Petition : Cannes avec Polanski

Les soussignés ont pris connaissance avec stupeur des nouveaux éléments d’information apportés par Roman Polanski dans le texte publié, dimanche dernier, 2 mai, sur le site en ligne de la revue La Règle du Jeu, dirigée par Bernard-Henri Lévy. Ils ont pris connaissance, en particulier, de l’existence de cette pièce essentielle, mais étrangement tenue sous scellés par la justice américaine, qu’est la déposition où, le 26 février dernier, l’ancien District Attorney Roger Gunson affirmait sous serment que Roman Polanski a exécuté, il y a 33 ans, au pénitencier de Chino, l’intégralité de la peine décidée par le juge de l’époque (avant que celui-ci, sous la pression de l’opinion, ne se dédise et ne change brutalement d’avis). Conscients de ce que le Festival, où ils seront cette année présents, doit à ce grand absent qu’est l’auteur du « Pianiste », conscients aussi de quelques règles de droit élémentaires telle l’impossibilité de juger et de condamner un homme deux fois pour le même délit, conscients, enfin, de ce que la demande d’extradition formulée par les États-Unis est fondée sur un mensonge, ils en appellent aux autorités helvétiques en les adjurant de ne pas croire sur parole le gouverneur Schwarzenegger et ses procureurs.

Petition (in english)

The undersigned learned to their amazement of new elements of information provided by Roman Polanski in the text published last Sunday, May 2, on the website of La Règle du Jeu, the review published under the direction of  Bernard-Henri Lévy. In particular, they learned of the existence of this essential piece of evidence, placed under seal, strangely, by American justice:  former District Attorney Roger Gunson’s deposition of last February 26th declaring, under oath, that, 33 years ago, Roman Polanski served the entirety of his sentence at Chino State Penitentiary, according to the decision of the judge charged with his case at the time (before the latter, under the pressure of public opinion, retracted his decision and suddenly changed his mind).  Conscious of all the Festival they will be attending this year owes the author of “The Pianist”, whose absence there will be strongly felt, conscious as well of the basic rule of law that maintains it is impossible to judge and condemn a man twice for the same infraction, and conscious, finally, that the United States’s extradition request is based upon a lie, they hereby appeal to the Swiss authorities, entreating them not to believe the word of Governor Schwarzenegger and the prosecutors of the state of California.

Premiers signataires /First Signatures

Jean-Luc Godard
Mathieu Amalric
Xavier Beauvois
Agnès Varda
Bertrand Tavernier
Olivier Assayas
Jean-Stéphane Bron
Patricio Guzman
Jean Paul Civeyrac
Katell Quillévéré
Cristi Puiu
Louis Garrel

187 Commentaires

  1. Jim – I have been asking people for evidence that Polanski did more than he admitted. So far, nothing.

    By the same token, there is no evidence Samantha and her mother did anything wrong either. Without such evidence, I can only conclude Samantha and her mother are as presumptively innocent as Polanski is of the accusations folks here like to hurl.

    As to what Samantha said Polanski did, I can only conclude verification is as impossible as verification that Samantha and her mother conspired. And such verification is the foundation of our justice system.

    So, one side accusing the other unverifiable wrongs, is a double-edged sword. One side can not charge the other with any wrongdoing based purely on speculation.

    Stanley- One piece of evidence seems to be verified which is that Samantha took her top off at the first shoot and did not tell her mother because she wanted the career opportunity. I believe this is documented in People magazine and in not communicating with her mother she also to this degree compromised her safety for a career opportunity.

    Lily- I am not sure, what your evidence would actually prove in respect to Jim’s posting. I can’t see any proof for anything wrong in professional photo shoot behaviour (in a public place I may add, on a hill). Any illegal behaviour involved in not telling her mother? Any danger involved that she could foresee?

    Jim – I can think of a lot of reasons why Samantha removed clothing, including that she was trying to advance her career. But none of those reasons can be corroborated.


    Samantha knew the difference between right and wrong, admitted as much by saying if Samantha had told her mother about taking her top off at the first photo shoot with Roman Polanski that her mother would have stopped Samantha’s future career opportunity with Polanski.

