Pétition des nominés à Cannes en faveur de Roman Polanski


GODARDPOLANSKILe principe de cette nouvelle pétition est simple: un geste de solidarité, doublé d’un appel à la justice helvétique, signé par des cinéastes et, seulement des cinéastes, dont le point commun est de figurer dans la Sélection officielle du Festival de cette année.
Tous les nominés de l’édition 2010 n’y sont pas. Certains parce qu’ils ne l’ont pas souhaité. D’autres, les plus nombreux, parce que nous n’avons pas eu le temps matériel de les joindre. Tous sont invités à nous rejoindre. Tous, sélectionnés de toutes les sections du plus beau festival du monde, sont invités à ajouter leur nom, très vite, à la liste de ces premiers signataires.
Sans doute se trouvera-t-il des esprits chagrins pour arguer que ce sont les “amis de Polanski” qui, une fois de plus, se mobilisent. Sans doute s’en trouvera-t-il aussi pour, bien à l’abri de leur prudente et frileuse réticence, pousser l’impudence jusqu’à mettre en garde contre un texte qui ne peut qu’”énerver encore un peu plus” le juge américain. Argument de pleutres! Objection misérable! Nous pensons, ici, à la Règle du Jeu, que, dans la solitude tragique où se trouve plus que jamais Roman Polanski, tous les soutiens sont bons à prendre. Nous pensons que tous les moyens sont bons, tous, pour lui permettre d’échapper à l’isolement kafkaïen qui est son lot depuis sept mois. Et nous pensons surtout que c’est là une conception bien étrange de la justice et de la morale: Roman Polanski était déjà le seul accusé au monde à n’avoir droit ni aux circonstances atténuantes ni à la prescription; voilà qu’il serait le seul, aussi, à qui il serait interdit de voir ses camarades, ses collègues et, parfois, ses amis dénoncer le déni de droit dont il est l’objet.
Le festival 2010 commence dans quelques heures. Il reste donc quelques heures pour dire, avec force, qu’un homme, dans ce nouveau Festival, quel que soit l’éclat des films qui y seront présentés, brillera par son aveuglante absence : Roman Polanski.
Bernard-Henri Lévy

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


Print

187 commentaires sur «  Pétition des nominés à Cannes en faveur de Roman Polanski »

  1. Rommel dit :

    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.

    Stanley

    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.”

    Link: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20124052,00.html

    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?

    Stanley
    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. Mucki dit :

    Cette action s’apparente plus aujourd’hui à un “pet dans l’eau” qu’à une “pét..ition”

  3. L'écrivain fantôme 2 dit :

    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
    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-6270067-the-groping-governor.do

    The Clinton Barbarian
    http://www.liberty-ca.org/recallgraydavis/swartzenegger.htm

    • janey dit :

      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?

      Nothing.

      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.

      Janey

  4. Sonny dit :

    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. Sonny dit :

    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. L'écrivain fantôme 2 dit :

    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. Erin dit :

    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. L'écrivain fantôme 2 dit :

    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.

    See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/19/media-lynch-mob-roman-polanski

    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. Beltran dit :

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

Ecrire un commentaire