« Virginia electrocutes murderer who taunted prosecutors after first death sentence was reversed | Main | Growth and costs of federal prisons lamented in House hearing »
March 19, 2010
"Polanski lawyers appeal, demand sentencing in absence"
The title of this post is the headline of this Reuters piece reporting the latest news in the Roman Polanski legal saga. Here are excerpts from the piece:Lawyers for Roman Polanski filed an appeal on Thursday demanding the fugitive film director be sentenced in California for a decades-old sex crime even as he remains under house arrest in Switzerland. They said Polanski was entitled under California law to be sentenced without returning in person to Los Angeles on a charge of having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977....
A Los Angeles judge in January rejected Polanski's request to be sentenced in absentia, and insisted he appear in court. Polanski's lawyers have been fighting to have the unlawful sex case dropped, alleging judicial misconduct in the original legal proceedings when the judge considered sentencing.
Until this newest legal salvo, it was believed that those allegations were first revealed in a 2008 film documentary about Polanski. But Polanski's attorneys said recent testimony from a key player in 1977 reveals prosecutors knew of the misconduct from the start and concealed it from the defense.
March 19, 2010 at 09:22 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e201310fbb8a3d970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Polanski lawyers appeal, demand sentencing in absence":
Comments
Will the California courts clown themselves by ordering this farce? A child rapist cannot be allowed to thumb his nose at a tribunal like that.
Posted by: federalist | Mar 19, 2010 11:40:34 AM
The California Supreme Court's an elected body. I can't see them letting Polanski get away with this.
Posted by: Alpino | Mar 19, 2010 5:30:29 PM
don't know how you figure that! if ANY part of this statement is true!
"But Polanski's attorneys said recent testimony from a key player in 1977 reveals prosecutors knew of the misconduct from the start and concealed it from the defense."
then the ONLY ones who need to be on trial are the DA and JUDGE from the first FARCE of a trial.
Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 19, 2010 8:31:30 PM
It seems that People magazine was onto a Judicial problem in Polanski's case back in 1977.
The People magazine article misspelled the Judge's last name calling the Judge Rittenbrand instead of Rittenband
See the article at
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20068014,00.html
No matter, Rittenbrand is a better name for the Santa Monica Judge since he unfairly branded Roman Polanski a rapist to People magazine in 1977, before Polanski's trial by saying "and this doesn't look like anything other than a routine rape case to me."
So here's the Santa Monica Judge blabbing off his mouth to the press branding Polanski a rapist, in advance of Polanski's trial, which trial never happened, and the only conviction that Polanski ever received in the Santa Monica Courthouse was for consensual sex with a minor!
Roman Polanski like everyone else in America is innocent until proven guilty.
So the Judge on Polanski's case acted with prejudice against Polanski by giving his decision in advance to the press before the trial ever took place, and the trial never did take place, because of the plea bargain agreement.
Even today the press keep using the word rape, which is inflammatory and is a defamation of Roman Polanski’s character, since that charge was thrown out.
Also Polanski was prejudged, unfairly & publicly branded by this Santa Monica Judge Rittenband,
just as another victim from same Santa Monica Courthouse has been unfairly publicly stigmatized for reporting official abuse of power that included being sexually molested by a teacher in a California College with the College Police covering up the complaint, and then assaulted and battered in a Santa Monica Courtroom in front of the judge by undocumented white county of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputies (the Judge has since been promoted to the California Court of Appeals), which stigmatization the 9th Circuit U.S. Federal Court of Appeals affirmed in their unpublished decision of 25th June, 2001.
Two people unfairly branded by Judges which Judicial abuse first emanated from the very same Santa Monica Courthouse equals abuse of Official power, discrimination, a double standard in sexual assault cases where the scales of justice are predetermined to swing your way by California 's Judges if you happened to be employed by California, but not if you were born in Europe.
Posted by: Omega | Mar 20, 2010 3:27:54 AM
Consensual sex with an underage minor = Rape.
uh, rod, check your facts--Polanski pled guilty.