    Jim said « I can think of a lot of reasons why Samantha removed clothing, including that she was trying to advance her career. But none of those reasons can be corroborated. »

    The fact that Samantha was trying to advance her career is corroborated by what Samantha told People Magazine with Samantha’s admission that she hid her topless shoot with Polanski from her mother .

    « On Feb. 20, 1977, Polanski took me on our first photo shoot in a hillside area just a few blocks from my house. We shot a roll of film; then he asked me to take off my shirt and took topless photos while I changed. I let him do it, but I felt self-conscious. I was thinking, « I shouldn’t be doing this, » but I was a kid, so I thought if it wasn’t okay, he wouldn’t tell me to do it. If I’d told my mom, she would never have let me go with him the second time. When he made another appointment a few weeks later, she had no reason to suspect anything. I didn’t want to go, but I still thought it would be a good opportunity. »


    Jim Good research. It does establish that Samantha was willing to remove clothing to advance her career. Did you intend it to mean anything else?

    Thanks Jack. Yes there is something else.

    In addition to establishing that Samantha was willing to remove clothing to advance her career, the interview also establishes that Samantha purposely hid her topless modeling activities with Roman Polanski at the first photo shoot from her mother knowing that her mother would immediately terminate Samantha’s modeling « opportunity » with Roman Polanski.

    It is already established, that Samantha’s mother Susan Galey was lax in leaving her underage daughter unattended with Roman Polanski for a photo shoot, (despite her excuses) but what is not so well understood is that the mother’s casualness with her daughter was exacerbated by her daughter Samantha who by purposely not disclosing her topless modeling activities with Polanski to her mother, and for the sole purpose of advancing Samantha’s modeling career, blocked her Adult mother Susan Galley from intervening sooner to stop Samantha’s sexual collision with Roman Polanski before it occurred.

    This seems to have been a trap for Roman Polanski, with both mother and daughter contributing to the sexual collision, with everyone being tempted by the different rewards.

    I am also left with a troubling question, is it true that only Roman Polanski’s action was illegal in California? And if not, I am not sure why this case was not tossed out at the time.

  2. Cette action s’apparente plus aujourd’hui à un « pet dans l’eau » qu’à une « pét..ition »

  3. California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger could and should give Polanski a pardon after all Arnold also has slept with underage girls in California apparently and so there is a Double Standard in California in regards to sexual assault cases.

    If you work in the movies based in California and later are California’s Governor you get a free pass to have sex with minors and sexually assault women with impunity, but not so for Roman Polanski. Why is that pray tell?

    See Below for links

    The Groping Governor

    The Clinton Barbarian

    • La regle du Jeu!

      This is what is happening here. Mr Polanski is being pulled into the games of the LA District Attorney.

      The LA District Attorney changes the rules to make sure that Mr Polanski always loses.

      This matter is not about justice.

      The matter is about political ambition and how people are sacrificed to achieve this.

      Rememeber Marie Antionette « Feed them Cake »?

      It is a tactic to take attention AWAY from all of the more serious problems that the LA District Attorney has not resolved.

      How many millions of dollars are being spent on this by the District Attorney. Who is signing those cheques?

      What benefit does jailing Mr Polanski achieve?


      Mrs Geimer has stated « STOP ».

      The children of Mr Polanski and Mrs Geimer are now being punished.

      The LA District Attorney should spent his millions feeding LA street children.


  4. This is about Polanski, bait and switch contracts, County of Los Angeles Judges, Prosecutors, District Attorneys plus 13 & 16 year olds tossing integrity to the wind by prostituting themselves for fame, glory financial gain.

    For Los Angeles Officials being promoted to higher office in California is a temptation which serves to undermine their integrity also.

    So if you want to be a Federal Appeals Judge and you ratify the Torture Memos, you’ll get your promotion.

    After that you’ll protect California Justices who got their promotion by holding staged hearings with undocumented white sheriff deputies present in the Santa Monica courtroom to assault and batter sexual assault victims for reporting police corruption.

