Calls for Full Disclosure in Extradition Request
May 12, 2010: Roman Polanski is determined to assure that the United States’ extradition request submitted to the Swiss Government is based on a complete and truthful statement of the facts of his case. Presently, it is not.
Indeed, just today, Swiss officials have announced that « Switzerland is still awaiting supplementary information from the Americans [and …] have not received it. » This statement directly contradicts representations made by the District Attorney’s Office to the California court this past Monday.
The fact is that the formal extradition request, prepared for the U.S. Justice Department by the L.A. District Attorney, does not disclose that the original trial judge in the case, Laurence Rittenband, committed that Mr. Polanski’s term in prison, undergoing what the Judge said publicly was a « diagnostic study, » would be his entire sentence in the case.
All we ask on Mr. Polanski’s behalf is that the Swiss be informed of this fact by the United States, a fact confirmed by every prosecutor in charge of this case up to now:
In his 2005 interview for the documentary film about the case, retired Deputy District Attorney Roger Gunson (who was the lead prosecutor on the matter for more than 20 years) stated that the trial judge « had promised that the 90-day diagnostic study was going to be his sentence.”
Mr. Gunson later confirmed in his Declaration under oath, last year, that: « After Mr. Polanski’s plea in August 1977, Judge Rittenband informed both Mr. Polanski’s lawyer, Douglas Dalton, and me that Mr. Polanski would be sent to Chino State Prison under Penal Code Section 1203.03 as his punishment. At that time, I told Judge Rittenband that the diagnostic study was not designed to be used as a sentence, but Judge Rittenband said: ‘I’m going to do it anyhow.' »
Mr. Gunson affirmed those statements in his recent conditional examination that unfortunately remains sealed. The District Attorney has fought to keep this testimony secret.
In his February 2005 interview for the same documentary, current Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Richard Doyle, who took over the Polanski prosecution from Mr. Gunson and investigated the facts at the request of District Attorney Steve Cooley in 2002 stated: “There were many things that Judge Rittenband did that were inappropriate in my view in this case from what I have been told such as his use of the 1203.03, not for diagnostic purposes but for punishment. [. . . .] His promise was that he would not sentence him to prison after the 1203.03 was completed. »
Contrary to the District Attorney’s public contention that our statements about this are “baseless and reckless,” in fact, they have been confirmed by the prosecutors in their own Office. None of this was disclosed to the Swiss in the extradition request. We can only suspect that the reason for the District Attorney’s deliberate omission of this information from the extradition request is that he expects that this undeniable fact, if disclosed by the United States to the Swiss, would cause them to conclude that extradition is not legally justified.
Last December, the California Court of Appeal wrote:
If Polanski presents admissible evidence leading the trial court to conclude that Judge Rittenband committed to the diagnostic study as Polanski’s entire punishment, it is difficult to imagine that the trial court would not honor that commitment today [. . . . ] If, after taking evidence, the trial court finds that Polanski’s allegations are true and that the original trial judge agreed that the prison stay for the diagnostic study would constitute Polanski’s entire punishment, a condition Polanski fulfilled, the trial court could find that justice requires that the trial court’s commitment be honored and that Polanski should be sentenced to time served [. . . . ] We are confident that the trial court could fashion a legal sentence that results in no further incarceration for Polanski.
Our country’s Treaty with the Swiss requires that any further custodial term be greater than 6 months.
If, after a fair hearing in Switzerland at which the entire record of this case is truthfully presented, the Swiss determine that extradition is justified, Mr. Polanski will of course comply with a lawful extradition order and return to California to litigate the issues of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct and be finally sentenced under the law. Such a lawful order should be based on the entire record of the California proceedings, not the misleading and incomplete record provided to date.
We stand fully prepared immediately to discuss this issue with representatives of the Swiss or U.S. governments and to present all the evidence.
Statement by Roman Polanski’s U.S. Legal Team: Doug Dalton, Bart Dalton and Chad Hummel
THE PHRASE TO GOOGLE IS
Google:[ « Charlotte Lewis popping up » ] WITH THE QUOTES. Earlier comment I used poppED . . . wrong
and you will see all the links to the various pseudonyms that Polanski has used just for this one phrase, and continues to use, to make it appear as though he has a lot of supporters amongst us ‘little people’ who read and comment.
There are programs to look for PLAGARISM that could be used against these blog comments. It would tie together the comments to the names that were used like I did just by reading. That would be interesting.
