Dankprofessor’s Weblog

A weblog examining sexual politics in higher education and beyond.

Lynch mobs love Polanski

It took Gloria Allred, the queen of muckraking lawyers, to effectively bring the media and legal lynch mobs together in Los Angeles.  It occurred in the context of  her hosting former actress Charlotte Lewis at a Hollywood news conference so that Lewis could announce that she had been sexually assaulted by Roman Polanski in France in the 1980s.  Why such was announced at  this time was not made clear?  And Gloria Allred would not allow her to entertain any questions so clarity could not be pursued.  Of course, why Allred would not allow her to take questions was also not clear?  And even why Allred was there representing Lewis was also not clear?  And why Lewis ended up in Los Angeles and not in Paris to make her announcement was also not clear?  If she was interested in pursuing justice in terms of what Polanski supposedly did to her, shouldn’t she be in Paris talking to the relevant French authorities.  But instead she ends up talking to LA District attorney Steve Cooley who is spending much of his time attempting to prosecute and persecute Roman Polanski while running for the Attorney General of California.

But Allred and Lewis and possibly Cooley apparently accomplished their goal of having the media in tens of thousands of news sources repeat Lewis’s unsupported assertions over and over again that Polanski is a recividistic sexual predator.   As for Cooley’s goals, such a media circus might help to persuade the Swiss authorities to send Polanski back to Hollywood with a Hollywood ending orchestrated by Cooley.

Even though Lewis’s staged performance in LA is now over and Lewis’s drama coach Allred is temporarily on the sidelines, there is little doubt that  their beat will go on; the court of public opinion continues to be open for the unrestrained trashing of Polanski.  However, if one looks carefully enough one can find voices of temperance and sanity in this deluge, check out an article in the Guardian by Robert Harris and a blog post by Novalis Lore.  They are not of the Allred genre but they are of the genre that will not contribute to the feeding frenzies and public degradation ceremonies that are so predominant in today’s mediated world.

About these ads

May 19, 2010 - Posted by | celebrities, rape, Roman Polanski, sex, sexual politics, Uncategorized

1,027 Comments »

  1. 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.

    Comment by Sonny | May 19, 2010 | Reply

    • As I said, I covered that old case thoroughly, & I believe I am the only one who has to that degree. And I covered the Lewis nonsense, as that it is. Maybe a look at this will enlighten those who have zero clues about what really happened in 1977/8.

      http://novalislore.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/roman-polanski-he-said-she-said-they-said-an-op-end-case-analysis-part-one/

      It’s very long, but digs deeper than anyone else has so far, apart from one of my own commentators, Samskara, having done her own research into this deeply fraught case. Coming to the same conclusion in fact.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | May 21, 2010 | Reply

    • Strangely enough at Huff Post the day Polanski got his freedom
      all comments have been erased by Huff Post currently as of Sept 13th 2010?

      See Link http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/12/roman-polanski-extraditio_0_n_642631.html#comments

      I guess more State secrets needed to be covered up?

      Comment by Sonny | September 13, 2010 | Reply

      • Indeed – as ‘secret’ as it can be. The comments weren’t really ‘erased’, they were closed, which is the right of the site owner. It might be ‘old news’ by now & some of the resident bloggers might not want to bother with any new comments or trolls anymore, & some articles cannot be commented on in the first place – only on stupid little anti-Polanski diatribe blogs. The comments are still ‘there’ on HuffPo, but no one can read them anymore. I usually copy/past/ed my own comments I left on any site into Word with date, time, link etc. (& other interesting ones) to preserve them & checked back every now & then. So yeah, in some sense it’s ‘good’ & then a again ‘bad’, since the public won’t known how people reacted to his release, at least not on that site or article. Some might think it was a pointless endeavour to comment in the first place if no one can read their reactions anymore. Public manipulation is another word, sure, since some commentators might have in fact explained what ‘really’ happened. I’m sure other sites leave it all open & allow only negative trash comments. I didn’t check on other Polanski articles on HuffPo, or other sites I commented on for some time now, to see if the comments are still open there. But either way, better ‘no’ comments than only negative ones.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | September 14, 2010

    • With L.A.’s help, Cooley leads in attorney general’s race, Times/USC poll finds

      latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/10/poll-california-attorney-general.html

      It is Oct 22nd 2010 police brutality day in America and Obama is town for police brutality day. I guess he got my message.

      Also he probably knows already because the Rodney King beating on tape and the LA riots whey back when.

      Comment by Sonny | October 22, 2010 | Reply

  2. Absolutely correct, Barry – It is far too obvious to most in fact that she is a nasty fraud. An ageing former nude actress & nude model, who apparently couldn’t hold Polanski for longer than he wanted her, to go on to better waters when he found his current wife.

    Harris’ attempt to point them to the obvious is met with more Polanski bashing & personal attacks, while on French & other more informed sites like IMDB, they didn’t fall for her staged lies one bit. There’s nothing wrong to pose nude with a beautiful body, only to ‘cry rape’ after an affair is.

    She’s a jilted lover & desperate has-been who fell into drug addiction long after she separated from Polanski, who was a self-confessed prostitute long before she met him while still underage. Her cocaine abused brain seems to have forgotten about all that, & now pins all her past failings & ‘relationship problems’ on Polanski in a sad show of revenge, to meddle in something not her business. She’s a disgrace to all women & genuine sexual assault victims in general.

    I’m sure the Swiss authorities won’t be ‘moved’ by her lies either, unless they stoop so low as Cooley’s own court & bend a few more laws to have something admitted retroactively that has absolutely no bearing on the old case, which is unlawful either way. But who cares about any ‘laws’ in this case.

    Comment by Novalis Lore | May 20, 2010 | Reply

  3. I don’t know if you are in Los Angeles Novalis but if you are in Los Angeles I would care about the law since you never know when the laws will attack from behind as they have in Polanski’s case when he was picked up on the way to a film festival,

    and also from behind 30 years ago with a fake plea deal, a fake hearing and a double sentence that also arrived out of the blue on an uneven playing field.

    Comment by Sonny | May 20, 2010 | Reply

    • I’m in the UK, Sonny, & know the old case in & out. I’m 60, I was ‘there’ & when his wife got butchered. I remember all too well. Everything is ‘fake’ about the old case & even more so this ‘new’ one. Polanski was played big time for who he was/is, & now with his former prosecutor having testified on his behalf that he DID his time, Cooley & Co got nervous to prove otherwise & give us this ‘fake’ Lewis to deflect from that fact. It’s way too obvious this is very nasty smear campaign ‘US/Hollywood’ style. I’m very familiar with corrupt ‘Cooley’ & his corrupt court. And Allred – they’re all scum.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | May 20, 2010 | Reply

      • I was born in the UK, Novalis. If you were there in Los Angeles then that must have been a scary time.

        I was living in London England in 1969. The Los Angeles murders were well publicized. I also will never forget Sharon Tate et al murders, as I was very sad and horrified.

        I also knew who Roman Polanski was since I had seen his movies, such as Rosemary’s Baby, Cul De Sac. And he and Sharon looked really happy in the Vampires movie which they showed on British TV.

        Comment by Sonny | July 3, 2010

      • I meant more ‘I was there’ as in, the Sixties & Seventies, not literally in LA at that time. But I still know of the murder case ‘first-hand’ ever since then. And of course the 1977/8 events.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | July 4, 2010

      • The Swiss news is coming here is I hope a better Swiss Link

        Let us keep our fingers crossed for Roman Polanski

        Comment by Sonny | July 4, 2010

      • Here is the Swiss Link on July 4th 2010

        http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/Polanski_extradition_decision_expected_soon.html?cid=15357124

        Comment by Sonny | July 4, 2010

      • I have covered all that already in my blog – Widmer-Schlumpf will be last to have her say.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | July 5, 2010

  4. I can only agree on your analysis, Barry, and that of Novalis of course. So all we can hope for, is that the Swiss have more integrity to handle this correctly and lawfully by ignoring her disgraceful attack and demand Gunson’s testimony, rather than fall in line with Cooley’s smear campaign. But with people like Widmer-Schlumpf having a last say, it might just as well go wrong even more.

    Comment by demoy | May 20, 2010 | Reply

    • They do have some law in Switzerland, and the extradition law is that Polanski is expected to serve 6 months or more.

      If it is established that he does not have 6 months to serve because he served his time at Chino or he has 48 more days to serve then apparently he should not be extradited to USA as the criteria is 6 months or more.

      Comment by Sonny | May 20, 2010 | Reply

  5. 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 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 STAGED 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.

    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 STAGED 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 its 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 a photography 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:

    http://cache.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=2999255&page_id=4050218

    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 the intent of the applicable 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 Paul Emmett appeared in the movie The Ghost Writer, in connection with a Ghost Writer who had disappeared & died and found washed up on the beach on January 11th…

    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, as 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, but will not cover up for foreign born Roman Polanski because he does not work for the State of 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

    Comment by Sonny | May 20, 2010 | Reply

    • You’ve hit it on the nail, Sonny – I’ve covered this case since he was rearrested & argued all that already in my extensive blogs – His supporters know of all that, except not too many others, which resulted in this (new) insane lynch mob.

      Polanski was 70 days on Swiss remand which easily cover the ’48 days left’ Rittenband had in mind (for that ‘second sentence’), so in effect, Cooley wants him to sit out a ‘third’ one now. ‘Double jeopardy’ is strictly forbidden in all law – except in an LA court obviously. No wonder Polanski took a hike.

      As long as the Swiss will not receive Gunson’s vital testimony, they have to ‘assume’ what Cooley sent them was ‘all – when it’s clearly not. I read the extradition report & it lacks BIG time on ‘facts’, presenting this ‘mock argument’ between Gunson, Dalton & Rittenband as the ‘real argument’. Even I ‘fell’ for it at first, until it dawned on me that this was the staged argument they both had talked about in the Zenovich documentary.

      All we can hope for is that the Swiss aren’t ‘swayed’ by this latest ‘lie’ to influence them in a very nasty/obvious way.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | May 20, 2010 | Reply

      • The new Judge Espinoza said that the 90 days was the intended sentence but won’t sentence Polanski unless he comes to LA. I don’t know if the Swiss will take that into consideration and not extradite him since 6 months or more is the criteria for extradition I believe. And according to the new County Judge Espinoza he would give him the original 90 day sentence or time served, unless he too would do a bait and switch on Polanski again. But it is documented I believe. And the Court of Appeals also don’t disagree.

        Comment by Sonny | May 21, 2010

      • Hi Novalis

        I had trouble with the link above which is shortened and does not work, so I am reposting the Santa Monica
        Copcrime internet link – which was posted originally at the time it occured and details of a woman who was set up to be assaulted and battered and beaten up in the same Courthouse as Roman Polanski for reporting Santa Monica College police cover up of her sexual assault complaint against a Santa Monica College Instructor.

        The assault and battery and corruption occurred in front of Santa Monica Judge Laurence D. Rubin in 1998 at the same Santa Monica Courthouse where Roman Polanski’s Judicial and Prosecutorial Corruption problems emanated from in 1977 and 1978.

        If after you look at the details in the link posted below, you may find a similarity to the details of the movie Rosemary’s Baby where there was a denial that the devil exists. The same thing happened in this case since the attack in the Santa Monica Courtroom where the woman was assaulted and battered, and falsely arrested the County of Los Angeles, have denied that anything took place, and actually changed the color of skin of the perpetrators in their denial.

        If you work for the County of Los Angeles or another subsidiary of the California State and you sexually assault students in classes, then Santa Monica Judge will protect the Santa Monica College police officer and the College, but not the female sexual assault victim so as to not have to pay any restitution to the sexual assault victim, to defame her character and harm her so as to keep the California College’s image clean at her expense. This is discrimination and retaliation for reporting sexual assault and police cover up of her complaint.

        But if the perpetrator is from another country, and does not work for California State, then the Santa Monica Judge, police and other officials hypocritically will dish out a different standard. The different standard is another discriminatory standard.

        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

        Comment by Sonny | July 3, 2010

    • I had trouble with the link above which is shortened and does not work, so I am reposting the Santa Monica
      Copcrime internet link – which gives the details of a woman who was set up to be assaulted and battered and beaten up for reporting Santa Monica College police cover up of her sexual assault complaint against a Santa Monica College Instructor.

      The assault and battery and corruption occurred in front of a Judge at the Santa Monica Courthouse which is the same Santa Monica Courthouse where Roman Polanski’s Judicial and Prosecutorial Corruption problems emanated from in 1977 and 1978.

      If after you look at the details in the link, if any of you know the details of the movie Rosemary’s Baby notice the similarity in denying that the devil exists, that is the County of Los Angeles, Santa Monica College and its employees denying that anything took place.

      If you work for the County of Los Angeles or another subsidiary of the State then the Santa Monica Judges will lie for a California teacher who sexually assaults his students from behind in photography classes, and the Santa Monica College police officer that covered up for him and the College District that wanted to keep the schools image clean.

      If the perpetrator is from another country, and also does not work for California State, then the Santa Monica Judge, police and other officials hypocritically will deal out a different standard. It is called discrimination.

      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

      Comment by Sonny | July 3, 2010 | Reply

      • I actually read about that some time ago already, & the original sexual assault case – the Santa Monica courts are massively corrupt. The racism is extreme & they think nothing of using violence. No wonder Polanski doesn’t wanna go anywhere near it.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | July 3, 2010

  6. In regards to Wall Street actor’s Michael Douglas’s bluntness the writer forgets Michael Douglas is up against a wall himself.

    Michael Douglas’s son very sadly just received a sentence in the last couple of weeks to a long prison term. A tragic thing for such a successful family.

    As far as Michael Douglas’s remark I would believe that ordinarily that Michael Douglas would not have issued a statement saying that Polanski is “somebody who did break the law.” since Michael Douglas’s statement is not very clear or well thought out because Douglas is ignoring the Judicial and Prosecutorial corruption in Polanski’s case and the fact that Polanski served his sentence at Chino Prison and that the Santa Monica Judge wanted to give Polanski two sentences and coerce him into deportation illegally.

    Michael Douglas was the producer of the Academy Award movie “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest” from the 1970’s starring Jack Nicholson, Danny Devito, Vincent Schiavelli, directed by Milos Forman, which movie did have a huge impact and perhaps should be viewed again for the lessons contained therein –

    and because in fact Roman Polanski did fly over the Cuckoo’s Nest when he flew away from California Justice and back to France in February 1978.

    Also See the documentary movie Polanski: Wanted and Desired if you haven’t already done so – for more details and authentic footage of the Judge, Prosecutors and lawyers involved. .

    Comment by Sonny | May 20, 2010 | Reply

    • You’re right in regards to Douglas, Sonny – he’s applying his own brand of hypocrisy by that statement. His son is a drug dealer causing much more damage to the ‘People of California’ than ONE single man sleeping with ONE single girl decades ago & he only gets 5 yrs, while Polanski could have looked at 20/50 yrs for underage sex.

      Though NO one wanted Polanski incarcerated, & Dalton said, that NO was inside for ‘statutory rape’ during the Seventies in LA, & very few were put on probation, Polanski of course was sent down against all counsel, even looking at TWO sentences. No wonder Dalton & Gunson eventually had the media-whoring judge removed. FAR too late of course.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | May 20, 2010 | Reply

      • Yes but apparently LA Prosecutor Roger Gunson had wanted the judge removed earlier. This has only come up this year and apparently is in the sealed transcript and deposition he made this year. Apparently his superiors said no, and one of them Trott is now a 9th Circuit Federal Judge.

        Comment by Sonny | May 21, 2010

      • As far as Michael Douglas I don’t know if we can always blame a parent for how his son turns out. Sometimes it is the parents fault and sometimes there is the son’s character.

        But obviously Michael Douglas was a freer and happier spirit in the 1970’s but the movie rights to One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s nest I remember were bought by his father, and I think it was his father who wanted Milos Forman to direct the movie which was a marvelous idea. And Kirk Douglas also wanted Jack’s part and was very upset when he didn’t get it.

        All I am sayiing is that I was shocked that Michael would say such a thing about Polanski and without any knowledge of his case, since Michael Douglas had a passion to produce One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, and which really does seem a repeat performance in Polanski’s case but instead of a mental institution the location was changed to Los Angeles and the Santa Monica Courthouse just 3 years after Cuckoo’s Nest was made.

        Comment by Sonny | May 21, 2010

  7. Well obviously Charlotte Lewis is lying. Here’s the proof

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-17/is-polanskis-new-accuser-lying

    Comment by ty | May 20, 2010 | Reply

  8. Unfortunately the Guardian Newspaper UK is deleting ALL comments that are pro Roman Polanski and his release, or mention the Los Angeles District Attorney and the politics of his wanting to become California’s Attorney General.

    I am not sure if there is free speech in England? If there is then I guess the Guardian UK are not adhering to it.

    Comment by Sonny | May 21, 2010 | Reply

    • Only shows that NO press wants to allow anything that reveals vital details, US or otherwise. See Wikipedia only allowing anti-Polanski bits in regards to the 1977 case, though has NOTHING about Lewis so far. It’s a concerted witch hunt, nothing else. Newspapers or blogs have the ‘right’ to delete or allow whatever they like, ‘freedom of speech’ doesn’t seem relevant online. I’ve been deleted dozens of time when I bought in the facts – NO one wants to know.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | May 21, 2010 | Reply

      • Thanks for your posting. I have found that the Wrap or Huffington post what I have submitted so that is good. And even the LA times and New York times so it is pretty good in USA for free speech, maybe because that is the law. Where were you deleted from Novalis?

        Comment by Sonny | May 22, 2010

    • It was in fact these two major newspapers that deleted/blocked my comments from early on, LA & NY Times – now they ‘sometimes’ allow them just so to manipulates the wiser public by only allowing mainly negative feedback. Many other news articles & blogs deleted my stuff too, even HuffPo, so often that I simply gave up.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | May 22, 2010 | Reply

      • Well sometimes the LA Times does and the NY Times too but I kept trying and most of what I wanted to say gets posted. I was surprised that my number 10 was posted by the LA Times since I believe they endorsed Steve Cooley and if not true I heard it somewhere.

        Huff Post also deletes a few not that many. They did today because I mentioned what Larry Flynt had said to a Federal Judge

        “Don’t do me any favors, your honor. I mean, you are the madam, and over here (indicating) is another whore and this guy who says he is my attorney is a streetwalker.”

        I found some truth to what he said since I have had personal experience with the same Magistrate.

        Comment by Sonny | May 23, 2010

      • Currently The Wrap have deleted all comments as of 23rd June 2010 going back to 2009.

        Perhaps temporary but perhaps not.

        Comment by Sonny | June 23, 2010

      • Great – more public manipulation. No surprise there.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | June 23, 2010

  9. The topic concerns honest contracts versus dishonest bait and switch contracts which were made with Roman Polanski by actress Charlotte Lewis, and by Santa Monica Judge Laurence J. Rittenband, and how both dishonest contracts betrayed Roman Polanski.

    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 of Los Angeles Officials the desire for promotions to higher office in the State of California 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, you’ll get your promotion.

    And in the case of the Santa Monica Judge Rittenband and actress Charlotte Lewis both of them abandoned their integrity, their principles to gain fame, glory, press at Roman Polanski’s expense ultimately,

    through pretending to make agreements and then after Polanski performs his side of the bargain, the contract was broken by those who initially agreed.

    In both cases Polanski complied with what Judge Rittenband and Charlotte wanted, but both did not play straight, one was silent while her career was made, and both betrayed him.

    The current DA Steve Cooley who is seeking higher office, is also betraying Roman Polanski now, for all the same reasons, and is using Polanski’s name for his own gain and political campaign.

    He wants to extradite Polanski to California under false pretenses by not providing the correct and complete information to the Swiss Justice 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.

    Comment by Sonny | May 22, 2010 | Reply

    • I can only concur with you, Sonny – fully. Polanski is made a very nasty example of – all for a crooked DA who wants to become AG.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | May 22, 2010 | Reply

      • Talking of which I found this link to a Federal Lawsuit against Steve Cooley by other prosecutors

        Comment by Sonny | May 23, 2010

    • This PDF file doesn’t show any case number – I read the charges somewhere else already, it’s in the public domain. The fact that this is going on since years, but Cooley decided to pursue Polanski, apart from his own DAs, & the Appellate’s Court has reminded him often enough to deal with it, & to get Gunson’s testimony to the Swiss, only shows that he thinks he’s above the law he keeps bending.

      The fact that his own DAs, up to 600 in fact, filed suit against him, only shows how pissed off they are with him too by now. Cooley’s reign of terror is 10 years down the muddy road in November, & it’s about time someone in real power removed this piece of excrement & not allow him to become AG. Someone like Schwarzenegger – Who, incidentally, had an affair with an underage 14 yr old girl in 1975 when he was 30, but no one did him for statutory rape & you won’t find that damning piece of info in his Wikipedia page either.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | May 23, 2010 | Reply

      • I know when Arnie was up for Cal Gov many women came forward to say they had been sexually assaulted by him, but somehow all that went away and he managed to be California’s Governator.

        How do you know of this info – re: Arnie and a 14 year old? Is it documented anywhere?

        Comment by Sonny | May 23, 2010

      • I know, but that was probably a series of smear campaigns to boycott his run for Governor. If true or not I couldn’t care less about, but the affair he had was real. But no one did him for statutory rape, & no one called him a ‘thick accented’ ‘child molester’ either. This sex scandal is documented since years in fact, except in Wikipedia of course.

        I have to correct myself on her age though, she was 16, not 14, which however was or still is underage in California. I was thinking ‘Lewis’ with 14. For 7 years Schwarzenegger hid his initially underage mistress from his to-be wife. He began his affair with former ‘child actress’ Gigi Goyette when she was only 16, and even made love to her in the very same hotel where he was staying with ‘Dateline’ star Maria Shriver he was to marry later. No one called him a paedophile either. All disgusting double standards.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/12/AR2005081201651.html

        Comment by Novalis Lore | May 23, 2010

  10. Here is another link Novalis

    Entitled the groping Governor dated 18th Aug 2003

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

    Comment by Sonny | May 24, 2010 | Reply

    • Well, that’s even worse than what I knew. So much for the more than blatant double standards applied to Polanski again only, who had a few conquests like that & now is called a paedophile, while Arnie became Governor of Cooley’s own corrupt realm & no one calls on the law to see Mister Universe done for unlawful sex with a minor – and adultery on top. But then again, he married into the powerful Kennedy family, & money can buy anything, or anyone to be silent. Even a betrayed wife to ignore her husband’s escapades – or in contrast some ex nude actress to speak [out] against an old director.

      While sex-obsessed Michael Douglas was riding the high horse of ‘morality’ in Cannes, with his son being a convicted drug dealer & no one bats an eyelash, Warren Beatty had more ‘sexual conquests’ than Polanski – & some of them were not too old either.

      ‘Lewis’ in fact seduced Beatty right after Polanski had introduced him to her on the set of Pirates in Tunisia & NO one called Beatty a ‘child molester’, or for the countless young girls he had bedded with a different one every day over decades – Polanski was/is dubbed a ‘paedophile’ while ‘American’ men like Beatty or Douglas were/are called ‘playboys’.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | May 24, 2010 | Reply

      • Thanks for your comments Novalis. The psychological underpinnings perhaps.

        The problem is that Michael Douglas has become silent and is frightened for his son who is in jail. He is just protecting his son I believe, although I could be wrong.

        More of the problem is that the press are not reading between Michael’s lines to inform readers that Michael Douglas currently is a frightened speaker and on account of that may be biased because he wants to protect his son who is in jail, he also has to come across now – because of his son – as an upholder of American law – since his son did not uphold it too well.

        He cannot protect his son and Roman Polanski at the same time and so has chosen to protect his son.

        Comment by Sonny | May 25, 2010

      • Oh hell I know, Sonny – I realise he’s in a pickle that way & tries to strike a balance, son against Polanski = son wins, sure. But I bet you, his son is held in protective custody for others not to get to him i.e., attack or rape him, like they rape everyone else, regardless of age or race. To be honest, I don’t have any sympathy for his son, & if he were my son, I’d cast him out as a drug dealer, since it’s much more damaging to sell hard drugs for years than for one man to sleep with one minor three decades ago. It’s all hypocrisy US style.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | May 25, 2010

      • The family Douglas cut him off from money so I understand, to stop him from buying drugs and wanted him to go to rehab, but it did not work out and he was I guess addicted to drugs, that is why he began to deal drugs.

        I don’t know all the details or if love was there. But sometimes you cannot save a kid even if you try, or in the alternative the parents did not know how to help their kid. Or did not make the time.

        Comment by Sonny | May 25, 2010

      • Regardless of whether Douglas’s son’s crime is more damaging than Polanski’s the fact is – is that Polanski paid for his crime at Chino Prison in 1977 I hope the Swiss will get that and release him soon and not extradite him. So he can have some peace with his family. He is nearly 80.

        Comment by Sonny | May 25, 2010

      • Quite right, it all comes down to the Swiss authorities now. Let’s hope they’re NOT as corrupt as the LA courts.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | May 27, 2010

      • Apparently Arnie on his way to Europe I heard on Aug 27th 2010. I hope the California tax payers are not funding the trip since California is close to bankrupt. The unemployment apparently is worse than Detroit. And they are paying for schools that cost millions of dollars by not paying out on civil rights violations such as sexual assault at Santa Monica College, and also just as egregious they are putting up these lumps of concrete but don’t have the money to spend on teachers. California does not know how to balance a budget or to not spend in a stupid way.

        Comment by Sonny | August 27, 2010

    • California always lived over-budget – for the obscene amounts of money thrown into the political campaign arena/s rather than where it’s needed, to elect [rich] people who couldn’t care less about their [poor/er] citizens. Arnie is no better than his predecessors – & I doubt they will re-elect him anyway.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 28, 2010 | Reply

  11. This is such hypocrisy and the Swiss have wind of it.

    This is about two European men that made it in Hollywood show biz. The opposed family background of these two when compared is even sadder.

    The Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger could and should give Polanski a pardon after all Arnold also has slept with underage girls in California .

    So if you are the actor in Terminator or work for California as California’s Governor you get a free pass and are forgiven for having sex with minors and for sexually assaulting women who are not minors with impunity.

    but this same forgiveness standard has not been extended to Roman Polanski.

    So California Government employs one standard for Arnold with its Body Built In Government Claim 910 oppression against sexual assault & sexual discrimination victims,

    but not the same forgiveness standard is applied to Roman Polanski who does not work for California.

    Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said that Polanski should be treated like everyone else, and since the Californians and their government pardoned Arnold for his prior transgressions (of course he was never charged), so to California’s Governor Arnie should pardon Roman Polanski.

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And if it is not – then it is discrimination.

    See below for links to more info:


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



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


    Comment by Sonny | May 25, 2010 | Reply

  12. I HOPE the Swiss get the idea of what is going on; with corrupt Cooley or lying Lewis and the entire LA court pit – & will NOT extradite him into the hands of Human Rights violators. I doubt Arnie will pardon Polanski other than his own lot in return for his own, & even if he would, that does NOT ‘erase’ the actual ‘offence’ to which he pleaded, only the ‘guilt’ of it & cannot be tried on it ever again. Which they in essence are trying to do right now with Polanski in contrast – or sentence him a second time.

    Comment by Novalis Lore | May 25, 2010 | Reply

    • Well Novalis I think but I could be terribly wrong that it is a good sign that the Swiss are taking so long. For more See

      http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRnW_PP9RtYpGgoc5KZiwY84hjrQD9FV6ABO0

      May 27th 2010

      Comment by Sonny | May 28, 2010 | Reply

      • I read all that already, thanks – I get Polanski alerts in every few hours. That article is as rubbish as they come – ‘Serene life’? I doubt it, being a prisoner in your own home. Only if the Swiss authorities release an official comment is it of any importance, not anything like that.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | May 28, 2010

    • It might be a strategically good measure to wait until the race of Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley to become the next attorney General of California is over.

      If they let Polanski go sooner and take his ankle bracelet off and send him off to France that might mess up the race for Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and the
      Swiss Justice Department certainly don’t want to do that, since he has put so much effort into the race by arresting Polanski on a 33 year old charge.

      Comment by Sonny | May 28, 2010 | Reply

      • We’re not sure if the Swiss will buy into this AG race, since they have LONG realised that his arrest & extradition request was unlawful, & now don’t know what to do. For one they want to ‘please’ the US, & on the other hand they cannot allow this Human Rights violation go on any further. But Cooley’s own colleagues are very unhappy with him as it stands & do NOT want him become AG either, so it’s doubtful he will, unless he can bribe some more people.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | May 28, 2010

      • Novalis you said we’re not sure if the Swiss will buy into this AG race, since they have LONG realised that his arrest & extradition request was unlawful,

        Do you have a source for that info or is it just something that you believe?

        Also who as far as Cooley’s collegues does not want Cooley to become AG, fellow prosecutors?

        As far as bribes isn’t it special interest groups that bribe him to do nothing.

        Comment by Sonny | May 28, 2010

      • I did not mean that the Swiss would buy into the AG race. I meant that the Swiss so as to assist Cooley and not offend Cooley, would not release Polanski early if that is what the Swiss intend to do – release Polanski

        Comment by Sonny | May 28, 2010

      • I meant, that the Swiss will not be swayed to extradite him just because Cooley’s running for AG. What he does outside the case has no bearing on the actual process, though, since Polanski pointed them to this in fact being the very reason he’s not letting up, or refused to release Gunson’s proof he did his time, they therefore have realised his crooked games, otherwise they’d extradited him long ago. Better save than sorry, though that takes more time.

        Anyone bribes him who has the dough & doesn’t want to face prosecution, as in fact, clergy paedophiles, gang members, drug dealers, you name it – as long as they can pay him, he let’s them off.

        This is rather dated, but only shows how long his colleagues in fact want him gone.

        http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/515.php

        The lawsuit came in right after he had snagged Polanski.

        http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/legal-services-litigation/13357177-1.html

        And Cooley doesn’t give a shit either.

        http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/trial-procedure-judges/14058376-1.html

        Comment by Novalis Lore | May 28, 2010

  13. Here is a new lynch mob poster at UC Santa Barbara

    http://www.dailynexus.com/2010-05-27/polanski-longer-allowed-hide-fame/

    Comment by Sonny | May 28, 2010 | Reply

    • And the funny thing is – he doesn’t even get the basics right like so many. I.e., ‘party’? What ‘party’ exactly? & so forth – It’s all just the same BS people love to believe & disseminate without qualms. But most don’t even believes ‘him’ by a far shot as seen with the comments, so there ARE more intelligent or informed people out there who did their own research. Good.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | May 28, 2010 | Reply

  14. Hi This link of 27th May 2010 seems relevant also, especially to those that live in LA County

    The survey of the inmate data in Los Angeles County jails demonstrated that about half the inmates – thousands of persons – were held by Sheriff Lee Baca under false and deliberately misleading records.

    http://www.prlog.org/10701938-deficient-los-angeles-times-reporting-on-the-case-of-richard-fine.html

    Comment by Sonny | May 29, 2010 | Reply

  15. I know of the fact that at least half of the inmates in LA prisons are innocent & were sent down on fabrications, many are ‘statutory rape’ cases, only to be assaulted inside. I heard of Baca several times now – he’s a very bad apple – like bent Vannatter. Baca dishes out favours to celebs, like drunkard Gibson or Hilton. These cops are all in Cooley’s pocket or plain corrupt otherwise – & only a handful of judges or DAs are not, (those who filed suit against him, but there are hundreds more DAs in LA who might be not [‘that’] corrupt).

    Like the Appellate court judges who asked Cooley several times now since December to tackle the misconducts in Polanski’s case. Espinoza doesn’t seem to be any better either, or he’d allowed Gunson’s testimony be unsealed months back to free Polanski. They’re all Human Rights violators on a grand scale, playing with people’s lives, no matter if famous or not. Unless they can bribe their way out of jail, which is obviously not the case with Polanski, or they’d let him go instantly on some handy ‘technicality’ ages ago.

    Fidler would have been a better choice to end this years ago, but he wanted to televise his ‘sentencing’ of Polanski to time served, to pointlessly ‘bring awareness’ back to the case as a matter of ‘public interest’, rather than keep it discrete for both Polanski & Geimer & close the damned case finally for them to get on with their lives. Though Fidler later refuted that he demanded such a ‘condition’, & Polanski showed him the finger I’m sure she was happy with too.

    The fact that the two DAs who ‘dissuaded’ Gunson not to file against Rittenband, long before he joined Dalton to remove ‘the hammer’ when it was far too late, are now both judges too & didn’t want to ‘comment’ on the fact that they had allowed Rittenband to continue victimising Polanski, once found out when Gunson came out, only shows that NO one in LA is interested in any ‘justice’.

    Comment by Novalis Lore | May 30, 2010 | Reply

    • You are absolutely correct. However I am not convinced that Fidler would have been a better choice for Roman Polanski. Fidler is also a showboater and not very fair. Once Fidler could not get fame through Polanski he went to the next best thing – Phil Spector.

      See Below for a website that has much on the Phil Spector trial with Judge Fidler.

      ttp://www.crimefilenews.com/2010/03/phil-spectors-murder-trial-was-absolute.html

      I am not totally convinced Phil Spector is guilty since the girl involved broke both her wrists a year before meeting spector at a Christmas party. Also the prosecutor’s star witness was an illegal working chauffeur Adriano De Sousa. The Los Angeles Prosecutors helped the chauffeur get his residency in exchange for his witness testimony against Phil Spector. Also six old girl friends saying nasty things does not prove what happened on the day Lana Clarkson died. Some of the physical evidence seemed to point to that he did not pull the trigger.

      Anyway for me at least I don’t think the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

      Comment by Sonny | May 31, 2010 | Reply

      • My sentence is not clear.

        Lana Clarkson met Phil Spector at her place of work the House of Blues.

        Lana Clarkson at a Christmas party broke both of her wrists by falling down. (Drunk mixed with Drugs?) This occurred one year before she met Phil Spector Music producer.

        Comment by Sonny | May 31, 2010

      • Here’s something more interesting about coyote Cooley, & people who get the idea that he pursues Polanski in order to become AG.

        http://cyberterroristwatch.blogspot.com/2010/05/julian-ayrs-on-steve-cooley-corrupt-da.html

        The commentators are talking about Polanski’s case too.

        Or this one.

        http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/1/23/31436/2767

        People DO know, just not the ones in ‘real’ power to get rid of Cooley’s corrupt court.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | May 31, 2010

  16. No people in Los Angeles are only interested in money, fame and promotion.
    When a Judge or a Sheriff Deputy or police officer frames someone and covers up corruption these people are promoted for their service to California and the Counties and Cities. People don’t know it but their taxes are being used to oppress the people, and to do injustice. Lawyers, Prosecutors, Judges, police sheriff deputies are being paid to do injustice.

    Comment by Sonny | May 31, 2010 | Reply

    • I know Filder was another media obsessed judge, but he had offered Polanski the deal to time served, & then conditioned it with the televising Polanski refused. As for his dealing with Spector, I’m not too versed in the case, but many say he didn’t in fact kill her, so I don’t know. But as in many cases, they either let the guilty go free for whatever reasons, or let the innocent go to jail on fabrications, if they’re famous or not. It’s all shady politics they fall victims to willy-nilly, helped by the bent laws.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | May 31, 2010 | Reply

  17. Samantha Galley was willing to remove clothing to advance her career, and purposely hid her topless modeling activities with Roman Polanski at the first photo shoot from her mother knowing that her mother would have immediately terminated Samantha’s modeling “opportunity” with Roman Polanski if she had known what was going on.

    Samantha’s mother Susan Galley was lax in leaving her underage daughter unattended with Roman Polanski for a photo shoot, and the mother’s negligence in regards to her daughter was compounded by her daughter Samantha’s deceit, who by purposely concealing her topless modeling activities with Polanski from her mother, 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 involved being tempted by different rewards.

    A troubling question is this, was only Roman Polanski’s action illegal in California in 1977? Since everyone involved contributed to this problem, I am not sure why was this case not tossed out a long time ago.

    Every young girl and mother should be aware that if girl tempts a man by being topless, and deliberately hides this from her mother, and the young girl goes back for more there may be trouble, much more than she bargained for. After all men are only human.

    Samatha said “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.”

    Comment by Sonny | May 31, 2010 | Reply

  18. Actually her mother had seen the photos they had shot behind their own house, & she & her mother’s boyfriend were perfectly happy with them. He showed them to them after they had done the shoot at Nicholson’s house & he had returned her. Geimer had seen them before they went there in his car, and ‘only’ after he had left, his friend who had asked him to photograph her in the first place had phoned him to say that they ‘suddenly’ did NOT ‘like’ them. But, when the friend who was her sister’s boyfriend had a look at them, he said they were beautiful & had no clue why they would say that. Now, therefore what Geimer claimed that she felt ‘uncomfortable’ but did it anyway, sounds a bit iffy, & she in fact maintained later in order to keep up the lie that they didn’t like them, to ‘make’ HER the ‘innocent’ party in this, while in fact she had no qualms to pose for any of the topless photos basically twice.

    Of course, to say it was an ‘opportunity’ is correct, but they later put it as if she was somehow ‘compelled’ into it & just ‘did it’, while she in fact said even in that documentary that she’d love to be photographed by Polanski as soon as she heard of it to further her career. Which also nullifies her previous claims that he had ‘fooled’ them into posing for him, under a sort of ‘pretense’ to get to know her, since the boyfriend had asked Polanski as soon as HE had heard he did the Vogue assignment with these young girls form all over the world, not Polanski them. Polanski knew her mother since a year already & up to the day he went to see them first at their home, he had never seen Geimer, as so to be in any form ‘interested’, while Geimer claimed later ‘he must have seen a photo’ of her to be ‘interested’, clearly a lie. He also said he wasn’t too impressed with her [as a model], & they did three shoots in all, so he wasn’t even ‘interested’ in her sexually in any form up to the point when they both ended up in Nicholson’s TV room on her own free will.

    What you quoted can be seen as leading him on from her side, trying to ‘dupe’ her mother, which sounds logical for a teen trying to hide things from a mother, but since she was to expect that they all would see them at one point, since the mother needed to sign them off for possible release to Vogue, there’s no way that is correct. Or to say, “I didn’t want to go,” to the second Bisset/Nicholson shoot. She tried to cover up for her mother having allowed the topless photos, not only for herself, since they suddenly said they didn’t like them AFTER Polanski had left.

    My guess is, since Geimer told her boyfriend of the sex, not ‘rape’, he didn’t believe either way, then her sister, then her mother, & then they constructed a web of lies to make the mother, A, more ‘responsible’ over her negligence that she had left her with him unattended & to shoot these photos, B, to turn the sex into ‘unlawful sex’ for her age, C, Geimer probably told them some more ‘elaborate version’ of the events the mother first believed, and then, when the case went to court after she foolishly had called the cops the girl in fact never wanted for obvious reasons, she noticed that she had lied about the ‘rape’ & sodomy at no evidence supporting that, & tried to wriggle herself out of it by giving us this that Geimer suddenly was ‘afraid’ of him nonsense & her sudden ‘reluctance’ etc., to make herself the more ‘concerned’ & Geimer the more ‘innocent’ parties in all this mire they had created.

    So ‘trap’ is sort of correct, since all they needed to say was what really happened, the girl had unlawfully engaged in casual sex with him, wasn’t really drunk or drugged not to know what she was doing at no such proof, he confesses to the casual sex, & the case had been signed off right there as unlawful sex with a minor, he gets a fine and/or probation & can walk like everyone else had then. But, they kept on lying to make themselves out these ‘innocents’ & put all the blame on Polanski, & the corrupt cops & lawmakers made it even more complicated LA style.

    So yes, why was only Polanski’s action ‘punished’, while everyone else involved contributed to this problem on several levels, compounding it with lies to get out of it again & got away with it all? Their own drugs & alcohol furnishing to Geimer, the underage sex she engaged in with her boyfriend & others they had condoned? Because Rittenband played his own games once he had Polanski in his clutches, & applied double standards on a grand scale. He should have tossed out the case the moment Geimer was found frolicking around with her mother’s boyfriend long before Polanski even pleaded, but didn’t out of spite. He should have signed off the case within weeks as short probation as soon as they had no case of rape/sodomy & all these inconsistencies/lies, not construct ‘mock arguments’ for the press after Rittenband had reports that Polanski was no MDSO already, let him travel back & forth to Europe for ten months only to call him back fro ‘another report’ no one asked for, but forget the plea deal the mother had pressed for to end the sham they had initiated & close the damned case.

    No, Rittenband wanted to play him for his own better press image, sent him to Chino no one wanted after he saw that Oktoberfest photo slimy Wells came up with, then had said that was his entire ‘punishment’ (no one wanted either) & to release him, but tell the press instead he’d send him back for a second time (which in also unlawful to give two ‘sentences’ under the guise of this ‘study’) after he caught too much heat from every direction, since no one got the idea that was no rape/sodomy just underage sex, & then wanted to ‘unofficially’ release him the press wouldn’t know of, rather than do what the book says & not cater for the public sector.

    BUT, he did so on the threat of self-deportation, which was also unlawful, & Polanski thought, sod you, since I can’t work in the US anymore, what’s the point of staying if I have to go back to Chino still no one wanted, only to be deported, also no one wanted him to face. But Rittenband did it anyway & Polanski took a hike. No wonder Rittenband was removed by both attorneys, but of course, FAR TOO LATE, & that’s why we have this case still sitting in the courts for punks like Cooley to play with it, or rather Polanski, some more. He knows exactly Polanski had done his time long ago NO one in fact had asked for, & now has been detained for over eight months for basically nothing on top, all for Cooley to gain election as AG.

    Comment by Novalis Lore | May 31, 2010 | Reply

  19. Thanks for your detailed post. I am trying to find out if some of these facts can be, or are actually proven.

    Novalis Lore said “Actually her [Samantha Geimer’s] mother [Susan Galley] had seen the photos they [Samantha & Polanski] had shot behind their own house, & she [Susan Galley?] & her mother’s boyfriend were perfectly happy with them. He [Polanski] showed them to them [Susan Galley, her boyfriend] after they had done the shoot at Nicholson’s house & he had returned her. Geimer had seen them before they went there in his car, and ‘only’ after he had left, his friend who had asked him to photograph her in the first place had phoned him to say that they ‘suddenly’ did NOT ‘like’ them. But, when the friend who was her sister’s boyfriend had a look at them, he said they were beautiful & had no clue why they would say that. Now, therefore what Geimer claimed that she felt ‘uncomfortable’ but did it anyway, sounds a bit iffy, & she in fact maintained later in order to keep up the lie that they didn’t like them, to ‘make’ HER the ‘innocent’ party in this, while in fact she had no qualms to pose for any of the topless photos basically twice.”

    1. Did Samantha’s mother know that Polanski was photographing her daughter semi-nude – topless in the backyard of their home, which occurred at the beginning of their photo sessions, and if so what source(s)?

    If the photography was for French Vogue Magazine it would seem that the mother would have known in advance of the semi-nude photography but this is not absolute for the mother’s knowledge of the semi-nude shoots, unless there is a source to back this up, such as the semi-nude photos and the fact that the mother was shown these semi – nude photos prior to Polanski leaving the mother, Susan Galley’s house, but after her daughter had already had got involved in unlawful sex with Roman Polanski.

    It would make sense that if Samantha’s mother Susan Galley had initially agreed to the semi-nude shoot of her underage daughter Samantha that she would continue to approve the semi-nude photos of her underage daughter, prior to discovering her underage daughter’s sexual encounter with Polanski.

    But upon discovery of her underage daughter’s sexual encounter with Polanski, then Susan Galley would understand for the first time that her negligence had contributed to her daughter’s unlawful sex with Roman Polanski who had also contributed by operating on auto-pilot and not thinking.

    But of course Roman Polanski as well as others who are treated similarly, could not possibly have foreseen the family’s dishonesty in covering up so as to blame him entirely, or the Californian bait and switch and legal trap that was being set for him.

    2. You said Samantha saw photos of herself topless (from an earlier photo shoot with Polanski) before Samantha went on the second (or third?) photo shoot to Jack Nicholson’s house. If these topless photos were shot behind Samantha’s own house, with her mother’s Susan Galleys consent? What’s the source for this earlier topless shoot and mother’s consent – information?

    3. You said “Judge Rittenband should have tossed out the case the moment Geimer was found frolicking around with her mother’s boyfriend long before Polanski even pleaded, but didn’t out of spite.”

    Question – What is the source(s)? How bad was the frolicking and is it true that Judge Rittenband actually knew of Samantha’s the underage girl, frolicking with mother’s boyfriend?

    To conclude in essence what you are saying is that the 13 year old Samantha Galley lied to the Grand Jury, lied to People magazine when she was in her 40’s, and lied in the documentary Polanski: Wanted and Desired, to cover up for her mother, Susan Galley who had approved the topless shoot from the get go, & which semi -nude photography started in Samantha’s mother’s own back yard?

    If this is true then Samantha did not contribute to her own downfall by lying through omission to her mother in not telling her mother that she had been photographed topless in February 1977.

    Instead it was her mother Susan Galley that contributed entirely to Samantha’s downfall, Samantha’s unlawful sex with Roman Polanski.

    In addition and after the fact Samantha aided and abetted to cover up her mother’s gross negligence towards her by lying to the Press and in the documentary Polanski Wanted and Desired, to cover up her mother’s culpability that her mother knew and agreed to her daughter’s semi-nude and topless shoots with Polanski yet failed to chaperone her daughter at these semi-nude photographic shoots, which lack of supervision of her underage and sexy daughter Samantha Galley courted & invited disaster.

    In the worse case scenario which I state, but which is not necessarily true, it is possible that the mother Susan Galley intentionally hoped for a sexual liaison between her daughter and Polanski and used her own daughter as bait – for a payout. If that is the case then Polanski was set up, but even if not the case, Polanski was still set up first through the mother’s gross negligence towards her underage daughter, and then by her daughter Samantha covering up her mother’s gross negligence towards her.