    And in the case of the Santa Monica Judge Rittenband and actress Charlotte Lewis both abandoned their integrity to gain fame, glory, at famed Roman Polanski’s expense through making agreements which they breached after Polanski had performed his side of the bargain

    In both cases Polanski complied with what Judge Rittenband and Charlotte wanted whiile Charlotte remained silent as her career was made, and both betrayed Roman Polanski.

    Steve Cooley who is now seeking higher office in California, is also betraying Polanskifor all the same reasons, using Polanski’s name to enhance his own political campaign for higher office.

    Los Angeles DA Steve Cooley wants to extradite Polanski under false pretenses by not providing the correct information to the Swiss Justice regarding Polanski’s sentence which should be for time Polanski already served at Chino Penitentiary California in the 1970’s.

  5. he topic concerns honest contracts versus dishonest bait and switch contracts which were made with Roman Polanski, and which dishonest contracts betrayed him.

    This topic is also about County of Los Angeles Judges and District Attorneys as well as 16 year olds or even 13 year olds tossing integrity into the wind & prostituting their integrity for fame, glory financial gain and in the case of County Officials such as Judges and Los Angeles District Attorneys or prosecutors the desire for promotions to higher office is the temptation which serves to undermine their integrity also.

    So if you want to be a 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals Judge and you ratify the Torture Memos for the Bush Administration you will certainly get your promotion.

    In the case of the deceased Santa Monica Judge Rittenband and English actress Charlotte Lewis. both abandoned their principles to gain fame, glory, press at Roman Polanski’s expense,

    through pretending to make agreements with Roman Polanski whether written or otherwise, and then after Polanski performs his side of the bargain the contract was broken by those who had initially agreed.

    In both cases Roman Polanski complied with what Judge Laurence J. Rittenband and Charlotte Lewis seemed to want initially, but both did not play straight with Polanski, and both betrayed him.

    The current DA Steve Cooley who is seeking higher office to be Attorney General of California. is also betraying Roman Polanski now, for the same reasons, for the District Attorney’s fame and glory,

    and who wants to extradite Polanski to California under false pretenses and who is not providing the correct and complete information to the Swiss Federal Justice Department about how much sentence is left for Polanski to serve which should be for the time he already served at Chino Penitentiary California in the 1970’s.
    May 22, 2010 4:12 AM

  6. The Guardian newspaper UK is deleting comments in favor of Roman Polanski. I don’t know if there is free speech in U.K. but if there is The Guardian is violating it, and has a slant even though Robert Harris wrote an article concerning Lynch Mob Mentality

  7. Et si on signait tous une pétition pour pouvoir faire une loi universelle et pouvoir « castrer » tous les pervers de la planète ???? Les victimes seraient mieux protégées…..peut-être et moins de polémique ! Sans aucune différence de caste sociale, bien entendu !

  8. As Robert Harris the author of The Ghost Writer Polanski’s latest movie states, there is a lynch mob mentality in the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office presently.


    This has been in operation a few years. It was certainly present in the Los Angeles prosecution of the music producer Phillip Spector.

    The lynch mob mentality is assisted in California by the Los Angeles Judges allowing Los Angeles prosecutors to dig up and use all your ex-girlfriends or boyfriends or acquaintances against you, and if any happen to say that you pointed a gun at their head 20 years ago. The Los Angeles prosecutors can use that witness information against you at any time in a jury trial, even if not true.

    The logic of the Los Angeles Courts allowing all these witnesses to crap royally on you in a Court of “Law” is faulty since witness testimony is driven by many things that does not always include the truth, and 5 people saying you pointed a gun at their head twenty years ago does nothing to prove you in fact killed someone with a gun in February 2003. But it will certainly help a naïve jury to bring in their guilty verdict.

    And it is also true to say that 5 witnesses who did not witness any murder, does not and should not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    In addition and not to forget that the Star witness for the Los Angeles prosecution in Phil Spector’s case Brazilian Chauffeur Adriano De Souza was paid handsomely for his witness testimony by the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office with a US residency and forgiving De Souza’s crime that he was illegally working in U.S.A. which makes De Souza’s testimony even less credible since he had something to gain by giving that particular testimony.