-Max
IF YOU CLICK ON THE LITTLE FRENCH FLAG NEAR THE TOP OF THIS ARTICLE TO TRANSLATE TO FRENCH, THERE YOU WILL SEE JUNIPER AND JASMINE USING THE EXACT SAME COMMENT (ALL EXCEPT 1 COMMENT IS IN ENGLISH THERE AS WELL). HERE I LEAVE THE SAME COMMENT AS I PUT THERE SINCE THESE FRAUDS ARE BEING PERPETRATED BY POLANSKI HIMSELF!
–COPIED HERE FROM THE ENGLISH TRANSLATED VERSION–
OMG!
I just read Jasmine and Jennifer’s comments HERE amongst these comments and they BOTH use the EXACT same wording, didn’t change anything except the NAMES! And it was the two paragraphs that I had seen used by Bud and Maggy May, Jasmine, Juniper and Madeline in previous blogs (it starts with the « The actress Charlotte Lewis popping up now », is part of this comment as well!). Here they didn’t even TRY to mix-it-up like like did in the other blogs . . . making each slightly different under different names!
POLANSKI-
THAT’S RIGHT, I’M TALKING TO YOU! ARE YOU SURPRISED THAT I FIGURED IT OUT? IT TURNS OUT THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU THINK YOU ARE ANONYMOUS (AS JANEY SEEMS TO THINK SHE/HE IS), THERE ARE ‘FINGERPRINTS’ THAT ARE LEFT BY THE NETWORK PACKETS THAT ROUTE THESE MESSAGES AND THAT INFORMATION STAYS ATTACHED TO THE COMMENTS WHILE THEY ARE ROUTED AND CAN BE SEEN USING SOME SIMPLE KNOWLEDGE OF THE WEB AND SEARCH ENGINES, AND ALL THESE ‘PEOPLE’ POINT TO THE SAME PROXY SERVER LOCATION!
KNOWING HOW ‘HANDS ON’ YOU ARE, I HAD GUESSED THAT YOU WOULDN’T LEAVE THESE MESSAGE BOARDS WITHOUT YOUR SIGNATURE ‘SCRIPT DOCTORING’! GOOD HEARING FROM YOU, BUT YOU REALLY SHOULD LEAVE YOUR DEFENSE TO OTHERS THAT UNDERSTAND HUMAN EMOTION AND DO NOT HAVE TO STRUGGLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS TO FEEL SORROW OR EMPATHY FOR OTHERS. YOU UNDOUBTEDLY HAVE MASTERED HOW TO MIMIC EMOTIONS AS OTHERS EXPECT FROM HUMANS, BUT WHEN YOU GET INVOLVED IN MAKING DECISIONS ON WHAT IS A GOOD DEFENSE (LIKE THE ‘I CANNOT STAY QUIET ANYMORE’ SCREED OR THE ‘LOVE NOTE’ YOU GAVE PRESIDENT TOOKOZY TO GIVE TO OUR ‘BAMA) THEN YOU WILL CONTINUE TO MISS THE POINT AND GET YOURSELF FURTHER AND FURTHER BURIED IN MESS YOU CREATED WHEN YOU DECIDED YOU WERE ABOVE THE LAW EVEN THOUGH THE PUNISHMENT YOU EXPECTED WAS MINIMAL (ANYONE FOUND GUILTY IN 1977 OF THE 6 CHARGES YOU HAD COMMITTED WOULD STILL BE IN JAIL, THAT’S HOW SERIOUSLY WE TAKE DRUGGING AND RAPING LITTLE GIRLS!). I DON’T EXPECT YOU TO UNDERSTAND, BUT BEING A SOCIOPATH REQUIRES YOU TO STUDY TEH EMOTIONS OF OTHERS SO YOU CAN MIMIC THEM, BUT SURROUNDING YOURSELF WTH SUCK-UPS LIKE BHL INSULATES YOU FROM THE REAL WORLD AND DOESN’T ALLOW YOU TO SEE THAT THE WORLD DESPISES YOU MORE FOR INSISTING YOU ARE THE VICTIM RATHER THAN THE AGGRESSOR WHEN YOU ADMITTED TO RAPING SAMANTHA (AND NOW CHARLOTTE LEWIS . . .).
GIVE YOURSELF UP ASAP AND BE CONVINCING THAT YOU REGRET WHAT YOU DID TO THESE YOUNG GIRLS (I KNOW YOU CAN MIMIC THIS BECAUSE YOU WERE AN ACTOR AFTER ALL). YOU JUST HAVE TO LOSE THE ARROGANT, SELF-RIGHTEOUS ATTITUDE THAT YOU HAD EVEN BACK IN 1977/8.