    This reminds me of an earlier bait and switch incident that Polanski had faced in Poland after the Second World war where Polanski nearly lost his life to a serial murderer who lured Polanski under the ground to steal his bicycle and who nearly killed Polanski in the process. It seems that Samantha and her mother Susan Galley, the California Judge Laurence J. Rittenband, Los Angeles prosecutor David Wells, 9th Circuit Judge Trott, Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and his office 32 years later have wanted to steal Polanski’s fame, good name and his money, and his freedom all for a casual sexual encounter in which he was not entirely responsible.

    So ‘trap’ is correct, because mother and the daughter have been dishonest in covering up Susan Galley’s agreement to allow her sexually active underage daughter’s topless modeling activities with a man 30 years her senior, without adult supervision, which quite logically progressed into casual sex.

    If the family had been honest about their contribution to the sexual collision, then the payout would not have been as big for them, nor would they have had as much sympathy from the world’s press and other people, and Samantha may not have got to star in the documentary Polanski: Wanted And Desired, for which she received a little fame and fortune.

    Comment by Sonny | June 6, 2010 | Reply

    • I’ll comment on your questions/thoughts with the word ‘reply’. Leaving out the first paragraph.

      “1. Did Samantha’s mother know that Polanski was photographing her daughter semi-nude – topless in the backyard of their home, which occurred at the beginning of their photo sessions, and if so what source(s)?”

      Reply: That cannot be taken for granted that she knew, & Polanski might have assumed they were ok with it since it was ok in Europe, hence Geimer’s words, (which she of course can tell us today she had thought of but might never really have) “…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…” In effect, A, she either covered up for her mother who [‘really’] suddenly didn’t like them anymore, (& note, ‘no one else’ actually stated so according to the sister’s boyfriend who had called Polanski & then came by to look at them & said they’re nothing but beautiful) or, B, the mother ‘pretended’ she liked them in Polanski’s, & Geimer & the mother’s boyfriend’s & Geimer’s own girlfriend presence who didn’t moan either, when they all looked at them, & as soon as Polanski was gone she went bananas at her daughter for having posed topless. And C, if true, she in fact misled both her mother & Polanski by not telling him she might object & can be in fact the very reason for his entire disaster, (which however does not explain why the mother only made a fuss once he was gone). She could have asked her if she would mind topless & then tell Polanski to hide/destroy the ones they had taken already to avoid any repercussions. Or D, maybe her mother didn’t mind at all & they just brought this in to ‘justify’ her hasty stance against Polanski for her daughter having had sex with him, (she obviously had told her boyfriend first & by then wasn’t ‘rape’ yet since she would have undoubtedly told him Polanski had ‘violated’ her, or her mother as soon as he was gone, & not said ‘Polanski had sex with her’) with her mother however the very last to find out, & was most likely pissed at her daughter. Or, because (& Geimer said so herself), ‘no one believed her’ the sex story & then made things up in order for them TO ‘believe it’. Cont…

      Cont.: In fact, she shouldn’t have told anyone they had sex, & nothing had come of it in any form, other than that she would most likely have ended up in Vogue Hommes, they’d all made some money, she’d become known & received a better chance for a modelling/film career. She’d seen Polanski again, since he wanted to invite them all to watch the film Rocky, (& who would do that after they raped someone) no doubt had attended her birthday party three weeks on, & done some more photos sessions. No, Geimer teased her boyfriend with the sex who couldn’t care less, & consequently put the blame entirely on Polanski’s shoulders rather than stick to the casual sex, most likely ‘embellished’ on their sexual encounter; i.e., said, he ‘gave’ her the booze & Quaalude rather than ‘I took it’, though she actually told the jury she took both after he had ‘offered’ it to her (he however had refuted & she could have refused at any rate but didn’t) to make her the ‘passive partner’, & then said he had anal sex with her to make it sound more ‘interesting’ because he had apparently asked her if she was on the Pill & in order to avoid pregnancy he said, ‘I won’t come inside you then’ & resorted to coitus interuptus, while she however had said he sodomised her (stupidly saying twice, which makes it even more unlikely at NO signs & no one would sodomise someone to avoid pregnancy but simply withdraw before ejaculation the moment they climax), blaming the adult entirely in an as far-fetched way as possible, which teens do so often in order to avoid ‘punishment’. Cont…

      Cont.: Or, the mother forced her to tell the grand jury all that in order for BOTH to be utterly ‘innocent’ & ‘non-complicit’ in the entire affair, which is obviously more than BS (not ever thinking what damage it would cause Polanski), including that she was ‘afraid’ of him, the ‘reluctance’, etc., & did her best to deflect from her [Geimer’s] own actions the mother then tried to ‘undermine’ by lying for her some more. That’s why Geimer kept shielding her mother over the years for her own failures to be more responsible, (since she clearly came from a sex, drugs & booze permissive family & didn’t seem to have learned anything, see the ‘affair’ with her mother’s boyfriend she most likely had already & her later engaging with other boys to become pregnant soon) & because of her calling the cops Geimer didn’t want her to, & that this had instantly destroyed both their careers in the film industry. Or, her mother ‘did’ believe/fall for her fantasies at first & in erroneous belief had called on the law too hastily, & it went wrong from there at nothing supporting the daughter’s claims suddenly, hence pressed for that plea deal. But either way, BOTH are far more responsible than Polanski, yet only HE had to pay for it ever since at a very high prize.

      “If the photography was for French Vogue Magazine it would seem that the mother would have known in advance of the semi-nude photography but this is not absolute for the mother’s knowledge of the semi-nude shoots, unless there is a source to back this up, such as the semi-nude photos and the fact that the mother was shown these semi – nude photos prior to Polanski leaving the mother, Susan Gailey’s house, but after her daughter had already had got involved in unlawful sex with Roman Polanski.”

      Reply: It is logical to assume the mother would know that the photos he would take might be topless/semi nude shots, since the Vogue with Kinski (I own) he had done the year before he had shown them, features a lot of clearly underage nude girls not his own work, though Kinski wasn’t in any state of undress, since they were commercial images to promote luxury fashion & perfumes in a ‘Pirates’ setting etc., (since he wanted to do the film already then). So, one cannot presume that she knew or of course if she hadn’t, since we don’t know if they both had talked about what kind of pictures ‘exactly’ he would take of her, & Geimer therefore can tell us today her mother had no clues, & that she was shocked (but oddly only after he had gone, which makes it rather unlikely that she was), & if she might have gotten into trouble had she known. It’s all ‘remaking’ of ‘facts’ after the facts he could not prove otherwise. So yes, “It would make sense that if her mother had initially agreed to the semi-nude shoot of her daughter, that she would continue to approve the semi-nude photos of her, prior to discovering her daughter’s sexual encounter with Polanski.” But we cannot be sure of that, either way, which is obviously one of those ‘he said she [or they] said’ situations the accused has NO means of proving otherwise at no witnesses of his own.

      “It would make sense that if Samantha’s mother Susan Gailey had initially agreed to the semi-nude shoot of her underage daughter Samantha that she would continue to approve the semi-nude photos of her underage daughter, prior to discovering her underage daughter’s sexual encounter with Polanski. But upon discovery of her underage daughter’s sexual encounter with Polanski, then Susan Gailey would understand for the first time that her negligence had contributed to her daughter’s unlawful sex with Roman Polanski who had also contributed by operating on auto-pilot and not thinking.”

      Reply: That is most certainly fact, & that’s why they did their best to put the snowballing blame game entirely into his court he could not escape, though Dalton in fact said that the mother had been criminally negligent on several levels & obviously knew what really had happened.

      “But of course Roman Polanski as well as others who are treated similarly, could not possibly have foreseen the family’s dishonesty in covering up so as to blame him entirely, or the Californian bait and switch and legal trap that was being set for him.”

      Reply: That’s the reason why he had little chances of proving certain things otherwise, or in fact needed any kind of ‘alibi’ he would have had at the ready to prove it was no set-up, & therefore to say he had ‘planned’ all that is more than ludicrous at no handy backup plan. Other than luckily have the hard medical evidence on his side, (which alone should or did prove there was NO rape/sodomy) & certain ‘logic’ as to the actual course of events speaking for him both the attorney quickly realised, the mother therefore pressed for that plea deal & they had no other choice to go down that fatal plea bargain road since he still committed the act of unlawful sex with a minor, rather than just throw out the case on perjury charges at their making things up as they went along & other factors not sounding right. But Rittenband obviously had his own ideas with him no matter what the mother or Geimer wanted, & no one else wanted him in prison, since he didn’t do anything other than sleep with her, no matter ‘unlawful’. He should in fact only have received a fine and/or short probation, not any prison sentence, since no one else around that time was sent inside for unlawful sex with a minor by Dalton’s own admission. But I guess their name wasn’t ‘Polanski’ they could not save from a very ‘special treatment’ in contrast.

      “2. You said Samantha saw photos of herself topless (from an earlier photo shoot with Polanski) before Samantha went on the second (or third?) photo shoot to Jack Nicholson’s house. If these topless photos were shot behind Samantha’s own house, with her mother’s Susan Galleys consent? What’s the source for this earlier topless shoot and mother’s consent – information?”

      Reply: I never said the mother ‘consented’ to these ‘topless’ photos, she consented to this very first shoot behind their house (or any other, since she had so sign them off later for possible publication), & up to the point when she actually saw them, (this first batch from behind the house, semi nudes or not), Geimer however had seen them in his car on their way to Bisset/Nicholson houses already & didn’t mind them at all, of course knowing they were partial nudes. After they had hastily packed her clothes the mother had left out for them for that second/third shoot since he was late & the sun went down too quickly to wait, he couldn’t show them to her then & she wasn’t in fact at home at all. Only the mother’s boyfriend was there who had asked Polanski where they would go to for the next shoot, (so there’s NO way it can be true that the mother or the sister (who wasn’t at home either) wanted to go with them & were turned away by Polanski as they had later stated), & that’s why he showed them all the slides only after he had returned with her since they hadn’t been developed before that day. These were the same dias/slides (or filmstrip transparents/film cells as we call them today) the cops would find in Polanski’s hotel room after his arrest. So to say her mother might ‘object’ to them, might sound ‘logical’, but Geimer knew fair well she would need to see them at some point to decide which to allow for release, & it ‘might’ be correct that Geimer ‘assumed’ she wouldn’t in fact allow her posing topless, & that’s why the mother ‘might’ have come done on her only after Polanski had left. But to call them ‘terrible’ is nonsense & one might assume that she would have told him off right there, & not through his friend hours later.

      “3. You said: “Judge Rittenband should have tossed out the case the moment Geimer was found frolicking around with her mother’s boyfriend long before Polanski even pleaded, but didn’t out of spite.” Question – What is the source(s)? How bad was the frolicking and is it true that Judge Rittenband actually knew of Samantha’s the underage girl, frolicking with mother’s boyfriend?”

      Reply: It appears that you actually haven’t read my analysis explaining all that too, so let me recap here. The ‘frolicking’ was ‘so bad’, that, “The clerk in fact was so taken aback that he reported it to the judge. But of course, nothing ever came of it, at the judge’s ‘discretion’ not intent on helping Polanski’s case with such an important incident. They both were in fact spotted [by a clerk of the prosecution] in a very compromising embrace right outside the prosecutor’s (Gunson’s) office while the mother was in fact inside with her attorney (Gunson or Silver), both engaged more in what lovers do, with his leg between hers embracing with erotic connotations. In a crack in the door, the clerk saw them locked in a steamy, passionate embrace; not the avuncular hug of a grown man comforting a young girl, but an unmistakably erotic clinch. Her thigh was up against his crotch. That, coming from prosecutor Gunson’s own office, mind you, and Polanski recalled in his autobiography. So much for an ‘innocent’ thirteen year old just having been ‘raped’. Such report could have thrown out the case right there, especially after the medical reports and testimonies didn’t support five of the six counts.” That Polanski knew of this is the best proof that it is true, since he could only know about it after Gunson had told Dalton & he/or they both had been told by Rittenband and/or the clerk. So all in all, Rittenband did not follow rules to thrown out the case right there, send Polanski home, & Geimer’s lot into prison for perjury. Or at least banish them from his court in public disgrace as ‘false rape accusers’, but since he wanted more clippings for his scrapbook thought, nah, I’ll rather play with Polanski some more instead, the ‘little [helpless] Pollack’.

      “To conclude in essence what you are saying is that the 13 year old Samantha Galley lied to the Grand Jury, lied to People magazine when she was in her 40’s, and lied in the documentary Polanski: Wanted and Desired, to cover up for her mother, Susan Galley who had approved the topless shoot from the get go, & which semi -nude photography started in Samantha’s mother’s own back yard?”

      Reply: In essence, yes – that’s why the mother pressed for that plea. But as I said, we’re not sure if she consented to anything ‘topless’, but given the times & having seen the Kinski Vogue, it’s more likely than not, since Vogue Hommes in contrast was & still is directed solely at the male population, & all the magazines showed nude girls, (still do) many of which were underage (though no longer today for our ‘PC times’) and even mainstream fashion Vague featured them. These were not meant for ‘peadophiles’ as we might think today, since then this was of no interest, but was solely to make money off nubile teens in sexy poses. They were everywhere, I was there, I know. Besides, Polanski had said if they don’t like them ‘like that’ they can be cropped to omit anything boob-wise. What Geimer said later in several interviews with evermore different or conflicting accounts of her ‘fabricated’ original account, is purely down to the fact that she couldn’t recall exactly what she had made up as a teen since ones memory usually remembers only ‘actual facts’, i.e., what really happened, (that’s why liars are found out sooner out later) & never thought that what she had told the grand jury would ever be found online for all to drool/speculate over – since the transcripts were only floated in 2003 in order to boycott Polanski’s possibly receiving his Pianist Oscar. Which failed anyway.

      “If this is true then Samantha did not contribute to her own downfall by lying through omission to her mother in not telling her mother that she had been photographed topless in February 1977. Instead it was her mother Susan Galley that contributed entirely to Samantha’s downfall, Samantha’s unlawful sex with Roman Polanski.”

      Reply: As I aid, she had to expect her mother would see them, so to go on that second/third shoot to pose topless again, was more than dumb if she ‘really’ thought that. So in that sense we might take her words with a pinch of salt, & it WAS Geimer’s own fault to a large degree, since, had she told her mother, they all could have talked it out & asked Polanski not take any more topless photos. He said himself, if they don’t like any of them, the girl should put them aside (in the car, which she didn’t) or the mother should tell him so they would be destroyed. But instead, she ‘apparently’ went bananas, but most likely because Geimer had told them she had slept with him, took the ‘topless issue’ to a further dimension, i.e., as an ‘excuse’, & turned it all into ‘rape’. In that case it was ONLY Geimer’s own fault to start with, since she told her boyfriend of the sex, & then made up things when her mother came into the discussion.

      “In addition and after the fact Samantha aided and abetted to cover up her mother’s gross negligence towards her by lying to the Press and in the documentary Polanski Wanted and Desired, to cover up her mother’s culpability that her mother knew and agreed to her daughter’s semi-nude and topless shoots with Polanski yet failed to chaperone her daughter at these semi-nude photographic shoots, which lack of supervision of her underage and sexy daughter Samantha Galley courted & invited disaster.”

      Reply: That’s the very reason why she shielded her mother ever since, while many had asked ‘where was your mother’? & she became very defensive, & because she was mad at her for having called the cops since this started the entire snowball madness, they then needed to perpetuate by making up ever more lies to look entirely inculpable in this whole disaster.

      “In the worse case scenario which I state, but which is not necessarily true, it is possible that the mother Susan Galley intentionally hoped for a sexual liaison between her daughter and Polanski and used her own daughter as bait – for a payout. If that is the case then Polanski was set up, but even if not the case, Polanski was still set up first through the mother’s gross negligence towards her underage daughter, and then by her daughter Samantha covering up her mother’s gross negligence towards her.”

      Reply: Many said this was the case, i.e., ‘blackmail’ attempt, & there apparently had been others she left her daughter with for such a purpose. If true or not is relatively irrelevant to this case, since her mother would have known to ‘cry rape’ publicly involving someone like Polanski, would effectively be the death knell of her already not so well-going TV career, & that of her daughter’s future in the movie industry. But what’s fact is that she indeed was criminally negligent, purposely or not, with ulterior motives or not, & therefore resorted to blame it all on Polanski to ‘look better’. Hence her demand that he should NOT face prison, realising her terrible mistake, her culpability/responsibility – too late obviously. If she had expected him to sleep with her, or not, wished for it or not for whatever reason, wouldn’t change the disastrous outcome she alone had ushered in by calling the cops, & it’s highly unlikely that she didn’t know of his ‘reputation’ since they knew each other for a years already & everybody knew Polanski was a ladies man.

      “This reminds me of an earlier bait and switch incident that Polanski had faced in Poland after the Second World war where Polanski nearly lost his life to a serial murderer who lured Polanski under the ground to steal his bicycle and who nearly killed Polanski in the process. It seems that Samantha and her mother Susan Galley, the California Judge Laurence J. Rittenband, Los Angeles prosecutor David Wells, 9th Circuit Judge Trott, Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and his office 32 years later have wanted to steal Polanski’s fame, good name and his money, and his freedom all for a casual sexual encounter in which he was not entirely responsible.”

      Reply: You hit it on the nail with that short résumé, Sonny.

      “So ‘trap’ is correct, because mother and the daughter have been dishonest in covering up Susan Galley’s agreement to allow her sexually active underage daughter’s topless modeling activities with a man 30 years her senior, without adult supervision, which quite logically progressed into casual sex.”

      Reply: Indeed – topless agreement or not, just to look better ‘morally’. But even if they had in fact conceded to her voluntary involvement in the sex etc., told the grand jury she took the booze & Quaalude on her free will, had sex with him as HE described it, & the grand jury would still have indicted him on the one count of unlawful sex, they most likely still would have ended up with ‘the hammer’. Therefore, it STILL would have gone wrong for Polanski in exactly the very same manner ever since leading to his ultimate need to flee from his corrupt court antics, if he HAD sent him to Chino. Which might not have been the case had Wells not seen the Oktoberfest photo, he then used to goad Rittenband into that ‘diagnostic study’ he then mis/used as ‘punishment’ no one wanted & unlawfully applied as a ‘prison sentence’ on the promise he then broke that was it. Hence Gunson’s testimony that this WAS his entire ‘sentence’, Walgren & Co today dispute. Rather than prosecute real criminals.

      “If the family had been honest about their contribution to the sexual collision, then the payout would not have been as big for them, nor would they have had as much sympathy from the world’s press and other people, and Samantha may not have got to star in the documentary Polanski: Wanted And Desired, for which she received a little fame and fortune.”

      Reply: Correct. But it also destroyed their very own more or less promising future in the film industry in one fell swoop & many [still] don’t believe her – & deservedly so, after proclaiming such far-reaching lies they could not ever fix, (hence Geimer’s later accounts of the events leaning more & more towards his own without directly perjuring herself & campaigned to see him freed etc., seeing what damage it had caused to Polanski alone, while they had all lived in peaceful oblivion on Hawaii). NO one who was really raped would say the person had ‘sex’ with them, ‘wasn’t forceful’ or ‘hurting’ them, they would spell it out, speak of the physical & mental pain – Geimer as a teen and Geimer as an adult woman never did. Geimer as teen gave us her very damaging fantasy story, Geimer as an adult woman tried to ‘correct’, far too late, & unsuccessfully at that. But unfortunately only Polanski suffered the very dire consequences of their lies to this day in an ever-escalating snowball effect that has long taken on the ugly face of an unstoppable, vicious legal/political avalanche he cannot escape anymore, all for someone ‘crying rape’ three decades ago. And let’s not even talk about pathetic ‘Lewis’, an even bigger liar, trying to influence this already unsound extradition with a more than obvious smear campaign on bastard Cooley’s behalf, so he can unlawfully ‘sentence’ him AGAIN in his evermore corrupt court.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | June 8, 2010 | Reply

      • Hi Novalis. Here are some audio links below of the Los Angeles District Attoreny Steve Cooley talking on radio in LA with Kevin James (former Los Angeles Prosecutor) at http://townhall.com/Talkradio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=34&page=1

        Seems like many Judges and Prosecutors become Radio Show Hosts, I guess a natural progression if they talk clearly.

        One of these radio interviews with Los Angeles DA Cooley happened shortly after the Sept 2009 arrest of Roman Polanski and Steve Cooley and Kevin James gleefully spoke of re-instating ALL Polanski’s charges once Polanski returned to Los Angeles. I don’t know which date this show occurred.

        But if you punch Cooley you will get to the segments where he is talking so you can get an idea. There are quite a number from Sept 2009 up to July 2010.

        Comment by Sonny | August 22, 2010

      • Los Angeles DA Steve Cooley on Polanski – Kevin James show Oct 1st 2010 talking about more charges

        [audio src="http://ht.salemweb.net/townhall/audio/mp3/7d95189a-d2d0-41a8-8a3b-b694fb06a0e2.mp3" /]

        Comment by Sonny | August 22, 2010

      • Novalis a mistake is made above in the year. The year is 2009.

        I meant to write that Steve Cooley was talking on Oct 1st 2009 on the Los Angeles Radio Station KRLA 870 only a few days after Polanski had been arrested in Switzerland

        And what Steve Cooley might try to do to Roman Polanski if Polanski was extradited by Switzerland to Los Angeles County in CA USA.

        Cooley said there was some unfinished business. And it is still unfinished. It might stay unfinished until the end of time now.

        Comment by Sonny | August 22, 2010

    • I listened to Cooley’s talk about the case – & NO, the dropped charges are NOT back on the table since the plea stands & Polanski DID his time, i.e., was sentenced to Chino as his full punishment just as Gunson had declared it, which is of course what Cooley & Co do not recognise or will ever make official since Rittenband did not make it ‘official’ [either] because he forced Polanski into fleeing his ‘second sentence’, i.e., the 48 days to make up the 90. Hence Cooley’s ability/attempt to try Polanski on all counts – which in fact is [also] unlawful, since the extradition was only meant to see Polanski as declared sentenced to time served on the count he pleaded to, NOTHING else. Even Silver said the dropped charges have long expired & can only be tried if the plea is withdrawn at a proper trial, no judge will ever do just so the defendant is stuck with the plea deal.

      Cooley is misleading the public by disregarding the fact that Polanski had done his time not only at Chino, but the 70 days at Winterthur have to be counted too which will make up more than the 90 days Rittenband had in mind, & can never be tried on these counts, ‘again’. All that needs to be done is make this fact official & close the case after litigating the mounting misconducts – which Cooley of course doesn’t want to do either way. The extradition request, I read, too said, Walgren will want to ‘try’ Polanski on all these counts in an ‘evidentiary hearing’ – i.e., ‘trial’, which was not what the request was signed for – only for Polanski to be [declared] sentenced on the one count he pleaded to.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 23, 2010 | Reply

      • Novalis I am glad you listened to Steve Cooley on Radio KRLA 870 which Cooley made a few days after Roman Polanski’s arrest in Switzerland.

        I was appalled when I heard this radio broadcast conversation at the time.

        These twists to me are nothing new as obviously I encountered them in a set up which was a courtroom littered with White county of los Angeles sheriffs which the County Judges, lawyers and Sheriff Lee Baca are denying, plus of course California State Justices since two were promoted, and the Los Angeles and Federal courts have helped them cover up these distortions which allows sexual discrimination and sexual assault to proliferate in classes at Santa Monica College California, since people will be beaten up for reporting sexual assault and police cover up of it.

        The situation in my case and in Polanski’s case (and thousands of others most likely) is that the individual is facing a corrupt gang, a corrupt government,

        and even if Polanski had ALL the money in the world to pay for GREAT American attorneys in California it does not make an ounce of a difference in America to Roman Polanski and what would have happened if Switzerland had extradited him to US.

        It was up to Switzerland and its Justice to save Roman Polanski and they came through for him, and in doing so Switzerland also came through for me and Samantha Geimer as well as other unknown individuals who have been harmed by a corrupt bullying gang.

        Comment by Sonny | August 23, 2010

    • Obvioulsy, with your insight into the LA court system, Sonny, you’re better equipped to understand the underhand machinations going on there – which most people would never realise, hence bash/ed the bible of the ‘law’, i.e., gladly had Polanski face ‘justice’, or rather [further] injustice. Till the Swiss put a temporary end to it, since Cooley, as long as he can, will never let up hunting Polanski.

      And you’re right, nothing will help Polanski’s cause in LA as long as Cooley is in power, not the most honest or nifty lawyers, since the judge simply can render their ‘evidence’ as inadmissible, as they did with Spector et al. – NO one had or has a chance & ‘money’ cannot ‘buy’ real justice if the powers that be have been bribed beforehand to see the defendant behind bars at all costs.

      Though technically the Swiss justices stood up for him, true, & others in a sense, I’m sure they realised this was or still is a witch hunt of sorts, & it will take a long while before they, or others, will regain trust in the pit that is the LA court system. Or even the DOJ, since real justice is not compatible with the corrupt US world-view of ‘justice’ they try since decades to impose with force & smear campaigns on others.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 24, 2010 | Reply

      • Novalis thanks for your insight.

        My insight comes because of my first hand experience of corruption first by the Santa Monica College Officials and their police, and then County of Los Angeles Judicial as well as the Federal Judicial system.

        The Feds could not rule for me in a lawsuit that went on for 11 years, gave me bait and switch justice, and only drove me into the ground, even though along the way I gained two 9th circuit Federal decisions in my name and in my favor. But it was bait and switch justice and the guy who ratified the Torture memos Jay S. Bybee was used to author a decision in a different case that was used to kill my case.

        Yes I could have settled with the County of Los Angeles, but I would have had to give up my integrity which would have included betraying my appeal lawyer, as the Federal System does not want civil rights lawyers to be paid, because if that were to happen the County of Los Angeles would be sued for many more civil rights violations coming out of their corrupt system and employees.

        Comment by Sonny | August 25, 2010

      • I just wanted to say that in a few government employees cases they may only be getting their pay packet which I suppose you can say is a form of bribe. Of course I do not know for sure. Perhaps they get an extra BONUS also.

        Some of these employees in California in two different governmental entities I have noticed are very faithful to the “gang” to the point of lying and covering up for the “gang” who in my case were Santa Monica College Official, their police and the County of Los Angeles and their Judges and sheriff deputy employees.

        I was given the idea from County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputy Terry January (who is African American) when I deposed him in 2008 that he was made to cover up for County of Los Angeles Judge Laurence D. Rubin, the White County of Los Angeles sheriffs who beat me up, Santa Monica College and the African American Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable who had suppressed, covered up my sexual assault complaint against Santa Monica College Instructor R. L. Jones.

        I think the County of Los Angeles Sheriffs idea in using County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputy Terry January who is of African American descent as a front was to give my complaint of obstruction of justice by African American Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable a racial bias since I am of Caucasian descent. So the County of Los Angeles wanted to falsely paint me as a racist, to cover up not only their Judge and Sheriff Deputies corruption but also Santa Monica College Official corruption.

        Novalis said, if the powers that be have been bribed beforehand to see [the Plaintiff] behind bars at all costs.”

        Comment by Sonny | August 25, 2010

      • As far as in Polanski’s case, the evidence of time served was rendered sealed, and admissible in a Los Angeles trial if LA Prosecutor Roger Gunson happens to no longer be around.

        But County of Los Angeles Judge Peter Espinoza would not unseal Gunson’s testimony for Switzerland Justice. However if Polanski had returned to LA Gunson’s testimony would have been admissible.

        To his credit Judge Espinoza did allow the testimony/depositions to be taken this year 2010, although he would not let the testimony be unsealed for Switzerland. If Judge Espinoza had not allowed the Roger Gunson testimony to be taken then the Swiss would have had less to complain about, or “hang their hat on”, but probably would have reached the very same decision.

        Comment by Sonny | August 25, 2010

      • As far as the Spector case I believe the scientific evidence in Spector’s favor was admitted. The problem was NOT in it NOT BEING ADMiTTED, the problem was that evidence from the Los Angeles Coroner’s office including County of Los Angeles PAID personnel from the Coroner’s office was ALSO ADMITTED that contradicted it

        Also WHAT WAS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE, but which was extremely problematic and PREJUDICIAL was County of Los Angeles Judge Larry Fidler allowing in all these OLD SPECTOR GIRL FRIENDS WITH AXE TO GRIND.

        This is DAMNING EVIDENCE for an unsophisticated jury,

        and what ever Spector DID or DID NOT do to his ex girlfriends, does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt his murder of Lana Clarkson. But repetition of the same thing – Spector held a gun to my head may SWAY and CONFUSE a jury very badly. Bottom line highly prejudicial admitted evidence.

        So this evidence admitted by County of Los Angeles Judge Larry Fidler was more prejudicial than helpful to the trial at hand which was –

        Who pulled the trigger of the gun that killed Lana Clarkson on Feb 3 2003? And was the firing of the gun accidental or not?

        Remember the first jury in the first Phil Spector trial was hung. The votes have to be unanimous in California to convict a person of a crime.

        Also the fact that Phil Spector was tried a second time by the Los Angeles prosecutors and Judge Larry Fidler is sending a strong message to a NEW jury that the Judge and prosecutors both believe Spector is guilty otherwise WHY BOTHER –

        and so second jury I believe is more likely to carry out the implication in their employment in being the NEW jury, hampered in their impartiality through their knowledge that this is NOT the first trial, but the second trial against the same person. The implication is there was something wrong with the first jury, since it was hung.

        In addition I don’t think the scientific evidence from the LA prosecutors and Coroner’s Office “experts” proves that it was murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

        And I would suggest that nobody rely on the illegal chauffeur’s testimony since he has been BRIBED and REWARDED by Los Angeles County for being the prosecutions Key witness with a US residency which makes his testimony influenced, coerced and possibly corrupt?

        As far as the powers that be, some like Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley, or the Judge in my Santa Monica Case Laurence D. Rubin (who is now a California Court of Appeals Judge) are looking for a higher office, and for that they will do anything, including selling their integrity, betraying others whether famous or not, to obtain higher office by hook or by crook. It is possible there others are behind the scenes pulling the strings, so some in the system only betray j to keep their jobs.

        It is not only the powers that be that are corrupt but their underlings or witnesses or simply people doing their “Jobs” within the system who go along with the direction that their superiors take

        Once the decision has been made to prosecute, that someone is guilty of a crime or that someone is guilty of a crime against the system by blowing the whistle on the corruption, then the system begins to take on a life of its own, and will do everything it can to keep this vision and cover up anything to the contrary.

        Novalis said, “And you’re right, nothing will help …since the judge simply can render their ‘evidence’ as inadmissible, as they did with Spector et al. – NO one had or has a chance & ‘money’ cannot ‘buy’ real justice if the powers that be have been bribed beforehand to see the defendant behind bars at all costs.”

        Comment by Sonny | August 25, 2010

    • Good you didn’t betray your integrity, Sonny – or principles of justice, even though you didn’t ‘win’.

      Of course, ‘racism’ goes both ways, and to abuse the idea of it, too – just so to accuse someone of it to win their case, though they know that’s not the case in hand.

      Sure, Gunson’s testimony would have been ‘around’, but they might just as well beat the drum that it must remain sealed for ‘posterity’ as Espinoza put it as long as Gunson is still alive. Meaning, it will only be unsealed when he’s gone, which might be tomorrow, or in ten years if the cancer treatment is successful. So the unsealing/admission is NOT guaranteed, & Polanski could sit in some LA lockup in danger of attacks while the attorneys wrangle over it for years. That, after the case not only needs to be entered into the court calender in the first place, which already can take months, but to proceed with it to get to any [other] evidence, which might be allowed or not, let alone reach any ‘ruling’. If it were a trial rather than evidentiary hearing, a jury needs to be picked too, which also can take forever, who might well end up ultra biased before they even start. The entire process can take years beyond any actual sentence Polanski had already sat out in 1977/8 & 2009/10.

      And as I said, it wasn’t Espinoza who ‘allowed’ [for] Gunson’s testimony, it was a woman, Judge Mary Lou Villar, who took it in the presence of name-caller Walgren, that on September 16th 1977, Rittenband stated to all the parties concerned (incl. Silver) that the term of imprisonment at Chino constituted the totality of the sentence Polanski would have to serve – & he did two months later – against all demands for NO jail time that is. That obviously went wrong for Rittenband’s ego-trip & threats, & Cooley today won’t accept any of it.

      As for Spector’s case – remember too, not only the prejudiced witnesses, but the jurors could be ‘hand-picked’ if they’re not already biased enough besides. Meaning, they could be literally selected with the prospect that they will condemn the defendant at any rate – through bribes or intimidation – or simply eliminate those who demand ALL given evidence e.g., (as it’s routine in ‘rape’ cases so the defendant has zero chances of fairness), or if they would reject ‘Evidence Code 1101 b’ allowed hearsay.

      That’s what I [too] said, swamp the jurors (even if they try their best & are honest) with repetitive hearsay, scientific blahdeeblah to confuse them, condition them ‘psychologically’ to believe in any fabrication, wear them down mentality (& physically), & they’re bound to ignore any exculpatory evidence, & rather go for the juicy, convoluted lies (& to get it over & done with at one point). See Geimer, Lewis & ‘big hat’ & their convoluted claims – all of which have been found lies at some point & that through hard, much simpler evidence.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 25, 2010 | Reply

  20. Wild Child; Interview; Charlotte Lewis
    Stuart White in Los Angeles
    8 August 1999
    The News of the World

    I thought I was grown up at 14… but I fell into clutches of older men and almost ruined my life. Movie beauty Charlotte Lewis tells a harrowing tale every girl should heed.

    FOR almost 20 years British Hollywood star Charlotte Lewis has been haunted by a secret past. She knew it would catch up with her one day. Now she is getting it off her chest. At 14 she slept with men for money. Quite simply, the girl who found fame and fortune with superstar Eddie Murphy in The Golden Child was once a call girl.

    It seems impossible to believe, as we sit in the elegant surroundings of the Los Angeles Mondrian hotel, that this stunning English Rose could have stooped so low.
    But she wants to tell all, how she went from hooker to Hollywood. She believes it will be a lesson to others, but more important a release for herself.

    Her darkest days came at the ridiculously young age of 14. She was still at Catholic Secondary School in London, when she went through a rebellious phase, playing truant and chasing the night-time glamour of London’s West End.

    Even now she finds it hard to face the truth. You suspect she has even lied to herself as a protective measure.

    CHARLOTTE, now 31, says LSD and marijuana were at the root of her wild ways. She didn’t know what she was doing. Yet it is clear she went back for more time and again.

    “One morning I woke to find a pile of Pounds 50 notes next to the bed,” she says. “I couldn’t remember quite what had happened, but when I saw the money I knew what was going on and felt sick.” The older man who had just left her bed assumed she was an experienced vice girl. Charlotte insists she was drugged and had her drinks spiked by an older woman she thought of as a friend, not realising she was a cunning madam who pandered to perverts to feed her own drug habit.

    Yet even AFTER she discovered this, young Charlotte ‘entertained’ a succession of other men through that ‘lost summer’ of 1982.

    “I don’t how many men might have had sex with me for money,” she finally admits. “I was in a permanent haze. I was 14 and looking for excitement, yet I was so naive. I’d go out with my so-called friend to a nightclub then everything would become blurry. I’d have a vague notion of talking to some man, and my friend saying, ‘You HAVE to be nice to him’.

    “Obviously she was making deals with these people, taking money off them so they could have sex with an underage girl.”

    Charlotte rushed to confront her ‘friend’ But, she says, the 22-year-old woman convinced her it was a mistake, just a gift.”

    It is hard to believe anyone could be so gullible. But now Charlotte was left open to the most terrifying experience of her life. After a visit to Stringfellows club in London, she and the woman went to a Thames-side apartment. Inside were a number of Arabs.

    Thousands of pounds were laid out on a table and Charlotte was told she could have it all if she agreed to go to Saudi Arabia with them. “I kept asking why?” she said. “Why would they give me money to go to Saudi Arabia? They kept promising me a fabulous education, great accommodation.

    Then my so-called girl friend said, ‘Of course, if you go there you’ll have to grow up VERY quickly’. And she looked at me in that nudge-nudge, wink-wink way.”

    THIS was too much even for a rebellious teenager. “I could see these men eyeing me hungrily, like meat,” she shuddered, “and I thought, ‘My God, I’ve got to get out. They’ll kidnap me, take me out of the country’.

    “It was like an Alice in Wonderland house with long corridors and door after door. I made an excuse, then ran.

    “The men came chasing me, but I managed to escape. I still believe to this day that if I’d not got out I would have been kidnapped and smuggled out of the country to end up as a sex slave.

    “I went home to my mother and told her everything. She was marvellous about it.”
    In fact, her mum had been going frantic with worry. Charlotte had been spending such long periods away from home that the social services were on her case.

    “Perhaps I should have realised what was going on, but I didn’t,” Charlotte continues to insist. “I craved excitement and I liked men. “And although I knew sex was illegal because I was under-age, I didn’t consider it a crime.

    “What happened to me is an object lesson to girls not to play truant and think they’re grown up when clearly they’re not.”

    HER rollercoaster life of sex was far from over. “I’ve been at the top of the world, and I’ve also been to the edge and looked over into the abyss,” she said. “It wasn’t pretty.” In a no-holds-barred interview Charlotte also confessed how she seduced kinky director Roman Polanski when she was a nubile 17-year-old then slipped between the sheets with Warren Beatty.

    Later she bedded Charlie Sheen and Mickey Rourke and in a drunken brawl kicked Kiefer Sutherland in a very tender place! She also made love to British video producer William Annesley, found Liz Hurley’s pyjamas in his bed and mailed them to Hugh Grant.
    In a film career littered with failed romances she also romped with rock wildman Michael Hutchence and chatted up superstar Jack Nicholson on his way to the loo then whispered: “Can I come too?”

    She was also romanced by Dodi Fayed, Mick Jagger and Jim Carrey, and weaned off drugs with help from Eric Clapton.

    Charlotte said wistfully: “Someone once told me, ‘You can always find a friend to party with, but it’s harder to find people to help you afterwards’.”

    The daughter of an absentee Iraqi father and a half-Irish half-Welsh mother, Charlotte explained: “I had a taste for acting from drama lessons in school.”

    SHE spent every spare moment watching movies. “I remember gazing at Brooke Shields in Blue Lagoon and thinking, ‘I want to be her’,” she sighed.
    When Charlotte was 15 she was spotted by a photographer who suggested she try modelling, so she joined an agency called Bookings.

    “I remember with my first pay cheque I bought two steaks for me and my mum and she cooked them,” she said. “Money had been short and she’d sacrificed a lot. A model friend asked me if I’d ever thought of going into films. She turned out to be a friend of Roman Polanski, who was living in Paris. “We bought a cheap rail and ferry ticket, went to Paris and met him. I think he was entranced with me because I looked like Nastassja Kinski, who he’d directed in Tess.

    “I knew Roman had done something wrong in America (he was wanted by the police for sleeping with an under-age girl) but I wasn’t too sure what. Anyway, I was fascinated by him, and I wanted to be his lover.

    “He’d already cast me in his film Pirates, so it wasn’t like it was a casting-couch thing where you HAVE to sleep with someone to get the part. I wanted him probably more than he wanted me.”

    She was 17 when they first had sex. They remained lovers for six months. “It ended when we went on location to Tunisia. I was one of the few females there. I was far from home, lonely and a little afraid.” And into her insecurity, Polanski lobbed an off-hand, cruel remark that was to bring lasting unhappiness. Charlotte recalled: “Roman would say, ‘You’re gaining weight’. It was ridiculous-I was a thin teenage girl, but I took it seriously and stopped eating. Then I’d overeat, and for years I suffered from bulimia. I know that was the start.”

    CHARLOTTE also discovered how inexperienced starlets are often treated like a sexual version of pass the parcel. At the time, Warren Beatty was visiting Tunisia to scout locations for his movie Ishtar. Polanski bet him that he couldn’t get Charlotte into bed. “Roman didn’t think Warren could do it,” said Charlotte, “but the fact is I seduced Warren, not the other way around, so I don’t feel I was misused. He’s a married man now so I’ll draw a veil over it.”

    When filming on Pirates was over, Charlotte had more money than she’d ever seen in her life. She bought clothes, shopped, nightclubbed and treated her mother. The casting director for Pirates recommended her for another upcoming film, The Golden Child, starring Eddie Murphy. At last the girl from Finchley was going to Hollywood, and she was still only 19.
    “It was dreamland,” she smiled. “I’d never been to America, and suddenly I was in the first-class compartment of a 747 heading for LA with a limo to pick me up and take me to the Beverly Wilshire Hotel.

    “The Golden Child was set in Tibet, and I actually thought I was going there.
    “It was my first lesson that so much of Hollywood is illusion-Tibet was to be a set at Paramount, with a little location shooting at a ski resort called Mammoth Mountain five hours from LA.

    “They spent so much money re-creating Tibet in California it would have been cheaper to actually fly to the country.”

    Suddenly Charlotte had ‘arrived’. Everbody wanted to know her and, apparently, everyone was her best friend. She was still only 19 and about to meet Charlie Sheen, one of Hollywood’s great lovers. “It started with an amazing coincidence,” she said. “On the flight over to LA I’d been reading US magazine, and there was Charlie listed as one of Hollywood’s 20 most eligible bachelors. I said to the flight attendant, ‘I think I’ll go out with him when I get there’.”

    Roman Polanski and Charlotte Lewis at Cannes
    THREE days later she was at a party and in he walked. She recalled: “I said to him, ‘I’ve never seen the sea. I understand you live near the sea. Will you show me?’ He did and we became lovers.”

    Charlie, she said, “was like a child when he made love, sweet and sensitive and very anxious to please. But after a while he began arriving home late. His brother had told me Charlie was an alcoholic, but I didn’t believe it.

    “Once Charlie and I got drunk together while he was making Young Guns. We had a storming fight. I was being restrained when I accidentally kicked his co-star Kiefer Sutherland in a very painful place. It hurt! And it took quite a few years before Kiefer forgave me.”One day Charlotte phoned Sheen’s home and a girl answered. “I realised he was cheating on me,” she said simply. “It broke my heart because I truly loved him.”

    Charlotte was paid 150,000 dollars for The Golden Child. But taxes and a bit of extravagant living soon ate that up. Soon she found herself virtually broke and down on her luck back in London-until Eddie Murphy came to her rescue.

    She explained: “He’d asked me to come and visit his family in New Jersey, and I started to cry on the telephone and said, ‘Eddie, I’m totally broke, I don’t even have enough money to buy food’.

    “He told me I HAD to go back to Los Angeles and restart my career. He sent me a one-way first-class plane ticket to LA, had a car meet me and take me to an apartment he’d rented for me.

    “I was instructed to go to a local bank where I found an account opened for me with 50,000 dollars. Let me emphasise that he and I have never been lovers. It was just a generous Eddie Murphy gesture.” Charlotte bounced back in the film Dial Help. Since then she has appeared in movies such as Excessive Force, Men Of War, The Glass Cage,
    Mutual Needs, Navajo Blues and Legion. She has also appeared in several TV shows, including a small part in hit comedy Seinfeld. With the string of films came a string of lovers.

    MICKEY Rourke had a passionate night with her, then rudely didn’t call and she refused to have anything more to do with him.

    Although she does say: “Sometimes he’ll come up to me if I’m eating with someone in a restaurant, and say, ‘I slept with Charlotte when she was very young, you know’.”

    Then there was British video producer William Annesley.

    “William was the love of my life and is now my closest friend,” she smiled, “though once he got a little kinky, brandishing a whip and suggesting I use it on him. But I’m not into sado-masochism.” Hollywood had toughened Charlotte and she was furious when she discovered Hugh Grant’s girlfriend, Liz Hurley, had been sleeping with William.
    She grinned: “I found her silk pyjamas so I sent them by Federal Express parcel to Hugh Grant with a message saying, ‘These are your girlfriend’s. I found them in my boyfriend’s bed”. I wanted Hugh to know Liz was cheating on him.”

    It was a little unfair, because Charlotte had a roving eye too. At one party she bumped into Jack Nicholson on his way to the bathroom. She recalled: “Cheekily I said, ‘Can I come with you?’ His eyes lit up and he said, ‘Sure’. I think he imagined I’d have sex with him. When I got in there I said, ‘I’ve always wanted to kiss you’.

    “He said, ‘OK’ and we kissed passionately. He was a GREAT kisser, and it went on a long time. We might have gone further but, as it was, my boyfriend William was on the other side of the door.”

    Charlotte started an affair with the late INXS singer Michael Hutchence after seeing him in a bar with Patsy Kensit, Titanic star Billy Zane and his wife. “Michael was a beautiful and sensitive lovemaker,” she sighed. “INXS was a good name for his band-he liked excess. He suggested we have group sex. He was happy for there to be me and two other women or maybe even another woman and another man. I couldn’t do that.”

    DODI Fayed was the next man to woo Charlotte. He flew her to the Cote d’Azur and took her on his private yacht as he later did with Diana, Princess of Wales.

    “I was living in the lap of luxury,” said Charlotte. “But I wouldn’t sleep with Dodi. I didn’t find him sexually attractive. I actually fancied his British SAS bodyguards more than I did him.”
    Mick Jagger was another who pursued her, intrigued that she wouldn’t sleep with him because he was famous. And she never did, although she says: “I saw Mick recently. He looked incredibly sexy.”

    Then came the drugs. In a city where party hosts put out the cocaine along with the drinks and snacks, it was all too easy. “I was never an addict,” Charlotte said firmly. “I was never in the gutter and it never affected my work.

    “Sure cocaine, sure Ecstasy, and of course marijuana. Then one day I simply realised I had to sort myself out, deal with my eating disorder, quit the drugs, stop smoking.

    “Eric Clapton, who is a good friend, advised me to go into the Priory clinic in Britain and I did. I haven’t touched any kind of drugs for more than two and a half years.”

    She returned to LA in January and immediately began to date movie idol Jim Carrey. “He was kind, charismatic, funny and unbelievably gorgeous,” she laughed. “But I wouldn’t sleep with him.”

    Nowadays Charlotte drives an old Volvo and shares a little bungalow with a female costume designer who has a young baby.

    “My life is better now,” she said. “Of course, this isn’t living my dream, but I’ll tell you what is.

    “It would be to have a husband I loved and who loved me, to have babies, lots of them.”