    In Polanski’s case – Put up a press camera and actress Charlotte Lewis who was in Polanski’s Pirates movie will come, especially if the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office pays her not for her “sexual “ services, but instead for her “witness” services.

    So is it possible someone paid Charlotte Lewis to come to Los Angeles, even though the press & her lawyer Gloria Allred made a point of saying that Charlotte had flown to Los Angeles on her own dime.

    Would Charlotte pay her own fare to Los Angeles to meet the L.A.D.A for an altruistic purpose? I doubt it.

    If Charlotte did not have sex with Roman Polanski for nothing, and was happy to enjoy the fame and fortune by remaining silent at the time about the sexual encounter & which took 28 years for her to report, it would follow that the only reason that she is no longer silent is to gain again financially in the same transaction. In other words whether she is silent or not is dependent on what she can gain financially and career wise.

    Charlotte is useful as a star witness against Roman Polanski so that the Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley can nail a stale crime against Polanski, and use Polanski’s demise for his quest to become the next Attorney General of California.

  9. Donc si on comprend bien, M. Polanski est un grand cineaste donc il faut signer la petition? Grotesque…

  10. relire de DOMINIQUE SIELS : LE DESIR LA JEUNE FILLE ET LA MERE et vous pourrez comprendre une époque.

  11. oui une fille est mineure à 13 ans, mais revenons quand même à ce contexte d’enfant très libre, aucune surveillance parentale, menée par une mère qui voulait un rôle dans le « bal des vampires », rôle qui lui a été refusé, et qui envoie sa fille de 13 ans faire des photos de nus, chez un homme qui a vécu la pire épreuve qui soit : à savoir le meurtre de son épouse et de son fils. Personne ne sort indemne d’une telle sauvagerie. Il y avait une mère et j’ose dire : cherchons la responsabilité. Samantha était très libre, avait des rapports sexuels, et prenait la drogue proposée par Polanski. Si nous revenons aux années 70 il y avait une liberté de moeurs incroyable à cette époque là. Oui Polanski a dérapé, mais là il est depuis bientôt sept mois assigné à résidence, bracelet électronique à la cheville, il me semble qu’avec son séjour à Chino cela suffit, il a prouvé qu’il était une personne responsable depuis et sans histoire. Arrêtons de tirer sur cet homme que la célébrité défavorise.

  12. Maxid Caustique cite Claude Lévi-Strauss : « …en refusant l’humanité à ceux qui apparaissent comme les plus sauvages, ou barbares de ses représentants, on ne fait que leur emprunter une de leurs attitudes typiques. Le barbare, c’est d’abord l’homme qui croit à la barbarie ». Outre que ce texte est évidemment sortit de son contexte, puisque Lévi-Strauss se réfère sans doute à quelque tribu amazonienne et au regard que leur porte l’Occidental, que veut nous dire Caustique ? Que l’on devrait pardonner aux types du genre Polanski (et pourquoi pas à Hitler, Staline, etc.) car ils ne sont après tout que des hommes malgré leur sauvagerie et leur barbarie ? Je ne nie en rien leur « humanité » mais je condamne leurs ACTES. Il y a des « règles du jeu » dans une société et celui qui les transgresse en paie le prix. Une peine de 42 jours pour un viol par sodomie sur mineure de 13 ans n’est sans doute pas le « juste » prix. A propos, le terme de pédophile dans le cas de Polanski convient tout à fait puisque, jusqu’à nouvel ordre, une personne de 13 ans reste mineure dans la plupart des pays civilisés (dont la France).

    • Cher ami,
      Merci de votre precieuse reation. Vous avez brillamment saisi, le cadre, la forme et l’historique. Mais helas a mon plus grand regret le fond vous a echappe. je comprends! C’est pas toujours facile de voir au-dela des apparences!

