly been sexually assaulted by Roman Polanski...Interesting timing -
I wonder if 5 more are now going to step out of the closet like Ghosts...
The "we" refers only to this blog per convention.
Kelly Green is an EMT from the Midwest who often expresses views diametrically opposed to our own; however, we respect her opinions and she is a welcome commenter here.
You do Roman Polanski no favors with your extreme views.
Since the boxing analogy did not sink in allow us to elaborate.
Your views are on the fringe and are calculated to persuade no one--certainly not those who are on the fence about the Polanski case.
Your opinion that other directors may be arrested and prosecuted next and that there is some Big-Brother conspracy afoot is ridiculous
Your analogy between college professors and their college age students having sex and the anal penetration of a 13 year old (who is not even old enough to be in high school and is a child by any measure) after supplying her with Crystal and Quaaludes is absurd.
And since we had already stated that we favor a dismissal of the case + an investigation of the allegations of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, your decision not to quit while you were ahead was idiotic and lacking in common sense.
I am sorry if some college professor was banging your girlfriend once upon a time but it has nothing to do with the Polanski case.
We trust that we have made ourselves clear.
The "we" sound as if you can only make a comment in union as if two versus one makes your view more correct.
If you are talking about boxing then see Million Dollar Baby. You seem to want to belittle.
You have misstated my opinion. Other directors may not be arrested and prosecuted next.
However if you were unfortunate enough to be sexually assaulted from behind by a college professor in his photography class you would not find the kinship absurd.
You would find a great similarity to either consensual or non consensual sex with a 13 year old teenage girl in a photo shoot. Since the sexual molestation by a College instructor from behind is undoubtedly against the student's will . The age is immaterial and the crime similar since it was an unwanted sexual molestation against the person's will.
In the photography teachers case he was being paid by the California state to teach photography not to sexually molest his students from behind or photograph them in the nude on campus. Also since the sexually molesting teacher ran the photography department the sexual molestation of the student by this instructor effectively cut off the students education at that college in photography, thus the sexual molestation was also sexual discrimination.
The sexual molesting by a College Official and the denial of the sexual molestation which spread to the campus police also caused greater problems
Because the female student was beaten up by police in the Santa Monica Courthouse for reporting the sexual assault and police cover up of it in a staged hearing put on by the Santa Monica Judge who was promoted to become a California Appeal Justice on police brutality day by the Governor Gray Davis in 2001,
Two staged hearings at the Santa Monica Courthouse has everything to do with the Polanski case, since there is a double standard in the Santa Monica Courthouse as to how sexual assault cases are exploited so County of Los Angeles Officials such as Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley can be promoted, at a foreign born person's expense.
ttp://cache.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=2999255&page_id=40502187&page_url=%2f%2fwww.copcrimes.com%2fsantamonica.%0Ahtm&page_last_updated=10%2f1%2f2000+3%3a11%3a50+PM&firstName=Laurence&lastName=Rubin
I trust I have made myself crystal clear, and if not have a nice day anyway.
No, Anon--you are far from clear.
Are you saying that both Polanski and your college professor should be prosecuted or that neither of them should be?
BTW, are you the same commenter from Santa Monica who tried to post last week the speculation that a certain DA takes money from molesting priests?
Sorry, but I don't find your story about the "corrupt" judge and police officers who "beat up" a rape victim credible. And there is no logical nexus between (what you claim is) present day Santa Monica and what occurred with a long dead judge in the Polanski case 32 years ago.
Sounds like "Anonymous" has an ax to grind and it has nothing to do with Roman Polanski. If Anon had bothered to read any of the columns on this blog about Polanski's plight, s/he would realize that the corruption surrounding the trial and sentencing has been addressed and support has gone to Polanski's plight. If s/he is saying s/he was assaulted by the police for reporting a sexual assault, then there are ways to address that in the legal system. Sounds as though s/he has taken the same road a banned commenter has taken - waited to hitch a ride on another's coattails in hopes of gaining something for her/himself. The system doesn't work that way. And if s/he was not satisfied with the handling of the case in criminal court, there is always civil court. And, Anon, if you can't respect others' opinions posted on here, then you have no business posting here yourself.
Is Sydney related to kellygreen?
Hardly.
Kelley Green is an EMT who identifies with law enforcement, Sidney more liberal; one lives in MN the other in Wisconsin.
They do know a wing-nut when they read his/her posts--as do we.
The fact that you even ask the question, Santa Monica conspiracy man, means that you think that the odds of two people disagreeing with you are so remote they must be related. I assure you that there are millions (most people in fact) who disagree with you on the Polanski matter—or have you not read the comments appended to most blog posts and on-line stories covering the case?
Have you read our latest Polanski post?
http://blogonaut-blogonaut.blogspot.com/2010/05/latest-polanski-victim-tries-to.html
We are among the MINORITY who believe that the Polanski case should be dismissed now.
Oh, dear sweet Blogonaut, you’ve made my day! After a trying weekend with family who accused me of being everything from a “left wing anarchist …socialist…capitalist… complete fascist…and the anti-Christ”, I can live with being known as one who identifies with law enforcement. Of course, they forget that I, like Hillary Rodham Clinton, lean more toward Marxism. But I digress. This liberal democrat can live with being referred to as one who identifies with law enforcement.
Hmmm - KG, "left-wing anarchist, socialist, fascist, Anti-Christ"?? Are you sure we're not related?? Coming from a family of cops and lawyers, not to mention the "born again" factor (not me) I've been called much of the same. But we are very different and I don't see where anyone would think, because we think alike on one notable subject or two, that we are anything like each other. Except perhaps for the all-important freedom of speech thingys we both seem to get into. Could it be some people just don't like to be disagreed with?? I wonder who that could be? Hmmmm...
Sydney, it would be an honor and a privilege to be related to you! I’m always amazed by those who believe the First Amendment only applies to them—of course, they also believe the rest of us are to be silent and subservient to them. Yes, there are those who believe the First Amendment is their exclusive domain. As a proper lady from the dairy state, I don’t tolerate their bull and I refuse to kowtow to their demands.
PS: Doing back flips waiting for you-know-who’s arrest!
Well, KG, one can never have enough sisters and you can be my honorary one. Cheeseheads always stick together in my neck of the woods and I suspect that's true in yours. All these no-name commenters could learn a thing or two if they would shut up and listen (and read) once in awhile. Now, after 2 1/2 days partying in Madison, it's time for sleep. Can't wait to catch our own version of court tv!!
Post a Comment