    Comment by Sonny | June 7, 2010 | Reply

    • Yeah, ain’t that just dandy – I read that too. I included all that in my own Lewis blog already. Only goes to show, never speak publicly against someone & then can’t remember what you said about him years earlier, & then conveniently brand it as ‘misquoted’. Sure.

      Hers’s another real nice one from 2 yrs prior:

      http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_19970406/ai_n14462559/

      And another from 1986:

      http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,961295,00.html

      She clearly is lying about this sexual abuse BS, & I for one didn’t even need read all that to come to the conclusion. I studied psychology ages ago & know all about ‘body language’. Hers is as telling as her words are false.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | June 8, 2010 | Reply

  21. I’ll comment on some of your reply with the word Response. Thanks for all the detailed work – Novalis Lore.

    Did Samantha’s mother know that Polanski was photographing her daughter semi-nude – topless in the backyard of their home, which occurred at the beginning of their photo sessions, and if so what source(s)?”

    Reply: That cannot be taken for granted that she knew, & Polanski might have assumed they were ok with it since it was ok in Europe, hence Geimer’s words, (which she of course can tell us today she had thought of but might never really have) “…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…” In effect, A, she either covered up for her mother who [‘really’] suddenly didn’t like them anymore, (& note, ‘no one else’ actually stated so according to the sister’s boyfriend who had called Polanski & then came by to look at them & said they’re nothing but beautiful) or, B, the mother ‘pretended’ she liked them in Polanski’s, & Geimer & the mother’s boyfriend’s & Geimer’s own girlfriend presence who didn’t moan either, when they all looked at them, & as soon as Polanski was gone she went bananas at her daughter for having posed topless. And C, if true, she in fact misled both her mother & Polanski by not telling him she might object & can be in fact the very reason for his entire disaster, (which however does not explain why the mother only made a fuss once he was gone). She could have asked her if she would mind topless & then tell Polanski to hide/destroy the ones they had taken already to avoid any repercussions. Or D, maybe her mother didn’t mind at all & they just brought this in to ‘justify’ her hasty stance against Polanski for her daughter having had sex with him, (she obviously had told her boyfriend first & by then wasn’t ‘rape’ yet since she would have undoubtedly told him Polanski had ‘violated’ her, or her mother as soon as he was gone, & not said ‘Polanski had sex with her’) with her mother however the very last to find out, & was most likely pissed at her daughter. Or, because (& Geimer said so herself), ‘no one believed her’ the sex story & then made things up in order for them TO ‘believe it’.

    Response:

    Knowing certain mothers in the world, and of course this is pure speculation, once the mother found out about the underage sex the mother felt taken advantage of by Polanski, and went ballistic because the mother went as far as calling the police. The semi-nude photos were no big deal until the unlawful sex with her daughter.

    Reply… the mother forced her daugher to tell the grand jury all that in order for BOTH to be utterly ‘innocent’ & ‘non-complicit’ in the entire affair, which is obviously more than BS (not ever thinking what damage it would cause Polanski), including that she was ‘afraid’ of him, the ‘reluctance’, etc., & did her best to deflect from her [Geimer’s] own actions the mother then tried to ‘undermine’ by lying for her some more. That’s why Geimer kept shielding her mother over the years for her own failures to be more responsible, (since she clearly came from a sex, drugs & booze permissive family & didn’t seem to have learned anything, see the ‘affair’ with her mother’s boyfriend she most likely had already & her later engaging with other boys to become pregnant soon) & because of her calling the cops Geimer didn’t want her to, & that this had instantly destroyed both their careers in the film industry. Or, her mother ‘did’ believe/fall for her fantasies at first & in erroneous belief had called on the law too hastily, & it went wrong from there at nothing supporting the daughter’s claims suddenly, hence pressed for that plea deal. But either way, BOTH are far more responsible than Polanski, yet only HE had to pay for it ever since at a very high prize.

    Response: Samantha after her mother knew of the underage sex with Polanski, was between a rock and a hard place with her mother and maybe mother’s boyfriend, and she was not sophisticated as a 13 year old,

    But since she admitted to the underage sex she now had to make it out to NOT be ALL her fault to her mother.

    Samantha had to escape blame as most people would do, and she did so by putting it all on Polanski. She wanted no part of it. Of course he is the adult male and he may have been making the advances. But I am not convinced that it is all his fault since if she was repulsed and did not want anything to do with sex, there is no record of her trying to escape his advances. And that does not make any sense to me whatsover, that she did not try to escape. Run out of the house, Scream for neighbours, use someone’s phone. Polanski was not holding a gun to her head.

    In addition I think something psychological such as extreme anger as well as the financial of a famous wealthy director was coming into play when the Mother called the cops, but the mother was certainly ignoring her own part in this affair since her underage daughter was already having sex with others apart from Polanski and before Polanski, and who knows Samantha may have wanted this to happen since her actions do not prove otherwise. And she was even teasing her boyfriend with this, and also did not tell her mother initially. All these things tend to add up to the fact that Samantha was experimenting in sexual affairs and did not want to tell her mother, but as she was stupid her mother found out through Samantha teasing her American boyfriend whom she was also having sex with.

    In addition it seems that Samantha would not have gone that route to call the police if it were not for her mother. I think you agree with this. And so her mother took Samantha’s life out of Samantha’s hands and she lost independence over her young life, because the little girl had spilled the beans to her mother.

    This is the problem between young girls and their mothers. The mothers don’t want to let go of their daughters who are growing up to be women and need to experiment and need some independence from their mothers, and the mother was not really doing a good job of being a mother anyway, as she did not think to shelter her daughter from a highly sexual male’s embraces before the encounter took place.

    Also Samantha may have been looking whether consciously or not for some adult male affection and attention and may have been testing her powers.

    Response: If the mother approved in Polanski’s presence on the night of the underage sex as to the semi – nude photos it would seem that the semi nude photos was not the real issue – it was the underage sex that changed mother’s approval of the semi nude photos. What points to this is that the mother saw the photos and was not shocked in front of Polanski. So something must have changed mother’s attitude after Polanski left her house. And that something must have been the discovery of the underage sex.

    “upon discovery of her underage daughter’s sexual encounter with Polanski, then Susan Gailey would understand for the first time that her negligence had contributed to her daughter’s unlawful sex with Roman Polanski who had also contributed by operating on auto-pilot and not thinking.”

    Reply: That is most certainly fact, & that’s why they did their best to put the snowballing blame game entirely into his court he could not escape, though Dalton in fact said that the mother had been criminally negligent on several levels & obviously knew what really had happened.

    Response: Even the Judge, Rittenband stated to the press and in newspapers and in the record, that the Judge thought the mother was negligent and Los Angeles Prosecutor Gunson defended Samantha’s mom by saying that the mother had been duped by Polanski and thought her daughter had a chaperone.

    “But of course Roman Polanski as well as others who are treated similarly, could not possibly have foreseen the family’s dishonesty in covering up so as to blame him entirely, or the Californian bait and switch and legal trap that was being set for him.”

    Reply… But I guess their name wasn’t ‘Polanski’ they could not save from a very ‘special treatment’ in contrast.

    Response: I believe there was a kind of backlash in California’s Justice stemming from the Manson murders that included Polanski’s beautiful American wife Sharon Tate and unborn child, and his friends.

    As far as California Justice and press, Polanski was guilty because he was married to Sharon Tate who had been murdered and because he had made films (not his written material) that had gone so far as to show a devil having sex.

    I believe the World’s press and Californian law enforcement got confused by Polanski’s excellent portrayal of the devil having sex with a woman in Rosemary’s Baby, and 10 years later confused the devil with Roman Polanski himself.

    Los Angeles Prosecutors and other human beings are not very bright sometimes and are unable to distinguish between a person who is telling a story and the subject matter of that story.

    Los Angeles prosecutors are looking for modus operandi and may try to equate the dark subject matter of a movie such as Rosemary’s Baby, with the person who is telling the story. But this correlation is not an absolute and is not a definite indication of the storyteller’s character.

    10 years after Rosemary’s Baby and Sharon Tate’s horrific death certain Los Angeles prosecutors may have confused the devil in the movie with the story teller.

    Polanski was made out to be the devil for having sex with an underage girl in California, with the devil’s attributes assigned to Polanski through Samantha, her mother, and Charlotte Lewis’s help, even though this dehumanization of Polanski is not justified at all.

    Throughout time it has always been before others do brutal harm to someone the person is dehumanized. And this should stop whether it is happening unconciously or not!!!!

    “This reminds me of an earlier crime against Roman Polanski, another bait and switch incident that Polanski had faced in Poland after the Second World war where Polanski nearly lost his life to a serial murderer who lured Polanski under the ground to steal his bicycle and who nearly killed Polanski in the process.

    It seems that Samantha and her mother Susan Galley, the California Judge Laurence J. Rittenband, Los Angeles prosecutor David Wells, 9th Circuit Judge Trott, Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and his office 32 years later plus actress Charlotte Lewis have wanted to steal Polanski’s fame, good name and his money, and his freedom all for a casual sexual encounter in which he was not entirely responsible.”

    Reply: You hit it on the nail with that short résumé, Sonny.

    Reply: But even if they had in fact conceded to her voluntary involvement in the sex etc., told the grand jury she took the booze & Quaalude on her free will, had sex with him as HE described it, & the grand jury would still have indicted him on the one count of unlawful sex, they most likely still would have ended up with ‘the hammer’. Therefore, it STILL would have gone wrong for Polanski in exactly the very same manner ever since leading to his ultimate need to flee from his corrupt court antics, if he HAD sent him to Chino. Which might not have been the case had Wells not seen the Oktoberfest photo, he then used to goad Rittenband into that ‘diagnostic study’ he then mis/used as ‘punishment’ no one wanted & unlawfully applied as a ‘prison sentence’ on the promise he then broke that was it. Hence Gunson’s testimony that this WAS his entire ‘sentence’, Walgren & Co today dispute. Rather than prosecute real criminals.

    Response: Totally Agree.

    And let’s not even talk about pathetic ‘Lewis’, an even bigger liar, trying to influence this already unsound extradition with a more than obvious smear campaign on bastard Cooley’s behalf, so he can unlawfully ‘sentence’ him AGAIN in his evermore corrupt court.

    Response: I totally agree!!!

    Comment by Sonny | June 17, 2010 | Reply

    • You know what, Sonny – I TOTALLY AGREE with every single response you’ve made!

      Comment by Novalis Lore | June 17, 2010 | Reply

  22. Seems like the Los Angeles prosecutors in 1977 and again in 2010 are using cocaine drug addicts to nail Roman Polanski, in Rampart-type manner, by planting all sorts of phoney evidence- on to stale crimes to enhance the sentence.

    In so doing the Los Angeles prosecutors and the world’s press are forgetting about and covering up the prosecution witnesses cocaine drug addictions and other addictions, using the drug addicts to defame Roman Polanski’s character to the world, and in an effort to enhance Polanski’s sentence so that the Swiss will extradite him.

    Let us not blame the drug addicted witnesses for their weakness and betrayal, but instead to blame is the Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and his prosecutors use of the cocaine drug addicts representations or mispresentations about Roman Polanski to the world’s press. These witnesses have stronger motivation to lie, to please the Los Angeles prosecutors, to gain at Polanski’s expense, which may make it more likely that what these witnesses are saying after 20 years is untrue.

    Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley loses credibility having to use these witnesses who have cocaine drug addiction, and these witnesses are biased witnesses because they don’t want to be prosecuted for cocaine, or because Charlotte Lewiss wants to suck more fame and fortune at Roman Polanskis expense.

    If Charlotte Lewis was sexually assaulted and did not like it, she should not have stayed for the Pirates movie, she should have walked away with her dignity in tact.

    On the other hand if Charlotte has made up a story after decades then someone may have paid Charlotte Lewis for her press reception in Los Angeles in May 2010 at an opportune time just before the California Primary Elections where Steve Cooley was running as the Republican candidate to become the next Attorney General of California.

    See My cocaine hell, by …[Charlotte Lewis]

    UK Sunday Mirror, Apr 6, 1997 by Henrietta Knight Looking gaunt and vulnerable, Charlotte Lewis hangs her head and whispers: I used to have the world in the palm of my hand. But I discovered cocaine and just couldn’t stop. Everywhere I went there were drugs at parties, at restaurants, on the sets of movies and at my friends homes. I couldn’t get away from it. It took over my whole life and then wrecked it.”

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_19970406/ai_n14462559/

    Comment by Sonny | June 20, 2010 | Reply

    • You’re right on all accounts, Sonny, & I covered all that already in my anti-Lewis blog too.

      But, it might well be that it was Lewis’ own idea from the start, since she decided to ‘hire’, i.e., ‘pay’, Allred to represent her as she claimed in another interview (if of course ‘true’) obviously only in intention to influence the ‘sentence’, & extradition for her all too evident pointing to the old case rather than talk about her own complaint, which should make it clear it has zero to do with any ‘sexual abuse’ she wants us to believe ‘she’ suffered at his hands, but to corrupt the old case some more in a sick/ening show of misandry. Allred doesn’t care about any ‘justice’ anyway – only more fame & money to buy herself another posh outfit. With her kind of ‘clientele’ she’s nothing but a cheap ambulance chaser to cash in on high profile sex scandals & those pathetic women on their sordid sexual adventures with gullible/rich men. Sex sells – & the cheaper the better.

      But it is also clear that the Swiss did not fall for this far too obvious smear campaign – if Lewis was paid for it or not – they did not even acknowledge her BS claims, let alone are allowed to take anything post the already highly corrupted ’77 case into account, since it is unlawful to bring in unrelated let alone unproven new allegations in order to affect any old case that saw a plead deal/time served & decades passed with no ‘repeat offence’. There’s no way Espinoza can allow admission of anything like this even if he wanted (or proven true) – it is simply illegal, end of. (But then again, the LA courts are in/famous for fabricating ‘facts’, & simply bend some more laws & rules to allow something retroactively.)

      Hence, a clear smear campaign to damage Polanski’s already deeply suffering reputation to completely destroy him, nothing more. It is far too obvious that they wanted to coax the Swiss authorities (i.e., double-faced traitor ‘Widmer-Schlumpf’) into a rash decision on the extradition, since Cooley/Walgren/Espinoza won’t send them Gunson’s vital testimony that can prove Polanski had done his time & must release him, but instead produced Allred/Lewis to put on their pathetic media show & Polanski therefore is stuck in his Chalet till the end of [his] time.

      Lewis or Allred have apparently no idea about how the law works, & if so (most likely), all she wanted was to smear him some more for cruel fun & media games (& obviously money to feed her sick ego/addiction) with her lies the majority in fact did NOT fall for, after he had publicly spoken out to point people to the facts. And no one cares that the LA Appellate’s court in fact had ordered Cooley to not only tackle the old misconducts, but send them the proof the Swiss officially had demanded after they were ‘happy’ to ‘assume’ the LA courts had given them all the ‘facts’. NOT SO.

      I’m sure Cooley was delighted when Lewis appeared – with or without his ‘help’ – of course in order to bolster his bid to become AG, & the fact that she is/was an addict doesn’t make much difference since only a few knew/know of that (yet still didn’t believe her for other reasons). Cooley couldn’t care less what lowlife he uses to get where he wants to, & I highly doubt Allred believed her story either; all she’s interested in is more publicity/money no matter how sleazy/dirty. They’re all an insult to real rape/sexual abuse victims & women/men in general. So in that sense, their disgraceful attempt to corrupt the old case some more, has all but failed.

      But, now that the Swiss & US have sorted their UBS banking deal & must/will release the names of the tax evaders, ‘pawn Polanski’ they wanted to give them instead as wager to go easy on their IRS investigation/demand for the account holder names, has been rearrested/detained for absolutely nothing since they didn’t extradite him in exchange to drop their demand (& rightly so either way). Now they can either let him rot where he is, or release him, since their treaty makes it clear that no one may be extradited who had done his time, or wasn’t up for more than 6 months sentencing in the first place.

      Now that they noticed the LA courts have misled them more than once, they simply have to let him go, (or wait some more for that testimony) & if not, & simply shift their self-imposed responsibility into the US courts & allow extradition, Polanski’s team will immediately file an appeal to fight the extradition some more. Meaning, he’ll stay at his Chalet whichever way the political wind/decisions take him for more months to come, putting ever more inhuman strain on him, his professional life & his anxious family, all caught in the endless loop of indifferent judicial bureaucracy, & most of all, the Swiss lackeys will be nothing more than shameful extensions/collaborators of the LA court corruption games.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | June 21, 2010 | Reply

      • Novalis I thought you might be interested to know that I am in the unique position of having encountered Judicial and police corruption in the same courthouse as Roman Polanski. My incident is in Federal court records and occured 11 years before Roman Polanski was re-arrested in 2009.

        I have alerted the Swiss Authorities, Polanski’s lawyers and President Barack Obama. I have not wanted any publicity. I am a strong witness to a double standard. Judicial and Police corruption in a sexual assault case which Official corruption took place at the same courthouse as Roman Polanski. I was assaulted and battered for reporting police cover up of my sexual assault complaint against a person who worked for California State. The Judge was promoted shortly after to the California Court of Appeals 2nd District 8 division for his work for California State.

        Comment by Sonny | June 22, 2010

    • I believe you, Sonny – I believe any such story since I know they’re true, especially in LA. You only need to surf the Net for such or any other judicial miscarriage of justice cases & they spring at you. Yours certainly is not the only case, & even Cooley’s own prosecutors tell of such stories.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | June 23, 2010 | Reply

      • Yes Novalis, It is true mine is not the only story of judicial miscarriage, but mine is the only Santa Monica Courthouse police acover up of sexual assault case that is in Federal Court records in US online which staged hearing that included assault and battery occurred at the very same courthouse as Roman Polanski’, the Santa Monica Courthouse. See below for the link to more information.

        Novalis you mentioned the words Judicial miscarriage. I understand that you were not there, but judicial miscarriage is being too nice, since I have experienced an intentional twisting of facts by Judges, Police, TO FRAME,

        So it does not matter whether you are a sexually assaulted victim or a sexual perpetrator.

        What is important and does matter is who is involved, and if they work for California and its subdivisions.

        This is more than judicial miscarriage since the Judges are corrupt and act differently in different sexual assault cases. So why should anyone respect this – including Swiss Justice who are holding Polanski now after he has already served his sentence, and he shouldn’t have to serve two sentences.

        I wanted to let you know – that I am the only other person that I know of – other than Roman Polanski that has taken a stand against Santa Monica Courthouse Judicial Corruption and Police Corruption.

        I filed Federal Lawsuits in 1999, as a person victimized first by sexual assault and sexual discimination at Santa Monica College and then Santa Monica College police cover up of my sexual assault complaint to frame me further. In addition County of Los Angeles employees gladly joined the frame up, and assault and battery, and suppression of identities, and evidence.

        What is ironical is that California, USA and of course the rest of the world are scolding Roman Polanski for his action, but what the rest of the world and perhaps you Novalis don’t really understand is that California Justice is operating under a double standard in sexual assault cases.

        The Judges, police and Officials act in concert corruptly to protect their own. And certain officials like Santa Monica Judges gain promotions to higher office in the California Appeal Court where he is presently much as the Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley is doing now.

        In my case because the perpetrator of sexual assault works for Santa Monica College, a subdivision of the California State then I as the sexual assault victim was further abused, in a staged hearing at the Santa Monica Courthouse and falsely arrested for reporting sexual assault in a photography class and for reporting continuing violation sexual discrimination and Santa Monica College police and Official cover up of the sexual assault/discrimination complaint.

        Judges at the Santa Monica Courthouse have bent the law against victims and against perpetrators to enhance their image, and to receive promotions to the same California Appeal court, that heard Roman Polanski’s appeal.

        For more details See:

        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

        Comment by Sonny | July 3, 2010

  23. I believe there was a kind of backlash in California’s Justice stemming from the Manson murders that included Polanski’s beautiful American wife Sharon Tate and unborn child, and his best friends.

    As far as California Justice and the press were concerned, Roman Polanski was guilty because he was married to Sharon Tate who was brutally murdered in California, and because Roman Polanski had made films (not his own original written material) that had gone so far as to show a devil having sex with a woman.

    The World’s press and Californian law enforcement got very confused by Roman Polanski’s excellent visual portrayal of the devil having sex with a woman in Rosemary’s Baby, then the horrifying Manson murders that involved his American wife and child, and 10 years later the Los Angeles authorities confused the devil with Roman Polanski himself.
    They wanted to kill the messenger, having confused the messenger with the devil.

    Los Angeles Prosecutors and other human beings are not very bright sometimes, just as in Shakespeare’s time “Don’t kill the messenger” and seem unable to distinguish between the character of a person who is telling a story, and the subject matter of that story.

    Los Angeles prosecutors are looking for modus operandi and may try to equate dark subject matter of a movie such as Rosemary’s Baby, with the person who is telling and directing the story in a magnificent way.

    But this correlation between storyteller and story is not absolute and is not a definite indication of the storyteller’s character.

    10 years after Rosemary’s Baby and Sharon Tate’s horrific death certain Los Angeles police and prosecutors confused Polanski’s wife’s brutal murder, plus the devil shown in the movie Rosemary’s Baby, with the story teller Roman Polanski, and the real events in his life that he did not cause.

    So then Polanski was made out to be the devil for having sex with an underage girl in California, and the devil’s attributes were assigned to Polanski through using Samantha’s age, her mother’s negligence, and Charlotte Lewis’s misrepresentations to help, even though all of this dehumanization of Roman Polanski to transform him into a devil is not justified at all!!!!

    Throughout time it has always been that before others do brutal harm to someone, the person is dehumanized and stigmatized. This should stop now in Roman Polanski’s case – whether the dehumanization is unconscious or not!!!!

    This reminds me of an earlier crime against Roman Polanski, another bait and switch incident that Polanski had faced in Poland after the Second World war where Roman Polanski nearly lost his life to a serial murderer who lured Polanski under the ground to steal his bicycle and who nearly killed Polanski in the process.

    It seems that Samantha and her mother Susan Galley, the California Judge Laurence J. Rittenband, Los Angeles prosecutor David Wells, 9th Circuit Judge Trott, Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and his office 33 years later plus actress Charlotte Lewis have wanted to steal Polanski’s fame, good name and his money, and his freedom all for a casual sexual encounter for which Roman Polanski was not entirely responsible.

    Enough is Enough

    Comment by Sonny | June 22, 2010 | Reply

    • You’re right again on every account, Sonny – the destructive nature with which the media/law/people have all treated him ever since Tate’s murder is simply criminal & beyond staggering ignorance & stupidity. And it’s still going on – let’s hope the Swiss are of more integrity than those jackals who have tasted his blood already.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | June 23, 2010 | Reply

      • Novalis look out for the Switzerland decision. It is coming…

        http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/movies/05arts-POLANSKIDECI_BRF.html

        Comment by Sonny | July 4, 2010

      • Hi Novalis

        I cannot comment on what is going on in London England because I am no longer there.

        As far as Santa Monica Courthouse, California and Los Angeles I can comment because I have experienced the same systematic corruption as Roman Polanski, not for being an alleged predator but for reporting that I was sexually assaulted from behind in a photography class at Santa Monica College.

        When I said Roman Polanski and I, I did not mean to exclude you or anyone else. I am sure if you had been an alleged predator or sexual assault victim at the Santa Monica Courthouse you might be forced to fight for your rights as I and Roman Polanski have done.

        I have not studied your latest posting in great detail and will respond a little later. Peace.

        Comment by Sonny | July 5, 2010

      • Polanski is the only [famous] man who got away from their corrupt court basically, by taking his life into his own hands again when he escaped Rittenband’s clutches.

        I’ll post my new article later this week. Needs a bit of tweaking. All the best for now, Sonny.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | July 5, 2010

      • Roman Polanski could escape the Santa Monica Judge Laurence J. Rittenband’s clutches because he was brought up on the premise from his father in the Kracow Ghetto in Poland in the 1930’s- Run Son Run.

        In 1978 Roman Polanski also had a broader horizon than just Hollywood and Santa Monica California, he had other choices because he had citizenship in two other countries. One citizenship was very important to Roman Polanski, his French citizenship.

        In addition Roman Polanski was a world famous filmmaker before he arrived in Hollywood USA. Roman Polanski did not really want to lose Hollywood, but when push came to shove Polanski did not need Hollywood which was going to curtail his freedom for god knows how long.

        Ironically and more recently Roman Polanski has worked at the famous German film studios Babelsberg from the 1920’s that made such incredible films like Metropolis, The Blue Angel, Das Kabinett des Doktor Caligari ( The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari … that were at one time in competition with the Hollywood studios, (the studio also made Leni’s Triumph of the Will ) and the studio may soon be in competition again with Hollywood if not already so.

        In other words Roman Polanski had other options apart from what the County of Los Angeles Judge wanted for Polanski. Americans have less options and do not have safe harbor, citizenship in France. Americans are brought up to believe that there is more freedom in America than in any other place in the world. I am not sure if that is true. Not so Santa Monica or Los Angeles California

        I also took my life into my own hands after being punched for a few minutes on the Santa Monica Courtroom floor. I sued in Federal Courts in two Federal Cases against local government, which is documented.

        Neither Roman Polanski nor I escaped the Santa Monica Courthouse entirely. His ordeal is of 33years duration. Mine 12 years duration.

        One thing to understand from this is by Roman Polanski fleeing and 32 years later refusing to come back, and by my fighting still after 12 years by continuing to tell my tale, both of us are strangely enough shining a spotlight, and standing up for Justice in California. I mean real Justice. The movie Polanski: Wanted and Desired also has shone a spotlight to a place where the sun don’t shine normally.

        Whether we will succeed and whether anyone else will recognize our plight for visibility in the face of injustice another matter.

        But we both took the bull by the horns.

        Comment by Sonny | July 5, 2010

      • You’re right again, Sonny – his flight most certainty had to do with the ‘flight or fight’ factor, i.e., fight the corrupt courts – which had given him only more unjust time in prison while he needed to appeal any ‘new decision’ of Rittenbasnd’s had he gone back to Chino – or, ‘flight’ as in, this is my life & I’m gonna protect it in any which way I can, remembering his flight from the Nazis. I.e.,’run’!

        Of course he didn’t ‘need’ Hollywood anymore once gone, France & Germany of all places have perfectly fine film major studios & Babelsberg of all can compete with Hollywood any day – or the giant Bavaria Film Studios where plenty Hollywood films were made.

        The fact that Germany didn’t extradite him is easy to understand, for one, they killed his mother & unborn sister during the war, & most importantly, he made two big budget films in Germany, The Pianist & Ghostwriter, organised many years of very popular theatre plays being staged all over Germany with many German actors playing in also his own works, engaged a lot of people from all sectors of the German economy for decades through his work as a revered director, i.e., brought in ‘revenue’ on a large scale for being an artist. I’m sure none of those Germans who had worked on or for his films from the driver to the caterer to the star, in the operas and film studios, anyone concerned, or those in the still running theatre shows of his very popular Dance of the Vampires hit musical making their own living though him and his acclaimed stage work, would ever demand his extradition, since everyone knew ‘why’ he could not work in Hollywood or the UK. That would be really unwise to bite the generous hand that literally feeds them.

        The American always delude/d themselves into thinking they’re ‘free’ & oh so democratic, progressive etc. – nah, they’re the most repressed & oppressed people in the western world. Especially sexually.

        So yeah, his or your own fight for real justice is ongoing, but I doubt he’ll win, still in the hands of traitor Widmer-Schlumpf, these people are just too powerful, crooked, & most of all callous. He’s bankrupt by now & has no real means to fight on, & if he’s not released soon, he’ll die under this unconstitutional house arrest, ripped from his family. Though many see the Human Rights violations done to him, & so many others – even the Americans – they however have no power to change anything. Or help him.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | July 6, 2010

      • Novalis said, “So yeah, his or your own fight for real justice is ongoing, but I doubt he’ll win, still in the hands of traitor Widmer-Schlumpf, these people are just too powerful, crooked, & most of all callous. He’s bankrupt by now & has no real means to fight on, & if he’s not released soon, he’ll die under this unconstitutional house arrest, ripped from his family. Though many see the Human Rights violations done to him, & so many others – even the Americans – they however have no power to change anything. Or help him.”

        I find this fascinating how we all speculate as to the outcome, and how we all hope or despair. I suppose initially I would not have two petitions for writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court all stemming from the injustice at the Santa Monica Courthouse if I did not hope for real justice. I am more optimistic, but perhaps I have always lived in a fool’s paradise.

        Novalis you remember how there was a reversal in how the Swiss Justice on November 25th 2009 allowed Roman Polanski bail and house arrest after many attempts where they said NO NO NO, because Polanski was an “Escape Risk”. The Swiss reversal was made just before American Thanks Giving Day.

        So then Polanski moved a step nearer to freedom out of a Swiss Jail and into his Swiss Chalet. That was a positive step.

        Perhaps there is a pattern here by the Swiss Government announcing things on American Holidays to distract from the news that is being announced. (Strangely enough the American Justice Department did the same thing when they announced that the Torture Memos people from the Bush Government were not going to be prosecuted the day that Roman Polanski won the Silver Bear Award in Berlin this year for The Ghostwriter.

        The Swiss hinted on American Independence Day that the Swiss decision is imminent. The fact that the announcement came on American Independence day could mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING at all but on the other hand it might be a way to drop a hint on INDEPENDENCE DAY as to what is to come.

        Also the hint if it is a hint coincides with the fact that Roman Polanski asserted his independence from California Justice USA on 1st Feb 1978 having completed his side of the bargain in the plea agreement, and after Santa Monica Judge Rittenband was going to do a dirty, break the agreement, and give Polanski a double whammy of a sentence and take his rights away from him to fight deportation.

        Roman Polanski maintained his independence from California Justice by leaving America. The first of February 1977 was Roman Polanski’s Independence Day from America.

        Roman Polanski has served his time at Chino and 10 months in Switzerland. The Swiss have to work out whether they think Polanski has six more months to serve or not. If they think not, because the Los Angeles prosecutors and Judges and Justices have not assisted with a definite sentence, then the Swiss must let him go. They also might find some other excuse because of pressure in Europe from France, Germany and Poland as well.

        To Conclude Swiss Closure may have been gently indicated on Independence Day while American’s were looking the other way and celebrating their independence from the Brits 200 years ago.

        Also the French President Sarkozy and the German Babelsberg Studios are closer to Switzerland and its politics, than County of Los Angeles, Judges and LA DA Steve Cooley.

        See Below for French Prez Slips Obama Roman Polanski’s Latest Plea?!

        http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b177055_french_prez_slips_obama_roman_polanskis.html

        Comment by Sonny | July 6, 2010

      • That ‘pardon’ thing is an old story – I covered it long ago. I’s of no importance at any rate, since it only absolves someone’s ‘guilt’, not the actual ‘deed’, which would mean people’d still believe he did all what she had accused him of, & only that no one can try him over the same charges again, in fact reinforcing their false beliefs. Pardons are whitewashes basically, since anyone who committed a murder can be pardoned, though s/he still took someone’s life. Obama couldn’t care less about someone like Polanski – unless he was ‘American’.

        As for the ‘holiday’ coincidences, I doubt the Swiss politicians & lawmakers think that way, they’re far away & don’t know/care about what holidays other countries celebrate. We’ll see what Widmer-Schlumpf comes up with. And if she allows for extradition, ignores Geimer’s wishes, ignores the facts, ignores the LA courts seeking nothing but revenge by now, ignores Gunson’s proof, ignores Polanski’s state of declining mental/physical health, rips apart another family of his callously, the next thing will be another appeal, more time wasted, & Polanski WILL die at his Chalet the in/famous director/rapist. Rather than genius filmmaker & victim of tragic public/judicial/public/judicial lynchings ad infinitum. All for a brutal murder, a lying teenager, her conniving mother, a crooked judge & corrupt DAs out of control.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | July 7, 2010

      • I hope not Novalis.

        I hope for a happy ending. Something that Polanski’s movies are not known for.

        Let us hope for a happy ending for Roman Polanski this time and shortly.

        The silly Swiss lured Roman Polanski to Switzerland on a pretext, another bait and switch, just like how Los Angeles operates, and arrested him on the way to a Swiss Film Festival that was about to honor him.

        That is really not very nice for a number of different reasons. I won’t elaborate.

        I think that if the Swiss were to make a decision to extradite Polanski to USA that the French President and film makers world wide would not be very happy with the Swiss Government’s decision. There is going to be fallout either way.

        Comment by Sonny | July 7, 2010

    • I fully understand that ‘judicial miscarriage’ is being too nicely put not only in Polanski’s case, & I read of many cases of judges, DAs & police framing innocent people as common practice. Trust me, Polanski & I, like in fact many others, DO realise that California ‘justice’ is operating under a double standard NOT only in sexual assault cases. Since for one, they send men into prison hell for some female crying rape – & they bloody well know it was a lie. It’s our feminism deranged times that enable this. See Polanski – see many others right now being horribly abused in prison, after having casual or underaged sex.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 4, 2010 | Reply

      • Hi Novalis you said, “Trust me, Polanski & I, like in fact many others, DO realise that California ‘justice’ is operating under a double standard NOT only in sexual assault cases. Since for one, they send men into prison hell for some female crying rape – & they bloody well know it was a lie. It’s our feminism deranged times that enable this”

        What i want to say first is that after Polanski was arrested I informed his lawyers in three different countries of my Santa Monica Judicial and police corruption and abuse case,

        but I have an idea, which may be just be a coincidence that Polanski already knew…since the filming of The Ghostwriter started in early 2009 and certain things in that movie suggest that he knew.

        The next thing I want to say is that it is not feminism that is the culprit, and you may inadvertently be using that word “feminism” (what ever that exactly means?) as the scapegoat for how men and women are applying “law” and the female’s facts whether true or not, against men.

        Feminism is not a bad thing in and of itself. What is bad is that the people in law are getting carried away with stiff sentences against innocents or offenders, which may in many cases not be justified at all.

        Polanski’s case is different again. Polanski was “a first offender” and so he should have been given a chance and probation.

        In addition the Santa Monica Judge was using California law to sentence Polanski in Chino illegally.

        After that the Santa Monica judge could not
        even keep his word – that Chino was the sentence. The Santa Monica Judge also wanted to coerce Polanski into deportation by threatening him with a longer sentence if he did not comply- also illegal.

        So Santa Monica Judge Rittenband was messing around with Polanski instead of treating him fairly and with respect.

        What Santa Monica Judge Rittenband and his merry minions were doing has nothing to do with feminism. They certainly did not help Samantha and her family.

        Feminism is a pretext for certain people in power to use abuse of power against others. Protecting females is the pretext. But look how I was treated!!!

        See Link Below:

        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

        Comment by Sonny | July 4, 2010

      • I might have agreed with you on all other issues, Sonny, but you seem to have a far too naive view on ‘feminism’ and the terrible damage it’s done to society at large for forty years now, mostly in the US.

        For one, Polanski was in part forced into the plea bargain because of the Rape Shield Laws introduced in 1974 by the feminist dogmas of no need to prove ‘rape’ has actually occurred, (though it was discredited outright by medical evidence in his case – behind which false rape accusers can hide just like any genuine rape victim – & has sent countless innocent men into prison hell to get raped and systematically abused on a grand scale, unlike any once-raped victim.

        Feminism once was the idea/l that women demanded equality to men on all levels, but it has long turned into a nightmarish ‘competition’ with men, & most of all, the ‘right’ to be excused for all actions simply for being a ‘female’, or minor, in order to avoid all responsibilities & become ‘convenience victims’. Laws have been redefined to the extreme, ‘victims’ & ‘sex crimes’ have been redefined only so to ‘serve’ the woman, NOT any defendant, i.e., ‘man’.

        I in fact just finished a new article on ‘feminism’ (within the context of Polanski’s case), which has enabled plenty cry rape accusers, (i.e., Geimer & Lewis) mothers & women to get away with literal murder – utterly unpunished – just for being a woman. This has nothing to do with sexism on the man’s part, but the fact that these women have become dangerous misandrists who care nothing about ‘rape’, but to harm men simply for being men.

        ‘Feminism’ has been abused by these radical women & turned it against all men and normal women, children and society in general – the problem is, most have no idea about that. These ‘stiff sentences’ are all based on unacceptable feminist dogma – i.e., all men are rapists/paedophiles, all women/minors are victims. That’s not ‘equality’, but insanity.

        Here’re some examples of what ultra ‘feminists’ think (& then tell me again that this sort of mentally deranged claptrap is not the ‘culprit’ in this gender war Polanski fell victim to. I left out my remarks which will be part of my blog I’ll post later on my own site):

        “All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.”
        “Marriage is an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership.”
        “Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalised expression of contempt for women’s bodies.”
        “Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks.”
        “Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s daughter is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.”
        “And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference.”
        “When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticising her own oppression.”
        “I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.”
        “Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don’t like it, bad luck – and if you get in my way I’ll run you down.”
        “It is not only men convicted of rape who believe that the only thing they did that was different from what men do all the time is get caught.”
        “If sexuality is central to women’s definition and forced sex is central to sexuality, rape is indigenous, not exceptional, to women’s social condition.”
        “Under law, rape is a sex crime that is not regarded as a crime when it looks like sex. The law, speaking generally, defines rape as intercourse with force or coercion and without consent. Like sexuality under male supremacy, this definition assumes the sadomasochistic definition of sex: intercourse with force or coercion can be or become consensual.”
        “The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist.”
        “In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.”
        “Acquaintance rape is more common than left-handedness, alcoholism and heart attacks.” “Rape represents an extreme behaviour, but one that is on a continuum with normal male behaviour within the culture.”
        “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.”
        “Compare victims’ reports of rape with women’s reports of sex. They look a lot alike. The major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it.”
        “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”
        “Female heterosexuality is not a biological drive or an individual women’s erotic attraction or attachment to another human animal which happens to be male. Female heterosexuality is a set of social institutions and practices. Those definitions are about the oppression and exploitation of women by men.”
        “Men are distinguished from women by their commitment to do violence rather than to be victimised by it.”
        “No woman needs intercourse; few women escape it.”
        “Seduction is often difficult to distinguish from rape. In seduction, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine.”
        “You think intercourse is a private act; it’s not, it’s a social act. Men are sexually predatory in life; and women are sexually manipulative. When two individuals come together and leave their gender outside the bedroom door, then they make love.”

        These women are all psychos & have caused untold damage to innocent men – men like Polanski.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | July 5, 2010

      • I am hoping that since the Swiss announced that they would give the decision soon on July 4th 2010 American Independence day that that might signal that they will announce on 7/8/2010 July 8th 2010 that Roman Polanski has independence from America and California Justice.
        I know we would agree on that Novalis.

        Comment by Sonny | July 5, 2010

      • It would make sense that the Swiss would free Roman Polanski on July 8th 2010 since that somewhat duplicates the date that Roman Polanski asserted his independence from California Justice by leaving the country.

        Of course I might be totally off base – with wishful thinking

        Comment by Sonny | July 5, 2010

    • Trying to find the right place for this in this blog.

      Hi Novalis

      I cannot comment on what is going on in London England because I am no longer there. But you comment on U.S. as though you have first hand experience? Do you? or are you just reading? Also I got the idea that you know Roman Polanski? Do you know him? I don’t know Roman Polanski. I only know some of his work

      As far as Santa Monica Courthouse, California and Los Angeles I can comment because I have experienced the same systematic corruption as Roman Polanski, not for being an alleged predator but for reporting that I was sexually assaulted from behind in a photography class at Santa Monica College.

      When I said Roman Polanski and I, I did not mean to exclude you or anyone else. I am sure if you had been an alleged predator or sexual assault victim at the Santa Monica Courthouse you might be forced to fight for your rights as I and Roman Polanski have done.

      I have not studied your latest posting in great detail and will respond a little later. Peace.

      Comment by Sonny | July 5, 2010 | Reply

    • There has been plenty fallout already – many condemned the arrest on political, social and other grounds, from all walks of life, officially and personally, & the first question many posed at once was, why now, why in Switzerland he visited so often before, has property there, why over some old shit basically they all had done themselves. Especially in view of Geimer’s own pleas NOT to pursue or imprison him. But as I said, has she told the truth then, or her mother, Polanski had walked within days/weeks like everyone else for unlawful sex.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 7, 2010 | Reply

  24. It looks like the Switzerland decision is coming very soon

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/movies/05arts-POLANSKIDECI_BRF.html

    Comment by Sonny | July 4, 2010 | Reply

    • I rather like the idea that the Swiss were thinking ‘4th of July’ = freedom for Polanski, but unfortunately the one who has the last say is also the one who had led to his arrest in the first place. i.e., traitor Widmer-Schlumpf.

      It could be totally off-base, sure, since he in fact left the US on Feb 2nd 1978. And, his 77th birthday isn’t all that far away either, apart from Sharon’s 41st death anniversary a week before in a month’s time.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 5, 2010 | Reply

      • These pedias are extremely incomplete & biased – they in fact infuriate me. NONE are complete and/or bilateral, it’s always presented as if what she had claimed then is FACT, when it’s NOT, & they never include the medical evidence discrediting her outright or what she had said much later. I.e., what really happened, or his side. Never. And I so detect reading ‘child rape’. Huston thought she was over 20!

        As for Feb 2nd, or 1st, I know it was ‘technically’ the 1st he ‘left’ the States, since I said so in my own blogs. But Dalton only told Rittenband on the 2nd the next morning, after Polanski had phoned him to say where he was, & Polanski had arrived in London to fly on the same evening to Paris, Feb 2nd.

        Rittenband had told Dalton already on September 16th that the ‘study’ would be his entire ‘punishment’, i.e., ‘sentence’, before he changed his mind again after Polanski was released. One should really read his autobiography to see what Polanski alone knew Rittenband was doing [to him], & that NO ONE really stood up to the sociopath judge until it was too late at any rate, & today NO one gives a shit about the list of unbelievable misconducts Dalton had itemised for Rittenband to be removed with the help of Gunson.

        Rittenband even spoke to some ‘friend’ in London after Polanski had left, who had accused him of something similar having happened here long before ’77 – no one seems to know of & was clearly a lie a la Lewis – & Rittenband even believed her without any proof. Which is utterly unheard of to engage in such ex parte communications concerning a case, & let himself be influenced by these lying people & the press to send Polanski back to prison. Rittenband was one self-obsessed crooked judge who cared nothing for Polanski but his own selfish reputation.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | July 7, 2010

      • Novalis, here is the Los Angeles Times front page from 1st Feb 1978. Everyone new Polanski was gone on the 1st Feb 1978. It hit the front page of the LA Times on that date.

        http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/02/la-authorities-trying-to-clarify-swiss-position-on-polanski-extradition.html

        Whether the Swiss release him for asserting his independence from USA on 2/1/78 of course is just pie in the sky

        Comment by Sonny | July 7, 2010

      • You mean ‘1.2.78’ – not ‘2.1.78’ – that’s the US way of putting the month before the day – rather like everyone else, first day & then month. That’s why most say Feb 2, or Feb 1, or in England, Feb 1st, or 2nd, & in Germany they go even one better, by saying, 01. Februar, to make perfectly sure. Besides, I couldn’t care less what day he left LA, what’s important is that he’s released before his own birthday, August 18th. But with his luck, he’ll have to appeal extradition, just for the SMC to gloat some more while they will refuse it some months later at any rate, & he’ll be back at some LA lock-up over X-mas/NY like last time, to wait for months on unsafe remand till they enter his case into the court calenders, a total wreck. Just so to torture him some more. This has nothing to do with any ‘justice’ anymore – this is pure revenge since years now.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | July 7, 2010

      • Well I guess I was off base for July 8th. but I still live in hope for the release of Roman Polanski

        Comment by Sonny | July 8, 2010

      • Shame you were off, Sonny – that would have been too nice. Guess we’ll have to wait some more to hear of this crucial decision.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | July 8, 2010

      • Off base by 4 days which is not too bad. At least the prediction was correct – freedom for Polanski!

        Comment by Sonny | July 20, 2010

    • I always argued that they will refuse extradition – too may factors were just wrong. First up, the extradition request missed vital key factors, it was intended to try him rather than confirm his sentence as time served, which is unlawful, then Espinozs refused to absentia sentence him, then the unsealing, then Polanski spoke out he had done his time, then the DOJ refused to send Gunson’s testimony on the Swiss’ request, then Cooley came up with Lewis instead to influence them, & then, to rather err on the side of justice after they wanted to pawn him off to the US in exchange for the UBS deal, Polanski was released. Back to square one, & ten months of precious life lost.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 21, 2010 | Reply

  25. Roman Polanski did flee to London on 1st February 1978. See below.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski

    http://wapedia.mobi/en/Samantha_Geimer

    Where did you get your conflicting information? Remember Los Angeles is 8 hours behind London England so 8 hours disappears as soon as you fly to London England.

    He may have arrived in Paris on the 2nd Feb 1978?

    Comment by Sonny | July 5, 2010 | Reply

  26. Novalis said, “But Dalton only told Rittenband on the 2nd the next morning,”

    According to the front page of the Los Angeles times dated 1st Feb 1978 it says that Rittenband knew on the 1st Feb 1978, or Feb 1st 1978, before the 2nd…

    And I believe in the jpg which can be enlarged at the link below,it says that Santa Monica Judge Laurence J. Rittenband was going to sentence Polanski in absentia in Feb 1978 which for some reason today the County of Los Angeles Judges are not willing to do, which does show some kind of vindictiveness, and it would have made it easier for the Swiss to decide whether to extradite or not.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/02/la-authorities-trying-to-clarify-swiss-position-on-polanski-extradition.html

    Comment by Sonny | July 7, 2010 | Reply

    • Polanski said in his autobiography that Dalton told Rittenband the next day after Polanski had phoned him, Feb 2nd – I wouldn’t give any papers the better knowledge of anything. They’re not privy to what’s going behind court doors.

      Rittenband wanted to sentence him in absentia on Feb 14th – giving Polanski time to return for that. But by then Dalton & Gunson had Rittenband removed for his breaking their plea bargain agreement – i.e., time served/short probation – the plenty misconducts & all the open prejudice against Polanski, threat of [self-]deportation, knowing he would never receive any fair/er treatment.

      Judge Breckinridge, who took over didn’t bother to ‘sentence’ him, knowing of their plea deal & Rittenband’s inexcusable antics, would have needed to start over – i.e., send Polanski back to jail for another round of ‘studies’, and/or to sit out appeals – & took the case off the calendar to close it. Besides, Polanski couldn’t have returned at any rate, since his visa was revoked the moment he arrived in France.