IF YOU DON’T, OTHER ACTRESSES, INCLUDING MIA FARROW AND NATASHA, MIGHT BLOW YOU OUT OF THE WATER BECAUSE THEY KNOW HOW YOU TREATED THEM WHEN THEY WERE LEADING LADIES FOR YOU.
MIA MAY DO IT NOW THAT THE OTHER SOCIOPATH NAMED WOODY ALLEN IS DEFENDING YOUR PEDOPHILIC WAYS. WOODY IS KEPT FROM HAVING UNSUPERVISED VISITS WITH HIS BIOLOGICAL SON ‘SATCHEL’ (SOON-YI’S BROTHER WHO MIA HAD WITH WOODY) BECAUSE WOODY WAS CAUGHT WITH HIS FACE BURIED IN THE LAP OF THE ONLY ‘DAUGHTER’ WOODY ADOPTED THAT WAS PART OF MIA’S BROOD, THE ONLY BLOND, BLUE EYED ARYAN, WITHOUT ANY SPECIAL NEEDS, THAT MIA ADOPTED SPECIFICALLY WITH WOODY IN MIND KNOWING HOW LITTLE INTEREST HE HAD IN HER OTHER CHILDREN. IT WORKED TO WELL, WOODY COULDN’T KEEP AWAY FROM HER, THE JUDGE GIVING SOLE CUSTODY TO MIA STATING HIS CONDUCT WAS « GROSSLY INAPPROPRIATE » . . . WHAT A SICK BAST_RD, AND I THINK MIA STAYING QUIET TO SAVE HER CHILDREN THE PUBLICITY, IS ULTIMATELY TEACHING THEM TO REMAIN VICTIMS RATHER THAN TAKE A STAND AS MIA HAS AND FIGHT FOR ALL CHILDREN EVERYWHERE! I EXPECT THAT OF MIA’S KIDS BECAUSE SHE TRULY IS AN INSPIRATION TO THOSE OF US THAT FIND RAISING 1 OR 2 CHILDREN IS A CHALLENGE!
SO LET’S HOPE THAT MIA NOR NATASHA, WHO HAS SAID THAT SHE ONLY WISHED THAT SHE HAD HAD A CHILDHOOD AND HAD NOT GOTTEN SO INVOLVED IN BEING EXPLOITED AS A SEX SYMBOL AT SUCH A YOUNG AGE (HOW ABOUT HAVING BEEN ABANDONED AT POLANSKI’S APARTMENT BY POLANSKI’S FRIEND AND THEN ENDING UP IN OLANSKI’S BE WITH HIM AND HIS 17 YEAR OLD ‘DATE’. THE VISUAL OF THIS UGLY LITTLE 42-YEAR-OLD PERV WITH A 17 AND 15-YEAR-OLD . . .
WARNING: VISUALS CONTAIN GRAPHIC DEPICTIONS OF FORCED SEXUAL ACTS BY USE OF DRUGS ».
MIA AND NATASHA, DO ALL RAPE VICTIMS A TREMENDOUS FAVOR AND TELL THEM IT IS NOT THEIR FAULT IF THEY WERE DRUGGED!
-MAX
Polanski’s lawyers are correct, and the fact is – is that the California Statutes and laws have been and are being applied in a discriminatory and vague manner in Polanski’s case, and two sentences for the same one crime should not pass U.S. Constitutional muster.
However the Justices, 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.
In Aug 1977 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.”
And when Los Angeles Prosecutor Gunson asked his Los Angeles prosecutor Superiors, (one of whom now is a 9th Circuit Judge), to remove the Santa Monica Judge Rittenband, Gunson’s County of Los Angeles Prosecutor superiors stopped him from trying to do 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 which involved 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?
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 one of California’s Colleges.
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 for more info:
http://cache.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=2999255&page_id=40502187&page_url=%2f%2fwww.copcrimes.com%2fsantamonica.htm&page_last_updated=10%2f1%2f2000+3%3a11%3a50+PM&firstName=Laurence&lastName=Rubin
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, equal protections of the laws, and where the California Statutes are used for a purposes not intended on their face.
In addition the Federal Courts are aiding and abetting in guaranteeing 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:
http://openjurist.org/433/f3d/1138/pony-v-county-of-los-angeles
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 after ratifying the TORTURE MEMOS for the Bush Administration.
A similar character appeared in the movie The Ghost Writer, where a Ghost Writer 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 the District Attorney’s Office has not wanted to add another sentence for Polanski leaving California in 1977 before he was to receive his second sentence which is telling.
Because 77 year old Roman Polanski is no threat to anyone.