      Pour mentir, il faut au prealable connaitre une chose simple et triviale: LA VERITE! Vous me suivez? Un menteur est donc quelqu’un qui connait la verite. On ne peut pas mentir si l’on ne connait pas la verite!
      Pour etre barbare, il faut croire a la barbarie! La barbarie releve de tout sauf de la raison. La foi en la meute dans le cas qui nous concerne, s’est propage par contagion affective. La meute garantie l’unite d’action par exemple les moutons allant a l’abbattoir. la meute lorsqu’elle incite a lyncher, se livre a la barbarie, c’est sans discernement possible ni recul avec en prime des degats considerables dans l’extase et la jubilation! On sait quand on fait partie d’une MEUTE!

      le choix de la reference amazonienne de strauss est ce qui m’a paru le plus approprie pour vous repondre: Qu’il y a t-il de meilleure que l’amazonie parler de tout ce qui est paradoxalement primitif aujourd’hui dans nos societes pretendues modernes, pour illustrer la dichotomie entre les reactions primaires qui s’abbattent aujourd’hui sur Polanski( primaires au sens primo reactions) et la raison basique( Savez-vous ce qu’etaient les annees 70? A Hollywood? Il n’y a que le Sida qui a mis un arret au Grand BaisoDrogue Planetaire initie par des precurseurs comme Jim Morrisson, Jimmy Hendricks pour ne citer qu’eux tellement a liste est longue. Jusque dans les annees 80-85, les gens prenaient encore des risques inimaginables aujourd’hui. Il a fallu des annees pour mettre un bemol au fameux PISSE & LOVE, c’etait surtout PISSE, rien a voir avec PEACE. Dramatiquement l’affaire du sang contamine, personne n’avait vu venir) . Une gamine de 13 ans aurait du etre a l’ecole pas dans cet enfer! J’en connais pas beaucoup de parents qui exposeraient aujourd’hui leurs momes sans supervision a des milieux moins pervers. Du haut de votre grandeur, mon cher ami, vous etes bien en Amazonie helvetique. Vous avez cree votre « bon sauvage » vis a vis duquel vous clamez haut et fort votre droiture! Le monstre! Le « pedophile », ils emanent tous de vous, ils vous appartiennent, vous en etes fier! vous avez fait du mot pedophile un TROPHE. Vous etes en la matiere, plus specialiste que les specialistes. Comment en etes vous arrive la? Comment arrivez-vous et continuez-vous a voir un Pedophile alors qu’il n’existe point en l’homme que vous lynchez? Ce Pedophile que vous voyez en Polanski est le votre, c’est votre creation, votre facon de voir le monde et les choses.

      Votre reaction n’est donc que l’echo de votre propre creation mentale et cerebrale! Vous etes piege dans l’absurde! Comme tous ceux qui lynchent cet homme, Vous ne savez rien de Polanski! Le « sauvage pedophile » que vous avez en tete et que vous vous exultez a user au point d’en abuser est votre creation. Il n’ y a que la contagion emotionnelle primaire pour expliquer l’absurdite dans laquelle vous et bien d’autres se sont enfermes. Ce que Polanski a fait il y a 33 ans est reel, indiscutable mais releve du passe, un passe dont personne ne peut pretendre savoir quoi que ce soit en 2010 a part la victime qui vous demande de lui FOUTRE LA PAIX!

      Polanski a lui tout seul, par subconscients interposes, est devenu l’incarnation de la pedophilie planetaire: C’EST RIDICULE! CA N’A PLUS DE SENS!

      Nous ne sommes pas ici dans une affaire concernant les crimes definis et reconnus universellement IMPRESCRIPTIBLES!

      Si la raison est ce qu’il y a de pire chez le fou, le courage et l’independance sont bien ce qu’il y a de pire chez le lache. Le lache n’agit jamais de son plein gre et surtout; seul! La meute est la conscience du lache! Le lache ne jette jamais la premiere pierre! il vous a fallu la Benediction de la premiere pierre Suisse pour vous lancez aux trousses de Polanski et le lapider. Pourquoi avoir attendu si longtemps pour vous exprimez? CA SONNE FAUX!