      As for the persistent vindictiveness, if the Swiss realise that or not, all they have to do is keep to the rules of extradition – & so far, with what the LA courts have presented them, i.e., falsified records of the case, liar Lewis, withholding Gunson’s vital testimony, it would be very unwise & unsafe to allow for it.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 8, 2010 | Reply

      • Well they haven’t exactly presented the Swiss with liar Lewis. And the Swiss will not consider Lewis if they are running a fair ship.

        But I think LA DA Steve Cooley and dreadful California lawyer Gloria Allred were trying to give the Swiss Justice a big shove using Charlotte Lewis so that they would go in the wrong direction. I include lawyer Gloria because she was anti polanski before Lewis came out of the closet after 2 decades, as she was arguing with Willy Brown former mayor of San Francisco I think

        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/33116076#33116076

        But Lewis’s “testimony” for an incident that she says occurred in France decades ago, where she was of age and where the statute of limitations has passed, and where none of Polanski’s lawyers have tested her late info for trustworthyness in a court of law, is rather dubious at best. The NY Times I think did not even bother to report this garbage.

        Comment by Sonny | July 9, 2010

    • The only intelligent voice in this show was the Mayor who explained it just perfectly. Allred is a disgusting old rape baiter like the rest of them, all jumping on the bandwagon of Polanski bashing time again. And that blond newscaster gave them the same lies, that Polanski had admitted to the drugging & raping & sodomy, as if anyone would do so. If they really read the transcripts, they knew better that he never has. And no one ever comes up with any evidence, medical or otherwise, that Geimer in fact had lied. And her mother. That’s how they keep their own in the belief he’s a ‘child rapist’. The ‘child’ rhetoric alone makes me furious. A 13-year old is NOT ‘child’, she’s an adolescent, a teenager, & she certainly didn’t behave or look like a ‘child’. Huston thought she was 20.

      The fact that no one can be sentenced to anything applicable today seems to elude the pathetic lot too, so saying he faces years is utter BS. The law implicitly states, no one may suffer greater punishment today over an old misdemeanour, than the law had stipulated at that time, or, if applicable, a lighter penalty of today shall apply retroactively. But who cares about any ‘laws’. Besides, he did his time, end of. I’m so glad that the UK doesn’t prosecute anyone under that idiotic ‘People vs Defendant’ dogma, so that the ‘state’ & public can keep on & on demanding someone’s head till death, rather than see it how it really it is – an offence committed against the ‘plaintiff’, NOT the entire bloody public. Hence, their gleeful ignorance of Geimer, whose ‘victim voice’ is utterly ignored too.

      I’m sure, if he were their grand/father, they’d be pleading on their knees to let him be. To enjoy the aspect of an old man locked up in prison [to get raped] who had done no harm, is sick/ening. These ill-informed & ignorant little detractors are full of ***, & most of them are women, i.e., deluded little feminists voicing their deluded little tirades. I doubt Lewis’ ‘testimony’ was real anyhow – that was just a ruse to influence the [US] public foremost, & the extradition, & none of these idiots get it. They all keep blathering on about someone & the case they have zero clues about. The younger, the stupider. None of them get the idea that a grand jury testimony has absolutely no validly until a trial corroborates it. It never was, the dropped counts are long off the table once pleaded, he did his time, and that’s the end of it.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 9, 2010 | Reply

      • Novalis this is an example of how in Los Angeles it is not only females that are corrupt and betray, misrepresent and distort facts. The females would have no power anyway if it was not Officials that stepped in with their abuse of power.

        The corruption and abuse of power is rampant like the Rampart Scandal. Below is a letter to the County of Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca who is the same Sheriff today, that was written several months after I had been beaten up in the Santa Monica Courthouse in 1998, the same courthouse that did not treat Roman Polanski fairly.

        The letter addresses the corrupt way that the County of Los Angeles Sheriffs department were conducting my complaint of excessive force that occurred in the same Courthouse as Roman Polanski’s run in with an abuse of Official power.

        It was after I sent this letter (and after 4th Feb 1999 when Amadou Diallo was shot 41 times in New York) that County of Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca sent me a letter which denied my complaint of excessive force and he Officially condoned the changing of the identities of the White County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputies that assaulted and battered me in the Santa Monica Courthouse in a staged hearing to that of an African American Sheriff Deputy who was not involved. The African American County of Los Angeles Sheriff who did work in the County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Courthouse is Terry January and he was convicted in Federal Court in a different matter in 2008 which puts a big dent in the County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s and the Santa Monica Judge who is now a California Justice’s version of events.

        As there was a staged hearing in Roman Polanski’s case as well as my own there seems to be many staged hearing in the Santa Monica Courthouse. The letter is below the stars.

        *********************************************************************

        “Sheriff Lee Baca
        Sheriff’s Headquarters Building
        4700 Ramona Blvd Monterey Park 91754
        RE: 69159 LA COUNTY SHERIFF’S WCSC REPORT 29th January, 1999

        Dear Sheriff Lee Baca

        I am writing to you to inform you that I am concerned because my complaint against Judge Laurence Rubin’s Sheriff’s deputies bailiffs and defendant Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable has not been recorded completely or accurately by your department, and so it follows that a complete investigation into the police brutality against me cannot happen because of this.

        When we spoke over the telephone in mid December 1998, you told me that you wanted to investigate the Santa Monica College police department’s corruption that caused police brutality against me, which has caused me much pain and grief in the last four months and that involved 2-3 of Judge Laurence Rubin’s Sheriffs Deputies Baliffs and one of the defendant’s – Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable – on 6th October, 1998, in Judge Laurence Rubin’s courtroom.

        Sheriff Steve Mclean at the Sheriff Headquarters – last week speaking on your behalf – said you are unable to investigate Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable for his obstruction of justice, denial of obstruction of justice, and his part in the police brutality against me in Judge Laurence Rubin’s courtroom on October 6th, 1998. And I am sorry to hear this – if it is true!

        When I initially made the police brutality/unlawful detainment complaint on 7th December 1998, in the Santa Monica Courthouse Sheriff’s department against 2-3 of Judge Laurence D. Rubin’s Santa Monica Courthouse Sheriff’s deputy bailiffs, Sheriff Sherman Moten employee no 064827,of Santa Monica Courthouse sheriff’s department refused to write down on the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Watch Commander’s service complaint report form No 69159 that the defendant Santa Monica College policeman Ron Marable had also joined in with the Sheriffs deputies bailiffs in beating me up.

        However Sheriff Moten did write this down on a separate scrap of paper, when I insisted, and gave me a photocopy which I still have.

        This is what Sheriff Sherman Moten wrote on that scrap of paper.

        “Jane Doe said that one of the deputies embedded his fingernails into her left hand. She also received a bruise on her right leg at the knee, and suffered internal injuries from the punches, and was falsely arrested, and her glasses were torn from her face. Jane Doe does not recall the deputies names, however she can identify the deputies involved. Jane Doe also stated that defendant Ron Marable (Santa Monica College Police) also assisted.”

        I would like the above statement incorporated into my original complaint on the main Sheriff’s claim form, so that the Sheriff’s department’s investigation into this matter will be obliged to investigate defendant Santa Monica College policeman Ron Marable who was allowed to join in – in beating me up in Judge Laurence Rubin’s courtroom. Also because he was allowed to join in – and did join in with the Sheriff’s deputies bailiffs by holding his hand on my back in a war like gesture of winning while I was being held on the ground by the Sheriff’s deputies bailiffs – and after I had just been punched twenty times by the Sheriff’s deputies bailiffs, this shows an allegiance and conspiracy between the two departments!

        Please record and reflect that my complaint also includes defendant Santa Monica College policeman Ron Marable’s involvement with the Sheriffs deputies bailiffs in beating me up on the main Sheriff’s claim form 69159!

        The diminishing and misrepresentation of my complaint by the Sheriff’s Department to exclude defendant Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable’s involvement in the police brutality against me on October 6th, 1998, is the same kind of diminishment that occurred at the Santa Monica College Police department when Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable refused to record my complaint about Santa Monica College Instructor Larry Jones sexual assault of me at all, in November , because he said the sexual assault was too old to record! And then later he denied that we ever had that conversation.

        Once my complaint is completely and accurately recorded by your office, and I receive a copy that reflects my full complaint, I will be happy to contact whoever needs to be contacted so the investigation can move forward.

        Sincerely

        Jane Doe

        ********************************************************************

        Comment by Sonny | July 9, 2010

  27. Having experiencing the same and finding both female and male betrayers, and as I am female I would not put a gender thing on it.

    Also if you have looked at many of the comments against Polanski in USA about half come from men. Men that are against Polanski under the guise of protecting “children” They don’t understand the whole story like the Ex Mayor of San Francisco Willy Brown does and that this whole thing is about the process of law not the offense now, since Polanski served his time.

    Also one could say the greatest supporter of Roman Polanski’s freedom now is Samantha Geimer. But unfortunately when this took place, she was under her mother’s care, which was not very well thought out “care” She was not an adult and probably did not have much of a say in the matter as her mother rushed to call the police.

    I have been in a similar situation to Samantha when I was young with my mother interfering and doing terrible harm through being overbearing and believing in the corrupt system, which do far more harm than good. Some mothers are not that bright, as Samantha’s was not obviously. Her mother was also negligent, and in denial that she caused the problem by being to LAX.

    But when it comes to not understanding this whole thing both men and women support or are against Polanski. More are against Polanski unfortunately and that is because of the corrupt world’s press and how they are misrepresenting the facts, and what has not been proven.

    Comment by Sonny | July 9, 2010 | Reply

    • You’re right in regards to Geimer and her mother, but you’re obviously not quite aware of the fact that she was only able to lie, & her mother, because of the Rape Shield Laws introduced in 1974 – which are based on the radical feminism reform dogma that NO proof of any ‘rape’ is required anymore. All the anti-sex laws & general jurisprudence is, & it sent countless men into prison for sex to get raped there. Hence so many false rape accusation cases, men destroyed, & the women got a pass for having lied in a court of law.

      Polanski’s vilification IS a gender based thing, since most of his detractors ARE female, & not even half his age either. The men who are set against him merely parrot their biased views, just like the laws enforced by men are based on the feminist ideas of taking no responsibly for their own actions, while all men are deemed rapists & held to account even if innocent.

      This has nothing to do with sexism or misogyny – this is a fact that has long eroded the US social infrastructure to its very core, destroyed families and innocent men – but not the women who abused the ‘law’ & has long eaten away on other countries’ feminism pervaded laws enabling women to literally get away with murder by now. My new blog about feminism/false rape accusations within the context of Polanski’s case I will post later today or tomorrow, will make that clear.

      Polanski’s demonisation of today is a feminism-driven witch-hunt, hijacking ‘child protection’ issues for their own misled agendas after they lost their fight against pornography. No one but feminists called for his films to be boycotted, no one but self-obsessed little feminists voice their most vitriolic lies to poison the gullible public some more. Men can be ‘feminists’ too, but they think it’s what it once was, ‘equality to men’ – but the majority are females & have long dominated men in a return act of pure revenge by now.

      I never said only females are corrupt or betray – I said they are given a pass legally for being females while men are punished out of proportion for the same. Females have ALL the power, socially, legally, & otherwise, they have taken up all sectors of life like men, but the men are the instruments of their power they abuse & let the women get away with it, while seeing their own sent unto hell. The men who attacked you did so in the name of feminism pervaded legislations they have created, not any ‘justice’ or truth-finding, Polanski fell victim to on all levels too.

      His, your, & many other cases reflect the corrupt ‘law & order’ attitudes based on the abused radical feminist dogma, which works against everyone regardless of gender, but targets only the men to be punished mercilessly. Make no mistake, ‘women’ aren’t the baddies here, no, ‘feminists’ are, who believe they’re superior to men, above the law they created, & they couldn’t care less about any children, mothers, wo/men or fathers. Only their whining self-obsessed little self where man-bashing is an honourable daily duty. See the quotes I posted earlier.

      Of course, as long as people don’t have the facts of the case, they’ll keep on believing Geimers’s lies, disseminate even more they made up themselves. Especially in the US.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 9, 2010 | Reply

      • Novalis the extradition decision is coming at 2 pm Swiss Time for Roman Polanski. I guess it is 11 17 pm your time, so in 90 minutes

        The Swiss government says it will make an announcement Monday July 12, 2010 about Roman Polanski’s extradition to the United States for a 1977 sex case. The government says Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf will hold a news conference in the capital Bern at 2 p.m. (1200 GMT; 8 a.m. EDT) “on the matter of the Roman Polanski extradition decision.”

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article

        /2010/07/12/AR2010071201129.html?hpid=moreheadlines

        Comment by Sonny | July 12, 2010

    • It was announced at noon here – I’m one hour back. Polanski is a free man again since 12.30 PM. I’m sure people will keep on ranting that he escaped ‘justice’, when he finally escaped injustice. Though he’s free to go home or wherever he did before, what the US will do now can either be leaving it at that, or keep on hunting him somewhere else. If anyone else will go down that same route & rearrest him again, for the US to fight for another extradition of his, is another question.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 12, 2010 | Reply

      • Hi Novalis I thought you would like to see this. The most sensible press that I ran into by Associated Press writers. I hope that I helped by informing the Swiss of the Double Standard in sexual assault cases at the Santa Monica Courthouse, and seems my intuition was correct but just 4 days off base. I don’t know Swiss Justice but I was hoping they would do the right thing by Roman Polanski and they have put a wedge in the injustice, and the disease that is caused by this injustice, occurring in Los Angeles, California. I particularly liked that Switzerland also invoked what it called the “public order” — a lofty notion meaning that governments should ensure their citizens are safe from arbitrary abuse of the law.

        Article is below
        *********************************************

        Polanski free, Swiss reject US extradition request

        GSTAAD, Switzerland – In a stunning ruling, Roman Polanski was declared a free man on Monday — no longer confined to house arrest in his Alpine villa after Swiss authorities rejected a U.S. request for his extradition because of a 32-year-old sex conviction.
        The decision left the Oscar-winning director free to return to France and the life of a celebrity, albeit one unable to visit the United States.
        Hours after the ruling was announced, Polanski’s assistant said he had left his multimillion-dollar chalet with his family. Half-empty glasses seen on a back porch testified to a hasty exit.
        “Mr. Polanski can now move freely,” Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf declared. “He’s a free man.”
        Switzerland, which arrested the 76-year-old Polanski last September as he arrived receive a lifetime achievement award at a Zurich film festival, blamed U.S. authorities for its decision, citing a possible “fault in the U.S. extradition request.”
        The United States failed to provide confidential testimony to refute defense arguments the filmmaker had actually served his sentence before fleeing Los Angeles three decades ago, Widmer-Schlumpf said.
        The Swiss decision for now ends the United States’ long pursuit of Polanski, who has been a fugitive since fleeing sentencing for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl. But Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley said his office will try again to have Polanski extradited if he is arrested in another country with a favorable extradition treaty.
        Beyond the legal issue, the extradition request was complicated and diplomatically sensitive because of Polanski’s status as a cultural icon in France and Poland, where he holds dual citizenship, and his history as a Holocaust survivor whose first wife Sharon Tate was murdered in 1969 by followers of cult leader Charles Manson in California.
        France, where the filmmaker has spent much of his time, does not extradite its own citizens and Polanski has had little trouble traveling throughout Europe — although he has stayed away from Britain.
        The U.S. cannot appeal the decision, but Polanski is still a fugitive in the United States.
        “That warrant remains outstanding,” Los Angeles Superior Court spokesman Allan Parachini said, adding that Polanski could be arrested and sent to the U.S. if he traveled to another country that has an extradition treaty with the United States.
        In Washington, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the Obama administration was disappointed by the Swiss action. “The United States believes that the rape of a 13-year-old child by an adult is a crime, and we continue to pursue justice in this case,” Crowley said.
        In Los Angeles, Cooley, who is running for state attorney general, called the decision a “disservice to justice and other victims as a whole.” He accused the Swiss of using the issue of the confidential testimony as an excuse to set Polanski free.
        “To justify their finding to deny extradition on an issue that is unique to California law regarding conditional examination of a potentially unavailable witness is a rejection of the competency of the California courts,” Cooley said. “The Swiss could not have found a smaller hook on which to hang their hat.”
        A top Justice Department official said the U.S. extradition request was completely supported by treaty, facts and the law. The department is “deeply disappointed” by the Swiss rejection and will review its options, said Lanny Breuer, assistant attorney general in charge of the department’s criminal division.
        The decision drew cheers and jeers on both sides of the Atlantic.
        “The great Franco-Polish director can now freely rediscover his loved ones and devote himself fully to the pursuit of his artistic activities,” said French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner.
        His Polish counterpart Radek Sikorski expressed satisfaction with the Swiss decision, saying that “a solution was found that respects the complex legal considerations and personal circumstances of the case of Mr. Polanski.”
        At Polanski’s multi-million dollar Alpine chalet the shutters were open but there was no sign of movement inside hours after the Swiss decision was announced.
        A woman who answered the intercom and identified herself only as “Mr. Polanski’s assistant” said the director had left with his wife and two young children, Morgane and Elvis. She declined to say where Polanski had gone or whether he would return.
        Glasses stood half-empty glasses on the porch, where neighbors say Polanski was having a meal around noon.
        Asked whether Polanski had left the home after being freed Monday from the electronic tags that monitored his movements during his house arrest on $4.5 million bail, a police spokeswoman, Ursula Stauffer, said: “Mr. Polanski is a free man. It’s not the job of the police to keep track of his movements.”
        Widmer-Schlumpf, the Swiss justice minister, said the decision was not meant to excuse Polanski’s crime, adding the issue was “not about deciding whether he is guilty or not guilty.”
        The government said extradition had to be rejected “considering the persisting doubts concerning the presentation of the facts of the case.”
        In justifying the decision, Switzerland also invoked what it called the “public order” — a lofty notion meaning that governments should ensure their citizens are safe from arbitrary abuse of the law.
        The Justice Ministry cited the fact that U.S. authorities hadn’t pursued Polanski in Switzerland previously, even though he’s often visited the country and bought a house here in 2006. It also stressed that the victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago publicly identified herself, has joined in Polanski’s bid for dismissal.
        The acclaimed director of “Rosemary’s Baby,” “Chinatown” and “The Pianist” was accused of plying his victim with champagne and part of a Quaalude during a 1977 modeling shoot and raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy, but pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.
        In exchange, the judge agreed to drop the remaining charges and sentence him to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. However, he was released after 42 days by an evaluator who deemed him mentally sound and unlikely to offend again.
        The judge responded by saying he was going to send Polanski back to jail for the remainder of the 90 days and that afterward he would ask Polanski to agree to a “voluntary deportation.” Polanski then fled the country on the eve of his Feb. 1, 1978, sentencing.
        The office of Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley did not issue any statement about the Swiss decision and he did not return a message seeking comment.
        Reaction was varied among Los Angeles’ legal community, ranging from those who saw the Swiss decision as a slap in the face to others who thought the efforts by Cooley’s office to prosecute Polanski were too late.
        “Polanski got away with a lot, but it’s not all black and white,” said Loyola Law School professor Stan Goldman. “I don’t see the D.A. rushing to investigate the very palpable evidence of misconduct in the original case. And the victim said they were hurting her every time they brought this up. So there are many shades of gray.”
        University of Southern California Law School professor Jean Rosenbluth said that while extradition requests are overwhelmingly approved, the Polanski case presented several difficult issues.
        The Swiss had wide latitude to make a decision, and there were a variety of competing interests, said Rosenbluth, a former federal prosecutor who has handled extradition cases.
        “In my opinion they wanted to release him and looked for some grounds to support the release,” defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. said. “It’s a clear affront to the United States and the Los Angeles County District Attorney.”
        ___

        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100712/ap_on_en_mo/roman_polanski

        Comment by Sonny | July 12, 2010

    • I read all of the articles about his release by now – they more or less keep saying the same – in a more or less neutral form. According to the comments on some of them, the public opinion is split in half – for or against it – with those for concentrating one the messy legal side of things & to get over it, while those against are the usual vindictive little dull-brained diatribe haters.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 13, 2010 | Reply

  28. Here is an example of the double standard in the Santa Monica Courthouse of County of Los Angeles California, where European born people such as Roman Polanski and myself have been treated poorly and suffered abuse of power, no due process of law, no equal protection of the laws, and discrimination by Santa Monica Courthouse Judges and other officials whether prosecutors in Polanski’s case or police in my case.

    This informs everyone that in Santa Monica California it does not matter if you are accused of a sex crime, or whether you are a victim of a sex crime and related crimes. In either case you are treated poorly, especially if you were born elsewhere and are not working for the California Government.

    Below is a letter to the County of Los Angeles Presiding Judge of the Santa Monica Courthouse Candace C. Cooper dated 19th March 1999 that was written several months after I had been beaten up in the Santa Monica Courthouse in 1998, the same courthouse that used obscure California statutes to send Roman Polanski to prison with no right of appeal.

    In the letter below to the presiding Judge of the Santa Monica Courthouse Candace D. Cooper there are details of the corruption I experienced at the Santa Monica Courthouse where it was planned in advance to assault and batter me, since the White perpetrators are being hidden by a front – County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputy Terry January who is African American.

    I had reported to the Santa Monica College police that I had been sexually molested at Santa Monica College by a white Santa Monica photography Instructor. I also later reported to Santa Monica College Officials Piedad Robertson that African American Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable had covered up my sexual assault complaint against a White Santa Monica College instructor Larry R. Jones who had sexually molested me from behind in his class.

    County of Los Angeles Santa Monica African American Sheriff Deputy Terry January was used by County of Los Angeles as a front for, and to cover up the corruption that continued from Santa Monica College and African American Police Officer Ron Marable into Judge Laurence D. Rubin’s Santa Monica Courtroom and to cover up the assault and battery that I encountered there by a number of white Sheriff’s Deputies.

    County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputy Terry January was convicted in Federal Court in a different matter in 2008, which visible conviction puts a huge dent in Terry January and the County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Judge Laurence D. Rubin’s credibility their version of events, where they both deny that there were any white sheriff deputies in the courtroom that assaulted and battered me. [Note that Santa Monica Judge Laurence D. Rubin is now a California Appeal Court Justice]

    As there was a staged hearing in Roman Polanski’s case and in my own case in the same County of Los Angeles Santa Monica courthouse, one wonders how many other cases of staged hearings there are there, with a pattern and practice of corruption, by the County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Judges with judicial affairs not being conducted honestly.

    My letter to the Santa Monica presiding Judge Candace D. Cooper below the stars – details the events of the Santa Monica Courthouse staged hearing I encountered where I was assaulted and battered in response to reporting Santa Monica College police cover up of my sexual assault complaint against Instructor Larry R. Jones at Santa Monica College.

    The prior California Governor Gray Davis promoted the Santa Monica Judge involved, Judge Laurence D. Rubin on police brutality day in 2001 to become a California Appeal Justice possibly for his service to Santa Monica College, California in assisting their police cover up of my sexual assault complaint against the Santa Monica Instructor.

    Judge Laurence D. Rubin aided and abetted the police brutality by allowing the Santa Monica College Police defendant to control his courtroom through abusive process, and by suppressing the identities of the Caucasian Sheriff Deputies in his courtroom who were responsible for assaulting and battering me, and he was also involved in the conspiracy to deprive me of my civil rights since he corroborated County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputy Terry January’s false declaration.

    California Governor Gray Davis was recalled and replaced as the Governor in California, but the two judges from the Santa Monica Courthouse that the Californian Governor Gray Davis promoted to the California Appeal Court — Candace D. Cooper and Laurence D. Rubin were not recalled from their positions of Justice at the California Appeal Court.
    ***********************************************************************

    To County of Los Angeles Judge Candace D Cooper ,
    Director of Santa Monica Judicial District (19484)
    1725 Main St,
    Santa Monica, Ca 90401

    Case No: 98A01437 19th, March, 1999

    Dear Candace D Cooper

    ….
    ESTABLISHING CAUCASIAN IDENTITIES

    Today I am writing to you because I would like you to ask Judge Laurence D Rubin to identify the 2/3 Caucasian Sheriff Deputies who were in his Courtroom R, on the morning of 6th October 1998, who perpetrated the Police Brutality against me. I would also like to know the names of all the other Sheriff’s deputies and bailiffs involved in the unlawful search/false arrest and unlawful detainment, and thought that you might have access to the correct information as Presiding Judge.

    1. In Judge Laurence D Rubin’s courtroom there was a Caucasian Sheriff Deputy who went into an attacking expression and posture before he kicked me to the ground. He started the police brutality by this action, and one or two other Caucasian Sheriff’s deputies joined in to punch me twenty times in my soft tissue near my rib cage, even though I was not attacking them, and had already been restrained by the first one. One of them dug his fingernails way into my left hand. I would like to know their names, and identities.
    2. Judge Laurence D Rubin knows the identities of the Sheriff’s Deputies in his courtroom and he was there when this police brutality began, so I would ask you to ask him who the 2/3 Caucasian sheriff deputy bailiffs were, who beat me up in his courtroom on October 6th, 1998.
    3. Sheriff Deputy Terry January, who I believe is Judge Laurence D Rubin’s regular daily Sheriff Deputy – I have never had any dealings with. And I have already informed the NCAAP that the County Of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department is involving African American Sheriff’s Deputy Terry January in a police brutality incident against me that he was not involved in. (And nor did he stop my approach to the Judge, which is another fictitious story I heard)
    4. There was also a female Sheriff’s deputy who took the character references out of my hand which I was still clutching, after I was picked up off the floor after being punched twenty times. I would like to know her name also. She also took my black bag away with her at that time along with the three character references.

    [Coincidentally one of those character references for me, was written by a relation of Ruth Gordon the academy award winner for Rosemary’s Baby, directed by Roman Polanski.

    Coincidentally the County of Los Angeles et al suppression of the identities of the White Sheriff’s Deputies of Judge Laurence D. Rubin’s Santa Monica Courtroom who assaulted and battered me, has a similar quality to the devil shown in Rosemary’s Baby who lay there hidden in the next room]

    NO DUE PROCESS +POLICE CORRUPTION=POLICE BRUTALITY

    In your letter received in February 1999, you stated, I quote, “I am aware that there was some disturbance in the courtroom on the date of your trial, but those events occurred after the hearing conducted by Judge Laurence Rubin, and obviously could not have affected his evaluations of your claims.”

    In answer to your statement the disturbance you mentioned – was police brutality – and it erupted because I exposed obstruction of justice by the defendants Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable, and Santa Monica College et al,. to the Court and to Marable’s peers the Sheriff’s Deputies, who were in the Courtroom during a process that was already contaminated with No Due Process of law. The police brutality broke out and was part of an Abuse of Process in that the beating I was subjected to was calculated to traumatize me into silence about the earlier violations I had experienced i.e. sexual assault by a Santa Monica college instructor, and then obstruction of justice by a Santa Monica college policeman and validated by Santa Monica College et al.

    The disturbance/police brutality was instigated by 1 Caucasian Sheriff Deputy who I can recognize, kicking me to the floor and 1-2 others joining him and punching me twenty times in soft tissue around my stomach and ribcage area and digging their fingernails into my hands even though I had not attacked them, and was not resisting their attack on me, and these three Caucasian Sheriff Deputies allowed the defendant Santa Monica College Police officer Ron Marable to join in their ceremonial activities by putting his hand on my back as I lay on the floor after they had punched me for two minutes.

    The whole trauma reminded me of a Ku Klux Klan activity. The only difference now was it is 3/4 men of different skin color who were peers against a single 5ft 5in non muscular woman, nearly half a century old.

    MOTION TO VACATE JUDGE LAURENCE RUBIN’S JUDGMENT OF OCTOBER 6TH, 1998, BECAUSE OF NO DUE PROCESS OF LAW

    1) The process was continued on October 6th, 1998 in bad faith, because of the defendants, and the Santa Monica Courthouse

    a) Defendant Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable, Santa Monica College et al concealed from the Plaintiff and the Court, that the Plaintiff had not met the California Government Claim 910 requirement at the beginning of the hearing on October 6th, 1998
    b) If Defendant Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable had revealed that there was no government claim filed, at the beginning of the hearing, then there would have been no hearing and no police brutality that day!
    c) The other defendants of this case Santa Monica College, Santa Monica College District and Santa Monica College Police department did not appear for the hearing even though they had been served by the Sheriff’s department, and defendant Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable appeared so the other defendants would not lose by default. By being absent the other three defendants may have hoped to win the case through a strategy of a hearing being held where the Plaintiff never stood a chance of prevailing, i.e. No Due Process Of Law -which was then combined with police brutality against the Plaintiff.

    2) Essential procedure needed by Plaintiff in order to prevail in the case, was not disclosed by the Santa Monica Small Claims Court or Defendants to the Plaintiff, prior to the hearing

    a) … information should have been available and disclosed to me by the Santa Monica Courthouse Small Claims advisors/clerk and Judge Laurence D Rubin’s Court on 2nd September 1998, or 6th, October 1998! The Small Claims Court of Santa Monica Courthouse were very aware that I was suing a Santa Monica College et al, which included Government officials.

    b) When I filed the case in September 2nd, 1998, the Court did not ask me for a copy of the Government Claim form that I submitted to the School District, and did not ask me for a copy of the rejection letter.

    3. Elements Of No Due Process Of Law

    1. If the Court or the Defendants had informed me of this requirement prior to the hearing, or at the beginning of the hearing, then there would not have been a hearing, or a judgment entered on October 6th, 1998.
    2. Judge Laurence Rubin restricted me from cross-examining Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable, the defendant, and vice-versa at the beginning of the hearing.
    3. Judge Laurence Rubin did not, and could not properly cross-examine the defendant Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable as Judge Rubin does not know the details of the case. Therefore even though cross-examination is at the heart of a fair hearing no true cross- examination took place at this hearing!
    4. I had a tape cassette of a witness, Offune Obiamiwe, who was present at this hearing, and this evidence, the tape of witness Offune Obiamiwe further substantiated my claim of the inappropriate and sexual/intrusive behavior on the part of Santa Monica College Instructor Larry Jones towards female students, but Judge Laurence Rubin refused to listen to my tape of Offune Obiamiwe’s evidence where she also complained of the instructor Larry Jones’s inappropriate behavior towards her at Santa Monica College.
    5. I have the court copy of the subpoena for Offune Obiamiwe as neither the court clerk or Judge Laurence Rubin wanted to file it in the court record.
    6 Judge Laurence Rubin never returned my evidence to me, a police report that I initiated in November 1996 in the Santa Monica College Police Department through Santa Monica College police officer Ron Marable.
    7 I had wanted to show three character references from instructors at Santa Monica College, … which at the beginning of the hearing Judge Laurence Rubin said he might look at if he needed to after hearing my testimony and the police officer’s testimony. Later on because I still wanted to show these three character references to Judge Laurence Rubin, these three sheets of paper became the catalyst and pretext for police brutality…
    8. Judge Laurence D Rubin’s judgment, …does not reveal that the Court and the defendant failed to notify Plaintiff about the procedural requirement of filing the California Government Code 910 et seq with them, as the Court and defendants never wanted to give the Plaintiff any chance to litigate in a climate where she had the chance to prevail. Instead the Court and the defendants set the Plaintiff up to litigate in a climate which contained Caucasian Sheriff’s deputies with records of excessive force…

    4. AN ABUSE OF PROCESS.
    The defendants of this case Santa Monica College, Santa Monica College Community District, Santa Monica College Police Department( and Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable (only defendant Police Officer Ron Marable appeared even though all the defendants had been served by the sheriff’s department!) used the legitimate process of the court hearing for an illegitimate ulterior purpose to coerce Plaintiff to stop proceedings against them for obstruction of justice and the other causes of action. This hearing on October 6th, 1998, was used as a threat and a club on the Plaintiff literally..

    The defendants [and the Santa Monica Court], in bad faith, concealed the California Government Claim requirement at the beginning of the hearing on October 6th, 1998, for the illegitimate purpose of continuing and controlling the process, using it to surprise and disrupt the hearing, at an opportune moment, and as a device to terminate any further litigation against the defendants, by making it seem that a legitimate and fair hearing had taken place, when it had not.

    It was at least half an hour into the hearing before defendant Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable revealed obscurely that the Government Claim requirement had not been met to Judge Laurence D Rubin by saying, “And There’s No Claim.”

    Judge Laurence D Rubin understood immediately and closed the hearing because of it. And when defendant Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable said, “And There’s no claim,” Judge Laurence D. Rubin was not at all curious to ask me if a (Government) Claim had been filed, and didn’t stop to explain to me what a (Government) Claim was! He just quickly closed the case, as opposed to just continuing the case to another date- which is what he would have done if he were trying to conduct a fair hearing!

    5. I was never given an opportunity at any time to appear for this case in this Court – when I had a possibility of prevailing i.e. after I had met the California Government Claim requirements.

    The California Government claim requirement 910 et seq, was not designed to be used as a device, to permit the defendant Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable, Santa Monica College, Santa Monica College Police Department and Santa Monica College District, to secure an advantage over me, the Plaintiff, by allowing a process to continue, one that I could never prevail in …

    The California Government Claim requirement was hidden in bad faith, at the beginning of the hearing, by the defendant (s), and was used later to close the hearing, and with which Judge Laurence D Rubin complied with.. The defendants, concealed the California Government Claim requirement at the beginning of the hearing on October 6th, 1998, for the illegitimate purpose of continuing and controlling the process, using it to surprise and disrupt the hearing, at an opportune moment, and as a device to terminate any further litigation against the defendants, by making it seem that a legitimate and fair hearing had taken place, when in fact – it had not.

    The California Government Claim requirement was not designed to be used as a device by the defendant or the court to nullify, neutralize or disguise the right for Plaintiff to have Due Process of Law, an opportunity to litigate in a process that Plaintiff has the possibility to prevail in, after Government Claims requirements have been met, in either that court or another court. And on October 6th, 1998, I had no such possibility, and thus did not receive Due Process Of Law in that Court.

    Thank you for your help in establishing the identities of the Sheriff’s deputies who were involved in beating me up…

    Sincerely Jane Doe

    Comment by Sonny | July 12, 2010 | Reply

    • Intersting connection between Polanski and your own case – [Coincidentally one of those character references for me, was written by a relation of Ruth Gordon the academy award winner for Rosemary’s Baby, directed by Roman Polanski.]

      And it is as you said, as many know, that the LA courts are the most corrupt in the US. Genuine victims get beaten up, false rape accusers get a free pass, & innocent men & women are being incarcerated, while real offenders can buy their way out.

      I heard of so many cases of such nature, & if a man like Polanski has zero chances at justice, the average wo/man has even less. I’m sure you realise that whoever mistreated you, will never be brought to justice. The LAPD is in Cooley’s pocket & they all lie for each other, as the cops were corrupt already in Polanski’s days.

      See Vannatter, who coached Geimer to lie about the double sodomy to be in line with what he would have forced Huston to say against Polanski by blackmailing her in order to drop the cocaine charges, i.e., ‘interrupted them’, had their been a trial. Though I’m sure she’d pleaded the Fifth, since her original statement was the same as Polanski’s.

      At any rate, now that we’re back at square one, Cooley & Co will not rest until they have destroyed Polanski entirely, at least in the public eye ‘legally’, & many others too.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 13, 2010 | Reply

      • Not exactly square one Novalis see article below.

        I believe the Swiss Justice in denying Polanski’s extradition have helped Polanski’s case against injustice in Los Angeles, and I believe the Swiss Justice also heard my cry against injustice in the same Santa Monica Courthouse, which adds to the Polanski injustice by showing a double standard and therefore discrimination, hypocrisy and more injustice

        It came from the bottom the so called fugitive Polanski, and from another one from the bottom, an unknown, me. Two people who have known injustice in the same Santa Monica courthouse, two European born people who have faced a kangaroo court outside of Australia, two cases involving sex, one involving police cover up of a sex complaint.

        I think it is wonderful that Switzerland and its Justice department has stood up to the bully. Other Countries may follow. Many in US think Cooley’s chase now is in retaliation and is vindictive, but not enough, and not those in power positions.

        It is sad that the Los Angeles Times have already put up a stupid interpol picture in the article. More stigmatization and cruelty.

        http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski-20100714,0,7265164.story

        Comment by Sonny | July 14, 2010

      • Novalis said, “I’m sure you realise that whoever mistreated you, will never be brought to justice.”

        Yes Novalis how right you are, but I fight for 12 years until only a few days ago when my appeal lawyer on July 8th 2010 said it was pointless to Petition the US Supreme Court. Only 100 cases are granted out of 7000. Being heard in the US Supreme Court is not a right.

        That does not mean that the 6900 cases that are not chosen do not have merit or should not be reversed.

        One has a better chance in Las Vegas than a case being heard in the US Supreme Court.

        I did petition to the US Supreme Court in 2002 in my first Federal Case but my petition was not granted.

        Comment by Sonny | July 14, 2010

      • Novalis said “Innteresting connection between Polanski and your own case – [Coincidentally one of those character references for me, was written by a relation of Ruth Gordon the academy award winner for Rosemary’s Baby, directed by Roman Polanski.]”

        Yes this is an interesting connection. However when I knew Josh Kanin in 1998 I only knew he was from a Hollywood family but did not know that his aunt was the academy award winner for Rosemary’s Baby. So I did not make that connection until 12 years later, and it was the dvd Rosemary’s Baby that told me, not any person per se.

        It felt very eerie when I found out.

        So here’s the sequence,

        Polanski was arrested last year in 2009,

        I then for the first time in Sept 2009, discovered a fellow victim of the Santa MonIca Courthouse, and thus felt a connection with Polanski. A little like two people who were being victimized in the Kracow Ghetto Poland, only this was Santa Monica California.

        Then this year, I watched the movie Rosemary’s Baby and in a documentary discussion on how the movie was made, the production designer mentioned the name Kanin which linked Ruth Gordon as an aunt to Josh Kanin who had given me a character reference to take into the Santa Monica Courtroom where I was later beaten up. I sent a scanned copy of this character reference to Polanski.

        I think it is highly strange connection because the County of Los Angeles have said that white sheriff deputies don’t exist and didn’t assault and batter me, and this denial of the white sheriff deputies in the Santa Monica Courthouse in Oct 1998, parallels the story in Rosemary’s Baby that the devil did not really exist, when in fact the devil did exist

        Comment by Sonny | July 14, 2010

    • This ‘connection’ might in fact have not helped your issues at all, if they put the dots together – Polanski = fugitive rapist etc. pp BS, you = someone who made a ‘sexual complaint’ & is ‘connected’ to him ‘indirectly’, in their kind of twisted ‘logic’.

      Of course, you would never get anything clear on the reasoning why Widmer-Schlumpf refused the extradition – it would make her/them look competent. No, we had the full story here, which of course must be withheld and/or twisted to make the US out as having been the ones in the right & Switzerland just poked their nose at them for whatever reason. You only need to look at the comments on that article – it’s the same disgusting US arrogance not to let go, overkill comes to mind, seeing it as a ‘personal’ and/or ‘patriotic’ matter by now that needs ‘defending’. But it can only backfire & show the world just how vindictive & [self-] obsessed they really are.

      As for the Interpol mugshot – that’s sitting in their files since ages now, under the ‘offence/s’ listed he’s wanted for. I.e., ‘crimes against children’, note, ‘plural’, not a case of ‘one’ count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor as it should, or ‘statutory rape’ – No, it must be another lie to turn it into multiple counts & what the rest of the Red Note says is the same hyperbolic BS US style to demonise him even more. ‘Children’ to people are prepubescents, not teenagers who look like twenty. It’s just to whip the [US] public into more frenzied hatred. To bring this up now is just another example of pure repulsive vindictiveness to inflame the US masses even more against him. Or of course, ‘Europe’. It IS a concerted witch hunt of the most insidious kind.

      But, NO one will make the same mistake as Switzerland to arrest him again, knowing now he factually did his time at ant rate. Polanski travelled all over Europe & even Russia over the last decades & made films there, & NO one bothered to whistle on him. They’d not ever do so now after this fiasco – & even if only out of spite to show the US they cannot play god [of hatred] on this planet & spit in the face of justice.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 14, 2010 | Reply

      • Novalis said, “This ‘connection’ might in fact have not helped your issues at all, if they put the dots together – Polanski = fugitive rapist etc. pp BS, you = someone who made a ‘sexual complaint’ & is ‘connected’ to him ‘indirectly’, in their kind of twisted ‘logic’.”

        You are right Novalis, but I did not make the “connection” to Roman Polanski and the material in Rosemary’s Baby, for the County of Los Angeles or my case.

        However by my making the connection and communicating it, this did help Polanski’s case in Switzerland I believe, since I informed the Swiss how the County of Los Angeles treats other sexual assault victims who have been assaulted from behind by a Santa Monica College Instructor.

        Here is the County of Los Angeles DA Steve Cooley from Sept 2009 onwards (not before the arrest) shouting and beating his chest “chanting we Californians don’t like sexual assault..) but yet in my case they beat me up for reporting sexual assault and denied it.

        So then Steve Cooley’s rant does not ring true anymore, and is no longer about sexual assault any more or any justice for sexual assault victims.

        Instead it is simply about lust for power.

        My first hand experience occurred 11 years before I knew of Polanski’s troubles in the same courthouse. Once I knew of Polanski’s problems in the same courthouse the connection obviously fell into place.

        Two Judicial corruption cases in the Santa Monica Courthouse, Two European Born, same religion, plus the similarity in my case to Rosemary’s Baby, through the County of Los Angeles denying the devil in the next room i.e. the denial of the white sheriff deputies that assaulted and battered me in the Santa Monica Courtroom. This is just justice gone awry, and through the isolation I found another who supported my position, even if I don’t know Polanski personally.

        But I did make the connection and informed the Swiss.

        Even if I did not “win” in my own Federal cases which has taken a large chunk out of my life,

        through Roman Polanski saying no to abuse at the Santa Monica Courthouse in 1977, not giving in to it, and since I said no to abuse at the Santa Monica Courthouse 1998 and informed the Swiss of my abusive court hearing in the same Courthouse that stemmed from Santa Monica College police coverup of my sexual assault complaint, both our effort now an entire country Switzerland with political officials of its own, has said no to abuse in the Santa Monica Courthouse California, and the world knows of the abuses a little more.

        Perhaps this will one day effect change in America. We can hope.

        See http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/roman-polanski-ruling-could-have-larger-ramifications.html

        Comment by Sonny | July 14, 2010

      • I know, Emmanuelle is a very good singer, you can find her on her own FB site or YT. Of course people would have thought that Polanski is going into hiding now, pah. NEVER!

        Comment by Novalis Lore | July 18, 2010

    • Hell, what Cooley says in general doesn’t ring true in any form, & is contradictive the least. Of course it’s about power, & money, & he thinks people don’t realise that. Even those who never had to deal with him or his corrupt court do – the average Californian & many of his colleagues want him gone, & NOT become AG either, since that would put him into the same even greater power position as Widmer-Schlumpf in fact, though out of the LA courts. Of course her decision to block him will make anyone think twice from now on to touch Polanski – even more than before. Those who proclaim they fight corruption & judicial abuse loudest, are the ones who abuse their position the most. But they also will fall from grace the hardest sooner or later in a spectacular way.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 15, 2010 | Reply

      • Hey the first appearance of Polanski in Switzerland is at a Jazz Festival where his wife Emmanuelle Seigner is singing the music from Rosemary’s Baby!!!! LA LA LA LA LA LA

        Another Coincidence? No. It took Swiss Justice to overrule all American Courts, and said no to the devil in the Santa Monica California courtroom!

        Comment by Sonny | July 17, 2010

  29. It is sad that the American press do not give us both sides of the exact Swiss decision story but the Swiss do. I had to go to a Swiss Website to get a clearer picture

    Swiss legal experts say that Switzerland has overall made a pragmatic and correct decision in not extraditing film director Roman Polanski to the United States.

    Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said the decision had been taken after Washington’s refusal to give access to confidential documents.

    “I think in the end we can say that the decision is correct and it makes sense,” Peter Cosandey, a former Zurich prosecutor with expertise in international assistance matters.

    Cosandey said the move was based on two grounds, with the main one being “a possible defect” in the US extradition request.

    Switzerland wanted the transcript of former Los Angeles prosecutor Roger Gunson, who was in charge of the case in the 1970s, which deals with the question of whether Polanski had already served his sentence.

    “That’s an important question because if Polanski has already served his sentence then there is no basis any more for a criminal case and as a consequence for an extradition request,” Cosandey said.

    The second, more auxiliary reason, concerns the concept of protection of confidence according to public international law. Here the argument is that although the Polanski case dated back more than 30 years, the arrest warrant was only issued around five years ago. The question is why, Cosandey said.

    “So there was no extradition request until September 2009 even though the US authorities must have been aware of Polanski’s travels not only in Switzerland but also in other countries,” he said.

    “Polanski was never caught at a border control, so the Swiss government argues that Polanski must have been confident that nobody was after him when he accepted this invitation to the Zurich film festival.”

    Stefan Heimgartner, an expert in international legal assistance at Zurich University wondered whether the missing documents were really that crucial for the decision, and also raised doubts over the US’ interest in criminally prosecuting Polanski over the past 33 years.

    US disappointment
    In the US, the Department of justice officials have said they thought the extradition request was completely supported by the facts and law.

    It cannot legally appeal the Swiss decision, but the arrest warrant remains active.

    “The United States believes that the rape of a 13-year-old child by an adult is a crime, and we continue to pursue justice in this case,” said State Department spokesman Philip Crowley.

    In Los Angeles, District Attorney Steve Cooley said authorities would seek Polanski’s extradition again, “if he’s arrested in a cooperative jurisdiction”.

    The views of Los Angeles legal experts, quoted on the agencies, ranged from seeing the Swiss move as a slap in the face, to those who thought Cooley’s office had left it too late to prosecute Polanski.

    Cooley has accused the Swiss of exploiting a quirk of California law to set the director free. In doing so, he also says the country has rejected the American courts’ competency.

