12 mai 2010 – Roman Polanski tient à s’assurer que la demande d’extradition remise au gouvernement suisse s’appuie sur un exposé complet et fiable des faits se rapportant à son procès. Ce qui n’est pas le cas, actuellement.
En effet, aujourd’hui, les autorités suisses ont annoncé que « la Suisse attend toujours un supplément d’informations de la part des américains [et… ] n’a rien reçu. » Cette déclaration contredit totalement celle du Bureau du Procureur à la Cour de Californie lundi dernier.
Le fait est que la demande d’extradition officielle, préparée pour le ministère de la Justice par le procureur de Los Angeles, ne mentionne pas que le juge du procès originel de cette affaire, Laurence Rittenband, s’est engagé à ce que la durée de la peine de Monsieur Polanski en prison, pour y subir ce que le juge a qualifié publiquement d’expertise, soit sa seule sanction dans ce procès.
Tout ce que nous demandons pour le compte de Monsieur Polanski, c’est que les autorités suisses soient informées par les États-Unis de ce fait, un fait avéré par tous les procureurs en charge de cette affaire jusqu’à maintenant : dans une interview donnée en 2005 pour le film documentaire à propos de ce procès, l’ancien Procureur Adjoint Roger Gunson, (qui a été le procureur en charge de ce dossier pendant plus de 20 ans), a déclaré que le Juge « avait promis que les 90 jours de prison à fin d’expertise seraient sa seule sentence. »
Monsieur Gunson a confirmé, dans sa déclaration sous serment l’an dernier, que « après les arguments en défense de Monsieur Polanski en août 1977, le Juge Rittenband avait informé à la fois l’avocat de Monsieur Polanski, Douglas Dalton, et moi-même, que Monsieur Polanski serait envoyé à la Prison d’Etat de Chino en application de la section 1203.03 du Code pénal pour exécuter sa peine. A cette époque, j’ai fait remarquer au Juge Rittenband que l’expertise n’était pas destinée à se substituer à la sentence mais le juge Rittenband a répondu ; je le ferai quoi qu’il arrive. »
Monsieur Gunson a confirmé ces déclarations dans sa récente audition conditionnelle qui, malheureusement, reste sous scellés. Le Procureur s’étant ingénié à garder ce témoignage secret.
Dans son interview de février 2005 pour le même documentaire, l’actuel Procureur Adjoint de Los Angeles, Richard Doyle, qui a repris la relève de Monsieur Gunson dans l’affaire Polanski et a enquêté sur les faits à la demande du Procureur Steve Cooley en 2002, a déclaré : « D’après moi, le Juge Rittenband a commis des erreurs, d’après ce qu’on m’a dit, comme d’utiliser l’article 1203.03 non pas à fin d’expertise mais comme sanction … Sa promesse était qu’il ne le condamnerait pas à la prison après qu’il ait accompli le 1203.03 »
Contrairement aux déclarations du Procureur qui a qualifié nos protestations « d’infondées et d’irresponsables », elles ont été, en fait, confirmées par les procureurs dans leurs propres bureaux. Rien de tout cela n’a été divulgué aux autorités suisses dans la demande d’extradition. Nous ne pouvons en déduire que la seule raison de l’omission délibérée de cette information par le Procureur dans la demande d’extradition, c’est la crainte que ce fait indéniable, s’il était porté à la connaissance des autorités suisses par les Etats-Unis, ne les incite à conclure que cette extradition n’est pas légalement justifiée.
En décembre dernier, voici ce qu’a écrit la Cour d’Appel de Californie :
« Si Polanski présente une preuve recevable incitant le tribunal à conclure que le Juge Rittenband s’est engagé à ce que l’expertise soit l’entière sanction de Polanski, il est difficile d’imaginer que le tribunal n’honorera pas cet engagement aujourd’hui [… ] Si, après en avoir la preuve, la Cour considère que les allégations de Polanski sont exactes et que le juge d’origine avait accepté que la peine de prison pour expertise constituerait l’entière sanction de Polanski, une condition que Polanski a remplie, le tribunal pourrait considérer que la justice requiert que cet engagement soit honoré et que Polanski soit condamné à la durée déjà effectuée [… ] Nous pensons, avec confiance, que le tribunal pourrait énoncer une sentence qui ne devrait pas occasionner une autre incarcération pour Polanski. »
Notre accord international avec la Suisse exige qu’aucune incarcération complémentaire ne soit supérieure à six mois.
Si, après une audience juste en Suisse, au cours de laquelle l’historique entier du procès est présenté avec les faits véridiques, les autorités suisses concluent que l’extradition est justifiée, Monsieur Polanski se soumettra évidemment à un ordre d’extradition légal et retournera en Californie pour affronter judiciairement les conséquences de ses actes et être finalement jugé conformément à la Loi. Un tel ordre légal devrait être établi à partir de l’historique intégral de la procédure californienne et non l’historique actuel partiel et trompeur.