      Depuis plus de 30 ans, Personne n’a jamais eu a redire sur cet homme Comment peut-il du jour au lendemain sans aucune transition, ETRE TRAITE DE LA SORTE! C’EST FOU! C’EST IRRATIONNEL! IL FAUT QUE CA CESSE! NOUS SOMMES EN 2010 EN PLEINE AMAZONIE! INCROYABLE! On comprend mieux pourquoi BERNE est la capitale de la Suisse. Grace aux manipulations de BERNE, les moutons sont tous tombes dans le fameux trou de BALE!

      Si la Suisse ne s’etait pas lancee dans cette Giga-manipulation pour couvrir ses crimes et viols lies au secret bancaire, a la fraude fiscale et au blanchiment d’argent sale, vous seriez tranquilement chez vous entrain d’eplucher vous patates sans vous souciez de la misere du monde( Vous avez une drole d’indulgence concernant les GIGA CRIMES du pays qui lave plus blanc selon Jean Ziegler). Vous l’air indifferent et confortable par rapport aux crimes du L’Etat-Bandit-Justicier qui manipule votre sens de la justice et de l’egalite devant la loi.

      Combien d’innombrables et illustres serviteurs de causes supposees nobles ayant reellement abuse de pauvres petits momes subissent aujourd’hui ce que vous faites subir a cet homme? ON DIRAIT QUE CET HOMME EST POUR VOUS, LE DIABLE FURTIF ENFIN ARRETE? OUF!




      Oui, il est possible de vivre sans accepter d’etre mediocre. Par extrapolation, pour etre mediocre, il faut croire a la mediocrite! On sait lorsque l’on fait patie d’une meute de sans PITIE!

    • Maxide… prend donc un peu d’Ercefuryl… c’est excellent aussi pour la diarrhée verbale !

  13. The sad fact is – is that the California Statutes and laws have been applied in a discriminatory manner in Polanski’s case, (his is not the only case of this happening in the County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Courthouse) and two sentences for the same one crime do not pass U.S. Constitutional muster.

    However the California Justices, County of Los Angeles Judges & Federal Courts don’t seem to care, because the U.S. CONSTITUTION IS CURRENTLY OPERATING OUT OF A PAPER BAG, or alternatively is operating in PLATO’s CAVE with people only seeing the shadows of California Justice, instead of real Justice.

    In Roman Polanski’s 1977 criminal case Santa Monica Judge Laurence J. Rittenband used California Penal Code Section 1203.03 as Polanski’s sentence even though it was not designed to be a sentence.

    When the original Los Angeles prosecutor Roger Gunson informed the Judge that Penal Code # 1203.03 was not designed to be a sentence the Santa Monica Judge replied: “I’m going to do it anyhow.”

    When the Los Angeles Prosecutor Gunson asked his Los Angeles prosecutor Superiors, (one of whom now is a 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals Judge), to remove the Santa Monica Judge Rittenband from the case, Gunson’s County of Los Angeles Prosecutor superiors stopped him from doing so.

    Later, on Sept 19th 1977 there was a fake hearing at the Santa Monica Courthouse where the Judge Rittenband and all parties knew the outcome in advance, but not the public or the press.

    Then after Polanski served his Penal Code 1203.03 sentence and was release early from Chino prison with the recommendation of no further prison time, the Santa Monica Judge Rittenband unfairly wanted to sentence Polanski again to a second sentence, even though he previously said that the Chino prison sentence would be the entire sentence and even though there was just one crime.

    In another case involving police cover up of a sexual assault case at the same Santa Monica Courthouse in 1998, the Santa Monica Judge used the California Government Code Requirement 910 to hold a fake hearing where the victim of sexual molestation and police cover up of it could not prevail because of that California Government 910 Statute. So why did the Judge hold this staged hearing? What was the purpose?