    “The Swiss could not have found a smaller hook on which to hang their hat,” the Los Angeles District Attorney said in a statement.

    http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/polanski/Polanski_verdict_makes_legal_sense.html?cid=17955298

    Comment by Sonny | July 14, 2010 | Reply

    • As I said, they won’t let go, the general US psyche is too full of itself. Of course, there are always more intelligent people even there – except, they don’t bother to compete with these sanctimonious idiots who call for Polanski’s head or assets be seized, kill him, maim him, rape him, make an even uglier example of him, or even kidnap him by the CIA – they just don’t get it. They’ll never give in in their glorious self-obsession. HE DID HIS TIME, end of. Geimer again said to let him be – but Cooley will never do that.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 14, 2010 | Reply

      • Hi Novalis,
        The world is divided on this. Probably more against Polanski than for.
        I wrote in some British Newspapers, the Guardian, and being pro Polanski’s release all my comments were deleted. Some of the Brits were really up in arms against him. In US they at least let you post the comments in most places, that is anything at all. But in England I was saddened to see there isn’t even free speech as my comments were deleted from a Robert Harris posting.

        The Press have not helped Polanski either. Only hurt him.

        Comment by Sonny | July 14, 2010

    • Curious, though my stuff has been deleted too, it was mostly on US sites. The press couldn’t care less about anyone – the more they can damage someone the more they will. It’s their insidious nature. The ignorant people behind it care *** about spreading more lies or manipulating the public some more, as long as they get paid for it. These people are as immortal as the Santa Monica courthouse.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 15, 2010 | Reply

  30. The first appearance of Polanski in Switzerland after his release on July 12th 2010, is at a Jazz Festival in Switzerland where his wife Emmanuelle Seigner is singing music from Rosemary’s Baby!

    Coincidence? NO!

    It took the Swiss Ministry of Justice to say NO to the devil of injustice that lives on in the Santa Monica, California courtroom, assisted by Federal Court Judges, Magistrates, including those who ratified the Torture Memos,

    which means that sexual assault victims who have been re-victimized by police assault and battery, and Santa Monica Judges covering up, are then victimized again by Federal Judges with Pony show decisions, using bait and switch justice, over a 12 years period to prolong the torture.

    33 years later thanks to the Swiss Justice Ministry, Polanski was rescued from California’s torturous clutches, where American justice has sorely failed.

    In refusing to extradite Polanski, and by not pandering to California’s PRECIOUS DOUBLE STANDARD, the Swiss Ministry of Justice also assisted sexual assault victims in California

    Since a Santa Monica Judge permitted bait and switch justice and police thuggery in his Courtroom that injured a sexual assault victim,

    And in Roman Polanski’s case the Santa Monica Judge used bait and switch justice and broke the plea bargain agreement.

    Can you see the devil’s pattern emerging yet?

    Yes it is that unreliable American Justice sitting in the next room, who wants to suck the life out of you, by resorting to bait and switch justice,

    The devil, using the facade of Justice will first bait you with a favorable or solid decision, to build up your hopes and then after sucking on your blood for years, will surprise you from behind and push you off a cliff with the switch.

    Comment by Sonny | July 21, 2010 | Reply

    • One could draw these analogies, & they are no doubt true to some extent seen symbolically, but in life, the facts are usually much more mundane, simple, & Polanski was released to serve common sense & regain some semblance of justice. I’m glad he isn’t hiding like many no doubt thought or hoped. Not Polanski, he’s indestructible, he will NOT be intimidated by the lynch mob. Not with Emmanuelle & their kids by his side.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 21, 2010 | Reply

  31. I don’t know if life is always mundane and simple for everyone, for every moment.

    A person can have an extremely mundane life until the moment of his death when he is stabbed in the back by his nearest and dearest, or his government.

    Polanski’s life has not been mundane by any stretch of the imagination on both sides of the Atlantic.

    It takes one who has been exposed to discrimination and atrocities and has experienced the injustice, to become a believer.

    An analogy was drawn in the movie China Town, directed by Roman Polanski, “Forget It Jake, Its China Town”

    And the Swiss complied with this analogy – in deciding to deny extradition of Polanski to Los Angeles aka Chinatown.

    Comment by Sonny | July 21, 2010 | Reply

    • That is most certainly true – life might have been more mundane for us compared to his, but I’m sure we all had our own cross to bear. I know what discrimination & great pain is, & believed in his innocence ever since 1977 – I still do.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 22, 2010 | Reply

      • Yes I agree with you Novalis!

        I add I glad I never lived through the world war II, or lost loved ones so many times and in such a violent manner as Polanski did.

        Yes many of us, if we have been independent, honest and refused to give in to Official or Non Official abusers have a cross to bear.

        Life is not always mundane, and we can easily be tossed from the everyday world into a nightmare, which is how Polanski’s French wife Emmannuelle Seigner now characterizes her experience in having the father of her children arrested.

        I believe that Roman Polanski should have received no sentence in 1977, since the underage girl’s mother was negligent or intentionally trying to get a payout,

        Also I am not sure of Samantha since she did not run away from Polanski, plus Polanski was desirable in what he could do for Samantha’s career, (the casting couch syndrome) and since Samantha was sexually active with others.

        If Polanski knew of her age, then I don’t excuse him, I just say that for a first time offense in a Country with different law to Europe, he should have been given the benefit of the doubt for his first time offense, and when I say first time offense, I mean this was the first time he had been arrested.

        On the other hand when the Santa Monica Court is so corrupt where I have been assaulted and battered by the police in that courthouse for reporting Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable’s cover up of my sexual assault complaint against a Santa Monica College photography Instructor R. Larry Jones,

        Then I have to say the double standard of the Santa Monica courthouse in my perspective cancels out any punishment for Polanski since I have experienced the Santa Monica Courthouse Justice to be hypocritical, discriminatory and not so much about punishing sexual assault offenders as in my case, but more about revictimizing the victim in my case as well as in Samantha’s and thus is more about Abuse of Power, where Absolute Power Corrupts absolutely.

        Comment by Sonny | July 22, 2010

  32. He wouldn’t have received any sentence anyway – NO one at that time was sent to jail for underage sex & only few released on probation. Rittenband made an example of him – not only once by sending him to Chino under the pretence of that diagnostic study he had promised would be his entire ‘punishment’, but again when he forced him into the corner of, you either go back to make up the other 48 days & self-deport, or I’ll send you down for an undetermined time no one asked for & still deport you, which was illegal. He effectively blackmailed him twice, after he had send him down already NO one had demanded, & a judge HAS to listen to his attorneys & not play god against all counsel.

    Of course it was a first-time offence for any ‘crime’, but Geimer/mother lied to the grand jury to end up like that in the first place. NOTHING Geimer said was corroborated & that’s why they pressed for that plead deal as soon as they had all the evidence against her.

    It wasn’t the casting couch game, since they had an agreement to put her into Vogue Hommes long before they did the 3 photoshoots. The mother immediately asked him for a better agent once Polanski visited them first a years before – Moussa, who refused her. Geimer was keen to be photographed by him & all that nonsense that she grew ‘reluctant’ is as phoney as her ‘fear’ & ‘resistance’. It’s all BS to shift all responsibility into Polanski’s corner. That’s why the attorneys wanted to cut it short & let him plea to the one count applicable & release him on probation – underage sex . If they had have any credible evidence of her claims, they’d had him plea to drugged rape or sodomy. But they didn’t since it wasn’t in any form proven.

    She might have been 3 weeks shy of 14, but looked like a 18, 20 year old & knew exactly what she was doing. Polanski knew her age, since he in fact wanted to photograph similar aged or even younger girls for the feature like all the other photographers had done at that time, like David Hamilton & Guy Bourdin who shot girls of 10, 11 years of age for Vogue & such. He wanted to find models like 14 year old Douchka (Pascale Petit’s daughter) who was very big then, & Gailey said he might not want to see her for being too old. Her sister’s boyfriend who was his friend had persuaded him to look at her, & he wasn’t impressed with her at all, but did his best to please the family by photographing her.

    Polanski didn’t fall for her ‘age’, he fell for her adult body – & it wasn’t a ‘condition’ to sleep with him, since they had done other photoshoots already. He is what’s called a situational offender – where someone acts against his nature in a particular situation – & engages in sex in this case with someone too young no matter they consented. But nothing had come of it other than a sure spread in Vogue & future model assignments, film & TV offers perhaps, you name it, had Gaily not cried rape. Geimner didn’t want her to interfere at all, but by then it was far too late for her making up things, & then the law (Vannatter) & then her mother took over to lie & coach her some more, & there went their careers.

    The SMC is as corrupt as it can get – & abuse of power was always their game, NOT any justice. See Rittenband, Trott, Mantagna, Wells – others, & your lot decades later. Nothing has changed, only the names. Had Gunson & Dalton not have had such integrity, they’d messed with Polanski even more. But since they had not been successful to litigate this case, it only shows WHAT ‘power’ the DAs, judges & courts have in LA, with punks like Cooley only piling on some more misconducts. Geimer herself had said already then, that not Polanski had abused her, but the law, the media, the courts & the public, BOTH of them. She & her mother had hoped with that plea deal it would all ‘go away’ – rather than speak the truth, the case had been closed on unfounded allegations, & Polanski would have walked.

    Technically Rittenband was obligated to hold them all responsible for perjury, but he didn’t. Just like he didn’t throw the case out once Geimer was found making out outside Gunson’s office with her mother’s boyfriend. But Rittenband of course wanted some more clippings in his scrapbook & strung Polanski along for ten months for his own amusement. THAT is abuse of power & Human Rights violations on grand scale. Now that the Swiss put a legal spanner into their works, we’re back to square on, rather than be able litigate & close the case finally.

    Comment by Novalis Lore | July 23, 2010 | Reply

    • Novalis said, “Now that the Swiss put a legal spanner into their works, we’re back to square one, rather than be able litigate & close the case finally.”

      Yes that is true, but at least Polanski knows that he has friends in Switzerland.

      Also Roman Polanski is not completely at square one since an entire Country Switzerland ruled against U.S. and specifically California Justice, by denying his extradition.

      And by Switzerland denying Polanski’s extradition there is a clear message being sent to the world authorities regarding the lack of intergrity of the American Judicial system specifically in California.

      Here is a link to the journalist Richard Brennerman who was the journalist in Roman Polanski’s case back in 1977 and is in the movie Polanski: Wanted and Desired. There is a 10 minute video there.

      http://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/category/roman-polanski/

      Comment by Sonny | July 23, 2010 | Reply

      • I know Brenneman’s articles – he gets a few crucial parts wrong though, like everyone else. Polanski NEVER admitted to drugging, raping let alone sodomising her. Her grand jury testimony has ZERO validity until a trial corroborates it & they didn’t have one because they had no proof to support her claims.

        Keiser has very good arguments & unfortunately we can’t see what the other side had to say, & even he gets the KEY POINT wrong – (Almost) everybody does, repeats it, propagates it like parrots, because they simply believe/d what she said, which is wrong. NO one ever dug deeper into this case – other than me, my commentators, & surely others we don’t know of – to see that she/mother etc. simply made things up.

        Other than for more to realise that Polanski obviously had done his time & NO one will rearrests him, the majority STILL think he’s guilty of all the charges. HE IS NOT – ONLY ONE, to which he pled. THAT is the main problem of this case – other than the growing misconduct side – so in effect we ARE back to square one because the case is till sitting in Cooley’s desk drawer.

        I always said Polanski was a political pawn in this from day one, other than Cooley trying to buy his AG post with his name, & has long become a scapegoat for whatever issues people want him to be guilty of since Tate’s murder.

        It’s a good thing Switzerland showed the US they cannot boss the rest of this planet around with falsified records & smear campaigns, pressure through banks & other means (like wars), but hardly anyone stands up to them. Or their puritanical BS, being the prison rape centre of the world & No. 1 country with the majority of [innocent] prison inmates. The US is the biggest porn/rape culture/anti-sex laws hypocrite/bigot & war criminal with the highest rate of Human Right violation on the planet.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | July 23, 2010

  33. Re: A Pardon For Roman Polanski & Double Standards in California Justice

    Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:21 PM

    From: Jayne Doe
    To: president@whitehouse.gov

    From Jayne Doe

    President Barack Obama
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
    E-mail: president@whitehouse.gov
    Phone: (202) 456-1414 Fax: (202) 456-2461

    April 24th 2010

    Dear President Barack Obama

    I am writing to you today if you could do me a big favor, and pardon French & Polish Citizen Roman Polanski.

    I am also writing to you today to inform you that a double standard exists in how sexual assault cases are decided at the County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Courthouse, California, which depends on who the perpetrator is.

    I would ask you to pardon Roman Polanski because he was not treated straightforwardly by the Judge at the County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Courthouse, California in 1977, which is why this case has lingered on for 33 years.

    I believe that Roman Polanski wanted to make good in 1977 since he would not have returned to America, and served time at Chino California, if this were untrue.

    I have also faced a staged hearing and Judicial and police corruption in the same Santa Monica Courthouse as Roman Polanski, through my being a victim of sexual molestation at Santa Monica College, & because the Santa Monica College officials and their police covered up my claim of sexual molestation and ongoing sexual discrimination at the College.

    Because I have experienced this I am in the very unique position to inform you that a double standard is in operation at the Santa Monica Courthouse, which double standard 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’ crimes.

    But if the perpetrator or victim are not working for the California state and its subdivisions, and were born in another country, then the Santa Monica Court and other employees will act against them, using any means and foul means. See the link cached below in 2000 for more details.

    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

    In addition as French/Polish citizen Roman Polanski admitted to a crime through a plea bargain, the Santa Monica Judge should have honored it.

    When the Santa Monica Judge Rittenband wanted to force Polanski into deportation, using illegal coercion in the sentencing, the Santa Monica Judge broke the plea bargain agreement,
    and through the Judge’s use of bait and switch justice, betrayed the righteous legal process, destroyed Roman Polanski’s trust in it, and caused Roman Polanski to flee.

    I have also faced the equivalent in the same Santa Monica Courthouse.

    On Oct 6th 1998, when Laurence D. Rubin was a County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Judge, the County of Los Angeles Judge allowed the defendant Santa Monica College police officer Ron Marable to control the hearing and also permitted undocumented white sheriff deputies to assault and batter me in Rubin’s courtroom in a staged hearing, for reporting Santa Monica College police cover up of my sexual assault complaint against a Santa Monica College photography Instructor.

    County of Los Angeles Judge Laurence D. Rubin was promoted on police brutality day, 22nd Oct, 2001 to become a California Justice at the California Court of Appeals by the former California Governor Gray Davis.

    California Appellate Justice Laurence D. Rubin has since stated that only one African American Sheriff Deputy Terry January was present in his Santa Monica courtroom #R, but this not true.
    In fact Terry January wasn’t involved in assaulting and battering me.

    Terry January is employed as a facade for County of Los Angeles’s contaminated process at the Santa Monica Courthouse so as to rule in favor of police and official cover up of sexual assault cases.

    Terry January was also convicted in a different matter in the CACD Federal Court in 2008, which is other evidence which puts into question the California Justice Rubin’s credibility and the County of Los Angeles’s cover-up story in my case.

    See link. 5:07-cr-00050-SGL USA v. January – https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl

    Please do not be fooled because my Federal Cases …were denied in the Federal Courts, by Judges. The facts are real.

    California Officials are not policing their own California institutional sexual offenders who work for the State and its subdivisions, but instead will act to cover up, and harm me, and frame me, a victim of sexual molestation and police cover up of it, instead.

    In view of the double standard I would respectfully ask you to pardon Roman Polanski, a Polish & French artist as soon as possible. I believe it is a good time to pardon Roman Polanski,

    and for California Justice to attend to its own ills.

    Many people all over the world would be very happy if you could pardon Roman Polanski as soon as possible.

    If you would like any further information from me, I would be happy to provide it. Thank you for your help in this matter.

    Sincerely

    Jayne Doe

    Comment by Sonny | July 23, 2010 | Reply

    • French President Sarkozy tried that months back by delivering a letter of pardon to Obama, Sonny – nothing happened, & nothing WILL happen. NO one will pardon Polanski, not Obama not Schwarzenegger, who however was pardoned for his own serial statutory rape offence/affair in order to become governor & was swept under the carpet in their usual hypocrisy. It wouldn’t be wise anyhow, since then people would STILL believe all the charges are fact when only one is. A pardon does not erase the pleaded-to offence, only the ‘guilt’ over it. It’s basically just a way of saying we ‘forgive’ you for that one count officially, & the case can be closed, (probably without litigating it which is wrong) nothing else. It’s worthless in the sense that he’s not been found innocent of the dropped charges in a proper trial, & the plenty others guilty of perjury, perverting the course of justice, grave misconduct etc. – they’d all get away with serious crimes & are basically ‘pardoned’ too. That’s WRONG.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 24, 2010 | Reply

      • I thought French President delivered a letter from Polanski to President Obama asking for a pardon, and President Obama denied he received a letter from Roman Polanski apparently.

        I am being told by a Chicago police blogger and investigator that President Obama cannot pardon Polanski because it is not a Federal Charge (even if the extradition process was!)

        California Governor Arnold Schwarzennegger would have agree to the pardon, and not much chance of that. Unless he has a change of heart.

        Comment by Sonny | July 24, 2010

    • That’s correct – Obama denied he ever had such a letter, or that he cannot pardon Polanski ‘really’, but can ask/order Schwarzenegger as the relevant governor being his ‘chief’. But as I said, it’ll never happen.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 25, 2010 | Reply

  34. Novalis the main purpose of the letter to President Obama was to help to release Roman Polanski. I had started to try to help with this long before I wrote that letter on 24th April 2010.

    So on 4/8/2010 I first visited the Swiss Embassy in Los Angeles…

    Then my written request for pardon for Roman Polanski went to President Barack Obama on 24th April 2010, and also Polanski’s lawyers in France, Switzerland and US, were notified simultaneously.

    I thought that because I was outside Polanski’s case – writing about additional corruption in the same Courthouse it would not hurt to make the case that corruption was the NORM at the Santa Monica Courthouse, which it seems to be!!!!

    On May 2nd 2010 Roman Polanski issued his statement of 908 words – with at least one element paralleling my letter, that Santa Monica Judicial corruption is politically and financially motivated, and results in promotions for Judges, & Los Angeles Prosecutors.

    In other words the Official corruption is for political gain and to obtain higher office, and will occur regardless of whether the person is high or low profile, whether accused or victim, whether the person is represented by an attorney or not.

    By July 12th 2010 Roman Polanski was free.

    My intention in writing the letter to President Obama on April 24th 2010 was to first and foremost that it might help Roman Polanski to be set free, in addition to alerting President Obama of the double standard and corruption in the Santa Monica Courthouse, California.

    Through my letter President Obama has been notified of the double standard at the Santa Monica Courthouse in sexual assault or police cover up of sexual molestation cases. I cannot say if there will be any change. And there hasn’t been any change in 33 years it seems, but the devil has been exposed, if not annihilated.

    It is ironic that at least two California sexual assault victims were crying for Roman Polanski’s release, which doesn’t say much for the legal system.

    As far as you saying a pardon is worthless, I was looking at it from a practical measure, and agree with you – yes it is not perfect at all, but if by some slim chance Polanski were to be pardoned he would be able to come to – if not work in US and he would have the peace of mind that he was not going to be -re-arrested in 188 countries.

    Comment by Sonny | July 24, 2010 | Reply

    • It was no doubt a good idea of yours, Sonny – either way – & to highlight the corruption,. But I doubt Obama doesn’t know it’s going on. And no, I doubt there ever will be any changes, unless honest DAs will take over one day. DAs like Gunson or Dalton/jr, Hummel, etc. – but as I said, many of these countries didn’t bother before, they won’t ever now.

      He could travel farther if pardoned, true, but I doubt Polanski wants anything to do with the US, either personally or professionally. He’s not ‘Hollywood’ at any rate, he doesn’t ‘need’ Hollywood, & those who support him there or in other sectors don’t need him to be there, friends, family or colleagues. They can visit/work with him in France & all the other places where they won’t rearrest him.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 25, 2010 | Reply

  35. Sadly enough another idiot has crawled out of the woodwork.

    http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2010/07/exclusive-another-woman-accuses-roman-polanski-rape-takes-case-district-attorney

    Comment by Sonny | July 26, 2010 | Reply

    • I know – I added that to my blogs already last night. Cooley is getting so desperate now, he has to up his smear champaign. so he can at least destroy him in the public eye, since he failed to do so ‘legally’ ever since his rearrest/release. But even less people believe that liar than they believed Lewis.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 27, 2010 | Reply

      • Yes they ran it in Huff Post today. Apparently the woman has a book out. Perhaps she wants to sell a few extra copies. Also the DA’s office likes to do this now California law allows this to occur in criminal cases

        For instance in another celebrity case involving Phil Spector and the County of Los Angeles Prosecutors including the DA Cooley.

        “The most outrageous departure from fairness was the introduction of evidence of some failed relationships spanning 30 years. Recently in California lazy prosecutors created a voter proposition that would allow them to bring up uncharged or proven past allegations. I say lazy because this made convicting people including innocents a lot easier.

        In Spector’s case the allegations were actually outside that proposition that became law. Most states would never allow that kind of gossip to taint a defendant’s trial.

        The accusations against Spector should have stood or fallen on the scientific evidence alone. The jury was heavily influenced by gossip and hate rather than evidence.”

        See more on injustice in the Phil Spector case at

        http://www.crimefilenews.com/2009/04/spector-verdict-is-injustice.html

        Comment by Sonny | July 27, 2010

      • Hey Novalis in which blog did you post about Edith Vogelhut.

        Edith Vogelhut gives a convincing performance 36 year later. She seems very very angry. If she is telling the truth I feel bad for her having to keep it to herself for so long.

        I also don’t understand why she did not come forward in 1978 only 4 years after it happened which is when the Samantha Galley incident occurred.

        This is particularly odd since Edith Vogelhut alleges she was sodomized by Polanski four years earlier than Samantha, and at the same location at Jack Nicholson’s house.

        Also I am not sure why she never travelled without money and did not have money for a taxi? Its in the video

        For Vogel’s video statement the link is below.

        http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2010/07/exclusive-video-interview-roman-polanski-handcuffed-raped-me-charges-new-victim

        Comment by Sonny | July 30, 2010

    • That’s what Cooley is aiming for – to retroactively include all sorts of unproven allegations that happened before or after the Geimer case – which is constitutionally unlawful – since exactly what you said would happen, NO ONE would be found innocent anymore with unrelated claims allowed suddenly. They disallow anything sex, drugs & alcohol related when it comes to the accuser, but they allow anything possible when it comes to the accused. A man has virtually ZERO chances to be found innocent of whatever he’s accused of.

      Spector or Polanski weren’t the only ones, there are many more unknown men who are innocent & went to prison on this sort of bias & fabrications on top, who did basically nothing more than have sex that could be twisted into rape. It’s a shameful travesty of justice.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 28, 2010 | Reply

      • What is interesting Novalis is that the Daily Mail in England has already erased the Edith Vogelhut article online. Could it be that Polanski’s attorneys are already threatening this woman and the press with costly litigation.

        Polanski has already won a claim against an English Newspaper before for something they were saying about him in NY shortly after his wife was murdered by teenage girl Susan Atkins & company.

        In England they have the decency to allow Polanski to conduct his litigation and trials via video or now digital link.

        Comment by Sonny | July 28, 2010

    • That could well be, the MailOnline where Lewis left her ‘exclusive’ lies has no article on Vogelhut anymore either. The fact that his lawyers didn’t react to her publicly might just point to that. Maybe they even have something/one that discredits her clear fabrications, or they could sue the hell out of her or the site in some form. No one can file any lawsuits without any proof, that’s why she or Lewis so pointedly said they don’t want to sue – not because it ‘too late’ now as they say, but because they have zero evidence.

      The latest I read was that she said she cannot ‘talk about it anyone’, ever since she went back to Miami. This madness must be stopped somehow, these people cannot just go on and on with these insidious lies. Damage control must be deployed.

      I know of the lawsuit, it was against Vanity Fair, and he won – after three long and insulting years.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 29, 2010 | Reply

    • I added her allegations to my Lewis blog – at the end. I’m combining them now, & I discredited her already. Actually, I don’t think she sounds ‘angry’, she sounds rather blasé. Just click on Barry’s link with my name here on his blog concerning Lewis & do an in-blog search for the line: ‘After Polanski made his first public appearance as a free man on July 17th’, & go from there.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 31, 2010 | Reply

  36. Hi this is the Richard Brennerman interview which may give a picture of what happened with the Santa Monica Judge Rittenband who he knew. It is interesting as I was unaware of the stance of the judge initially as Brennerman said “The judge was not vindictive toward Polanski originally. If anything, he was somewhat sympathetic, or even cynical. His initial reaction, on hearing the details of the case, was ‘Oh, was this a mother-daughter hooker team?’

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jul2010/bren-j30.shtml

    This article also starts off by stating “The effort by the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office, assisted by the Obama administration’s Justice Department, to extradite Polanski in relation to charges of having sex with a teenage girl dating to the late 1970s, was a vindictive and politically motivated act.

    An unsavory alliance of extreme right-wingers, feminists and liberal media pundits came together over the Polanski issue, demanding that “justice be done” once and for all in the case of this “rapist” and “pedophile.” Erstwhile “left” elements paid no attention to the facts of the case, including the systematic violation of Polanski’s rights by the judge in the case in 1977-78, or its social and political implications, so blinded are they by the prejudices of identity politics.
    As we noted this sordid coalition “uses inflammatory, fake populist arguments as a means of whipping up the most backward layers of the American population with hot-button appeals to the ‘protection of children against predators.’

    The targets of this lynch mob are ‘Hollywood types,’ artists, intellectuals and non-conformists. The anti-Polanski effort has undertones of xenophobia and anti-Semitism, along with old-fashioned American Puritanism.”

    Comment by Sonny | July 30, 2010 | Reply

    • I read the old Brenneman’s articles too, they are indeed very spot on – but even he gets vital key points wrong, since Polanski never admitted or pleaded to the drugged rape & sodomy charges, & the medical evidence outright discredited Geimer’s claims of rape/sodomy. He might get it all right otherwise, but the most important parts are still reported wrongly or omitted anyway, when he of all should know better.

      Anyhow, this new article is in most part a repeat of the others from last October, they’re called ‘Justice denied’ & come in several parts. I don’t have the link anymore since I usually copy/paste articles into Word to keep them. Just google the tile & his name & you’ll find it.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 30, 2010 | Reply

    • I know of the case Brenneman cited several times – I included that long ago in my blog about the Polanski case, & that this was one of the factors that Gunson & Dalton rather not have a trial, apart from the fact that Geimer’s lawyer father told her not to to testify, (or be found out to have basically lied, & because they had already evidence that this was not drugged rape/sodomy & a plea deal was in order to go for a short probation), which was another reason Polanski was forced into the plea bargain in the first place, rather than let him go like they did with others at that time.

      But, because Rittenband granted Polanski that one-year-stay to continue on his film, he pleaded only after five months & then went back to Europe to finish his film – which obviously failed since Rittenband slung him inside on Wells’ Oktoberfest ploy some months later – & to give the public the impression of a ‘jail term’, i.e., the ‘study’. Rittenbad should have dismissed the case on several occasions long before, or let him plead much earlier & be done with it. What Brenneman cited is all correct – & that Rittenband played his nasty game with the ‘little Pole’ on his Club buddies’ & the public’s ‘pressure’. Just so to look good. The bastard.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 30, 2010 | Reply

  37. Another post that is informative from wsws.org

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jul2010/pola-j13.shtml

    Comment by Sonny | July 30, 2010 | Reply

    • David Walsh’s articles are also very spot on & objective, or rather highlight/ed the truth about this being a long concerted witch hunt based on political & highly misled feminist & ‘child protection’ agendas, the Swiss for now ended by refusing to send Polanski back into the ugly mire of mounting misconducts. The US thinks we don’t see what they’re up to behind corrupt courtroom doors – but with people like Dalton, Gunson, Brenneman, Walsh & others, we do, & Cooley will sooner or later lose this little Polish mouse game – & if Polanski has to die for that fist at one point. That’s why Cooley gives us another (most definitely) lying (possible) ex-lover – Vogelhut, to keep the fires of hatred against Polanski stoked on his way to becoming AG.

      To cite one of the most spot-on comments: Polanski was left in the situation of trusting a judge who had indicated a legal fate for Polanski far different and far harsher than that to which the parties seemed to agree. The actual effect was to shift to Polanski the burden of Rittenband’s misconduct: trust the judge and risk a lengthy term of incarceration or flee the jurisdiction and be labeled a fugitive from ‘justice’ for life. Had Polanski remained in California and received the anticipated lengthy sentence he would have had no way to bring Rittenband’s actions to the attention of the Appellate Court. This type of situation is quite familiar to most criminal defense attorneys. For example, an attorney who successfully appeals a client’s conviction may very well find himself on retrial before the same trial judge from whose conduct he originally appealed. The likelihood of such an attorney’s client receiving a fair hearing on retrial is remote. The trial judge’s prejudice on retrial need not be overt; it can consist of rulings on evidential issues consistently in favor of the prosecution which involve judicial discretion and which will not be overturned on appeal. If the client is convicted either through a plea agreement or jury verdict the judge may add on several years to the client’s sentence if he ‘feels’ the client has ‘lied’ at trial; in most state appellate courts it is virtually impossible to get a sentence overturned for this type of vindictiveness.

      Nuff said.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 30, 2010 | Reply

      • Hey Novalis you forgot to mention my contribution that occurred behind Santa Monica Courtroom Doors that I have posted here and elsewhere.
        I recently posted my letter to the President at Richard Brennerman’s site, which is also posted here. I have noticed recently that Richard Brennerman keeps on mentioning another incidence of police brutality to a sexual assault victim which occurred in another case at the same courthouse to which he witnessed, and which occurred with Roman Polanski’s Judge Laurence J. Rittenband.

        So nothing much has changed in 33 years at the Santa Monica Courthouse and in regards to sexual assault cases, with the victims getting revictimized and beaten up, and whether you are a sexual assault victim, or a famous perp you are potentially fodder for a California political campaign for some Official’s desire for higher Orifice.

        Comment by Sonny | July 30, 2010

  38. Novalis said, “Had Polanski remained in California and received the anticipated lengthy sentence he would have had no way to bring Rittenband’s actions to the attention of the Appellate Court.”

    That may be very well true Novalis…

    but more importantly it would not have mattered anyway to bring the Santa Monica Judge Rittenband’s actions to the attention of the California Appellate Court, since a few or all of those Justices could have been involved in corruption to favor California State and Los Angeles Prosecutors and their corrupt employees and not the defendant or the victim.

    Some California appeal justices certainly have acted corruptly in their capacity as Judges at the same Santa Monica Courthouse where Polanski was abused by a different Judge, and those Santa Monica Judges are now applauded for their corruption and are sitting as Justices on the California Appeal Court currently.

    This occurred in my case since Justice Laurence D. Rubin who sits in 2nd District division 8 was promoted by the prior California Governor Gray Davis for Rubin’s participation in corruption plus decision in favor of Santa Monica College and their police corruption.

    There were even undocumented White sheriff deputies in his Santa Monica Courtroom specifically to assault and batter me. I am not colorblind and since their identities have been hidden from me since 1998 what other purpose did they have?

    I will provide the cached Santa Monica Copcrime online link once more.

    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

    We don’t know what corruption the California Appeal Justices in Polanski’s case have done in their time…

    In addition if the California Appeal Justices have been corrupt in their time, and covered up for police corruption to obtain a promotion to higher orifice, your appeal in a California Appeal Court may be in favor of California Government and California Prosecutors (obviously not Roger Gunson)

    And even if you bring a lawsuit in a different court, not a California court but a Federal Court for civil rights violations by California Officials, the Federal Courts are rigged also, because the Federal Judges and Magistrates will protect the corruption of the California Judges.

    For instance in my Federal case
    the 9th Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee ratified the Torture Memos for the Bush Administration to receive his promotion to be a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge, by Bush.

    Jay S. Bybee’s Federal decision in a different case was used by the 9th Circuit court in 2006 to Kill civil rights in California and that in turn was used to kill my Federal Case on 9th April 2010 after 12 years of hard litigation (equivalent to hard labor)

    So what I am saying is that buyer beware in American Courts, you are slowly being tortured with this nonsense and negativity while the Judges and their minions get paid,

    The participants whether victims in my case, or defendants are slowly ground slowly oblivion, because the system only favors government and government lawyers and employees. And it is obvious that even a lawyer cannot help in this system.

    Comment by Sonny | July 30, 2010 | Reply

    • You’re spot on in all you said – the entire LA courts are corrupt & in the habit of covering up for each other. NO one had or has any real chances of any decent defence, no matter who they are – nether victim nor defendant. All the judges today were once DAs, like the ones that denied Gunson’s filing to remove Rittenband long before Polanski had to plead, until he along with Dalton eventually did remove him – after Polanski was gone. Too late.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 30, 2010 | Reply

  39. Here is a fairly full description of the women who in May 2010 came forward to report sexual assault albeit a few decades late to Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley.

    One alleged occurence was in Paris France, which is definitely not the Los Angeles District Attorney’s jurisdiction, and the other assault was an alleged 36 year old sexual assault in Jack Nicholson’s house, allegedly occurring 4 years before Polanski was first arrested for sex with a minor.

    I am not sure why Edith Vogelhut’s alleged assault was not publicized at the same time as Charlotte Lewis since she apparently reported in May 2010, about the same time.

    I am wondering why the Los Angeles DA, and the press are publicizing these alleged ancient sexual assaults by various women in piece meal.

    I was also wondering if any more skeletons are going to wander out of the closet in the next few months,

    with their tales of ancient bondage, and sexual assault complaints against Roman Polanski,

    as Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley’s gears up his political campaign to become the next attorney general of California?

    http://novalislore.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/roman-polanski-the-lewis-vogelhut-files/

    Comment by Sonny | July 31, 2010 | Reply

    • I think this comment was just removed at Huffington. Must have hit someone’s nerve…

      Comment by Sonny | July 31, 2010 | Reply

      • Interesting – since I’m a member there with a few fans even & have left a number of comments every now & then. Though some never made it, i.e., were deleted, for obvious reasons.

        It’s clear that they cannot allow anything that might in fact wake people up – or to realise that Vogelhut is just another strawman who certainly did NOT contact Cooley in May, or because of Lewis appearance. Vogelhut just ‘tells’ us she did, & is just another of Cooley’s attempts to destroy Polanski now that the Swiss let him go. Had they not, Vogelhut wouldn’t exist. Lewis was only brought in to influence the extradition, which obviously failed, hence, now we have Vogelhut. By making her more believable than Lewis was, since Lewis buried herself with her (& Allred’s) demand that the Swiss need to know of her claims, (though they most certainly did not) & all her old interviews directly contradicting her lies of today, Cooley thinks, if I cannot destroy Polanski ‘legally’, I’ll try it through the one way people will have no qualms with, by giving us another [false] rape accuser. He lets the public do the lynching for him. If people really think that either of them spoke with the LAPD, than they’re more than naive. And even if they had, the cops have ALL the power to make whatever they had invented, stick, & that even retroactively no matter how unconstitutional. Like Vannatter did it with coaching Geimer & blackmailing Huston.

        Vogelhut put on a convincing enough show, (though even less people believe her for various reasons) & even brought in amyl, (Polanski once used on his Lady Macbeth to kick her into character for the sleepwalking scene in his Macbeth four years earlier) E, (which was not at all popular), & handcuffs, (which always works on the prude populace as a sign of Polanski’s ‘debauchery’), all of which are the tools in their kit of the Polanski defamation. Polanski never mentioned any of it. And even IF they had sex, I’m sure I debunked her claims of ‘violence’ just the same, simply for breaking down the events, use logic, & Polanski’s autobiography, which just as might disprove her allegations flat-out to begin with.

        I’m sure Cooley’s not giving up, he wants Polanski in chains in his court, & if it’s only to humiliate him & Espinoza does what he had said already months back, that they will close the case by giving Polanski time served & can walk, (though Walgren wants a ‘trial’, which is not what the extradition allowed for & Geimer most certainly will not want), to address the misconduct finally. But they also know, Polanski doesn’t trust them to honour any of that just like Rittenband hadn’t, & to litigate the case he has to be there, no matter what.

        But before that happens, if ever, we might find ourselves just as well another liar on the horizon to push the envelope, & declare he had nearly overdosed someone, or give us a really nasty BDSM game, or just another one-night stand with booze, [other] drugs, more rape & sodomy someone conveniently happened to have missed reporting & suddenly remembers, at which point Cooley could however have pushed his luck & NO one would believe them anymore.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | July 31, 2010

  40. See Below The Stars… For evidence of Double Standard in how Sexual Assault cases are handled at the Santa Monica Courthouse, California, depending on who the perpetrator is, and depending on whether the police cover up the complaint.

    This reporting of police misconduct letter to Santa Monica College Superintendant, Board of Trustees, and Police Chief was a Precursor To Police Brutality against a sexual assault victim which occured on Oct 6th 1998, for reporting police corruption,

    and the police brutality occurred and was assisted by a Santa Monica Judge by purposely allowing the Santa Monica College Police officer run the “Proceeding” and by populating the courtroom with undocumented white Sheriff Deputies to assault and batter the victim for reporting that she had been sexually assaulted in a class at Santa Monica College by the instsructor.
    *******************************************
    To Chief Eileen Miller
    Santa Monica College Police
    Pearl Street
    Santa Monica
    20th March 1998
    Dear Eileen Miller
    This is a complaint about Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable, because as you know I met with him last week, and discovered he is concealing the truth about our two meetings in November 1996, and is denying that I informed him in November 1996 verbally, that Larry Jones, a faculty member at Santa Monica College, sexually assaulted me.

    When I told Officer Ron Marable at that time in November 1996 that Instructor Larry Jones had sexually assaulted me. Officer Ron Marable questioned me in order to determine if Larry Jones had sexual assaulted me, as Officer Ron Marable was interested to find out that my complaint against Instructor Larry Jones was indeed sexual harassment, and not merely a harmless flirtation. After hearing me describe Larry Jones’s sexual assault on me, Officer Ron Marable agreed it was sexual assault, and said he could not take a report about the sexual assault – as the matter was TOO OLD. Officer Ron Marable suggested that I report the sexual assault complaint against Larry Jones to the administration on campus.
    I contacted Ron Marable last week to determine whether he remembered our discussion in November 1996, about Larry Jones sexually assaulting me, and he told me he remembered our discussions clearly, but said there were no discussions about Larry Jones’s sexual asssault of me. So Ron Marable is not telling the truth here, so as to cover up for his friend Larry Jones!
    Ron Marable also asked me in our meeting last week what could Larry Jones’s have said to him (Ron Marable) (in November 1996) that would make me tell him (Ron Marable) (in November 1996) that Larry Jones’s had sexually assaulted me after he (Ron Marable) had spoken to Larry Jones over the phone while I was there in Ron Marable’s office in November 1996.

    The answer to Officer Ron Marable’s question is this – when Larry Jones in November 1996 began to give Officer Marable information over the telephone that Larry Jones had not witnessed…while I was sitting in Ron Marable’s office , I reported Larry Jones’s earlier sexual assault of me to Ron Marable, because the sexual assault had happened, and because Larry Jones was poking his nose into my business again, JUST AS HE HAD EARLIER – POKED HIS PRIVATE PARTS INTO MY PRIVATE BUSINESS, AND I HAD HAD ENOUGH OF IT!
    This complaint against Officer Ron Marable is because he is concealing the fact that I informed him in November 1996, that Larry Jones sexually assaulted me…

    Sincerely

    Jayne Doe

    Comment by Sonny | July 31, 2010 | Reply

    • That should prove that the LAPD is corrupt to it’s very foundations – just like the courts. And double standards is an understatement – Al Gore was just let off a sexual assault charge, obviously, if it ever happened, & as far as I can see, it was just another ‘false alarm’ – i.e., false accuser. And THAT is why people like you aren’t believed [anymore] – the cry rape/assault accusers take away credibility form real victims.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | July 31, 2010 | Reply

      • I don’t know if Charlotte Lewis or VogelNut went to the LAPD it is being reported only as far as I can see – that they went to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. And this makes sense because of his extradition request which is now defunct, and Cooley’s political campaign to become California’s next Attorney General.

        “According to RadarOnline.com, Vogelhut reported the incident to the Los Angeles District Attorney after British actress Charlotte Lewis came forward in May 2010 and accused the now 77-year-old director of assaulting her when she was only 16-years-old.”

        Comment by Sonny | August 1, 2010

    • I highly doubt they did talk to the cops – as long as I don’t see any official reports, that’s NO evidence. And even if they made a statement, as I said, anything can be fabricated. That they talked to Cooley is clear – he needs more ‘victim’ strawmen to make it to AG. His court & the LAPD are well-known to fabricate ‘evidence’, be it against some celeb or the average Joe/Jane, & any old accusation will just do nicely. RadarOnline is a sleazy celeb sex scandal rag & anything posted there is clearly not evidence. Just sordid little sex tales people need to get out there, because they don’t have a life [anymore].

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 1, 2010 | Reply

      • Edith Vogelhut’s remark about not having any money for a taxi on her person (which she says in her digital interview online at Radar) is relevant as it goes to Edith vogelhut’s credibility!!!!

        Since money for a taxi would not have helped Edith Vogelhut to escape from allegedly being handcuffed by Polanski to a bed post at Jack Nicholson’s house

        the fact that Edith says Edith had no money for a taxi does seem irrelevant, and this makes her assertion about being handcuffed to a bed post suspect and her whole allegation suspect,

        Again because money for a taxi would not have helped Edith escape Edith’s alleged bondage to a bedpost at Jack Nicholson’s house.

        Thus one wonders why did Edith mention money for a taxi? As money for a taxi REALLY just does not tally with the rest of her allegations against Polanski, because the money would not have helped her!!!!

        Vogelhut’s statement on video that she had no money for a taxi is relevant to a discussion on the credibility of Edith Vogelhut’s complaint against Polanski

        If Vogelhut is making this story up, she may have anticipated the question, if things were getting out of hand, you could have left. Why didn’t you? She would have the handy answer because she couldn’t. (of course, she could also have said, “because I was handcuffed and naked.”) but I do think it odd that a women would leave home without some money. The fact she volunteered this possibly irrelevant detail makes me think she might have had some purpose in doing so.

        Comment by Sonny | August 1, 2010

  41. She never said that she was handcuffed to any bedpost – only behind her back as one might assume while lying on her stomach. It could not ever have been the ‘bedroom’ to start with, Polanski stayed at the TV room, just as he had with Geimer – & that only had a sofa. (She said he released her, after he ‘passed out’ & apparently came round again as it was claimed somewhere, though why the hell he would pass out is a mystery & makes no sense either.) One might assume that she got dressed again, to leave. I’m sure he drove her home – if they ever were there, & oddly not at his own pad Evans had given him a year earlier, or he possibly wasn’t even in LA anymore according to his own autobiography). As long as we don’t have any correlating ‘facts’, she can tell us whatever she likes.

    I’m sure however too that she had money on her, or for any cab, or else, how did she get to Evans’ house in the first place? A taxi? Highly likely. With her own car? Highly possible too. Did they send a chauffeur? I doubt that. Who’d believe that she had no ‘credit cards’, if she was a ‘professional model’ who are known to make a lot of dough. Besides, credit cards are useless for taxis, they want cash, not like today where you can pay by card. And she could have phoned someone to pick her up, by reversed call charges, or even from Nicholson’s home, or ask Polanski for a dime to get back.

    And to be honest, even if they did all that, why the hell tell us today? Oh yes, to sell her book. If she really felt ‘raped’, she should have gone to the proper authorities ages ago, & sure as hell be able to tell ‘someone’ outside that ‘group’ she claims wouldn’t have ‘listened’. So what about her own modelling ‘group’? Her family, whoever. I’m sure some of her friends would have lent her a very interested ear if she’d talked about kinky sex with director Polanski – let alone ‘rape’. No one has ‘no one to talk to’, especially in the modeling world.

    No offence, but I’m fed up with these lying, ageing, whining women suddenly crawling out the woodwork, to tell us about some [possible] wild sex games they no doubt had engaged in willingly then & obviously had no problems with for decades, until feminism indoctrinated them that it was ‘rape’, and to cry rape today is their perfect right after ‘embellishing’ on it to sell their sordid stories. IT’S NOT. Or of course Cooley invited them to do so in the first place.

    Comment by Novalis Lore | August 2, 2010 | Reply

    • Thanks for the correction about the bedpost. Must have been my imagination at work.

      Comment by Sonny | August 2, 2010 | Reply

    • I believe it was Jack Nicholson’s house AGAIN, meaning the second known incident at Jack’s house, but the first occurence of sodomy etc, not assuming its true, but just relaying the 2 allegations of sodomy, and Polanski forcing himself on women and minors at Jacks house. How convenient for the District Attorney two sodomy’s taking place at Jack’s house not by Jack of course.

      This is better than Hollywood scripts!!!!!

      Comment by Sonny | August 2, 2010 | Reply

      • That’s why it is so phoney – since Polanski by all means either was away, or had his own pad at that time. And even if they were at Nicholson’s house, if someone engages in this sort of ‘BDSM’ scenario, they usually repeat that or go deeper. If one takes this case as the ‘first’ sodomy claim, & Geimer’s as the second – though medical evidence had discredited hers entirely – why he suddenly would ‘downgrade’ his actions with Geimer, i.e., lose the handy cuffs to control her or the E to make her ‘mellow’, & the vital amyl to score another easy sodomy hit, is a mystery. (And he STILL didn’t use any essential lube either!) Hence, another logical ‘hole’ in Vogelhut’s story based on Geimer’s own fabrications – since ‘rapists’ ALWAYS escalate their attacks & not become less aggressive suddenly. Geimer never claimed any pain, any hurt, any ‘rape’ in words in any form, so in effect Vogelhut just shot herself in the foot by coming up with this ‘brutal sodomy’ ‘first’. While in case of Geimer, everyone had agreed on the fact that there was no sexual violence and/or physical/verbal force involved in any form, Vogelhut said he had commanded and manhandled her. In that case, Polanski must be the only ‘rapist’ who became less aggressive. Meaning, Vogelhut’s recounting of the events was most likely embellished on to ‘make’ it ‘rape’ & is utterly illogical. If sex ever took place.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | August 2, 2010

  42. I am not offended. I agree with what you are saying and because of the timing think this is Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley’s ploy to give himself some credibilty at Polanski’s expense since he messed up with the Swiss Justice on extradition.