Because Roman Polanski either has 48 days or no days left to serve in California – which is not 6 months, and thus 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
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.
No way!!! Being a good director does not mean that he can violate any law. Prison for Polansky!!! Now, for the rest of his life. What he did (not only once, several times) is disgusting and squalid. Jail for a paedophile. Several priests of the catholic church, also squalid and paedophiles, are great intellects. Prison for everyone who sexually touch a baby or a minor.
Je trouve vraiment anormal qu’une espèce d’actrice qui n’a aucunes notoriétés trouve le moyen de venir à la télévision pour dire qu’elle aussi a été violée….. il y a fort longtemps. Tout d’un coup ça lui est revenu à l’esprit !!!!! Je pense qu’elle cherche à ce qu’on parle d’elle. C’est plutôt elle que l’on devrait condamné… pour son mensonge. Alors la justice s.v.pl. laissez M. Polanski tranquille est libérez-le, le plus rapidement possible afin qu’il puisse retrouver sa famille et ses amis. M. Polanski je vous souhaite bon courrage et mes meilleures salutations.
Justice could work only if there is certainty of punishment for a crime. It does not matter if the guilty person is famous, rich, intellectual (actually that makes in worst) or the President of the United States. And then especially if – as it seems from last days – further crimes of the same nature have been perpetrated.
Justice and Law *have* to be the same for everyone. It seems Justice and Law has been bent for too long because the person in trial is rich, famous and have rich and famous friends.
Free Polanski now. Polish communists with agreements with US government forced Polish people to slavery work in the United states under slavery in Polish Peoples Army and
under this Chinees laws:
76-7-104. Fornication.
(1) Any unmarried person who shall voluntarily engage in sexual intercourse with another is guilty of fornication.
(2) Fornication is a class B misdemeanor.
76-5-403. Sodomy — … (1) A person commits sodomy when the actor engages in any sexual act with a person who is 14 years of age or older involving the genitals of one person and mouth or anus of another person, regardless of the sex of either participant. …. (3) Sodomy is a class B misdemeanor.
76-3-204. Misdemeanor conviction — Term of imprisonment. A person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor may be sentenced to imprisonment as follows: (1) In the case of a class A misdemeanor, for a term not exceeding one year; (2) In the case of a class B misdemeanor, for a term not exceeding six months; (3) In the case of a class C misdemeanor, for a term not exceeding 90 days.
What the court should look into is why the victim, Samantha Geimer, didn’t include Vogue Magazine as a defendant in her civil suit against Polanski. This is important because it raises the question of whether Polanski acted with premeditatoin.
Roman Polanski procured his access to Geimer by telling her mother that he was on assignment for Vogue Hommes, shooting a feature on adolescent girls. A sister publication of French Vogue — for whom he had completed an earlier, legitimate project — the credibility attached to Polanski by his association with a world-renowned fashion magazine no doubt influenced both mother and daughter to proceed.
It has never been clearly established who the source is for the claim that Polanski worked for Vogue in the second instance: Polanski himself? A third-party? Vogue?
This doubt is compounded when one considers the civil suit Geimer brought against Polanski. Why wasn’t Vogue also sued, a target with much deeper pockets and one which would never have been left untouched by any self-respecting tort attorney. Under the doctrine of Respondeat Superiore (« Let the master answer »), Vogue would be at least equally if not more liable for what happened to Geimer.
This is crucial, I believe, to the entire case. If Vogue had legitimately hired Polanski the second time, then what followed between him and Geimer holds the possibility of being chalked up to a momentary lapse between photographer and subject, lending credence to psychiatrist Alvin E. Davis‘ observation that the rape resulted from the “loss of normal inhibitions in circumstances of intimacy and collaboration in creative work…“ This is certainly the stance that Polanski has held for the past 33 years.
However, if Vogue had not commissioned Polanski, then his misrepresentation was more likely to have been a new twist to an age-old confidence game: a premeditated ruse employed by a pedophile to drug, rape, and sodomize a defenseless 13-year-old.
On peut voir ca comme ca.
Voilà qui est imparable : des Procureurs qui ont été partie prenante de ce procès ont témoigné et témoignent du fait que le juge de l’époque avait dit que la peine de prison à laquelle il avait condamné Roman Polanski à l’époque serait le seul jugement prononcé à son encontre.
La justice américaine ne fournit pas aux autorités suisses ces éléments dans le cadre de leur demande d’extradition. Ce qui est inique.
Il n’y a aucune raison valable pour que Roman Polanski soit victime d’un déni de justice