Nous restons à la disposition des représentants des autorités suisses ou américaines pour les rencontrer et leur présenter toutes les preuves.
(traduit de l’anglais par Sylvie Lévy)
free polanski !!
Il faut absolument que la Suisse demande à la justice amriciane que la levée des scellés soit faite sur le témoignage clef du juge Gunson.
La Suise ne doit pas prendre de descision avant de connaitre ce témoignage.
Courage Mr POlanski
Rose Rigot
Dear Maxid Caustique
Thank you
It is essential that Mr Polanski’s friends and colleagues stand up and make their support known.
To remain silent is cowardly. When silence occurs then bad things happen.
Mr Polanski is a human being not a monster.
Mrs Geimer supports him.
Both have young children that are being damaged by this nonsense.
Too much money is being spent try to seek revenge.
I am an anonymous person. I do not know Mr Polanski or any of the people who are supporting him.
I am not a pedophile or believe such things are right. I believe in justice and fairness for everyone and I do not believe Mr Polanski’s treatment is honest or truthful.
Mr Polanski has become a scapegoat for others ambitions.
janey
Thank you Mr. Bernard Henri Levy for supporting Romano Polanski. I agree with Janey above. Also I have this to say.
Did Charlotte Lewis sell her soul to the devil for a part in Polanski’s Pirates movie? And if she really did she was paid for her sexual services with a part in Pirates which apparently launched her movie career.
If this is true why does Charlotte want to renege on the deal she made now? If there was sex between the two, isn’t she breaching the terms of the agreement and selling Roman Polanski out by agreeing for her to be in his movie, so Charlotte can have another 15 minutes of fame?
What a blood sucker, and what betrayal. If this is true which it may not be, Charlotte kept this in for 28 years, and Charlotte made her bed and Charlotte should lie in it. I would have more empathy for actress Charlotte Lewis’s tale if she had walked away from Roman Polanski’s alleged advances, and had not starred in Pirates which would have proven she did not prostitute her body to be in the movie Pirates.
Also I did not know that the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office and Los Angeles Prosecutors had jurisdiction over sexual assault cases in Paris France Europe that occurred 28 years ago, and aren’t there statute of limitations problems?
In addition the age of consent in Paris France is 15 apparently. So the Charlotte was above age in Paris France, even if anything really happened.
The actress Charlotte Lewis popping up now, what great timing, is a good diversion to blur the Judicial & Prosecutorial misconduct that has taken place in Polanski’s 1977 case and the current prosecutorial misconduct now through misrepresenting from Switzerland the exact sentence that is left for Roman Polanski so as to be able to falsely extradite him from Switzerland.
Also Charlotte is a good diversion to take away from the fact that the California Statutes and laws have been applied in a discriminatory and vague manner in Polanski’s case all along, and two sentences for the same crime should not pass U.S. Constitutional muster. And this is really a malicious prosecution now.
http://yfrog.com/0h777bvp
» In case anyone feels the State of California did commit any Mistake, High Crime or Misdemeanor please check the above attached link « .
JPWK
ps: Amendment VIII to the United States Constitution guarantees pedo criminal fugitive Polansky a fair trial and legal proceedings, unless the United States People shall not be trusted according to the pedo criminal lobby or anti-american network.
The Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office and Los Angeles lawyer seems to have been hypnotized by English actress Charlotte Lewis’s story which seems to have some major flaws. See below for more info:
A 1999 interview actress Charlotte Lewis gave about her affair with Roman Polanski contradicts her accusations last week and reveals a troubled past.
Charlotte Lewis, the British actress who came forward last week and claimed that Roman Polanski had raped her twice in his Parisian penthouse on the Avenue Montaigne when she was 16 years old, has been directly contradicted by a source who seems at least as reliable as she is: Charlotte Lewis.
The now-42-year-old Lewis made headlines at a May 14 press conference in Los Angeles with her attorney Gloria Allred, when she said that the fugitive director had abused her “in the worst way possible” a quarter century ago. Polanski remains under house arrest in his chalet in Gstaad as Swiss authorities contemplate whether or not to extradite him to Los Angeles over a 33-year-old statutory rape case involving a 13-year-old girl. Lewis also gave a statement to legal authorities in L.A., and said that she hopes that Polanski “gets what he deserves.”
“I knew that Roman had done something bad in the United States, but I wanted to be his mistress,” Lewis said, according to Liberation. “I wanted him probably more than he wanted me.”
But in 1999, Lewis gave a very different account of events in an interview with Britain’s News of the World. In that interview, which was unearthed by the French daily Liberation on May 17, Lewis asserted that she actually had a six-month tryst with the Polish-born filmmaker when she was 17. “I knew that Roman had done something bad in the United States, but I wanted to be his mistress,” Lewis said, according to Liberation. “I wanted him probably more than he wanted me.”