    But the Vogelhut lady’s hat is huge and black. She looks like a cowboy, or should I say cowgirl.

    I am not sure if “feminism” is the culprit.

    I think Vogelhut herself is the culprit.

    I feel bad that she is coming up with this hideous story 36 years later. It does seem to be solely for her own book sales, unless she got an unofficial payout, and some animosity towards Polanski for whatever reason.

    But I don’t really believe her tale since she has not filled in all the details to my satisfaction.

    In addition it does seem to be for the District Attorney’s benefit because in my case the Santa Monica College Police who would confer with the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, would not look into a sexual assault that was two years old, so why would they be bothered with a 36 year old sexual complaint if it were not for the District Attorney’s OWN BENEFIT.

    Novalis said “No offence, but I’m fed up with these lying, ageing, whining women suddenly crawling out the woodwork, to tell us about some [possible] wild sex games they no doubt had engaged in willingly then & obviously had no problems with for decades, until feminism indoctrinated them that it was ‘rape’, and to cry rape today is their perfect right after ‘embellishing’ on it to sell their sordid stories. IT’S NOT. Or of course Cooley invited them to do so in the first place.”

    Comment by Sonny | August 2, 2010 | Reply

    • The hat struck a chord with several people by now. Of course it’s for Cooley’s benefit foremost, though I’m sure she will profit from it in some form. If she had or has real ‘beef’ with Polanski is anther question only he knows, or may be not since it sounds more like an embellished scenario a la Lewis she turned into rape/sodomy in order to get her book off the shelves. I highly doubt any ‘charges’ were filed with the LAPD or SMC – it’s all just for public amusement. And it HAS to do with radical feminism to some degree, since only in the current atmosphere of, ‘all men are rapists’, any vindictive female can accuse men publicly without any proof & send innocent men to prison with impunity on no evidence we didn’t have that badly in the 70s yet, who imposed all these anti-sex laws & the utterly infantilising inane ‘child sex/rapist’ rhetoric on us in the first place.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 2, 2010 | Reply

      • Novalis are people going to prison for false rape in England also. I ask because I believe you said you live there?

        As I have explained – I have not had the same experience myself since the Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable covered up my genuine sexual assault complaint for the Officials and trustees of Santa Monica College Piedad Robertson, Nancy Cattell-Luckenbach etc. and the Santa Monica College District which is a Government entity in California. Also the County of Los Angeles Judge Laurence D. Rubin of the Santa Monica Courthouse now a Justice in the California Court of Appeals where Polanski’s case was, plus his african American Santa Monica County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputy Terry January (who has since been convicted in a different matter in the Federal Criminal Court) also assisted for Santa Monica College et al, to cover up my sexual assualt complaint against a Santa Monica College photography Instructor R.L.Jones which sexual assault took place from behind in his class.

        Novalis said, “and it HAS to do with radical feminism to some degree, since only in the current atmosphere of, ‘all men are rapists’, any vindictive female can accuse men publicly without any proof & send innocent men to prison with impunity on no evidence we didn’t have that badly in the 70s yet, who imposed all these anti-sex laws & the utterly infantilising inane ‘child sex/rapist’ rhetoric on us in the first place.”

        Comment by Sonny | August 2, 2010

    • We had a few cases of false rape accusations as a rising ‘trend’ (because of the Rape Shield Laws enabling them to do so in the first place we too have to some extend), & several accusers in fact ended up in prison after having been found out big time through a fairer legal system. Though they certainly didn’t do time long enough after they destroyed a man’s life, no matter he was eventually found innocent. I recalled several of them in my other blog about the ‘Art Of False Rape Accusations’, in the context of the Polanski case – but the majority of cases originate in the US, & hardly any of these evil women ever see the inside of a jail.

      You are not a false assault accuser at any rate, Sonny, & therefore wouldn’t face the danger of prison, since they don’t even send the real false accusers where they belong – only the innocent men, while they don’t imprison the really guilty. Our legal system isn’t that fucked up – yet – but many too have been found innocent of rape or murder after years of prison, for newly introduced DNA proof etc., but at least ARE released & most times compensated. Unlike in the US, where new, or even old, before disregarded, i.e., withheld evidence, newly introduced had/has zero impact to see a person freed. These mostly male victims are destroyed by others for fun, & again in prison on a daily base for years of misery, & many were in fact killed. It’s obscene.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 3, 2010 | Reply

      • Novalis said “You are not a false assault accuser at any rate, Sonny, & therefore wouldn’t face the danger of prison, since they don’t even send the real false accusers where they belong”

        No I am not a false assault accuser but even so I did face the danger of prison in Los Angeles, since I was falsely arrested for reporting Santa Monica College and their police cover up of my sexual assault complaint against a Santa Monica College Instructor.

        Comment by Sonny | August 3, 2010

      • Yes there has to be some happy medium where peoples lives are not destroyed.

        Obviously there is a tension between what the accuser says and what the accused says, and who is to be believed,

        but it is the people with power such as Judges, police or other Officials who intervene in a corrupt way that causes even more problems.

        Also other problems are caused by false accusers, and false witnesses, especially Santa Monica College police who are false witnesses, and County of Los Angeles Sheriffs and Judges who are false witnesses and who want promotion to higher office, and don’t mind throwing someone off of a cliff to get there.

        In my case there was even a female false witness who defamed my character so she could gain employment as an Instructor at Santa Monica College. So Novalis, nothing is in black and white, and a female will happily betray another female, just as a male will betray another male or female and vice versa.

        Comment by Sonny | August 3, 2010

      • As they say – it is a dog eat dog world.

        I wish I could say different but that is not what I am experiencing for the most part in Los Angeles.

        No commitment to integrity or any thanks for loyalty.

        I don’t remember it being that way completely in Europe, but perhaps I am wrong.

        Comment by Sonny | August 3, 2010

      • Hell, nothing is ever black & white, people just like to have it that way in their unrealistic world view. But until THEY would stand before a corrupt judge or DAs, face abusive cops & a legal system that ‘punishes’ rather than mends, they easily call for people to be locked up, not even knowing the full details. We always knew it’s a dog-eat-dog world, but we don’t have to lower ourselves to their level & play their nasty games.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | August 4, 2010

      • No we don’t Novalis. And we haven’t.

        And in my case if nothing else I came out with my integrity, some knowledge of the rotting system and able to inform others of my first hand experience.

        Finally I may have helped Roman Polanski’ being released in Switzerland through my conveying my experience of the double standard at the County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Courthouse in sexual assault cases which seem to discriminate against those born in Europe, and in favor of those who work for California State.

        Comment by Sonny | August 4, 2010

    • That might well be the case, either way. I’m sure we all know how the US thinks they’re better than the rest of the planet, not only Europe, when they are clearly not & love to discriminate against others, through wars & other means. Sooner or later they will have to wake up & finally grow out of their petulant, aggressive & arrogant little toddler fits, & join the rest of civilised humanity.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 4, 2010 | Reply

  43. There has to be a reason to reveal a humiliating experience from the past, if it is not reported at the time.

    A blogger said, Money or Revenge or both.

    But they are missing out another reason for a victim to report after a long time, that is if the victimization is genuine.

    Given that the sexual assault really occurred, it is a humiliating sexual experience and is not something one reveals after a long time for no reason,

    since it is humilating to report sexual abuse to the authorities who may be cold, corrupt, and not happy to hear what the victim has to say.

    The missing reason that motivates a victim to report later when they did not do so initially – is when that sexually assaulted person CONTINUES to be bullied, abused and humiliated by the same perpetrator whether sexually, or in some other way,

    that is a good enough reason and motivating factor for that sexually molested person, to NOW reveal and report that they have been sexually molested in the past by that same perpetrator,

    In this situation the victim who never reported the sexual abuse earlier, has been pushed out into the open to report, by the perpetrator, who continues some form of abuse

    and the victim who then comes to the realization that the victimization is continuing and will not stop, is cornered and is faced with the idea that it might get worse, and so does not have any other choice but to report the sexual abuse.

    because if victim remains silent the abuse will only get worse.

    However in Santa Monica and Los Angeles California, reporting sexual assault to police or other officials is not a good idea, since victims who report can run into Police, Official and Judicial cover up of their sexual assault complaints and police brutality in the Santa Monica Courthouse so as to frame them and intimidate them further, and fleece them of their dignity, life and resources,

    not in Vogelhut’s case of course since her 36 year late reporting and video posting of sexual abuse is in favor of the Los Angeles powers that be.

    Comment by Sonny | August 2, 2010 | Reply

    • Of course it’s ‘money’ = Vogelhut, or ‘revenge’ = Lewis, & Geimer was no rape victim either by her ow admission. A genuine rape victim would never go to RadarOnline to proclaim her experience decades later. They’d go to relevant authorities & seek official help much earlier, under the cloak of anonymity, not go to some cheap celeb rag with Allred in tow, who clearly tried & failed to influence the extradition. Neither of the women can claim ‘continued victimisation’ in any form, since neither ever said so, or that Polanski had any contact with them ever since they parted ways to ‘force them out’. No, the only victim in this insidious game Geimer’s mother had [unwittingly] set into motion against her will, Rittenband & others had exploited, is Polanski himself – on many levels – since many years.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 2, 2010 | Reply

  44. Yes I wanted to explain the continuing violation aspect of this as it does apply in some genuine cases, but it does not apply to these two cases at all. Unless it could be used in Charlotte’s case to undermine her assertion since she did not leave Roman Polanski instantly, and spent along time with him, and did not report, even though now she says he abused her.

    I guess publicity is also tied in with the money and the revenge aspects to come forward to report a sexual assault 36 years late, but a publicity seeker seems to make the late sexual assault complaint less credible since if the person is not afraid to be very public and the humiliation of reporting now why did she not come forward at the time?

    Novalis also said that Charlotte Lewis and Edith Vogelhut would go to the relevant authorities and seek official help much earlier. But neither did, and Charlotte did not ever report anything to the French Authorities, and it is not really the Los Angeles jurisdiction whatever happened in France which is unproven?

    Also Edith did not even come forward for Samantha Galley’s case. Which is very strange since both had alleged they had been sodomized at Jack’s house within a few years of each other.

    Novalis said, “Of course it’s ‘money’ = Vogelhut, or ‘revenge’ = Lewis, & Geimer was no rape victim either by her ow admission. A genuine rape victim would never go to RadarOnline to proclaim her experience decades later. They’d go to relevant authorities & seek official help much earlier, under the cloak of anonymity, not go to some cheap celeb rag with Allred in tow, who clearly tried & failed to influence the extradition. Neither of the women can claim ‘continued victimisation’ in any form, since neither ever said so, or that Polanski had any contact with them ever since they parted ways to ‘force them out’. No, the only victim in this insidious game Geimer’s mother had [unwittingly] set into motion against her will, Rittenband & others had exploited, is Polanski himself – on many levels – since many years.

    Comment by Sonny | August 2, 2010 | Reply

    • I know how genuine rape victims feel, I know several personally – & some had really bad & prolonged violent experiences that marred them physically to near fatality & mentally greatly for quite some time, but recovered fully soon. Neither of them developed sexual relations problems despite their attackers never being found since they were stranger assaults, after witnesses having found them to report the attacks. One was in fact a male in his twenties – & another was a woman who had just turned 18.

      You’re right, to wait so long is highly suspect, since no genuine rape victim would let slip a chance of the same ‘attacker’ just being arrested a few years later to report their own attack, & I highly doubt she never knew of the case then or now. In Lewis’ case we know she lied because of her very own earlier interviews contradicting her present day claims outright. Guess a cocaine addled ex-prostitute’s brain isn’t all that reliable anymore, but then recalls all sorts of things that happened during the alleged abuse nearly three decades back & Polanski’s exact words to her after all the men she had – which are more than ludicrous at any rate. Not a chance.

      Same goes for Vogelhut, I’m sure had several men in her life nearly 60 now & she too can recall Polanski’s exact words after nearly 40 years? – Hardly. And that is exactly where it goes wrong, since no one can remember anything that clearly. Events perhaps in the broader sense, good or bad imprinted through pain or joy, but never ‘words’ to the degree they claim, let alone from a one-night stand with drugs & booze affecting ones memory to start with I’m sure wasn’t the only one. I cannot even remember what I said to someone or someone told me last week let alone word by word despite being sober, let alone the 70s during any of my casual sex encounter I cannot recall either lost in the haze of recreational drugs to start with. These vague accusations are neatly staged shows, like Lewis had to read from a script under the gaze of Allred, in order to ‘learn their lines’.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 3, 2010 | Reply

      • I think you have reached the very essence of Vogelhut’s problematic sexual assault complaint here when you say

        “to wait so long is highly suspect, since no genuine rape victim would let slip a chance of the same ‘attacker’ just being arrested a few years later to report their own attack,”

        I would say however that I remember details of a traumatic event from the 70’s so it just depends on whether the event is traumatic enough, but it is possible to remember details from decades ago, but not for every little incident. The incident has to be highly stressful and traumatic.

        Comment by Sonny | August 3, 2010

    • I didn’t say the ‘event’ was erased, I said the exact ‘words’ are hardly recallable that precisely, unless staged to ‘remember’. Especially after taking all sorts of drugs & booze that affect memory to begin with.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 4, 2010 | Reply

      • Novalis said, “I didn’t say the ‘event’ was erased, I said the exact ‘words’ are hardly recallable that precisely, unless staged to ‘remember’. Especially after taking all sorts of drugs & booze that affect memory to begin with.”

        I guess what I am trying to say here is that depending on who the person is, and the event, and whether sober or not details can be remembered or not remembered. It is certainly no exact science.

        I guess speaking for myself alone even if sober or not I can sometimes clearly remember all details. And sometimes if I don’t remember all, if I begin to write about the incident after years have past through writing I can then remember other details, and can get to the gist of how something occurred.

        Part of this remembering also entails being honest, with yourself as well as others. If you are not being honest or are going to say something occurred when you are no longer sure that is a sad way to be a witness. I would rather say I can’t remember than say that something happened when I am not sure.

        If one is not honest to themself, they are not reliable to be honest to others.

        In Vogelhut’s case here she is at 21 years old with no money in her pocket and she agrees to have sex with a stranger, and actually agrees to this.

        Now whether the rest went down as she said it did is another matter, and we have no way of knowing really. We can only point to her foolishness in being at Jack’s house with Polanski with no money in her pocket and agreeing to sex, and turning her back to him so he could slip on handcuffs…if that really happened, and she says it was cold and no emotion. So question why have sex if it was going to be cold, why be there and have no money, or car to leave the situation before it took place.

        And then there is all the other stuff that does not jive that she did not report in 1974 or 1978 and waits until 2010 until Charlotte reports and then says Charlotte prompted her. I guess there is an argument that she was still not adult at 25 to report and it took her to be 60 years old with a ridiculous black hat before she reported…

        Comment by Sonny | August 4, 2010

    • Of course ‘honesty’ is the key, you’re right – & then there is something called, ‘deluding yourself’, with people thinking what they believe/d is in a fact the truth when it’s not. And then there is the deliberate ‘embellishing’, to either look better, or like a ‘victim’, while in another similar or the actual situation they didn’t feel like that, but ‘suddenly’ years later – for the changed times, morals, you name it. Which is in effect betraying your own past, your life, your very actions you once believed in, took part in willingly & today your ‘altered’ state of mind might not accept anymore. But then don’t blame others for having done it – but yourself – if true at any rate. It’s called ‘regret, & it’s YOUR own doing, nobody else’s.

      If she really had no money is questionable, & I also doubt that it was ‘cold’, since Polanski had foreplay with Geimer later. I don’t believe Vogelhut for many reasons that simply don’t tally. She didn’t ‘report’ it; (& if she really talked to the cops is also questionable), she made a sleazy show of it on a sex scandal rag site. The perfect venue to spread lies & to sell her book – but not to make a ‘case’ of it. She can tell us whatever she likes, weave it all together to make some sort of sense & people are willing to buy it, but, if you look deeper, consider things logicically, objectively, scientifically, it doesn’t anymore.

      These women are shifting their own [sexual] accountability into Polanski’s court to look the ‘poor victims’, while in reality, Lewis for one clearly lied from start to finish (in order to influence the extradition & made an idiot of herself big time). In Vogelhut’s case, she might sound ‘logical’, but, no proof, no believability, no case, end of. Just another pathetic attempt to taint Polanski’s damaged reputation some more – in Cooley’s name of course.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 4, 2010 | Reply

  45. Vogelhut in her black hat spewing venom, is the great diversion to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office’s Steve Cooley’s false request to extradite Roman Polanski.
    Linda Deutsch, the chief trial reporter for the Associated Press, was in Judge Laurence J. Rittenband’s courtroom 33 years ago during Roman Polanski’s prosecution. Linda Deutch gets to the heart of the Swiss refusal to extradite the Roman Polanski.
    The Swiss government asked the U.S. Justice Department to release sealed transcripts in the Roman Polanski case just days before a Los Angeles judge was told that the Swiss did not request that information, according to a letter from Swiss officials that points to apparent miscommunication in the case.
    The [Swiss] officials said that the denial of access to the information was the key factor in the refusal to extradite the filmmaker to the U.S., according to the letter to the U.S. Embassy in Bern, Switzerland.
    The letter blamed the denial of extradition solidly on the refusal by the Justice Department to show transcripts of testimony by Polanski’s original 1977 Los Angeles prosecutor [Roger Gunson] to Swiss officials.
    “Since the additional documents requested were not transmitted in full, extradition of Roman Polanski to the United States of America is thus denied,” said the letter.
    Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said she had no comment on the matter.
    The Swiss said that they wanted to know whether Polanski, who was being held in a 33-year-old sex case, had already served his sentence. [Emphasis added.]
    The Swiss had said from the beginning that their extradition laws allowed Polanski to be sent to the United States only if he was going to be required to serve at least six months in prison. They sought the testimony of original prosecutor Roger Gunson to clarify the matter.
    On May 13, [2010] the letter said, the Justice Department “responded that the desired copy of the statement of Roger Gunson could not be given out.”
    The letter added, “Under these circumstances it cannot be excluded with certainty that Roman Polanski, who was imprisoned in the Chino State Prison for 42 days, has not already served the sentence imposed on him.”
    It was the first indication that the Swiss were potentially accepting arguments raised by Polanski’s lawyers who claimed he was a victim of misconduct by now deceased [County of Los Angeles Santa Monica] Superior Court Judge Laurence Rittenband.
    The letter mentions [Judge] Rittenband by name and said authorities wanted to know whether Rittenband had promised Polanski that his time undergoing a diagnostic study in prison would be his entire sentence. He had pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl.
    The request was transmitted to the [U.S.] Justice Department, they said, on May 5, 2010.
    Adding to the confusion, Swiss Justice Ministry spokesman Folco Galli had said on April 30 , 2010 that his department wasn’t interested in the testimony. “Such documents are irrelevant for the extradition proceedings,” he had told the AP.
    [ The Swiss Justice Office spokesman Folco Galli went as far as stating , see

    http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/Polanski_legal_team_say_Swiss_need_files_unsealed.html?cid=8783236%5D

    that the Swiss Justice ministry must work on the assumption that the extradition request is based on correct statements, and there is a warning from Mink to Swiss Ministry of Justice in the comments that “The Swiss Officials and their spokesperson Folco Galli, should study “Don’t assume, otherwise you’ll make an ass out of you and me”…
    “What’s clear is that the Justice Ministry asked for this transcript, which shows that it’s considered to be relevant,” said Guido Balmer, another Swiss Justice ministry spokesman.
    The Polanski defense team had already independently filed its own motion seeking release of the transcript of the three days of secret testimony and argued it should be transmitted to the Swiss government.
    But on May 6, 2010, the day after the new request, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office filed papers opposing any such unsealing. They said the testimony was a “conditional examination” conducted only in case a witness was unavailable later. And they said the Swiss had not requested the transcripts.
    In a hearing on May 10, 2010 Deputy District attorney David Walgren told a judge that the Swiss had not asked for the transcripts and Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza said the Swiss had indicated they wanted no further information. [County of Los Angeles Judge Peter Espinoza] denied the defense request.
    District attorney’s spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said prosecutors in Los Angeles were never notified of the request. She said the only contact from the Justice Department was a query asking for an explanation of what a conditional examination was.
    “We explained it all to them,” she said.
    Polanski’s defense lawyer, Douglas Dalton, said the revelation “supports the need for a formal inquiry into this issue.”

    The Swiss Letter ended on a conciliatory note with the he Swiss Federal Justice and Police Department officials noting that Polanski, who had been held under house arrest for months at his Swiss home, was a property owner in Gstaad and thus has “a protected value of trust” with the Swiss.

    “He is welcome as a buyer and vacation guest in Switzerland and there are no obstacles against necessary traveling in and out for personal use of the property,” the letter said.

    Comment by Sonny | August 6, 2010 | Reply

  46. I included all that long ago in my blogs – as it broke.

    Which only shows: first the Swiss trusted the LA courts that the request was ‘truthful’, (BIG mistake coz it wasn’t), then they said they don’t need the transcript, then Polanski spoke up to point them to the fact that the DO need it, then the Swiss officially asked for the documentation, then Espinoza had it sealed the next day NOT to be released, then Cooley gave us ‘Lewis’ to influence the Swiss’ decision, (which failed anyhow), then Cooley refused to unseal Gunson’s testimony, & because he refused to send the vital documents to prove Polanski HAD done his time – the Swiss let him go.

    Besides, an extradition request is handled by the AG – NOT the LA courts, (they, i.e., Cooley/Walgren, only issued it) & if the DOJ won’t send the documents (on Cooley’s refusal), there’s nothing the LA courts can do. The Swiss acted the only way they could – they knew, like the rest of us, that Polanski had done his time, & even if it was to sit out the full 3 months, the 70 days he was in Swiss detention had to be counted, which cover the 90 days by nearly 2 weeks. The Swiss only extradite people if they face 6 months or more. Cooley thought he was clever by refusing the testimony, but it backfired when Polanski spoke up.

    ‘Miscommunication’, Cooley claims, is always a good excuse to mess with facts he didn’t want the world to know. Now that they do, no one will rearrest Polanski again. In order to continue his witch hunt, however, since Cooley cant get to him ‘legally’ for now, he gives us another ‘accuser’ with a big floppy hat after Lewis was found out a liar. Vogelhut might sound more ‘convincing’, but it’s just so to destroy Polanski’s reputation some more. If Cooley really makes it to AG this November, I’m sure the first thing he’ll do is ‘fix’ another arrest/extradition ‘somewhere’.

    Comment by Novalis Lore | August 6, 2010 | Reply

  47. As far as my understanding of California law, the sole person to unlock or unseal Roger Gunson’s testimony was County of Los Angeles Judge Espinoza or a California Appeal Court, and this didn’t happen

    When there is a motion to unseal testimony from Polanski’s American lawyers Chad Hummel, Douglas and Bart Dalton, the District Attorney’s office that includes Cooley has to file papers opposing the California lawyers motion.

    So it is my understanding that only County of Los Angeles Judge Peter Espinoza could unseal the testimony and remember that judge had allowed the testimony and depositions originally for Roger Gunson this year, and the County of Los Angeles Judge Espinoza denied the Polanski’s motion and that favored County of LA DA Cooley and Company.

    I do understand that the County Of LA Prosecutors often work hand in hand with the County of LA Judges makes sense since they are in the same “entity” and I have experience of this biased favoritism just like the County Sheriffs Deputies worked with the County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Judge in my case to deprive me of a fair hearing and beat me up.

    Also “American Justice” doesn’t work very well in extradition circumstances, because both California State and Federal have to work together to make something work perfectly, and that didn’t happen here.

    It is my understanding that the Swiss Justice were really only dealing with, or primarily dealing with the US Federal Department of Justice not California or Cooley or the County of Los Angeles Judge, because the extradition is on a FEDERAL LEVEL.

    The problem is – is that the details of California law used in the LA DA false extradition request to the Swiss for Polanski – is complicated and is really not easily translated into US Federal Law as the extradition request is a Federal matter although details of California case should have been sent to the US Federal level to clarify, communicate with the Swiss Justice, and expedite the extradition decision for the Swiss Justice Ministry.

    The US Feds were not equipped or able to deal with the Swiss request for Los Angeles Prosecutor’s Roger Gunson’s testimony, because everything is glued up and stuck in the California Court Systems and nothing moves and nothing can move because the laws are incompatible Federal and California State. It is similar to being constipated and clogged. And this is not just the situation in Polanski’s case, this is American cases and law in general.

    So you are right the Extradition request is not handled by the LA Courts, but it is also not handled by the California Attorney General Jerry Brown either. It is handled by the Federal Department of Justice and the Federal Attorney General there.

    Also the Swiss letter requesting Gunson’s testimony went to the American Department of Justice not to Steve Cooley’s Office in Los Angeles. So because those two departments don’t really communicate too well, and because the County of Los Angeles Judge did deny the unsealing of Roger Gunson’s testimony so that it would not go to the Swiss Justice, the US Department of Justice was not able to grant the Swiss Justice Request for the testimony. I don’t believe they can overide a California Judge’s decision.

    So really all of this dance of requests, is about saving face for the Swiss Justice and for the US Justice, because if Polanski had of been extradited then the Judicial and Prosecutorial corruption would have been amplified, and I for one would have been willing to corroborate with my Santa Monica tale of Judicial and police corruption in a police cover up of a sexual assault complaint proving the corruption and the double standard at that Courthouse, depending on whether the perp works for California Institutions.

    As far as another extradition for Polanski in the future. I doubt it. There is a joke that it would have to occur somewhere between Great Britain and USA.

    Comment by Sonny | August 7, 2010 | Reply

    • You’re absolutely right from start to finish, Sonny – & as I said, I highly doubt anyone will rearrest him, let alone give the LA courts/DOJ the chance to ask for another extradition – Hence, Cooley’s attempt to just destroy Polanski otherwise by digging up more lying exes.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 7, 2010 | Reply

      • I did on 24th April 2010 email my letter posted above to the US President and to Polanski’s lawyers in France and Switzerland and included a signature, so they could use this information I was giving them, to show the Swiss Justice that there is discrimination and a double standard in how sexual assault cases, are “handled” at the same Santa Monica Courthouse, California, even today.

        Hence on 2nd May 2010 Roman Polanski may have felt a little more comfortable to issue his 908 word statement. But it is always possible that the fact that Polanski’s statement happened to be 908 words is coincidence.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/movies/03polanski.html

        Comment by Sonny | August 7, 2010

      • Actually on second thoughts

        the 908 words from Roman Polanski was mentioned on purpose by him, but it was in reference to Sharon Tate’s murder in Los Angeles on 9th August 1969 at about this time

        The date of her murder is written 9/08/69 in Europe.

        It is purely coincidental that I suffered police brutality in the year 98 at the same Santa Monica courthouse as Polanski had his problems and the 908 words is only significant from Polanski’s perspective since that happens to be the day that Roman Polanski lost his beautiful American wife Sharon Tate, his son and his friends 41 years ago today.

        God Bless

        Comment by Sonny | August 9, 2010

    • That might well be, but it wouldn’t in fact be Polanski’s ‘thing’ – he’s not into that sort of ‘thinking’. God bless indeed. Besides, HE didn’t mention it was 908 words, it was the editor.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 9, 2010 | Reply

      • Polanski did not mention it was 908 words is correct but it i.e. the 908 words is mentioned enough times in different press releases and was apparently sold as a 908 word press release. Just like the director has control over all aspects of the filmmaking. I would imagine this 908 word document was most likely to his exact specifications, but unless he tell us – nothing is absolute.

        See http://www.thescreeningroom.ca/2010/05/roman-polanski-speaks-out.html

        Comment by Sonny | August 10, 2010

    • Looks more like the first editor for whatever reasons counted the words, or they came up as such when he posted it, & everyone else reposting it repeated that, as if it had some sort of ‘significance’. Either way, that’s done & over with now & did its job at any rate, that of alerting the world of Cooley’s vindictive witch hunt against him. And that Polanski had done his time ages ago, no one in fact had asked for.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 11, 2010 | Reply

      • In the Ghost Writer directed by Roman Polanski in the manuscript a code was planted by the prior Ghostwriter which was significant once unravelled by the second Ghostwriter.

        Just as a code was in the manuscript in the movie The Ghost Writer, it follows that 908 words has some hidden meaning. My guess is that it points to a time when his life and world first fell apart in America 9th August. Anything after that was nonsense, and the mother should have known better, or was after a payout…

        Comment by Sonny | August 12, 2010

    • I doubt we’ll ever know of any ‘hidden meaning’ – if there was one.

      As for the Gaileys, they got what they wanted, at Polanski’s expense/s to this day, after he’s free again now for exactly a month – & absolutely nothing has changed or improved. On the contrary, he’s got a few idiot haters more. On the other hand, most know now he dis his time & they should litigate the case – though Cooley of course would never admit to it to close it finally. Vindictive little s***.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 12, 2010 | Reply

  48. You never know – or if your efforts were of any ‘use’ to them. But they certainly could do no harm.

    Comment by Novalis Lore | August 7, 2010 | Reply

    • I first sent documents to Roman Polanski’s lawyer in France, Monsieur Hervé Témime on Dec 8th 2009 showing evidence of Judicial and Sheriff Deputy corruption and assault and battery in my Santa Monica College police cover up of my sexual assault complaint . I did receive an email and thank you from Roman Polanski’s French lawyer, Monsieur Hervé Témime also on Dec 8th 2009, which I have kept.

      At the time I sent evidence of corruption and a double standard at the Santa Monica Courthouse California to Roman Polanski’s French Lawyer Hervé Témime, my Federal Case was still alive.

      The fact that my Federal Court case died in April 2010 has more to do with the injustice in America regardless of which court the case is in.

      And what can you say when a decision authored by the person who ratified the Torture Memos Jay S. Bybee is used to kill my case. Except to say Forget it Jake. It’s Chinatown all over again.

      I do think my efforts helped because I was also in contact with the Swiss Justice Department in Switzerland from Oct 2009 onwards, and Swiss Consulate here in April 2010. The Swiss Justice had my name and they had my story, which was backed up with solid evidence since one Sheriff Deputy who had been involved was convicted in a different matter, which makes the Santa Monica Judge’s testimony suspicious. Also the current Sheriff of Los Angeles had sent me a letter in Feb 1999 which mentions the now convicted sheriff deputy which I forwarded to Roman Polanski’s French lawyer Hervé Témime

      Also once I physically went to the Swiss Consulate in Los Angeles in April 2010 right after that the French President Sarkowsky went to the US President Obama with a letter from Polanski requesting a Pardon which then prompted me to send my letter to the US President on April 24th 2010 and then after that things began to fall into place to free Roman Polanski fairly quickly with Polanski’s statement coming on May 2nd 2010, Swiss Justice shedding false assumptions from the Los Angeles District Attorney’s and Prosecutors Office and finally freedom for Polanski on July 12th 2010.

      Comment by Sonny | August 8, 2010 | Reply

      • As I said, I doubt your efforts were for nothing, but the ultimate decision rested with Widmer-Schlumpf waiting for the testimony/proof she didn’t get, hence cut it short, or Polanski would still be at his Chalet till the end of time.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | August 9, 2010

  49. There has been much talk about sodomy in the Roman Polanski case, and Edith Vogelhut has added her 10 cents to the sodomy aspects 36 years too late.

    The California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has said in his time that Roman Polanski should be treated like everyone else.

    But as of Aug 2010 the California Governor Arnold is saying it is alright for gays to marry now since the Federal Court Decision

    Isn’t this the same as saying because gay marriage is legal, that sodomy is legal for gays???

    So if gay marriage is ok, and if sodomy is legal for gays

    then why is sodomy not legal for men and young or old women?

    I am having a hard time with the logic, where the line should be drawn for sodomy, and there seems to be some hypocrisy here…

    And just to remind everyone again the sodomy charge in Polanski’s case was thrown out in 1977.

    The reason for mentioning it now, is because of Vogelhut’s late assertion/insertion of sodomy, and because so many commentators have carried on mentioning the charge that was thrown out in 1977 as if it really happened and still existed.

    Comment by Sonny | August 8, 2010 | Reply

    • Very good point, Sonny – I never thought of that ‘gay marriage’ angle, I usually tackle a case more like an investigation, deconstructing all facets of the medical/scientific/witness etc. evidence & then let logic etc. find the answer when reconstructing events.

      The problem with ‘sodomy’ is, it’s ‘anal intercourse/sex’ most people find distasteful etc. – so they latch on to that one count & rip it apart as a ‘sin’ & whatnot, totally forgetting how anal sex works – since they might have no experience or asked others/doctors how it’s done to realise it’s all BS the way these accusers/people keep saying it happened – & therefore just take it as ‘fact’. Also forgetting that the charge was dropped after the medical evidence said NO to sodomy/rape & is LONG off the table to even debate it anymore, like the other dropped counts.

      Legally speaking, once a plea bargain has been reached on the one count left applicable, that is IT, the other charges are passé, (since they could not be proven). In those days NO accused pleaded to a charge that wasn’t the [only] one relevant, otherwise the plea had been dealt on the most serious charge (if it HAD been drugged rape), no matter an accuser doesn’t want to stand trial. Even if not, the prosecution can demand harsh time after the deal was agreed on – or no time, which happened here for obvious reasons – & the deal will reflect that. Polanski [only] had to plead because she was underage, otherwise the case had been thrown out for several reasons at several stages over the 10 months period they messed with it, IF Rittenband had done his duty.

      ‘Sodomy’ is still being punished, no matter the ‘victim’ is male or female, or willing for that matter, despite ‘gay rights’, so it is a legal double standard in itself – true. Every time someone cries rape they always bring in (drugs &) sodomy, just so to make it sound more ‘perverted’, despite the fact that more heterosexuals engage in anal sex than gays most people don’t realise (either).

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 9, 2010 | Reply

  50. 41st Anniversary of 908 words

    If you have listened to music, read a newspaper or watched a movie since August of 1969 – your life has been impacted by the Manson family’s murders.

    The list is mile high with many inter-connections

    On March 15, 1969 Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski gave a housewarming party at their Cielo Drive home.

    Previous tenants included: Cary Grant and Dyan Cannon, Henry Fonda, Terry Melcher, Candice Bergan.

    At the house warming party were: Jane Fonda, Roger Vadim, Peter Fonda, Tony Curtis, Warren Beatty, Nancy Sinatra, Mama Cass Elliot, and others.

    In the same time period Angela Lansbury had signed a consent for her underaged daughter to travel with Charles Manson . Manson gave a ring to Dean Martin’s daughter. Manson reportedly had a sexual encounter with a grand-daughter of Frank Sinatra.

    Manson lived in Dennis Wilson’s home. The Beach Boys recorded a song that Manson wrote. Neil Young like Manson and gave him a motorcycle.

    Lansbury had previously starred in “The Manchurian Candidate” with Frank Sinatra, directed by John Frankenheimer.

    In June 1968 RF Kennedy and his wife had dinner at Frankenheimer’s Malibu Beach home with Sharon Tate, Roman Polanski. At the dinner he reportedly said that he would re-open the investigation into his brother’s murder once he got into the White House.

    Later Frankenheimer, Tate and Polanski went to the Ambassador Hotel – and R.F. Kennedy was killed.

    Oddly enough Kennedy was killed by a Palestinian Christian associated with “The Process” – which connected him to both Melcher and Manson.

    Comment by Sonny | August 9, 2010 | Reply

    • This is the sort of stuff that conspiracy theory fans love – & one cannot dismiss it. On the other hand, that these people knew each other is nothing surprising – or that ‘politics’ played a role in ‘Hollywood’, or the ‘law’, or vice versa. It still does – see Rittenband & his mob connections, & Cooley with the LAPD in his pockets.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 9, 2010 | Reply

      • As far as big time politics it seems that Roman Polanski was there when Robert Kennedy was killed Also Robert had a brother who was murdered earlier on camera as US President as we all know too well.

        I don’t know how close Polanski was when Robert Kennedy got shot but he must have been close, having just had dinner with him,

        There is a very similar scene from this – in the Ghost Writer when the British Prime Minister is shot I guess in a very similar manner to Robert Kennedy who was I guess hoping to be the US President one day.

        Comment by Sonny | August 12, 2010

      • Of course The Ghost Writer and the British Prime Minister being offed is a fiction but the mechanics of the story seems to fit the halls of power.

        Comment by Sonny | August 12, 2010

    • Polanski never mentioned any politicians in his autobiography – as for the Ghost Writer, that’s as fictional as it gets with a writer/journalist who was friends with Blair, & then wrote The Ghost.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 12, 2010 | Reply

      • As far as below, I know who Robert Harris was thinking of when he wrote The Ghost – Tony Blair, the British politician he knew, but when

        However The Ghost was directed by Polanski, and it is possible that Polanski may have used his real life experience in having dinner with Robert Kennedy the night of his murder, and being around at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles 1968 to makes the “fictional” action in his movies more real. That is what makes Polanski a stand out as a director by making the “fiction” more real.

        Also in my case there was a conspiracy to cover up. Official Conspiracies are no big deal in America they happen all the time…

        If you haven’t already seen “Manchurian Candidate” the original one, with Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, Janet Leigh and Angela Lansbury it is a good movie.

        Comment by Sonny | August 13, 2010

    • Polanski didn’t change anything for The Ghost [Writer] script – he literally filmed it as Harris had written it & both adapted it to screen – nothing added, nothing taken away.

      I know The Manchurian Candidate – it’s a typical Sixties cold war film that makes it out as if the Communists would infiltrate the US via their own people. A good but still only fictional film. I’m not one for [political] ‘conspiracy’ theories/plots – other than political assassinations disguised as such conspiracies to deflect from who what where & why ‘really’ did it. Usually the CIA or FBI using fallguys.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 13, 2010 | Reply

      • Except that Polanski added to the Ghost a far darker ending with pages of manuscript flying down a London street, after a black car did a hit and run,

        Apparently the writer Robert Harris wholeheartedly agreed to this far darker ending which was unscripted.

        The far darker ending to the Ghost Writer also logically came after the second Ghostwriter broke the code in the original manuscript and after showing that he knew the secrets of the manuscript to the Prime Minister’s wife, who then told the Harvard Professor. (The code had been hidden in the manuscript original ghostwriter who was murdered)

        This dynamic is the same as my confronting Santa Monica Judge Laurence D. Rubin (now a California Appeal Justice) telling him of Santa Monica College police cover up of my sexual assault complaint, and the sexual discrimination in photography classes at that College by the photography instructor,

        but since Santa Monica College is part of California State, the Santa Monica Judge to secure a position with the California Appeal Court joined the Santa Monica College police and helped to cover up the sexual assault and sexual discrimination I had encountered at Santa Monica College and I was intimidated, humiliated and beaten up in the process and kicked to the ground by an undocumented White County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputy.

        That is not fiction, this is Life copying Art.

        If California would have its way it would paint me in a similar fashion to Rosemary Woodhouse of Rosemary’s baby, delusional, since she thought she saw the devil. And since I saw a white Sheriff Deputy (and others_ that the County of Los Angeles and Santa Monica College are saying does not exist.

        But just as it was Judicial corruption in Roman Polanski’s case where he was the alleged perpetrator of a sexual crime, same situation in my case where i was the sexual assault victim.

        So any “justice” in the Santa Monica Courthouse blows with the wind depending on whether the perpetrator works for California State or not, and whether the Judge can get a promotion by helping the governmental entity.

        This is real and is not fiction.

        Also the circumstances surrounding the Kennedy Brother’s dying are murky and not fiction.

        What Roman Polanski succeeds in so well, through the material he chooses to film, is to show the Universal in Politics and Corruption, and how things are covered up

        through making the murder out to be an accident, when it is not,

        or the fault of the victim, when it is not,

        or how one person can pick up the rap for Robert Kennedy’s murder when other bullets coming from different directions points to others involved who remain unaccountable.

        Polanski calls his current movie and any meaning to be found in it “Adult” material.

        Comment by Sonny | August 14, 2010

      • Redrafting a couple of paragraphs from above to clarify.

        That is not fiction, this is Life copying Art.

        If California would have its way it would paint me in a similar fashion to Rosemary Woodhouse of Rosemary’s baby, delusional, since Rosemary thought she saw the devil. I know that Rosemary’s Baby is fiction but it does link to how things play out in real life

        In my case and in reality, I saw a County of Los Angeles white Sheriff Deputy stationed in Judge Laurence D. Rubin’s Santa Monica Courtroom on Oct 6th 1998 who first assaulted and then battered me, and other white sheriff deputies arrived later, that the County of Los Angeles, Justice Laurence D. Rubin, County of Los Angeles African American Sheriff Deputy Terry January and Santa Monica College et al, state never existed…

        Just as there was Santa Monica Courthouse Judicial corruption in Roman Polanski’s case where Roman Polanski ran away from the Judicial corruption, and double sentencing

        In my case where Santa Monica Judicial corruption was used against the sexual assault victim, me, so as to cover up Santa Monica College Police cover up of my sexual assault complaint against a Santa Monica College photography instructor, and so the judge could gain Judicial promotion to the California Appeal Court, since Santa Monica College is called “An Arm of the California State”

        Comment by Sonny | August 14, 2010

    • That’s true, Polanski made the end more apt to the preceding events, & deftly so. It’s a very impressive ending, though we ‘really’ don’t know if the Ghost was hit, or someone else. As usual, it’s up to the audience to fill in the blanks as they desire it. That’s Polanski’s genius. What I meant before was that he didn’t alter the ‘story’. Of course Polanski’s trade mark is to transfer real life material onto film, to reflect reality, our ‘adult’ world indeed. That’s why many confuse them with his own life, or experiences.

      As for your own ‘story’, it’s indeed a very dark example of real life events & that the ‘law’ has too much power they simply bend & twist as they desire it to make their own [unhappy] ‘ending’, serving their own evil ends. Same goes for Kennedy – who was offed by the powers that be, not any ‘individual’ gone bananas. It only ‘appears’ that way, & that’s why Oswald was killed by Ruby.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 14, 2010 | Reply

      • I agree is a very impressively filmed ending. It is not a happy ending.

        I think we do know that the Ghost was hit, since the first ghost’s manuscript which was throughout the movie, and the movie makers called the manuscript a character, began to separate and blow down the London street.

        I think the idea at the end of the movie was less about an ambiguous ending, and more about not being explicit or showing the “accident”

        Hearing the accident happen – was more shocking than actually seeing it.

        Comment by Sonny | August 14, 2010

      • Here is more on the Law in Los Angeles. I have personally dealt with Sheriff Lee Baca and he only listens to what his Sheriff Deputies tell him which is NOT the truth. I guess I am lucky to be alive to able to tell you what happened to me.

        This is what happened to someone else who was dealing with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s department. Her body was found here in the last few days. The Los Angeles times is avoiding the racial graffitti aspects of this girl’s disappearance.

        http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/cms/story/detail/a_bizarre_and_tragic_end/9123/

        Comment by Sonny | August 14, 2010

    • Of course, the fact that we don’t see the ending, or the ‘accident’ happen is more powerful, & we ‘assume’ it was the Ghost, but we’re not ‘sure’.

      At any rate, coming back to real life, the death of this woman was certainly not an ‘accident’ [either] – & sometimes the media can be more helpful than destructive, by preserving ‘evidence’ or digging deeper. They’ve got the ‘resources’.

      The DAs & LA courts, the LAPD or county sheriffs, they all use the media to destroy & condemn someone [innocent] in the highly biased ‘public court of opinion’ long before the accused ever faces any trial.

      As for Sheriff Baca, he’s like [most] any other: a crook with too much power. The LA courts are the pits of ‘legal’ hell – they convict the innocent, no matter who they are, & let the guilty off, if they’re rich & powerful. Polanski would have ZERO chances of a fair trial there today in any form.

      ‘Full disclosure’ features plenty of these cases, & they’re more than shocking. They’ve got enough on Cooley or Baca et al. DAs like Richard I. Fine e.g., who exposed rampant corruption, was imprisoned without due process, of course.

      http://www.fulldisclosure.net/

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 14, 2010 | Reply

      • The other night on the LA radio program “champions of justice”????

        Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley was talking. The host had to clamp him down so that he would not talk about his sought after position for the entire hour.

        LADA Steve Cooley did not mention Polanski by name but said he had to work with a partner – the Department of Justice and it was the DOJ that had to “work through International treaty’s”

        I believe this was Aug 15th 2010. Looks like it will be posted at the attorney host’s website in the next few weeks so I have left Novalis and the Dankprofessor’s Weblog the link.

        http://www.girardikeese.com/News-and-Media/Champions-of-Justice-Radio-Show.shtml

        Comment by Sonny | August 17, 2010

      • I am glad I said below that there may have been American helpers as far as the Polanski release by the Swiss Government

        It seems that the Judge in Polanski’s case Judge Peter Espinoza now wants to become a public defender, a lawyer for poor criminal defendants.

        This Judge did set in motion the testimony which he kept sealed that allowed the Swiss to release Roman Polanski.

        We will never know…

        Comment by Sonny | August 18, 2010

    • Of course Cooley would ‘ab/use’ Polanski in any way possible – directly by name or indirectly. Thanks for posting this, will check into the show until it is broadcast. Funny ting is, there’s a show with judge Fidler, the one who wanted to televise Polanski’s sentencing-to-time many years back, Polanski ‘declined’, Espinoza is on page 10, & even ‘your’ Baca – on page 12. Will have a listen to them later.

      It’s Polanski’s 77th birthday today, I’m sure he’ll celebrate with friends & family.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 17, 2010 | Reply

      • Hi Novalis

        Here is to Novalis, me my appeal lawyer, Crime file, certain directors and politicians whether International or even American, who helped whether intentionally or not to secure Roman Polanski’s freedom.

        Yes Happy Birthday Roman Polanski. I hope it is a lovely day for your 77th birthday with your family and friends. A little Peace at Last, and a little peace for those people that cared…

        Comment by Sonny | August 18, 2010

      • The other night Cooley was Broadcast on LA radio station 870 KRLA I am “assuming” dare I? that the show will be up at that link in a couple of weeks, judging from the dates there for the most recent at #1.