Posted by: federalist | Mar 20, 2010 3:17:14 PM
i don't need to check my facts. the FACT is he took a plea that called for a psych eval and whatever time the eval was call for. he did that. THEN the judge wanted to make a name for him self and in ILLEGAL collusion with the DA tried to chane it. As far as i'm concerned he had every LEGAL reason to simply stay and KILL both the DA AND the JUDGE!
instead he simply LEFT and went home. where he spent the next what 30 YEARS crime free UNTILL our CRIMINAL GOVT used BLACKMAIL to get the swiss to do their dirty work for them and ILLEGAL IMPRISON HIM. if and i say IF they though they had a REAL CASE why wait 30 years. Why not STRAIGHT to the french autorities. Why the sneaky lie's to get him out of his home country?
Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 20, 2010 4:25:18 PM
plus the information coming out now about the lies from the DA during the film and this magazine just support MY SIDE!
Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 20, 2010 4:26:08 PM
Wow, rod, a lot of outrage in favor of a guy who, by his own admission, drugged a 13 year old girl and sodomized her. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
Posted by: federalist | Mar 20, 2010 5:22:20 PM
I wonder why the Victim's Rights Industry is silent.
Oh yeah.. the victim isn't calling for vengeance. Thus, she is useless.
Posted by: s.cotus | Mar 20, 2010 11:01:08 PM
Rod "CAP FANCIER" Smith, the reason the US and/or California didn't go to the French authorities was because France does not extradite its own citizens.
Posted by: Alpino | Mar 21, 2010 5:11:00 AM
lol
"Wow, rod, a lot of outrage in favor of a guy who, by his own admission, drugged a 13 year old girl and sodomized her. But hey, whatever floats your boat."
MY rage is against the criminals now running this country. This guy had what was a legal sentece for this crime at the time. Now that sex offences have become the new lepers and sex offence laws the new no fail vote gitter they want to dig up a 30 year OLD CASE and try again...
you ever do a search on "bread and circus" it's been a time honored trick of govt since BEFORE the roman republic became the ROMAN EMPIRE.
as for the victim. from everything i have read about her and her mother. it was basically "do whatever to become a star"
the 60's and 70's were big time drug time. ALL of them BROKE THE LAW. INCLUDING THE DA AND JUDGE. SO for the only one who has seen a DAY in jail was polaski!
Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 21, 2010 2:28:19 PM
Roman Polanski has only admitted to and been convicted of "consensual sex with a minor"
Also it was illegal for the Santa Monica Judge Rittenband to coerce Polanski to give up his rights to fight deportation in 1977 using sentencing as coercion to accept deportation.
Also if the California Judge Rittenband thought the crime was so bad then - why did the Judge Rittenband let Polanski instantly leave the country to make a movie?
It is clear that nobody really cared about the crime at the time - the only thing they cared about was Polanski's fame and getting into the limelight themselves.
Also Polanski does not deserve extra sentencing for sitting next to German Girls at the Oktoberfest in Munich. The photo shows him sitting next to German Girls and that is not a crime - even in America!!!
Also the little girl may not have been totally innocent herself which then falls on the mother who did not supervise her underage aspiring actress girl who had already had sex and drugs with others.
A man is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law that does not cater to double standards & which has equal protection of the laws & due process of law.
Posted by: Omega | Mar 21, 2010 10:48:40 PM
"Rod "CAP FANCIER" Smith, the reason the US and/or California didn't go to the French authorities was because France does not extradite its own citizens."
all the more reason to wonder why we BROKE THE LAW to go around them and blackmail the swiss to do it.
sorry this is still a non-starter!
we would be screaming just as much if Italy tricked those crimnal CIA agents back into italy or another part of the EU and had them arrested and simply tossed into prison AFTER all like polesky they HAVE alrady been tried and convicted and UNLIKE him they didn't even bother to show up for ANY of it!
Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 22, 2010 2:16:13 AM
To The Federal Office Of Switzerland Justice
Issue: Roman Polanski should be released as soon as possible
Message Sent 4/9/ 2010
I STRESS Switzerland's Justice should look very closely at the fact that there are multiple claims of Judicial Corruption at the Santa Monica Courthouse California, which are coming from other sources other than Roman Polanski.
Thus Switzerland's Federal Office of Justice should take these other instances of Judicial & police Corruption into consideration and release Roman Polanski as soon as possible, since the California Justice system is not trustworthy.