    The Santa Monica Judge at this STAGED HEARING, allowed the defendant police officer to control the hearing by hiding the California Government 910 statute requirement, and also permitted undocumented police to be stationed in and around the courtroom, who later assaulted and battered and falsely arrest her in retaliation for reporting police cover up of her sexual assault complaint against an instructor at Santa Monica College, California.

    Another purpose of the fake hearing at a California Courthouse was to launder College Officials & police non-testimonial activities, their prior crimes against the female who had been sexually molested by a California Instructor on the College campus, and to win judgment plus intimidate and deter her forcefully – from going any further.

    See link below for more info:

    As there have been at least TWO STAGED HEARINGS at the Santa Monica Courthouse, where the Santa Monica Judges use the California Statutes to violate the People’s civil rights with impunity when there is no integrity or due process of law, and where the California Statutes are used for a purposes not intended on their face.

    In addition the Federal Courts are aiding and abetting to guarantee that people’s civil rights will continue to be violated with impunity in California, using such decisions as Pony v. County of Los Angeles to terminate civil rights cases in California, which conflicts with Federal U.S. Constitutional law and Statutes.

    See Link below:

    Note: Pony v. County of Los Angeles 433 F3d 1138 (9th Circ. January 11th 2006) was written by Judge Jay S. Bybee who became a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge i after ratifying the TORTURE MEMOS for the Bush Administration.
    A similar character appeared in the movie The Ghost Writer, in connection with a Ghost Writer who had disappeared & died on January 11th or 12th

    Because California Statutes are being used in a discriminatory manner with no appeals possible in California Courts, and no due process of law,

    Because Roman Polanski has served his time by serving Penal Code Sentence 1203.03 which was not appealable, and was not designed to be a sentence,

    Because Roman Polanski should not have to serve two sentences for one crime.

    Because California Authorities and Statutes are not to be trusted in how they are being applied at the Santa Monica Courthouse in sexual assault cases,

    Because in Roman Polanski’s 1977 Santa Monica Case there was illegal Judicial & Prosecutorial corruption against Roman Polanski.

    Because the District Attorney’s Office has used incomplete and false information to request that the Swiss Government extradite Roman Polanski to California, since he served the sentence agreed upon in the plea bargain agreement.

    Because 77 year old Roman Polanski is no threat to anyone.

    Because Roman Polanski either has 48 days or no days left to serve this does not fit Switzerland’s extradition procedure which must be 6 months or more.

    Because there is a double standard for sexual assault cases in the Santa Monica Courthouse where Judges cover up sexual assault crimes if the perpetrator works for California or their subdivisions

    For all the above reasons Roman Polanski should be released as soon as possible by the Swiss Authorities, NOT TORTURED ANY LONGER so he can go home to France to his wife, family and friends.

  14. je viens de lire l’article sur l’interview de Mademoiselle LEWIS en 1999, elle y déclare avoir eu des relations avec Roman (c’était plus moi qui le désirait que lui…) et après avec Monsieur Warren Beatty sur le tournage d’un film. Elle vante ses relations sexuelles tarifées avec des hommes âgés et du Moyen Orient. Pensez vous que cette personne soit crédible pour déposer une plainte envers Monsieur Roman POLANSKI ? Moi non. Elle veut de l’argent pour moi et a un déficit d’image et de gloire. Allons soyons sérieux.

  15. Polanski a deja paye son du. Ce qui se passe aujourd’hui c’est de l’acharnement politique.
    Rien de plus.

  16. Votre pétition et ses signataires me donnent la nausée…
    Je dois être antisémite, c’est ça bien sûr!

    • Tina… Vous voulez sans doute dire « bandeau » ? Les oeillères, masquant les côtés, permettent de voir droit !… Toujours se méfier des phrases clichés !

    • Deliberement s’accuser d’antisemitisme pour ne serait-ce faire croire que l’on ne l’ait pas peut se comprendre. Puisque vous en parlez, je me permets donc de reagir en votre faveur. Non, vous n’etes pas antisemite.

      Il faut etre lache pour etre antisemite. Etre follement lache n’est pas donne a tout le monde. Il y a certaine honte naturelle a ne pas descendre aussi bas.

1 2