        This is a law show and they use the music of the English group Queen “We are the champions”

        Another coincidence is this – there is one Host on this We are the Champions LAW Show called Stephen Larson, who up until recently was a Central District of California FEDERAL judge.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_G._Larson

        Central District of California Federal Judge Stephen Larson was the judge who convicted County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputy Bailiff Terry January for defrauding a housing place which is Federal called HUD.

        County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputy Terry January who happens to be African American was the “usual” sheriff in the Santa Monica Courthouse for County of Los Angeles Judge Laurence D. Rubin when Judge Laurence D. Rubin was a Judge there in 1998.

        (County of Los Angeles Judge Laurence D. Rubin has since been promoted to the California Court of Appeals on police brutality day Oct 22 2001 by the California Governor Gray Davis)

        County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputy Terry January, who Judge Stephen Larson convicted in another LATER matter, did NOT
        assault and batter me in the Santa Monica Courtroom of Judge Laurence D. Rubin on Oct 6th 1998.

        It was an undocumented White sheriff deputy and others white sheriffs later joined, while County of Los Angeles Judge Laurence D. Rubin was still there, which implicates Judge Laurence D. Rubin.

        Yes Novalis the show with Judge Larry Fidler. I have already listened to this and Judge Fidler originally wanted to be a theater arts major, and wants or is going to receive a law building in Judge Larry Fidler’s name at Loyola law school…

        I have a question. Is it true because Judge Larry Fidler failed in theater arts, that he needed to sentenced famous music producer Phil Spector (i.e. someone who succeeded in the theater arts of music) to jail for the rest of his life for the murder of Lana Clarkson, actress.

        There were two trials and the first one failed and was a hung jury. The Second trial resulted in a conviction and is currently being appealed.

        For More on the trial of Phil Spector with Judge Larry Fidler see

        http://www.crimefilenews.com/search/label/Spector

        And yes you are right Novalis, prior to the Spector trial Judge Fidler who seems to have had stars in his eyes did want to get Polanski to come to Los Angeles so Fidler could get a little fame and gain. But a once bitten twice shy – Polanski refused.

        Here are some more coincidences. Decades ago, I lived with Lana Clarkson’s best friend. I think I had to move out because Lana was moving in. Lana’s best friend was a witness for the prosecution in Judge Larry Fidler’s first Spector trial. Also had an actor friend that worked with and was married to Lana Clarkson in the movie, Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

        Comment by Sonny | August 18, 2010

      • As far as County of Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca he is the County of Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca, so all people in his and the County of Los Angeles jurisdiction are potentially at peril since there is a complete lack of integrity.

        I can attest to the fact that Sheriff Lee Baca does not know what his sheriff deputies are doing or even what he is doing. At the link below he gives an interview on the remains of Mitrice Richardson being found (and Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca apparently held a press conference before the father had been informed that his daughter was dead and had been found).

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/12/mitrice-richardson-body-f_n_680066.html

        What Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca seems to be doing in this video footage is trying to find a way so that Mitrice Richardson, a person who has not paid for a meal can be cited, not arrested, so that the County of Los Angeles can avoid liability for negligence if she dies and it may not have just been negligence because I know ANYTHING is possible!!!!!

        Below is the letter that Sheriff Lee Baca sent me on Feb 5th 1999 after I had made a complaint about White County of Los Angeles Sheriffs Deputies who beat me up on Oct 6th 1998. I went to the Santa Monica Courthouse on Dec 7th 1998, which is documented.

        On Oct 6th 1998 when I was beaten up in Santa Monica Judge Laurence D. Rubin’s Courtroom Sheriff Lee Baca was not yet sworn in as THE sheriff of Los Angeles. Curiously Sheriff Lee Baca became THE sheriff of Los Angeles on the day I made my complaint against the WHITE County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Sheriffs Deputies on Dec 7th 1998,

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Baca

        Here is what Lee Baca wrote to me on Feb 5th 1999

        On December 7. 1998. you filed a complaint regarding the actions of Sheriffs Department persomel who are assigned to Court Services West Bureau, Santa Monica Branch. In your complaint, you alleged that on October 6, 1998. an unidentified Caucasian male bailiff at the Santa Monica Branch kicked your legs from underneath you and forced you to the floor of the courtroom.

        You further alleged that the unidentified bailiff was then joined by two other Caucasian male deputies who struck your body with their fists approximately twenty times before they. took you into custody. I instructed Court Services West Bureau Captain Irene
        McReynolds to investigate your complaint. since the personnel involved are assigned to her command. Captain McR.eynold has completed her investigation and I have reviewed the results.

        Our investigation revealed that on October 6, 1998, you appeared before Judge Rubin in Department R of the Santa Monica Superior Court as the plaintiff…

        After the judge rendered a decision that was not favorable to you, it became necessary for the baiiiff, Deputy Terry January. to stop you after you ignored his verbal instructions to halt your approach to the judge.

        Our investigation also revealed that when Deputy January positioned himself in a manner that created a physical barrier between you and the judge, you tried to push your way past him.

        Your action created the need for Deputy January to physically restrain you. Your refusal to obey Deputy January’s instructions. your physical efforts to circumvent his attempts to stop your advance and your physical resistance of his efforts to restrain you made it necessary for him to use the amount of force reasonably necessary to detain you.

        A TRADITION OF SERVICE

        Although our investigation revealed that you were taken to the ground by Deputy January during his effort to restrain you. there is no evidence to support your allegation that you were struck or punched during this incident. Our investigation revealed no evidence to substantiate your allegation that you sustained injury during this incident.

        Finally, our investigation revealed no evidence to corroborate your allegation that three Caucasian male sheriffs deputies were involved in the effort to detain you.

        It should be noted that both Deputy January and the Santa Monica College police officer who assisted Deputy January are of Afiican-Arnerican descent. ‘

        In essence, our investigation revealed no evidence to substantiate your allegations of misconduct agains the Sheriff’s Department personnel who detained you. In light of these factors, it appears that your complaint does not warrant further action at this time.

        I appreciate your having brought this matter to my attention.

        Ensuring the proper performance of Sheriffs Department personnel is my top priority and I welcome the’opportunity to evaluate their conduct.

        The Sheriff’s Department is concerned about public confidence in its investigation o f public complaints. To that end, the County o f Los Angeles bas appointed an Ombudsman to review complainant dissatisfaction with the outcome ofcomplaint investigations. If you are dissatisfied with the outcome ofthis investigation, you may contact the Ombudsman at 24340 Narbonne Avenue. Lomita, California 90717, (800) 801-0030, within ten business days of the date o f this letter.

        Sincerely,

        LLEROY D. BACA SHERIFF
        *********************************

        The problem is that it WAS NOT Sheriff Deputy Terry January who happens to be African American. And he is a front for what was I believe habitually taking place at that Courthouse when a Plaintiff was up against CORRUPT GOVERNMENT

        See Also:

        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

        Comment by Sonny | August 18, 2010

      • Here’s another link on the Mitrice Richardson Sheriff Lee Baca case with video

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/13/mitrice-richardsons-fathe_n_681561.html

        I would like to say that it is always possible that Mitrice’s father is not telling the truth as far as not being informed of the press conference by the Sheriff’s Department so as to derail Sheriff Lee Baca and make him look worse.

        On the other hand when I apparently spoke to County of Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca over the phone in my case in 1998, and he said he was going to investigate Police corruption at Santa Monica College which is not even Sheriff Lee Baca’s jurisdiction,

        through Sheriff Lee Baca saying he would investigate Santa Monica College Police corruption, it does deflect from his having to investigate his own Santa Monica County of Los Angeles sheriff deputies corruption whether the white sheriffs deputies who assaulted and battered me in the Santa Monica Courthouse or African American Sheriff Deputy Terry January who lied, perjured himself and was a front for the corruption, which worked in concert with the County of Los Angeles Judge Laurence D. Rubin’s corruption.

        Comment by Sonny | August 18, 2010

    • The entire Spector case was one big human rights violation charade, in effect worse than the Polanski case, no wonder Polanski declined Fidler. Clarkson reminds me of Charlotte Lewis – a sad, drug-addled ex-prostitute, ex-porn starlet has-been who slept herself through every bed available, till she topped herself in a haze of drugs & Spector had to pay for it. The linked articles on the case by that ex-cop Huebl are spot on, he also has 7 spot-on articles on the Polanski case.

      Intriguing how you also knew Clarkson’s friend, Sonny – another connection to the Polanski case through Fidler, who is just another Rittenband times infinite who should be barred, if not even imprisoned for judicial misconducts on a grand scale. As for Espinoza, maybe he’s fed up with the pathetic LA court circus to step down from his judge’s chair. Gunson’s testimony was taken by a woman judge, btw., not Espinoza, he was the one who sealed it as soon as the Swiss demanded it, so the DOJ had to say no. (Maybe he did them all a favour by declining Gunson’s exculpatory testimony saying Polanski had done his time, knowing without it the Swiss would released Polanski since everyone knew what it contained already.)

      Cooley & Walgren would have done the same as the prosecution & Fidler did in Spector’s case, admit all sorts of damning lies from less than credible exes under the revised California’s ‘evidence code 1101B’ that could allow the introduction of so-called prior ‘bad acts’ committed by the defendant (if true or not). That’s why Cooley brought in ‘big hat’ Vogelhut, in hope to have her lies taken as ‘behavioural pattern evidence’ against him, since Lewis’ lies had failed. It’s criminal to say the least.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 21, 2010 | Reply

      • Novalis said, “The entire Spector case was one big human rights violation charade, in effect worse than the Polanski case, no wonder Polanski declined Fidler.”

        Actually Polanski declined County of Los Angeles Judge Larry Fidler offer to come to Los Angeles to be televised, long before Lana Clarkson lost her life on Feb 3 2003 either due to accidental suicide by her sticking a gun in her mouth or through a terrible accident.

        I believe the scientific evidence points to accidental suicide, and hence the hung jury in the first trial, and in criminal law in Los Angeles it is supposed to be – if it is not beyond a reasonable doubt then Phil Spector should never have been convicted for second degree murder of Lana Clarkson.

        The conviction against Phil Spector in the second trial was obtained

        1) through the circus of ex girlfriends who had axes to grind, and even if Phil Spector pointed a gun at every single one of them this still does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Phil Spector shot Lana Clarkson. Lana was 6feet something high and Phil Spector 5ft 5in or less and in his 60’s.

        2) through an illegal worker a Brazilian named Adriano Desouza who had no American residency and who was not supposed to be chauffeuring in America said he heard that Phil Spector say “I think I just killed someone” Note due to the illegal worker being a witness for the Los Angeles prosecution he received a US RESIDENCY. In other words he was paid for his witness services (whether true or not) to Los Angeles County.

        3) Lana Clarkson on drugs I guess and drink at a Christmas party a year before she met Phil Spector or ever knew Phil Spector, broke both her wrists. Although not conclusive (just as the stream of ex girlfriends testimony was NOT CONCLUSIVE) it does show that Lana Clarkson had a propensity for SELF INFLICTED ACCIDENTS in homes of others SELF INFLICTED INJURY A YEAR BEFORE SHE MET PHIL SPECTOR which may mean that she inflicted her own fatal bullet on Feb 3rd 2003

        Comment by Sonny | August 22, 2010

    • As for Baca, can’t say much in his defence or otherwise, except I wouldn’t trust any cop or lawmaker in LA. Maybe you should count yourself lucky Baca didn’t handle your case – until later. I’m [almost] sure one of the officers killed her – or even Baca. Unless she was attacked & killed by someone else while she tried to get home – either way, we’ll never know the truth. It’s a sordid tale US/LA style.

      As for Fidler – he SHOULD have gone into arts, rather than mess with real people in real life. ‘Director’ would suit him. It would be a BIG surprise to come across any judge, DA, or cop who’s NOT corrupt in LA. That excludes people like the Daltons, Gunson or Hummel & Co of course.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 21, 2010 | Reply

    • I know Fidler offered the deal to Polanski before the Spector case, in 1997 (just when Geimer came out first in support of Polanski) – my saying ‘no wonder he refused his offer’ was purely rhetorical.

      I realise the Spector case/trial/s was one big joke – & what you cite is very spot-on. It’s a typical case one can twist & turn against the accused,& if the defendant has no proper defence, he had ZERO chances of a fair trial let alone outcome.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 23, 2010 | Reply

      • I watched much of first trial since it was televised from Judge Larry Fidler’s County of Los Angeles court in Downtown Los Angeles.

        On the first trial Phil Spector had a proper defence, since he had five lawyers, expert witnesses Michael Baden who wrote the book on forensics that the LA Coroner follows

        See credentials at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baden

        plus his wife Linda Baden was one lawyer for Phil Spector, she did the closing arguments.

        Another attorney was Bruce Cutler from New York who had to leave early.

        See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Cutler

        See how Judge Larry Fidler smacked Bruce down for getting angry at one of those witnesses who were not witnesses to Lana Clarkson’s death

        at

        In addition in the first trial there was no conviction of Phil Spector, only a hung jury. 10 to 2.

        Of course even if Phil Spector had lost the first trial he did have a proper defence, same for the second trial as well which he did lose.

        But when you are up against theater arts major Judge Larry Fidler who wants a building in Larry Fidler’s name and when the California law and legislators let a circus of ex girlfriends in who each say that Phil pointed a gun at them (but did not shoot or kill them) that is not justice – only a circus.

        The Los Angeles Prosecutors can have a hundred ex-girl friends say that Phil pointed a gun at them but that does not PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that Phil Spector shot and killed Lana Clarkson.

        The Los Angeles Prosecutors can have an ILLEGAL chauffeur from Brazil say that he heard Phil Spector say that he thinks he shot someone but that does not mean ABSOLUTELY that Phil said it, especially when Adriano De Souza has the potential to be a biased witness, since LA County helped to give that chauffeur a US residency for saying that and being a witness for the LA prosecution.

        http://new.music.yahoo.com/alan-jackson/news/spector-chauffeur-stands-by-story-steps-down–43864647

        There was no proper defence because there are no defences for the person they say is a “criminal” embedded in the “law” that is what Polanski was facing, and what I faced as a Plaintiff with white sheriffs embedded as the “law” of the Santa Monica Courtroom.

        It is a Kangaroo Court. Total BS.

        It was a hung jury on the first trial for Phil Spector but the same Los Angeles prosecutors did not give up and there was a second trial. By that time Phil Spector was running out of money only had one lawyer and had Judge Larry Fidler on his case, and a stream of ex girl friends who said he pointed a gun at them. But that does not mean beyond a reasonable doubt that Phil Spector .

        Comment by Sonny | August 23, 2010

      • Please ignore last para of last post, seems to have not been erased when I thought it had been.

        Comment by Sonny | August 23, 2010

      • In a nutshell, there was no proper defence because there are no defences for the person accused who they say is a “criminal” embedded in the “law” and the Court only seems to strike any proper defences down,

        that is what Roman Polanski was facing as well, with no end in sight

        That is also what I faced as a victim of Police corruption, nobody was on my side in that Santa Monica Courtroom

        with white County of Los Angeles sheriffs deputies embedded as the “law” of the Courtroom with the Santa Monica Judge’s blessing, to help out Santa Monica College and their police officer Ron Marable, and so the Judge and his superior could secure promotion to the California Court of Appeals. What a racket.
        Total BS.

        Comment by Sonny | August 23, 2010

    • Fidler is nothing more than a Nazi in a black robe – rather than black shirt – a typical example of how judges operate in LA, especially when it comes to ‘celebrities’. Polanski & his team had been silenced just the same, though Fidler had signalled all he would have wanted was to sentence him to time serves already back in 1997. I highly doubt that, he’d found twists & turns to send him down regrades – if only on a short probation at no appeal chances, & another ‘self-deportation’ prospect.

      Such judges or DAs work on [the] unholy ‘Evidence Code 1101 b’ that could allow the introduction of (real or false) prior and subsequent events to the case in hand, to ‘prove’, ‘circumstantially’, that the defendant committed the charged offence pursuant to the same ‘design’ or ‘plan’ he used in committing the uncharged acts. Though the defence have a chance for exculpatory rebuttal evidence, the judge then simply needs to disallow it, & pow goes your chance of fairness.

      As you say, even fabricated or hearsay ‘evidence’ can be used, to paint the ‘right picture’ for the already biased jurors – i.e., that the defendant is ‘possibly capable’ of committing ‘this’ crime – though he might/is not – as long as some people ‘think’ so. That’s why Cutler pointed to the often ab/used ‘opinion’ trap to influence jurors. These judges & DAs work the [defence] witnesses with intimidation & then some, to back down, fall apart, you name it.

      It doesn’t matter if you’re a real victim or an innocent accused, neither have a fair chance of ‘justice’. You & Polanski etc., are the best examples – & if the defendant runs out of funds, has no proper defence chances at any rate. That’s why so many have to plead to one count they might not even be guilty of, though in many cases it’s the lower of the charges, but often it’s the higher they do not deserve & end up inside regardless.

      Rittenband was bad enough, but Fidler & his lot are really bad. Cooley & Co have abused this [unconstitutional] Code since he’s in power, & have done real damage to countless people. These lawmakers & breaker only want & need conviction rates to get promoted – on the backs of often innocent people – & has absolutely nothing to do with any real justice. And even if you’re lucky enough to secure an appeal hearing, the chances that you get the same judge that had condemned you years earlier, is very high – & your prospect of final justice look even more remote.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 24, 2010 | Reply

      • I am aware of what Fidler had ‘offered’ Polankis, & that it went bust over his televising demand – only to say that was never a condition, yeah right. Dalton & Gunson don’t lie. I touched on that ‘deal’ in my blogs too, but at the beginning hardly named names. Except in my return comments.

        In effect, Fidler & Espinoza offered him the same ‘deal’ – but since Polanski doesn’t trust any of them, won’t even chance it, let alone have it televised. One could almost say Fidler demanded to televise it, knowing Polanski would refuse on that ground, & then denounce he ever had, so he can to call Polanski & Co liars.

        I’m a ware of the Torture Memos – & lo & behold, Bybee is the subject of a war crimes investigation in Spain since last year, as well as the subject of an investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility.

        Sounds just like the average LA judge to me.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | August 26, 2010

      • Jay S. Bybee is not entirely the average Los Angeles Judge since currently as a Federal Appeal Court Judge, Jay S. Bybee has even more power since he can write decisions against civil rights in Los Angeles and California, which becomes precedent, and new law.

        If you look at Jay S. Bybee’s history before he was a Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeal Judge his stance is completely consistent in what he wrote as a legal adviser in the Department of Justice for the Bush Administration on March 13th 2002.

        Even before that Jay S. Bybee was favoring States rights…

        http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-65278814/tenth-amendment-among-shadows.html

        Since Jay S. Bybee’s promotion to the 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court his 2006 authored Federal decision stops civil rights cases in California by canceling a federal statute’s POWER to attract civil rights attorneys to civil rights cases through stopping attorneys fees if the case prevails or settles, which is what Congress Intended and wanted the statute to do. In addition this new law helps the County of Los Angeles to not have to pay any attorneys fees anyway since there will be no civil rights cases to have to pay for.

        The reality is that the Feds and Washington do not want people to be treated fairly or pay people when their employees sexually molest, or Santa Monica College police cover up sexual assault complaints, otherwise what happened to me would not have happened with White County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputies kicking and punching me in a Santa Monica Courtroom because I reported the Santa Monica College police and County of Los Angeles Judicial corruption which continued on for 12 years in the Federal Courts like a Torture Memo nightmare.

        Jay S. Bybee is more dangerous than the average Los Angeles Judge because he is allowed to re-write law that Congress has passed. [This is what Jay S. Bybee did for the Bush Administration by ignoring Congresses prior legislation.

        By ignoring Congresses prior legislation in regards to a Statute that is how Jay S. Bybee and other Judges at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals were able to change course after two precedent decisions in my favor and throw my Federal case out after 11 years on 9th April 2010.

        My case was good law in 1999, but by 2006 Jay S. Bybee was a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Federal Judge who wrote a Federal decision [not a California State decision] which changed civil rights law ONLY for California. S

        Like Polanski’s bait and switch, don’t trust America’s bait and switch justice whether at State or Federal level it is all the same and it gets worse.

        IT IS A TORTURE PACKAGE WITH A FEW GOOD DECISIONS THROWN IN FOR GOOD MEASURE TO KEEP YOU IN THE GAME.

        In addition before Jay S Bybee was promoted by President Bush to be a Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeal judge, he was the chief of the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel during Bush’s administration

        See

        http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19sun1.html

        See http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=jay_s._bybee.

        In particular March 13, 2002: Justice Department: Bush Can Order Rendition of Detainees without Congressional Approval

        Jay Bybee, the chief of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), issues a classified memo to William Howard Taft IV, the chief counsel of the State Department, titled

        “The President’s Power as Commander in Chief to Transfer Captive Terrorists to the Control and Custody of Foreign Nations.”

        The memo, actually written by Bybee’s deputy John Yoo, says Congress has no authority to block the president’s power to unilaterally transfer detainees in US custody to other countries.

        In essence, the memo grants President Bush the power to “rendition” terror suspects to countries without regard to the law or to Congressional legislation, as long as there is no explicit agreement between the US and the other nations to torture the detainees. [Citations omitted]

        The memo directly contradicts the 1988 Convention Against Torture (see October 21, 1994), which specifically forbids the transfer of prisoners in the custody of a signatory country to a nation which practices torture. Once the treaty was ratified by Congress in 1994, it became binding law.

        But Yoo and Bybee argue that the president has the authority as commander in chief to ignore treaties and laws that supposedly interfere with his power to conduct wartime activities.

        In 2009, when the memos are made public Jennifer Daskal of Human Rights Watch says she is shocked at the memo: “That is [the Office of Legal Counsel] telling people how to get away with sending someone to a nation to be tortured. The idea that the legal counsel’s office would be essentially telling the president how to violate the law is completely contrary to the purpose and the role of what a legal adviser is supposed to do.” [WASHINGTON POST, 3/3/2009]

        Entity Tags: John C. Yoo, Jay S. Bybee, Office of Legal Counsel, US Department of Justice

        Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties

        Comment by Sonny | August 26, 2010

    • The Memos are clearly a Human Rights violation on a grand scale, which grossly overreads the president’s constitutional power, & many officials & medics opined that they are dangerous. Bybee should have been impeached before his ‘Spain’ troubles’ over it. Like Bush or Cheney. They all got away with torture & mass murder – literally – but want little people like Polanski dragged into jail for sex. Bybee only wrote them to get a life-time job as judge, clearly to justify torture of suspects in the climate of 9/11 – even if they’re innocent. The best is, Obama declared shortly before taking office: “Under my administration the United States does not torture.” Yeah right.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 27, 2010 | Reply

      • It is an interesting parallel that Jay S. Bybee would be arrested in Spain for war crimes,

        Since a character in Roman Polanski’s latest movie “The Ghost” (which had not been completed when Roman Polanski was arrested on Sept 26 2009) also contains a “fictitious” character Adam Lange wanted for war crimes in Europe,

        plus the movie “The Ghost”(written by Robert Harris and directed by Roman Polanski) also coincidentally contains a dangerous character involved with the CIA who teaches at Harvard University.

        This seems to parallel Jay S. Bybee in his capacity at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel advised the CIA and the Bush Administration, and has taught law not at Harvard but has a connection to Harvard University through his Constitution in the shadows published at Harvard (full title and reference below).

        The Tenth Amendment Among the Shadows: On Reading the Constitution in Plato’s Cave. 23 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 551 (2000)

        See http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-65278814/tenth-amendment-among-shadows.html

        Comment by Sonny | August 27, 2010

    • Now THAT is interesting, the ‘shadow’ article sounds more like poetry, given that he later wrote the nasty Torture Memos. Even though it has a lot of ‘words’, they make absolutely NOTHING ‘clear’ – i.e., explains anything. But such is ‘politics’ & ‘law’ – which can be mis/interpreted at will. Just like The Ghost (Writer).

      Who knows if Harris or Polanski thought of Bybee – or why Harris chose ‘Harvard’ when writing the story/script – but for conspiracy fans the film contains quite a lot of things they can equate with Polanski, or others (like Blair), or their lives at any rate. If true or not is another question.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 27, 2010 | Reply

      • I agree. Just as in law, in a work of art, a movie, it can be interpreted in different ways, and occurrences mimicking fact and/or fiction , blurring any distinction, may be coincidental and may be TRUE or NOT.

        However what is shown in a movie, like “The Ghost” might also tie in with universal truth and show that once something corrupt is set in motion, it must play and will play out in a certain corrupt way. Once someone blows the whistle there will be dire consequences if some of those involved have no HEART.

        I think conspiracy theory fans are often maligned, since while nothing is proven their beliefs and credibility can be easily be put down. A case of crying wolf when there is no visible sign of the wolf. Does that always mean they are “crazy”?

        All conspiracy fans are doing is questioning and possibly not believing the “Official” version of events, when the “Official” version may often be to cover up corruption, and therefore IS IN FACT NOT TRUE.

        Here is a link from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. If what these scientists who are obviously conspiracy fans are saying is true – then these conspiracy fans who are also scientists have outlined THE conspiracy theory of our time.

        http://www2.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/2hour/slideshow.php?i=1&hires=1

        In my case I faced a gang and hence a conspiracy which included the County of Los Angeles Judge Laurence D. Rubin (Caucasian), County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputy Terry January (African American), County of Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca (Caucasian) who joined the conspiracy by not investigating, and by accepting what his corrupt sheriffs deputies told him, Sheriff Deputy Sherman Moten (African American) was another who refused to take my complaint against the White County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Deputies down, Santa Monica College Officials and their police officer Ron Marable (African American) were others and I guess the teacher R. L Jones (Caucasian) who sexually molested me in a class who denied his wrongdoing.

        Here are the elements to the crime of conspiracy

        The elements of a criminal conspiracy are: 1) an agreement between two or more persons, 2) with the specific intent to agree to commit a public offense, 3) with the further specific intent to commit that offense, and 4) an overt act committed by one or more of the parties for the purpose of accomplishing the object of the agreement or conspiracy.

        For a thorough discussion on conspiracy (California) see: http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue4/documents/8conspiracy.pdf

        I don’t know if Roman Polanski or writer Robert Harris knew of my Santa Monica Courthouse case of Judicial corruption that included police brutality in the courtroom, arising from police cover up of a sexual assault complaint but if either did, then they would have known of the double standard, and possibly of Jay S. Bybee whose rise to Judge-dom were publicized.

        In “The Ghost” there is another interesting coincidence because the first ghost dies on 11th or 12th January and Judge Jay S. Bybee written decision that serves to civil rights cases in California on the same day 11th Jan 2006 which would be 12th January in Europe, given the time change.

        Another touching coincidence is that all the F words have been taken out of The Ghost in the US version apart from one where the British Official Adam Lange is allowed to swear at the International Criminal Court in the Hague who wanted to try him for war crimes.

        One other eery coincidence is that the last frames of the movie “The Ghost” has a strong similarity to a street in New York on 11th Sept 2001

        See:

        http://www2.ae911truth.org//ppt_web/2hour/slideshow.php?i=424&hires=1

        Of course in the movie, it is a London street and there is no dust – JUST THE PAPER

        Comment by Sonny | August 28, 2010

      • Hi Novalis Clarifying the Jan 11th/12th fact and fiction parallel.

        In the movie “The Ghost” there is an interesting coincidence because the first ghost writer is found washed up and dead on the beach on January 11th or 12th, due to murder, after visiting the CIA operative and Harvard Professor Paul Emmett.

        In life and in fact Jay S. Bybee, (a law Professor, with associations to the CIA and two Presidents named Bush) wrote a decision on Jan 11th 2006 which serves to kill civil rights cases in California and which ultimately killed my case this year. Also Jay S Bybee’s written and published decision of Jan 11th Jan 2006 translates to 12th January in Europe, given the time change.

        “The Ghost” was filmed after Judge Jay S. Bybee’s 11th Jan 2006 9th Circuit Judicial decision. I don’t know if Jan 11th was mentioned in the book but the book was also published after Bybee killed civil rights in California, which favors the County of Los Angeles among others.

        There may not have been any intentional parallel in “The Ghost” to someone like Torture Memos ratifier and Presidential legal advisor Jay S. Bybee in real life? It was probably accidental, coincidental – and simply a case of art copying life.

        Whatever the truth is, the parallel is there and I am sure that “The Ghost” and its content was not welcomed and may have been another reason for Roman Polanski’s arrest and extradition request by US.

        Another coincidence is that Roman Polanski has been a victim of war crimes himself, and is an amazing example of his survivor spirit in not letting anything get him down for too long.

        By Berlin giving Roman Polanski best director award this year, this war crimes “thing” which any nation is capable of at any given time in varying degrees – has come full circle.

        Comment by Sonny | August 28, 2010

      • Hi Novalis. Yes the 11th and 12th January dates are in Robert Harris’s novel “The Ghost”

        So it was Robert Harris’s idea, not Roman Polansk’s for Jan 11, as Robert Harris wrote that the first Ghost Mike McCara was found dead in the sea on the 11th or 12th of January after McCara met Harvard Professor and “ex’ CIA operative Paul Emmet.

        So the 11th January date from the fiction “The Ghost” is purely coincidental since it is doubtful that Robert Harris would have known of the “Judge” Jay S. Bybee 9th Circuit Federal court decision of Pony v. County of Los Angeles made on January 11th 2006, that was used to kill my Federal civil rights case, and other civil rights cases in California, in concert with the already existing County of Los Angeles policy to not pay civil rights attorneys their hard earned Federal statutory fees. See;

        http://openjurist.org/433/f3d/1138/pony-v-county-of-los-angeles

        Yet even though a ghost dying on January 11th is a purely coincidental – the date parallels 9th Circuit Federal Judge Jay S. Bybee’s Jan 11th 2006 decision with civil rights dying in California. See

        http://openjurist.org/433/f3d/1138/pony-v-county-of-los-angeles

        In addition Judge Jay S. Bybee’s January 11th decision helped to cover up the Santa Monica Courthouse Judicial corruption that transpired in my case by killing my case, which if it had remained viable would have bolstered Roman Polanski’s claim of Judicial corruption in the same Santa Monica Courthouse and illuminated the Double Standard at work at the Santa Monica Courthouse which favors local government and government employees corruption.

        In this sense – the fact that the first Ghost in the fiction “The Ghost’ died on Jan 11th (or Jan 12th) holds a REAL PARALLEL to my Federal case which effectively died on January 11th in California in the year 2006 but not revealed as dead by the 9th Circuit Federal Court until 9th April 2010

        but Robert Harris may have used Jay. S. Bybee to build the fictional character Professor Paul Emmet

        since Jay S. Bybee was legal counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice in 2002

        and Jay S. Bybee authorized and ratified the Torture Memos for the Bush Administration, which allowed the CIA to torture people.

        Jay S. Bybee also worked for two presidents Bush and thus had familiarity with the CIA.

        Robert Harris, the author, was probably incensed about the legalization of Torture in Britain, and the British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s participation in it.

        My previous thought was “I don’t know if Roman Polanski or writer Robert Harris knew of my Santa Monica Courthouse case of Judicial corruption that included police brutality in the courtroom, arising from police cover up of a sexual assault complaint but if either did, then they would have known of the double standard, and possibly of Jay S. Bybee whose rise to Judge-dom were publicized.

        In “The Ghost” there is another interesting coincidence because the first ghost dies on 11th or 12th January and Judge Jay S. Bybee written decision that serves to civil rights cases in California on the same day 11th Jan 2006 which would be 12th January in Europe, given the time change.”

        Comment by Sonny | September 5, 2010

    • Of course, The Ghost is a reflection of reality – whose is another question. If Harris wrote the book on his own research, or in a slightly altered version when he wrote the script with Polanski to make it to film, he had it down to a t, bringing in all sorts of ‘fictional facts’ that are in fact, fact – maybe not in that sense or for that person portrayed, but are ‘real’ in themselves. Which can include other factors from other sources, like the 11th January ‘coincidence’.

      And yes, I have the US [normal DVD] ‘version’ as the first released, where no f word was left, & will get the UK Blu-ray version later to compare them. (Though they leave the f words in & them some when it comes to their own US home-grown ‘Hollywood’ stuff.) And you’re right, the end with the script pages flying all over the London street is strongly reminiscent of not only 9/11 visions, but many ‘parades’ US style after the Forces retuned from a war & the masses celebrated them in the streets.

      Of course, many cited the film to have been the ‘real’ reason for Polanski’s re/arrest, to foil his finishing it in the first place, forgetting his mettle, willpower & stamina to do so in prison & see his work finished against all odds, since it doesn’t show the US [or UK politicians for that matter] in a very good light. But that failed obviously, or to get him back onto US soil for, or using, some old ‘sex crime’. Few realise/d it had to do with the US IRS/UBS scandal – & when a deal was struck & the banks still had to release the names of the tax evaders & no one wanted him in ‘exchange’ as an ‘appeasement’, Polanski by then had been under house arrest for months & all hinged on the extradition [process] – which also failed for the LA courts’ lies & smear sordid campaign (i.e., liar Lewis).

      Of course, other countries would always welcome anything anti-US, & by awarding the [political] film with a best director gesture, was also a direct snub directed at the US, or the UK if you will, who in contrast couldn’t care less, since it’s true what Harris wrote.

      As for the 9/11 atrocities, I watched it live unfold on TV – & the first thing that struck me when the first tower collapse was exactly that – that it looked too much like a controlled demolition. I saw a couple in my life close-up, on film of course, massive house fires & building collapses, have enough ‘tech know-how’ otherwise & THAT was certainly not the result of these planes slamming into the towers.

      The links explain it perfectly – [&] it was an insider [governmental/military] job, since Al Quaida have no such [‘homeland security’] infiltration powers to plant/do all that, or in fact ‘skills’. But the [‘paid’] ‘specialists’ should just have said, yeah, it was all a very professional [demolition not only plane] attack, & then point the finger at the [chosen] ‘enemy’ even more, rather than exclude that blatantly obvious [controlled demolition] possibility in order to deflect from the truth. They played dumb enough already not to have intercepted the planes in time, so why not say, oops, looks like we slipped in our homeland security responsibilities [not only airspace safety] massively that they could infiltrate us so badly beyond a few plane hijacks. You only need to look at the fact that tower 7 housed all sorts of governmental headquarters with ‘secrets’ to hide, what better way to get rid of it than by blowing it up after the others.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 31, 2010 | Reply

      • Hi Novalis. Thanks for your insight. It seems to be an enduring truth that if the lie is big enough “they” will believe it.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

        I think ONLY one f… word is left in the US version of “The Ghost”.

        British Prime Minister Adam Lang says it in referring to the “War Crime” Court in Europe. Because one F… word is permitted to describe the “War Crime” court in Europe when the rest of the F… words are erased there seems to be political motives in censoring the Ghost, which was only completed with the Swiss Authorities help.

        Comment by Sonny | August 31, 2010

      • Hi Novalis

        The Aug 2010 Steve Cooley Champions of … is on line now. http://www.girardikeese.com/News-and-Media/Champions-of-Justice-Radio-Show.shtml

        Comment by Sonny | September 5, 2010

    • The ‘Big Lie’ is always handy – & the US government today applies it with impunity after Hitler in the same way he had – ‘never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.’

      As for that one f word, I watched the film again on US DVD, after I saw it in the cinema, & yeah, I can remember the Ghost, Lang & Ruth all swore quite a few times. In that US ‘edition’ it’s all been dubbed over & you can see their lips not quite in synch with the actual words, with some simply hushed out. Sure, just so to paint it more ‘civilised’ for the US market, but let the Ghost say that the European ‘war crimes’ [tribunal] can f*** themselves – definitely a ‘political decision’ to ‘censor’ his film that way with a nod to Europe who can you know what. I’ll get me the UK [Blu-ray] version next week.

      And indeed, had Polanski not been able to literally finish it on remand by the grace of more understanding Swiss prison staff who treated him with due respect, or while under house arrest later in his own home where he gave that feature interview, others no doubt had done it for him. He’d never let anything or anyone f*** up his films, where others had crumbled or dissolved in self-pity. Not Polanski. Ever.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 31, 2010 | Reply

      • I listened to Cooley’s radio show – he, or the others, didn’t touch on the Polanski case directly, but it’s obvious who they meant. At any rate, to call Cooley a ‘champion of justice’ is a bloody joke. It should say, champion of injustice – with his sort of sordid smear campaigns. I.e., Lewis/Allred & big hat Vogelhut. Looks like he gave up on more fabrications for now.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | September 5, 2010

      • Yes Novalis.

        Los Angeles D.A. Steve Cooley had to tone it down on Champions of Injustice on 14th Aug 2010 in comparison to what Cooley said last year on the KRLA Kevin James show just after Polanski was arrested in Switzerland, since the Los Angeles DA Steve Cooley failed miserably, mumbling something to the effect that California State District Attorney Cooley had to partner up with the Department of Justice when it comes to extradition of ….(Roman Polanski) – since extradition is a Federal matter.

        So Steve Cooley’s (1) twisted justice whims for Roman Polanski COULD NOT EXTEND PAST OR SKIRT THE ISSUE OF the terms of the US treaties with Switzerland, or vice versa.

        ( (1) to put another notch on Steve Cooley career belt and bid for the attorney general (which unfortunately Cooley is probably going to win since most people are not aware of the extent of the corruption, and since there is no strong opposition)

        Comment by Sonny | September 5, 2010

    • Ditto to all you said, Sonny. Oh what a shame Cooley had to bow to a little country like Switzerland, na na na na na! We’ll see if he’s gonna win AG, & if so, California is f***ed, since THEN he has the power to impose any max sentences on people, AND can have a nudge nudge with the DOJ more ‘directly’, i.e., the DOJ’s AG, the one who refused to send Gunson’s testimony out to Widmer-Schlumpf ON Cooley/Espinoza’s refusal to unseal it in the first place. But I’m sure DOJ AG Holder is more than delighted [he &] the Swiss could foil Cooley’s shenanigans re Polanski at least for now.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 6, 2010 | Reply

      • Interestingly enough the audio from Champions… on 14th Aug 2010 has 1022 in it which stands for police brutality day – 22nd Oct in US.

        Also the ex Federal Judge Stephen Larson on the Champions of Justice show convicted the County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Courthouse Sheriff Deputy Terry January who happens to be African American in a different matter, who was a false witness against me my case for the County of Los angeles and California Justice Laurence D. Rubin who was a Santa Monica Judge when I got beaten up in his courtroom by white County of Los Angeles Sheriff deputies.

        Link to that Champions of Justice is below..

        [audio src="http://www.girardikeese.com/Audio/champ-0814-1022.mp3" /]

        It is interesting to contrast this year’s broadcast with Steve Cooley’s glee last year when Polanski was arrested. Steve Cooley was a police officer before he was a lawyer.

        [audio src="http://ht.salemweb.net/townhall/audio/mp3/7d95189a-d2d0-41a8-8a3b-b694fb06a0e2.mp3" /]

        Comment by Sonny | September 6, 2010

    • Cooley is such a liar – NONE of the five dropped counts were or are still on the table or in any form sentenceable, unless the plea is withdrawn to bring them to trial, END OF. The fact that they had not shows they were not ‘prosecutable’ enough for a trial, i.e., had no proof of her claims or rather enough evidence against her claims to cut it short. The way he presents it is as if they were sort of ‘neglected’ to be properly processed, for Polanski to plead to any of them, since, [forgetting to mention that] had he been guilty of any of them THEY HAD HIM PLEAD TO THE HIGHEST (drugged rape) COUNT! Or they’d had a trial, no matter she didn’t want to testify to a [Petit] Jury, since the prosecution or rather ‘state’ can do whatever they like for or even against the accuser’s wishes. The plea deal was forced by the mother to get out of the mess her daughter, she, Vannatter, Wells & Rittenband had created over months by then. AND of course Gunson’s two superior’s (now also judges) not allowing him to get rid of the prejudiced judge in the first place.

      Of course, the masses have no better understanding of the wider details let alone the law in general & just buy what Cooley said, or what they read in her testimony while ignoring Polanski’s & the other witness statements & exculpatory evidence etc., in no idea how a plead deal works in the first place. Or, that a Grand Jury testimony has ZERO veracity as long as it wasn’t proven in a trial – it never was for NO evidence to support her, not to ‘spare’ her. Yeah, from committing officially perjury – like her mother would have. But by that, Wells’s smear campaign, Vannatter’s witness intimidations & of course Rittenband’s press antics were never punished & they all got away with it to this day.

      Cooley was a lowly gumshoe cop when Polanski was arrested back in 1977 – just like Vannatter was when the Tate case broke in 1969 – who both finally got their [personal] stabs at Polanski decades later in higher power they sure as hell abused wherever possible.

      Anyway – back to the coincidences of dates, which might be just that or deliberately woven into The Ghost Writer story, or of course have real-life connections as seen in your case. Of course, when the Ghost said McCara died on 11th or 12th of January, & that this could be stretched across the timelines, i.e., international date/time zones is very clever – & smart that you spotted that. I hadn’t & I live in the UK where I have to think constantly who’s back in time & who’s ahead of me on my friends list. Of course, we’re not quite that learned in the UK in what ‘day’ LA might ‘promote’, like ‘brutality day’ – or what judge did what or when to whom, unless one studies the case – & even that might not be the full story as seen so often.

      Of course, Cooley’s ‘glee’ was just another big-headed show of, ‘look pal/s, we’re the mighty US & you little Euro folks have to bow to our [extradition] laws’ – NOT. Dang. The next thing after Vogelhut’s BDSM BS ploy could well be that they, i.e., Cooley & Co (name-caller Walgren), send out the CIA to kidnap Polanski for real as they’ve done often enough. Now THAT would be ‘international diplomacy gone wrong [day]’!

      I love The Ghost Writer (& its ‘message/s’), & it only got positive reviews from day one – deservedly so. The couple of deliberate [US] slights are just that & utterly ignorable hatred tripe. The fact that so much was done in CGI or on sets that as always look so realists & meticulous, is utterly amazing – as is Polanski’s invisible perfection & magic touch to create such fantasies come true on screen.

      And of course, Harris had the better insight at any rate, being a journalist & [ex-]friend of Blair’s, who’s promoting his own memoirs right now – & maybe someone will take him out too with a bullet to his head. Now THAT would be really creepy in re to ‘The Ghost’ & all its little ‘messages’ & ‘parallels’ already. Be it in book or film format.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 7, 2010 | Reply

      • No Novalis I think you have the wrong country. They shoot presidents in America in reality even Reagan!

        and not English prime minister’s in America apart from in a fiction, “The Ghost”

        Comment by Sonny | September 7, 2010

    • True, we’re not quite that militant – outside the now dissolved IRA – but you never know. I’m sure Harris deliberately brought a bit of the ‘American [Wild] West’ into his story to highlight that, no matter the assassin was British – & the non-speaking soldiers German, ha ha.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 7, 2010 | Reply

      • Today I saw a funny sight in a Los angeles McDonalds. It was the ex English Prime MInister on a big screen.

        The color was wrong and he was green in color so he looked like the brother of Schrek.

        I don’t know if it was on purpose but he was talking about his memoirs on something called Bloomberg which also was highlighted in an alien green color.

        Comment by Sonny | September 8, 2010

      • The food was better Novalis than the green man.

        As far as your prior comment I think the Brits are as militant but not quite as lethal as some in the US legal and Justice system. I think lethal and using false justifications may be the distinction for Americans, who want people to do as I say not as I do

        Plus No Love of Integrity, Only a Love of Winning at any cost.

        I listened to Kevin James KRLA 870 last night and he believes that the LAPD should kill of a drunk man who was weilding a knife. Kevin James is reciting the facts as though true. There have been many demonstrations over the unnecessary death of this man at the hands of the LAPD.

        So in reality in US there is a let us take justice into our hands attitude and kick you to the ground in a Santa Monica Court hearing for reporting Santa Monica College Police Cover up of your sexual assault complaint against a Santa Monica College Instructor using undocumented white county of Los Angeles sheriffs State Secrets!!!!, or let the LAPD sentence you to instant death with no court hearing for being drunk with a knife.

        And even if there is a court hearing it is inherently unfair and populated with State Secret White County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputies who are in reality thugs.

        For more on State Secrets being covered up see

        http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/09/08/ninth-circuit-rules-6-5-to-toss-rendition-case-against-boeing/

        http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/08/08-15693.pdf

        Doesn’t this have a rather Ghostly Flavour? Like something out of “The Ghost”

        Comment by Sonny | September 9, 2010

    • Bloomberg is a global provider of financial news – & it’s TV channels to get the latest low-down (or let-down) on your stocks.

      Of course, as I said, Blair is promoting his own memoirs right now, & if he might look green on a [broken] US TV screen, is just too funny. I hope the food was better.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 9, 2010 | Reply

      • I meant ‘militant’ not so much in the political sense, thought he US have raged more ears than the ‘Commonwealth’, I meant that more in the sense of the average populace being armed to their teeth – & then cry murder, rather than control guns & gun crime.

        We had a similar case here, where a man went on a rampage after his girlfriend betrayed him & he tried to kill her, attacked some people & ccps. He shot himself when he felt cornered, when he would most likely had surrendered before they tasered him into submission.

        Ludicrous to sue the airline that allows possible torture victims/suspects to be flown from the States – but then again, why not, if they knew of it, since that may be the only way they can get any kind of compensation in case they were [most likely] tortured. It’s the same as the ‘don’t shoot the messenger’ motto – punish the culprits not [only] those who designed their ‘instruments of torture’, since even a harmless thing a tie can be used to murder someone.

        It’s atrocious to even read what these men endured, & if I could snap my finger & these wo/men who torture/d & kill for fun & political games, (or otherwise for that matter), I would, gone.

        Of course it stinks of The Ghost – it’s an insidious game all in the name of money & power, nothing more, and to claim ‘no feasible way to litigate [Jeppesen’s] alleged liability without creating an unjustifiable risk of divulging state secrets’ is always the best excuse.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | September 9, 2010

      • It is another coincidence that this decision was authored 9/8 in American.

        The year 1998 is the year of the police brutality and judicial corruption against me in the Santa Monica Court courtesy of the County of Los Angeles and their Judge Laurence D. Rubin.