In that 1999 interview, Lewis never mentioned any sexual abuse and she said that their relationship ended when Polanski introduced her to Warren Beatty, who was scouting for the film Ishtar, and she claimed that they soon began an affair. The earlier interview also detailed a deeply troubled past, including her forays into prostitution at age 14 while Lewis was still in Catholic school. And Lewis spoke of her cocaine addiction and hinted at flings with an array of celebrities—she has been linked to her Golden Child co-star Eddie Murphy, Mickey Rourke, and Charlie Sheen.
There were immediate questions about the validity of Lewis’ recent allegations, given that she was cast in Polanski’s 1986 film Pirates, and appeared at the Cannes film festival on his arm years after the alleged incident. And in an interview the year of the film’s release, Lewis asserted, “I’d love to have had a romantic relationship with [Polanski], and a physical one. You can’t help falling in love with him. But he didn’t want me that way.”
Today, though, Lewis blames the 76-year-old director for her inability to enjoy a healthy relationship with a man, and for her past bouts of bulimia, according to a May 17 interview with the Mail on Sunday. When the newspaper asked her why she is speaking out now, she said it is to counter pro-Polanski elements in Hollywood, not for hush money.
According to Lewis’ account in the Mail, Polanski, who was three times her age when they met, told the aspiring starlet that he slept with every actress he worked with. “That’s how I get to know them, how I mold them,” she claims he said. Lewis fended off his alleged groping and left, but later returned to him after calculating the opportunity that might otherwise slip away at a time when her family was struggling financially. Two weeks later, she returned to Paris for a screen test with him, and she was cast in Pirates.
One of Polanski’s French lawyers says that they are contemplating legal action against Lewis.
From:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-17/is-polanskis-new-accuser-lying/
Thank you Mr. Bernard Henri Levy for supporting Romano Polanski. I agree with Janey above. Also I have this to say.
Did Charlotte Lewis sell her soul to the devil for a part in Polanski’s Pirates movie? And if she really did she was paid for her sexual services with a part in Pirates which apparently launched her movie career.
If this is true why does Charlotte want to renege on the deal she made now? If there was sex between the two, isn’t she breaching the terms of the agreement and selling Roman Polanski out by agreeing for her to be in his movie, so Charlotte can have another 15 minutes of fame?
What a blood sucker, and what betrayal. If this is true which it may not be, Charlotte kept this in for 28 years, and Charlotte made her bed and Charlotte should lie in it. I would have more empathy for actress Charlotte Lewis’s tale if she had walked away from Roman Polanski’s alleged advances, and had not starred in Pirates which would have proven she did not prostitute her body to be in the movie Pirates.
Also I did not know that the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office and Los Angeles Prosecutors had jurisdiction over sexual assault cases in Paris France Europe that occurred 28 years ago, and aren’t there statute of limitations problems?
In addition the age of consent in Paris France is 15 apparently. So the Charlotte was above age in Paris France, even if anything really happened.
The actress Charlotte Lewis popping up now, what great timing, is a good diversion to blur the Judicial & Prosecutorial misconduct that has taken place in Polanski’s 1977 case and the current prosecutorial misconduct now through misrepresenting from Switzerland the exact sentence that is left for Roman Polanski so as to be able to falsely extradite him from Switzerland.
Also Charlotte is a good diversion to take away from the fact that the California Statutes and laws have been applied in a discriminatory and vague manner in Polanski’s case all along, and two sentences for the same crime should not pass U.S. Constitutional muster. And this is really a malicious prosecution now.
Even so the California 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 out of Plato’s Cave with people seeing the shadows of California Justice, instead of any real Justice.
At last some sanity.
The Los Angeles District Attorney must respond to this request or be revealed for a liar and a cheat seeking publicity for something that has been finished 33 years ago.
It is no co-incidence that Ms Lewis comes forward after 25 years to make a false accusation. It is part of the plan to lynch Mr Polanski in public.
The LA District Attorney is a BAD man.
Ms Lewis is a BAD actress.
Mr Bernard Henri Levy, your voice is needed again to silence this absurbity.
I hope Mr Polanski does not fall into depression and lose strength and faith.
Janey
Hi Janey,
It is such a pleasure, a wonderful stream of HOPE to know that people like you exists in this terrible World we live in.
Mr Bernard Henry Levi is the only man I know who stood up to initiate what is happening today. A very Strong and Powerful mouvement of opposition and resistance that the swiss authorities can no longer ignore. BHL has been doing a terrific job to help release this talented man from the Swiss Hard Dealers’ MOB-fortress!
Why bother sending young men to fighting extremism abroad when harbouring it at home? Judicial Extremism is wrong. The Los Angeles D.A’s is dead wrong.
No extremists in robe.
Polanski should be released immediately.