It is all about coverup, bait and switch justice, no precedent to rely on, and assault and battery to boot.
So the law or justice is flimsy and will shatter and break if you rely on it.
But it is all smoke and mirrors because it is bait and switch justice, and therefore inherently unreliable.
There are witnesses to a double standard being applied in Santa Monica Courts, that sexual molestation cases are being exploited by the California authorities, which exploitation turns on who is involved. The bias seems to go against those born in other countries.
Since the police and Santa Monica Judges will cover up sexual assault by employees at California's Colleges and assault and batter the female victim of sexual molestation, it cannot be about caring a hoot about the female sexual assault victim, whether in Polanski's case or in other sexual molestation cases.
Instead this IS ALL ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER, EXPLOITATION, MAKING MONEY AT THE VICTIMS' EXPENSE AND TORTURE.
THEN BY KEEPING THE ABUSE UNDER WRAPS, AND THE DENIAL THAT IT IS TAKING PLACE - THIS HELPS TO RETAIN THE POWER, THE MONEY AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO ABUSE AGAIN WITH IMPUNITY.
In view of this unstable, untrustworthy and discriminatory Santa Monica Judicial & Prosecutorial system would you send a citizen of Switzerland to face an unstable and corrupt system in Los Angeles California - and if the answer is NO
then please DO NOT DO this to a French and Polish Citizen Roman Polanski - INSTEAD release Roman Polanski as soon as possible!
Posted by: S Naille | Apr 13, 2010 4:03:39 AM
A double standard exists in how sexual assault cases are decided in County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Courthouse, California.
Roman Polanski was not treated straightforwardly by the Judge in 1977. This is why this case has lingered on for 33 years.
Roman Polanski wanted to make good since he would not have returned to America, and served time in 1977 & 78 , if this were untrue.
A double standard is in operation at the Santa Monica Courthouse, which hinges on whether the perpetrator works for California Government and its subdivisions.
If that criteria is met then the Santa Monica Court and other County of Los Angeles employees will act in concert in the local Government's favor to cover up their employees on the job sexual molestation crimes and police cover up.
But if the perpetrator or victim are not working for California and its subdivisions, were born in another country, then the Santa Monica Court and other employees will act against them, using any means and foul means.
In addition as Polanski admitted to a crime by plea bargain, the Santa Monica Judge should have honored it. When the Judge in 1977 wanted to force Polanski into deportation, using illegal coercion in the sentencing, the Judge broke the plea bargain agreement, abused his official power, using bait and switch justice,
which betrayed the righteous legal process, destroyed Polanski's trust in it, and caused Polanski to flee.
California Officials are not policing their own institutional sexual offenders who work for the State and its subdivisions, but instead will act to cover up, physically harm, assault and batter the victim for reporting the offense, and re-victimize the victim instead. This oppression is built into California's Justice system.
In view of the double standard it would be in the interests of justice to free Roman Polanski, as soon as possible.
In fact it's a perfect time to pardon Roman Polanski,
In view of the judicial, & prosecutorial corruption against Polanski that occurred in his case, plus the double standard in sexual assault cases at the Santa Monica Courthouse in California, which double standard is firmly entrenched,
It's also a good time for California to attend to its own ills.
However currently the California Appeal Court and County of Los Angeles Superior Court is diverting attention away from the Judicial & Prosecutorial corruption that occurred in Polanski's case in 1977, by blaming Polanski for not being in Los Angeles,
but what came first the chicken or the egg,
the County of Los Angeles Judicial corruption, or Polanski fleeing?
Of course it was the County of Los Angeles Judicial & Prosecutorial Corruption,
Back in 1978 Polanski faced a trap. He was damned if he stayed in Los Angeles, and damned if he took flight. Damned if he did, Damned if he didn't. And he had honored the plea bargain agreement by serving time at Chino.
In 1978 Polanski faced a Catch-22 situation.
So could it be that the California Appeal Court Second District does not really want to investigate the Judicial corruption in Polanski's case, or for that matter in any other?
And does absolute power corrupt absolutely.
Posted by: Silverine | Apr 27, 2010 6:59:23 AM