        What is also insidious for me is that Jay S. Bybee who authored and ratified the torture memos for George Bush junior before he became a 9th Circuit Judge courtesy of the same president, had to conveniently recuse himself from the 11 Judge panel.

        http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/08/08-15693.pdf

        And Judge Raymond C. Fisher of the 9th Circuit helped to wipe I mean cover Jay S. Bybee’s butt in this decision so Jay S. Bybee did not have to be present, and of course he helped to cover up the STATE SECRETS.

        Conversely when Judge Raymond C. Fisher authored a decision and ruled in favor of my 1998 police brutality case in two different 9th Circuit Court of Appeals precedent decisions in Feb 2002, & Aug 2003,

        By January 11th 2006 9th Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee was used to cover up Judge Raymond Fisher’s 9th circuit decisions in my favour, and in doing so covered California’s butt so that California State secrets would not be divulged

        The California secrets not divulged or litigated is that California Justice Laurence D. Rubin who permitted undocumented white County of Los Angeles sheriff deputies into his Santa Monica Courtroom for the purpose of harming and intimidating me into silence as I was reporting police corruption – Also another State “Secret” is that County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputy Terry January was used as a front to cover up the “STATE SECRET” of the Judicial abuses taking place in the Santa Monica Courthouse, to which Roman Polanski also fell prey albeit twenty years earlier.

        So much for State Secrets and Judges…at least in America

        Comment by Sonny | September 9, 2010

      • Novalis Sorry about missing link don’t know why adobe flash not working today

        Here is some video on Oberman show on the state secrets and torture decision, no relief for torture victims just like my case, because a torture program in place in US and abroad, and if it is not a state secret defense, it would be a judicial immunity defense or for police they raise some other immunity or if not that immunity they raise the Government code 910 so they can hold a hearing anyway and turn a courtroom into a back alley for assault and mattery.

        http://firedoglake.com/2010/09/10/early-morning-swim-keith-olbermann-and-jon-turley-discuss-9th-circuit-rendition-decision/

        Comment by Sonny | September 17, 2010

    • Of course I meant ‘wars’, not ‘ears’, in my previous September 9, 2010 comment – tisk tisk.

      Anyway, true, & you’re the best example of a ‘non-famous’ person to testify as to the rampant corruption in the LA SMC – like many others we don’t know of, of course, but in your case do within the context of the Polanski case.

      Many are aware of it, since every other case is commented on by more local or directly involved people, & even non-involved parties in reference to the Polanski case. The public ARE aware of it, that’s why it’s so ludicrous for people like Cooley to keep on dishing out lies, since of course the majority would just eat them up without questioning anything, but as long as it doesn’r directly hit them, go, so what, I ain’t got no power to change anything, THAT is what gives him et. al. the power, not the ‘law’, he keeps bending & abusing like the rest of them.

      As I said before, be it Rittenband or Bybee, Fidler or Espinoza, NONE of them are interest in any ‘justice’, let alone any ‘DAs’. But they [unfortunately] have the power.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 11, 2010 | Reply

      • “Overruling a three-judge panel of the same court, the 9th Circuit held 6 to 5 that allowing the suit to proceed, even on the basis of publicly revealed information, would risk the release of state secrets.”

        Sounds pretty much what Cooley tried with the Polanski, case – they sealed Gunson’s testimony everyone knew exactly what it contained, and then say it cannot be unsealed for being merely a ‘secret’ document to be preserved for posterity in case the witness is no longer available for a future hearing. Let’s cite the secrecy act – Code 910 – since the LA courts are so keen to ‘code’ away exculpatory evidence all the time, which IS a murky back alley for assault & battery, be it to attack plaintiffs or defendants.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | September 17, 2010

      • Most people do not have the capacity to “testify” after they have been roughed up, framed and abused by police for Santa Monica College officials or more normally County of Los Angeles Officials.

        In the beginning I was an idealist and believed that once they realized I was telling the truth it would all work out. But that is not how it works here in a corrupt world, where the name of the game is to devalue you and your word, while they continue to cover up their corrupt actions.

        Most victims know they have been wronged but do not have the courage or perseverance or resources to file court cases in Federal Courts

        which now I would NOT advise others to do since it wasted 12 years of my time, and was more torture. and the same would be in store for others since cover up and corruption is the name of the game

        But in my second federal case currently there is a Federal Online Public record of what I have said, (unless the Court wipes it out which they may ultimately- remember building 7 in NY falling and nothing hit it – which ERASED damning records)

        And since the case began in 1998 and Terry January was used by County of Los Angeles as a FRONT but convicted in 2008 in the Federal Court.

        For ordinary people (who are not Federal Court Judges like George King and Federal Magistrate Paul Abrams of the Central District of California Federal Court( they might believe me first before believing County of Los Angeles Terry January above me since he does have a Federal conviction

        When you are dealing with Federal and County of Los Angeles Courts which resemble the Court in ” Alice in Wonderland “- the Federal Court ruled for and believe the Convicted Sheriff Terry January above me – which of course benefitted the County of Los Angeles and their State Secret Justice Laurence D. of the California Appeal Court, who previously was holding assault and battery hearings in his Courtroom at the Santa Monica Courthouse.

        As you said Novalis none of them are interested in Justice and most only seem to be interested in promotions to receive the TITLE justice which is just a facade if they tow the line, and don’t really have any discretion to make their own rulings or be fair.

        Comment by Sonny | September 17, 2010

      • Novalis two paragraphs above should read.

        When you are dealing with Federal and County of Los Angeles Courts which resemble a Court from ” Alice in Wonderland “- the Federal Court ruled for and believe the Convicted County of Los Angeles Sheriff Terry January above me – which of course benefitted the County of Los Angeles and their State Secret Justice Laurence D. Rubin of the California Appeal Court, who prior to his promotion was holding assault and battery hearings using California Government Code 910 as a set up in his Courtroom at the Santa Monica Courthouse with undocumented and secret WHITE county of los angeles sheriffs to do the assaulting and battering.

        This reminds me of the system of torture that was implemented abroad later.
        Extraordinary Rendition, Kidnapping, then torture.

        As you said Novalis none of them are interested in Justice and most only seem to be interested in promotions to receive the TITLE justice which is just a facade if they tow the line, and don’t really have any discretion to make their own rulings or be fair.

        Comment by Sonny | September 17, 2010

      • In response to below. Former Los Angeles prosecutor Roger Gunson had spoken freely about the 1977 and 1978 Santa Monica Courthouse Judicial corruption in the documentary movie, “Polanski: Wanted and Desired” and he agreed that Polanski should have escaped under those circumstances, which was broadcast in dvd form throughout the world and which must have embarrassed Los Angeles County Officials and some Los Angeles County judges,and a few Los Angeles prosecutors.

        It seems that County of Los Angeles Judge Peter Espinoza did the right thing to get the testimony from Prosecutor Roger Gunson who is not well, but the Judge Peter Espinoza may have made the wrong decision to seal it.

        I say may because he may have been bound by the laws of the State, but perhaps he was not. And if he is bound by California’s law then that law is oppressive in an extradition request such as this.

        If the Judge was not really bound by a stifling law of the State, then he was covering up earlier Judicial misconduct to save face for County of Los Angeles and its Judges, and this benefitted the D.A. Steve Cooley until the Swiss Justice got wise and would not move without Roger Gunson’s testimony

        The fact that County of Los Angeles Judge Peter Espinoza permitted at least the deposition of Roger Gunson to be taken and then sealed it, effectively making it secret, gave the Swiss a good excuse to deny extradition since that testimony was now part of the Los Angeles Court case even though sealed.

        Novalis said, “Sounds pretty much what [Los Angeles District Attorney Steve} Cooley tried with the Polanski, case – they sealed Gunson’s testimony everyone knew exactly what it contained, and then say it cannot be unsealed for being merely a ‘secret’ document to be preserved for posterity in case the witness is no longer available for a future hearing. Let’s cite the secrecy act – Code 910 – since the LA courts are so keen to ‘code’ away exculpatory evidence all the time, which IS a murky back alley for assault & battery, be it to attack plaintiffs or defendants.

        Comment by Sonny | September 18, 2010

      • “NONE of them are interest in any ‘justice’, let alone any ‘DAs’. But they [unfortunately] have the power.”

        Former Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson was interested in justice “Bless his cotton socks” Unfortunately he was NOT the District Attorney.

        Nothing is ever perfectly black or white.

        Comment by Sonny | September 18, 2010

    • A judge like Espinoza has a wide range to apply ‘discretion’ & could have left Gunson’s testimony unsealed, instead he chose to seal & block its vital contents. It wasn’t Espinoza who permitted deposition of his testimony, it was Judge Mary Lou Villar, & Espinoza sealed it as soon as Polanski had spoken out against Cooley & the Swiss demanded to see it.

      Cooley no doubt told Espinoza to seal it, so that no one would find out that Polanski had done his time, though indeed, Gunson & Dalton had said just that in the documentary 2 yrs ago, so there was nothing ‘secret’ about it. Even the Swiss knew about it at the end or Widmer-Schlumof wouldn’t have pointed the world to it & released him.

      Though one judge can take someone’s testimony independently of the case, another can just seal it – if it’s not in their ‘interest’, i.e., justice. Same goes for DAs, once might be honest & tries his best, the other can just kill off his good intentions if he has the ‘right’ judge to play along; see heckler DA Wells & egomaniac Rittenband he could ‘persuade’ to sling Polanski inside Chino.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 18, 2010 | Reply

      • Indeed, anyone having been subjected to any kind of torture, be it mentally or physicality won’t stand much of a chance to fight for his/her rights, freedom or innocence, & that’s exactly what the courts hope for, by grinding them slowly into the ground over years, aided by bendable laws & corrupt prosecutors.

        Anyone like Polanski only persevered because he fled & later had the monetary resources to fight the LA courts. But even he is unsuccessful to see final justice done, because he dare showed them off, which is of course ‘the’ sin to do: expose their corruption & more corruption ever since. As long as Cooley is in power, NO justice will befall anyone who ends up in his corrupt court. And, if he really makes it to AG, there’s even less hope, because then he can impose the max sentence possible over any prosecution demands.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | September 18, 2010

      • How did Judge Mary Lou Villar get involved? Was she the Judge before Espinoza?

        Comment by Sonny | September 18, 2010

      • Anyone like Polanski did not only persevere because he fled and later had the monetary resources, Those are what is showing outside.

        But inside Roman Polanski also persevered because he had an intense aversion to injustice, has a strong belief and love of self, which along with his strong will and determination led to his self preservation. So – Truimph of the Will.

        Novalis said, “Anyone like Polanski only persevered because he fled & later had the monetary resources to fight the LA courts. But even he is unsuccessful to see final justice done, because he dare showed them off, which is of course ‘the’ sin to do: expose their corruption & more corruption ever since. As long as Cooley is in power, NO justice will befall anyone who ends up in his corrupt court. And, if he really makes it to AG, there’s even less hope, because then he can impose the max sentence possible over any prosecution demands.

        Comment by Sonny | September 19, 2010

      • Indeed he has persevered inwardly too, true, Sonny. Polanski knows first-hand what injustice is – from childhood onwards – to this day. His lust for life & films enabled him to survive any of it. That’s why some want him destroyed, it’s their jealousy of his achievements, their inability to cope with life, using this case as a means to justify their attacks on him. See ugly traitor Lewis, who blamed her own self-abuse & drug addiction on him – of course only in order to influence the extradition – which failed spectacularly.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | September 19, 2010

    • Judge Villar was not involved in the case in any form before or after – she was merely ‘chosen’ to take Gunson’s testimony as an unbiased/unrelated judge to preserve his vital account. Espinoza took over from Fidler in 2003, and he nearly closed the case on the Appellate’s Court’s rare step of requesting opposition from prosecutors, and was in the process of scheduling oral argument on Polanski’s latest appeal. Then, he was arrested that very day, foiling that crucial move outright, raising more questions about fairness and ‘timing’.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 19, 2010 | Reply

      • To clarify Novalis are you saying that the California appeal Court ( Specifically District 2 Division 7) in 2009 requested opposition from prosecutors to NOT close the case.

        I believe it is strange that the Prosecutors did not submit opposition to Polanski’s lawyers request to close the case and needed a prodding from the California Court. Was the County of Los Angeles District Atorney so sure that the Appeal Court would just say NO we are NOT going to close the Polanski Geimer case?

        Also was Judge Espinoza simultaneously conducting any proceedings in the lower California Criminal trial court when the California Appeal Court’s requested opposition to closing the case from LADA Cooley and Co?

        The California appeal court in asking for the DA’s opposition was in the process of scheduling oral argument in Polanski’s latest appeal in 2009 before he was arrested, OR if the appeal court had already scheduled oral argument, this was foiled by pressure from the DA’s office and the Swiss arresting Polanski on the way to a Swiss film festival that was about to honor him.

        I do remember the LADA submitting papers to the California Appeal Court asking that the appeal be thrown out after Polanski was arrested in Sept 2009.

        I think it must have been County of Los Angeles Judge Peter Espinoza that allowed the testimony of Roger Gunson to be taken in February 26 2010 by a different Judge.

        See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-jw-stickings/roman-polanski-breaks-his_b_562531.html

        (I can remain silent no longer because there has just been a new development of immense significance. On February 26 last, Roger Gunson, the deputy district attorney in charge of the case in 1977, now retired, testified under oath before Judge Mary Lou Villar in the presence of David Walgren, the present deputy district attorney in charge of the case, who was at liberty to contradict and question him, that on September 16, 1977, Judge Rittenband stated to all the parties concerned that my term of imprisonment in Chino constituted the totality of the sentence I would have to serve.)

        Comment by Sonny | September 19, 2010

    • No – they wanted to close the case on the very day that Polanski was arrested. An appellate panel was already deciding, on the exceedingly rare issuance of an aptly named ‘extraordinary writ’, whether to intervene at the trial court level and reverse Espinoza’s earlier denial of Polanski’s motion to dismiss the case due to judicial misconduct.

      In December they again asked Cooley to see to the misconducts since it was suddenly impossible to dismiss it for Polanski’s house/arrest, TO finally dismiss/close it. He came ‘this’ close to have it dismissed with Geimer’s help, but then Cooley ordered his arrest after the Swiss tip-off.

      And as you can see, Polanski himself said it was Judge Villar who took Gunson’s testimony, NOT Espinoza. He would have closed the case, had the Court of Appeal ruled him to do so. Too late.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 19, 2010 | Reply

      • So you are saying Novalis that it was Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley that stopped the California Appeal courts from dismissing the case because the District Attorney Steve Cooley arranged Polanski’s arrest since the court was going to dismiss the case, and the tip off, that most likely was set up!!! since the Swiss Film Festival was apparently honoring Roman Polanski for a lifetime achievement in film.

        So a no brainer of a set up, with Polanski flying in to Switzerland for the award.

        Just as I was set up in Judge Laurence D. Rubin’s Santa Monica Courtroom for police brutality as I was exposing police and Official corruption

        Comment by Sonny | September 19, 2010

      • Many thought it was a set-up the way you describe it – but that doesn’t explain why he didn’t nab him before, since Polanski had returned several times to Gstaad to film scenes for his Ghost at his Chalet & had started post-editing it there already over the last year. That he would attend the festival was in the news, but up to the point where that UBS bank clerk had contacted the Justice Ministry for some other official to call on Cooley if he still wants Polanski – in exchange for the IRS to go easy on the UBS which ultimately collapsed & they had to release the names – Polanski was safe & was not so much instigated by Cooley but this bank clerk. (Unless Cooley had asked that someone to do so in order to foil the appeal & set the legal ball into rolling after the US DOJ had never asked the Swiss before.) After Polanski’s arrest, the head of International Law at the Swiss Foreign Ministry therefore failed to mention that the extradition demand could never have been made by the Americans had the Swiss not tipped them off & said that they have to adhere to the rules of extradition. A series of emails obtained under a public records request, show that Polanski’s arrest all began with an urgent fax sent by the Swiss Federal Office of Justice to the US Office of International Affairs on September 22nd – which then contacted the US DOJ. The fax stated that Polanski was expected in Zurich and asked whether the US would be submitting a request for his arrest. The tip-off was passed to the DA’s office, and Cooley immediately began drafting an international arrest warrant, since Rittenband’s original bench warrant was rather ‘outdated’. Walgren then penned the official extradition request a month later, after Polanski was near a nervous breakdown in fear to lose his [fourth] film. But obviously managed to finish it.

        There was nothing ‘apparent’ about the award, or the retrospective still going ahead – the festival didn’t set the trap, it was that UBS clerk, & because of that the Swiss had to go through with this nightmare. They have in fact changed their laws now because of that shameful incident, so that only the director of the Swiss Justice Ministry can order/allow an arrest/extradition, not some lowly official acting on some tip-off. If that law had been in place before Polanski was ‘set up’, the Justice Ministry director had NOT asked the US, (NOT Widmer-Schlumpf btw, but some other court official who in fact had the first & last say if to allow for extradition, though she can have her say in it) since they all knew Polanski was ‘wanted’ & no one bothered with him before after they even sold him property.

        So all-round some messed up chain of events all for the US IRS having beleaguered that bank. Which is no longer hypothesis, since the Swiss officials discussed Polanski’s ‘role’ in all that before they caved in to give the US the names & found it a shameful episode to use him like that. But by then he was under house arrest for half a year & they didn’t know what to do with him anymore. Until Polanski spoke out, they finally demanded Gunson’s testimony & the rest is history as they say.

        So in effect it was Cooley that stopped the appeal dead in its tracks, sure, since he could have said, no thanks, we’re going to dismiss the case, we don’t want Polanski anymore & let justice rule. But he thought, hey yeah, sure, now I have a better chance of becoming AG when I drag the old Pole back here in chains & only if it’s to humiliate Polanski.
        But of course, he wanted to try him – on all counts (with a biased jury, bendable laws, ‘evidence codes’ & traitor Lewis in the dock obviously), which is not possible unless the plea is withdrawn. So by all means Espinoza would have done so had Polanski been brought back, with the view of a time served verdict to close the case for which the extradition was requested, NOTHING else. He’d not have had any chance to prevent a trial while forced into remand for months had that happened, & is unlawful to say one thing & then do another they obviously wanted. But who cares about any justice in the SMC, unlike the Swiss.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | September 19, 2010

  51. Hi Novalis, Polanski’s autobiograhy might not be the final word, I have found something connecting Sharon Tate to the politics of Robert Kennedy, and also Frankenheimer’s movie also connects to the politics of assassination in America in that era. You might want to see Robert Harris talking about his fascination with power on the DVD, with Polanski seemingly sitting in front of law books, full of codes.

    Also “On June 3rd, Bobby Kennedy had dinner with his friend John Frankenheimer (who, coincidentally, drove him to the Ambassador Hotel that fateful night) along with a pretty actress named Sharon Tate and her husband, Roman Polanski.

    Now, please bear with me as we descend into something of an abyss. When trying to see the web, we run across strange coincidences that may seem on the surface to be tenuous, improbable or even downright laughable. It’s the nature of the beast. If you want to know what is really going on, these things must at least be put on the table, even if they are discarded later. Remember, though, webs are tenuous things made from very delicate threads. Often times, the most obvious and easily accepted data turns out to be nothing more than something caught in the web – an artifact, if you will, rather than the web itself. That said, here we go.

    In August 1969, Sharon Tate was murdered by members of the Manson Family, who had strong connections to the Laurel Canyon music scene. Curiously, the year Kennedy was shot Sharon Tate was in the process of making a film entitled The Wrecking Crew, which co-starred Dean Martin. That same name was taken by a group of Los Angeles studio musicians associated with Phil Spector, who were also closely connected with the Laurel Canyon music scene. And Dean Martin, her costar in that film, was of course a long time collaborator with Jerry Lewis, who shared billing with Frank Sinatra at the Dan Mitrione benefit concert following his funeral. During the filming of that movie, Tate would be trained to do her own stunts by the martial arts expert Bruce Lee, with whom she would become close friends and who also later died under mysterious circumstances.

    Tate, it should be noted for those who don’t remember her, was a movie star on a meteoric rise. She was beautiful and talented. As the Hollywood Reporter stated concerning her role in The Wrecking Crew, “Sharon Tate reveals a pleasant affinity to scatterbrain comedy and comes as close to walking away with this picture as she did in a radically different role in Valley of the Dolls.”

    Tate, it should also be noted, had taken a keen interest in Bobby Kennedy’s campaign. She was a frequent attendee at Kennedy campaign dinners. It’s funny (and not in a humorous way) how often those in the public eye who take a political stance that is in favor of human rights, human dignity and simply doing the right thing are found in a pool of their own blood.”

    http://www.sott.net/articles/show/157890-The-assassination-of-Robert-Kennedy-Part-3-The-woman-in-the-polka-dot-dress

    Comment by Sonny | August 13, 2010 | Reply

    • In reference to the fiction The Ghost and its relationship to the reality in the American political landscape from the 1960’s and information given at the link above

      – it seems that there was a second unknown, undocumented shooter of Robert Kennedy. But only the first shooter took the rap, and they say this first shooter may have been hypnotized in a similar fashion to the Manson family who created mayhem only a year later in the very same area.

      Killers, in some kind of hypnotic state were killing US politicians and prominent civil rights activists in the 1960’s, and John Lennon just outside the building where he lived, & used in Rosemary’s Baby in the 1980’s, and either these killings were unconnected and purely coincidental, or else and which remains unproven – these people were on someone’s hit list.

      Comment by Sonny | August 13, 2010 | Reply

      • Lennon was killed by a religiously delusional nobody – because Lennon had said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. Chapman was messed up by his parents & Lennon was to pay for it, ‘motivated’ by the Catcher in the Rye book. Chapman wasn’t ‘hypnotised’, he hated others who didn’t believe in [his] God. If Lennon hadn’t said that, Chapman would have found some other more or less famous victim.

        The Manson family weren’t hypnotised either, they were high on drugs & had killed others before & after Tate, for fun. Manson had a bone to pick with Melcher, who happened to have lived at Polanski’s home before Roman moved in there with Sharon. That’s why Manson sent his killer girls to the house to settle the ‘score’ – anybody who had lived/visited there at that time would have been killed – it just happened to be Tate & Polanski. Tate was no ‘political victim’, nor the others, just because she or Polanski knew Kennedy.

        As for brainwashing/intimidating witnesses (or accusers/accused for that matter), that’s nothing new – the FBI/CIA or LAPD are as crooked as it can get.

        As for the Ghost Writer DVD, that’s Polanski’s own office at his Chalet – since he conducted the interview from there while still under house arrest, & the books behind him are an older issue of ‘The Oxford English Dictionary’ – not any law books. I got them too.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | August 13, 2010

      • I guess that John Lennon was only on a delusional person’s hit list – no conspiracy,

        but what is sad and disconcerting is that it took place outside his home the Dakota building which was also used in Rosemary’s Baby.

        What is also strange is that in Rosemary’s Baby which is a fiction – a nice young girl Terry Gionoffrio jumped from the Dakota building on West 72nd Street in New York and is found dead on the sidewalk outside, just as John Lennon was found dead on the same sidewalk years later.

        Just a coincidence or in some other realm does Life copy Art?

        Comment by Sonny | August 13, 2010

    • Life imitates art as art imitates life – it’s an age old law – & pure coincidence. I would read too much into all this.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 13, 2010 | Reply

      • I meant, I ‘would not’ read too much into all this.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | September 19, 2010

  52. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals get to decide whether to stay Gay marriage in California until a higher Federal Court ruling(and the underlying legality of sodomy in California) on Roman Polanski’s birthday.

    http://nclrights.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/judge-walker%E2%80%99s-ruling-extending-stay-until-august-18%E2%80%94-what-does-it-mean-and-what-happens-next/

    Comment by Sonny | August 13, 2010 | Reply

    • That is most apt I must say, & another coincidence. I wonder how many more times they on & off these laws till they get it right, to ‘stay’. It’s ridiculous legal posturing. Now it needed a gay judge to reinstate the gay marriage law & the state in contrast goes on a religious rampage to uphold prop 8. Pathetic. As for the sodomy law, that might still be applicable in heterosexual unions, or if one partner if a minor, instead of just letting people do what they want in their own bedrooms for bloody’s sake. NO one is telling me who to sleep with, or ‘how’, let alone any state.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | August 13, 2010 | Reply

  53. according to this:

    http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2010/08/california-about-to-get-tougher-on-sex-offenders.html

    the governor of California from the 70s is all for the new lynch mob law just as Arnold is who himself participate din underaged sex. This shows how everything thinks they are better than someone else or above any laws.

    Comment by argod | August 29, 2010 | Reply

  54. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/30/omar-blas-pineda-gets-20_n_519014.html

    here is a guy who got 20 years for it.

    Comment by argod | August 30, 2010 | Reply

  55. Hi Novalis an interesting decision 0n 9/8 as in 1998 today in Los Angeles See

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_bi_ge/us_boeing_cia_lawsuit

    and the opinion itself

    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/08/08-15693.pdf

    Interesting that Judge Jay S Bybee was not on this large 9th Circuit panel that says extraordinary rendition and torture is OK, since he wrote and/or authorized the Torture Memos.

    Sad thing the Judge that wrote the decision today Raymond Fisher wasted my life by writing two 9th Circuit precedent decisions in my name favor which are still good law that Judge S Bybee destroyed and threw out on Jan 11th 2006 with his Pony decision. I wish Fisher had ruled against me. He would have saved more torture and 8 years of my life.

    Comment by Sonny | September 8, 2010 | Reply

    • Only proves that one good judge still has no chance to help if another has the greater power to nullify his good ruling.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 9, 2010 | Reply

      • On 9/8/10 a 9th Circuit court majority tossed out the ENTIRE lawsuit due to the STATE SECRET’S DOCTRINE brought by five men who claim to have been tortured under the “extraordinary rendition” program of the U.S. CIA.

        Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc. was accused of participating in the George W. Bush administration’s “extraordinary rendition program”.

        According to published reports cited by the ACLU “Jeppesen had actual knowledge of the consequences of its activities. A former Jeppesen employee has stated a senior Jeppesen official stated, ‘We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights – you know, the torture flights. Let’s face it, some of these flights end up that way’.”

        The Bush administration intervened in the case, asserting the “state secrets” privilege in an attempt to have the lawsuit thrown out and preventing the evidence – including evidence already in the public domain – from ever being heard in court.

        In April 2009, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the government must invoke the state secrets privilege with respect to specific pieces of evidence – NOT OVER AN ENTIRE LAWSUIT

        The Barack Obama administration, following exactly the same legal reasoning, appealed and the appeal was heard by 11 Ninth Circuit judges. The result was the 9/8/2010 decision.

        According to the ACLU, that 9/8/2010 ruling “all but shuts the door on accountability for the CIA’s illegal program”. The ACLU intends to seek Supreme Court review of the decision, but it is NOT guaranteed since only less than 100 cases out of 7000 are given a green light.

        The majority decision, states, “This case requires us to address the difficult balance the state secrets doctrine strikes between fundamental principles of our liberty, including justice, transparency, accountability and national security. Although as judges we strive to honor all of these principles, there are times when exceptional circumstances create an irreconcilable conflict between them.”

        However, Judge Raymond Fisher who authored the majority decision continued, “That the judicial branch may have deferred to the executive branch’s claim of privilege in the interest of national security does not preclude the government from honoring the fundamental principles of justice.” and suggested that Congress investigate, which effectively gave those alleged victims the shaft.

        Ben Wizner, a senior ACLU lawyer who argued the case, said the group was disappointed.

        “The world is watching closely to see whether torture victims will have any possibility of redress in U.S. courts. If the answer is no – if this decision is allowed to stand – then foreign judges and prosecutors will almost certainly reinvigorate their own CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS INTO ILLEGAL l U.S. practices,” he told IPS.

        He added, “To this date, not a single victim of the Bush administration’s torture program has had his day in court,” he said. “That makes this a sad day not only for the torture survivors who are seeking justice in this case, but for all Americans who care about the rule of law and our nation’s reputation in the world. If this decision stands, the United States will have closed its courts to torture victims while providing complete immunity to their torturers.”

        Once little-used, the state secrets doctrine became a favorite tactic of the Bush administration to keep its national security cases out of court.

        According to The New York Times, “The decision bolstered the Obama administration counter-terrorism policies which show a degree of continuity departing from expectations fostered by President Obama’s campaign rhetoric, which was often sharply critical of President Bush’s approach.”

        http://original.antiwar.com/fisher/2010/09/09/rendition-suit-heads-for-us-high-court/print/

        Comment by Sonny | September 18, 2010

    • For once a more accurate analysis of what Bush & now Obama stand for: war, torture & [‘il/legal’] deception.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 19, 2010 | Reply

  56. Yes Raymond Fisher clerked with the late and great U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan who was for civil rights. It was another era.

    And Judge Raymond Fisher was also on the “christopher commission” after the Rodney King police brutality beating to investigate police brutality and corruption in the LAPD.

    I guess I should not be so hard on Judge Raymond C. Fisher.

    But Judge Raymond C. Fisher along with 3 other Judges in 9th Circuit gave me two half baked precedent decisions which seemed to be in my favor but which in the end would only help me if I was a hypocrite and asked the County of Los Angeles for a lump sum including all attorneys fees settlement which COLA would have given me to end the case.

    Judge Raymond Fisher, and two other 9th Circuit Judges had given me an injunction in a published and precedent decision against the County of Los Angeles lump sum including all attorneys fees POLICY which POLICY stopped me at the trial court level from being represented by a civil rights lawyer in both my Federal cases,

    This meant that the County of Los Angeles was stopped from offering me a lump sum including all attorneys fees settlement in my case ALONE. However the 9th Circuit Court of appeals injunction did not stop me from asking the County of Los Angeles for a lump sum including all attorneys fees settlement, and so this prevented me still from being represented by a lawyer.

    I was unable to ask the County for a lump sum including all attorneys fees settlement since my case was against that very same County policy and I am not a hypocrite, and in addition if I had accepted the settlement, I and my appeal lawyer would never have known that this was all 9th Circuit were going to give me which as it turned out was nothing, and worse still, a total waste of my life and resources.

    The statute that the County of Los Angeles lump sum including all attorneys fees policy was violating is 42 USC 1988 since the statute is supposed to attract civil rights lawyers to civil rights victims through fee shifting which must mean assignment of fees before the case is won.

    But in reality this is the promise of a dream that is never going to be fulfilled and especially not in California

    But if I had been able to be a hypocrite which is what the US Supreme Court seems to want, and if I had settled lump sum with the County of Los Angeles and cut my lawyer out of his/her attorneys fees, then I would have received a settlement and “won” some cash, by selling out the lawyer that helped me, and losing my integrity in the process.

    However the 42 USC 1988 statute and the US Supreme Court does not say that a victim assigning fees to a civil rights lawyer is illegal but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals now says so – for California alone
    (written by Judge Jay S. Bybee in Pony v County of Los Angeles)

    The two precedent decisions that Judge Raymond Fisher wrote in my second Federal case are still good law. And Judge Jay S. Bybee’s new precedent decision in Pony v. County of Los Angeles is waiting to be challenged by another case in a different era which values civil rights.

    Comment by Sonny | September 11, 2010 | Reply

    • Onky proves that judges rewrite more and more codes and clauses in disfavour of the clients – & in favour of the courts alone, nothing new. I’m sure many took the lump sums offered, just so to end it – not out of greed, but knowledge they’d not ever win their case anyhow. To cut your losses & take what’s possible might be hypocritical, but many are too poor to refuse, which is exactly what the courts hope for.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 12, 2010 | Reply

      • Their rulings are not just in favour of the courts, but more often than not tilt overwhelmingly in favor of Government whether State or Federal government.

        In the Pony v. County of Los Angeles 433 3d 1138 (9th Circuit Court of Appeals Jan 11th 2006) Judge Jay S. Bybee utilized and INTERPRETED California State law, in favor of STATE’s rights, NOT INDIVIDUAL’s RIGHTS, and said a victim could not assign her rights to a lawyer before she won the case. See link for decision

        http://openjurist.org/433/f3d/1138/pony-v-county-of-los-angeles

        More on Jay S. Bybee at

        http://wapedia.mobi/en/Jay_Bybee

        Jay S. Bybee and his panel ruled that assigning Federal statutory fees to a lawyer,(to secure representation) in a Federal Civil rights case in California before WINNING the case is illegal. So that means the statute is useless since a victim who does not have at least $40, 000 lying around the house, has to win a lawsuit in California before she can assign any Federal statutory attorneys fees to a civil rights lawyer, which means the case is not going to happen.

        Some of these decisions are pure mumbo jumbo.

        But nothing in Congress’s 42 USC §§ 1988 statute says assigning attorneys fees before winning a civil rights case is illegal, and nothing in the US Supreme Court has every ruled that this is so.

        To the contrary in Evans v. Jeff D. the US Supreme court said :the language of the Fees Act, as well as its legislative history, indicates that Congress bestowed on the “prevailing party” (generally plaintiffs a statutory eligibility for a discretionary award of attorney’s fees in specified civil rights actions. It did not prevent the party from waiving this eligibility [475 U.S. 717, 731] anymore than it legislated against assignment of this right to an attorney, such as effectively occurred here.”

        To conclude what is true here is that the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled that the party can ONLY ASSIGN statutory attorneys fees 42 USC §§ 1988 after winning the civil rights case which is what Judge Jay S. Bybee and his panel ruled.

        Comment by Sonny | September 12, 2010

    • You’re right, their ruling isn’t ‘always’ in the interest of the court, but then the courts are the ‘sate’ in the first place, otherwise it wouldn’t say People vs Polanski, but Gailey vs Polanski. That’s why no accuser can demand a case be dropped. The state, either by name of ‘jurisdiction’ has the power, that’s the problem,, & they more than not abuse it.

      Mumbo jumbo is right, & sometimes even the lawyers have no clues what they’re arguing about, as long as it’s in the favour of the court or accuser – unless some client might be rich & pay them to do real ‘justice’. But, as seen in Polanski’s case, who had enough money to be in a better position to receive fair/er treatment yet absolutely nothing resembling fairness came out of it, that’s not guaranteed. But then again he’s not ‘American’ or ‘Hollywood’. I don’t even wanna know how much on legal ‘fees’ he had to pay. I’m sure his can qualify as ‘the’ costliest non-trial case on Earth concerning ‘sex’ – & no doubt was THE most expensive sexual encounter anyone ever had.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 13, 2010 | Reply

      • Yes Novalis – also extremely harmful psychologically, in addition to the monetary loss.

        Comment by Sonny | September 14, 2010

    • Of course, that’s what people love to ignore, his mental suffering over the unprecedented slander (& resulting early hardship) he had to endure after the disgraceful attacks already following Sharon’s death leaving him devastated, unless it concerns ‘her’, the ‘victim’ she never was. Had he not been who he is, a stubborn & resilient survivor, he’d been destroyed over & over & over, but his work foremost & friends/future family kept him literally alive (even from early childhood on). I’m sure she in contrast never suffered much hassle beyond a fed weeks after her name was made public by the Euro press in 1977 & they went quickly underground on Hawaii, after she had become pregnant soon once Polanski had left, living in peace & self-admitted oblivion for decades to raise her kids after she had remarried once her [new] ‘boyfriend’ had left her too. When she came out in 1997, that was up to her, for whichever reason. When he was rearrested & they laid siege to her home, after giving some interviews & she had filed all these dismissal pleas, that’s no one’s fault but Rittenband’s alone. She said so herself often enough.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 14, 2010 | Reply

  57. From LA times Editorial on 9/10/2010

    “Hiding torture, legally

    Five victims of rendition were denied the opportunity to challenge their treatment in court this week; it’s a decision the Supreme Court should overturn.

    September 10, 2010
    Of all the excesses of the post-9/11 war on terror, none was as outrageous as the practice of “extraordinary rendition” — transferring suspects abroad for interrogation and, it’s alleged, torture.

    Compounding the injustice, five victims of rendition were denied the opportunity to challenge their treatment in court this week when the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked their lawsuit against a San Jose airline-services company accused of assisting in their transportation to foreign countries.

    Overruling a three-judge panel of the same court, the 9th Circuit held 6 to 5 that allowing the suit to proceed, even on the basis of publicly revealed information, would risk the release of state secrets. Judge Raymond C. Fisher’s majority opinion agonized about the tension between national security and “justice, transparency [and] accountability.” But, in the end, the court ratified extravagant claims by the George W. Bush and Obama administrations that a trial would violate the “state secrets privilege.”

    The court could have taken a narrower approach, allowing a trial to go forward and letting the judge consider on a case-by-case basis whether particular pieces of evidence needed to be kept secret. Instead, it preempted that process by citing another court’s observation that sometimes “seemingly innocuous information is part of a … mosaic,” so that even the use of unprivileged information creates a risk of inadvertent disclosure of state secrets.

    The decision to short-circuit the trial process is more than a misreading of the law; it’s an egregious miscarriage of justice. That’s obvious from a perusal of the plaintiffs’ complaint. One said that while he was imprisoned in Egypt, electrodes were attached to his earlobes, nipples and genitals. A second, held in Morocco, said he was beaten, denied food and threatened with sexual torture and castration. A third claimed that his Moroccan captors broke his bones and cut him with a scalpel all over his body, and poured hot, stinging liquid into his open wounds.

    Perhaps embarrassed by its refusal to give these plaintiffs their day in court, the majority suggested other ways in which they might be compensated, such as payments from the government comparable to the reparations provided to Latin Americans of Japanese descent who were interned in this country during World War II. (A dissenting judge noted that it took 50 years for that offense to be redressed.)

    No, the proper remedy for the injustices the plaintiffs allege lies in the courtroom. The Supreme Court should reopen the door that the 9th Circuit slammed shut

    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/10/opinion/la-ed-secrets-20100910

    But if the United States 9th Circuit court short circuited a trial after 12 years for a citizen of the United States who was tortured in the Santa Monica Courthouse and in the Federal Courts so as to keep a California State Judicial and Official corruption secret – it follows that they would also slam the door shut on innocent non-citizens.

    Comment by Sonny | September 11, 2010 | Reply

    • Technically they are right, the airline [and/or officials] did not torture these men, they ‘only’ aided in getting them out the country to where they’d be victimised. However, if they knowingly did so, they should be held responsible for abetting a crime against humanity. They should just have refused to carry these people, but then others had done it instead. It’s a travesty of justice – and all in the name of money, & power.

      Indeed, if they don’t care about their own, they’d not ever give a damn about any foreign ‘criminals’ they have – or ‘seek’. Such is their prevailing hypocrisy; state-funded.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 12, 2010 | Reply

      • You have hit the nail on the head Novalis if the airline knew?

        But in criminal law in US I know those who aid in a ‘criminal” activity
        even if they are not the key participants are culpable if they knowingly do so. The big question is whether the airline knew and that would have to be proven in order for those kidnapped to prevail.

        Also if the airline did know and it was proven and a written decision issued, then the Government would lose a resourse and could not use that airline or vice versa for the next kidnapping.

        Comment by Sonny | September 12, 2010

    • Of course, even if the court can ‘prove’ abetting the given crime, all that needs to be done is drop the case after some ‘men in black’ had a word with the other men in black residing in the courtroom, finished. NO EVIDENCE. Case closed. It never happened.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 13, 2010 | Reply

      • Oh yeah, & if you happen to disagree, you will be next on that plane never to be seen again. Sorry Mrs Polanski, but your husband, well, he passed away last night, on a heart attack…

        Comment by Novalis Lore | September 13, 2010

      • Yes that is right Novalis.

        Men in black (like the movie) is a good analogy-

        In my case even though there was in 2008 a Federal criminal conviction against County of Los Angeles Sheriff Terry January in a different Federal case, Federal District Court Judge George King, and Federal Magistrate Paul Abrams still decided that Terry January’s (1) version was the correct one, not mine.

        (1) Note: Terry January’s version aided and abetted the County of Los Angeles and Santa Monica Judge laurence D. Rubin and of course the White Sheriffs who assaulted and battered me, and whose identities were suppressed and Terry January was also used by Sheriff Lee Baca to give a racial bias to my case against Santa Monica College,since the Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable is african american also, and I am white.

        But it was not a racial issue, it was instead an Official Corruption issue with the police officer covering up my sexual assault complaint against a Santa Monica College Instructor R.L.Jone.

        Bottom line County of Los Angeles and Santa Monica College used Terry January as front for their Santa Monica Courthouse illegal operations against me, and as a false witness against me since Oct 6th 1998.

        Then the lack of integrity continued into Federal Courts when the men in black play around with your life, and do more harm, since they raise up your hopes for justice only to kill it years later.

        Many so called Federal Judicial errors were purposely done and this just mirrored the same system in the County of Los Angeles court with a hearing taking place when it should not have taken place, where the Santa Monica Judge Laurence D. Rubin gave the Santa Monica College police officer Ron Marable control of the hearing, and where police brutality was perpetrated on me.

        9th Circuit Judge Raymond C. Fisher revived my case on 4th Feb 2002 but it died again with Judge Jay S. Bybee’s decision on January 11th 2006 which was allowed to drag on until April 9th 2010, as nothing was made clear until then. Similar to someone being dragged along on the ground by a rope from a horse drawn wagon in a Western movie.

        All is clear now 9th Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee ratified the torture memos and hammered in final nail to kill civil rights in California in unison with the County of Los Angeles lump sum including all attorneys fees policy,

        In addition now 9th Circuit Judge Raymond C. Fisher in ruling to not allow the kidnapped Plaintiff’s case to go forward because of a state secrets doctrine, combined with his decision to not give me the injunction I needed in 2003 so I would have been represented by civil rights trial lawyer, opens the door for more torture to occur whether that torture occurs in the Santa Monica Courthouse or abroad.

        Comment by Sonny | September 13, 2010

    • When people like Polanski] e.g., thought it was bleak ‘then’, it has undoubtedly become bleaker over the years not only as your case demonstrates perfectly, but of course in reference to his very own – where the ‘dragging along’ (with a few choice smear campaigns thrown in along the way) is usual practice, especially in the LA courts.

      As long as one the DAs e.g. doesn’t apply for the case to be transferred to another jurisdiction for prejudice etc., & that of course can be denied by his superiors as it was in Gunson’s case, even those who want to see to justice done for their clients are studiously being obstructed by others – even if the judge at the end might [want to] rule in favour of the accuser or defendant where deserved.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 14, 2010 | Reply

  58. I found this from guntotinganglion at Huff

    “Opacity is the breeding ground of corruption. The so called ‘State Secrets’ Privilege is a cloak for criminals, and in this case, torturers and murderers. The real reason for the ‘State Secrets’ Privilege was the creation of fission and fusion weapons of mass destruction.

    The US created a set of weapons that gave it the modus operandi to internalize all Constitutional mandates of universality. By that I mean, only Americans are to be the recipients of what the Founding Fathers intended as a universal manifesto. The WMD that this country created allowed criminals at the top of the government to argue that the rules had changed and this country had to be protected at all costs, including throwing the Constitution itself on the trash heap. Essentially they said they’d have to destroy the Constitution to save it…and the ‘State Secrets’ Privilege is the lynch pin of this insane implosion of human rights. Which is to say, this country is no champion of human rights…and this case couldn’t make that more clear.

    This all started with the crash of a B-29 in Georgia in late 1948…as the result of criminal negligence on the part of the government. This was only revealed decades later.

    Check out this website if you’re interested in where this cloak for hiding criminality began…

    http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a10182002AshcroftStatesSecretFirstSibel

    Comment by Sonny | September 12, 2010 | Reply

    • Only shows that even if the FBI, DOJ or anyone in the real know comes forwards with claims to uncover corruption or Human Rights violations etc., the courts can simply silence them the same – what chances would anyone else have – NONE. The state can co anything, & so can the state-run courts. And even if the courts allow for a case or lawsuit, the stare can silence them in turn. Bush [& his administration] was the biggest criminal in US history – he still is.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 12, 2010 | Reply

  59. What is the difference between extradition in Polanski’s case and extraordinary rendition? I would say not much since the wish for extradition in Polanski’s case was based on two lies. The first lie was in the plea deal, the contract which the Santa Monica Courthouse Judge was going to breach, the second lie was in omitting County of Los Angeles prosecutor Gunson’s testimony as to what the sentence was, which Polanski had served of course.

    Also what is the difference between extraordinary rendition which is a kidnapping in order to torture and kidnapping and turning a Santa Monica Courtroom into a back alley, populating it with County of Los Angeles’s secret white sheriff deputy thugs so as to intimidate and torture someone who is reporting Santa Monica College police cover up of her sexual assault complaint.

    *********************************************************************

    From Huff Post Link below

    Court Sides With CIA On ‘Extraordinary Rendition,’ Grants President Broad ‘State Secrets’ Privilege

    SAN FRANCISCO — 8th Sept 2010 A sharply divided federal appeals court on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit challenging a controversial post-Sept. 11 CIA program that flew terrorism suspects to secret prisons.

    The complaint was filed by five terrorism suspects who were arrested shortly after 9/11 and say they were flown by a Boeing Co. subsidiary to prisons around the world where they were tortured. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited national security risks when it dismissed the men’s case in a 6-5 ruling Wednesday.

    The case could have broad repercussions on the national security debate as it makes its way toward the U.S. Supreme Court, and it casts a spotlight on the controversial “extraordinary rendition” program the Bush administration used after 9/11.

    The Obama administration subsequently said it would continue to send foreign detainees to other countries for questioning, but rarely – and only if U.S. officials are confident the prisoners will not be tortured.

    The appeals court reinforced the broad powers of the president to invoke the so-called “state secrets privilege” to stop lawsuits involving national security almost as soon as they are filed.

    “The attorney general adopted a new policy last year to ensure the state secrets privilege is only used in cases where it is essential to protect national security, and we are pleased that the court recognized that the policy was used appropriately in this case,” Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said.

    President George W. Bush invoked the privilege at least 39 times during his administration, the most of any president in history, according to according to research by University of Texas, El Paso, political science professor William Weaver. Critics of the practice had hoped President Barack Obama would curtail its use and were disappointed when his administration continued defending the lawsuit after Bush left office.

    The terror suspects sued Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan in 2007, alleging that the extraordinary rendition program amounted to illegal “forced disappearances.” They alleged that the San Jose-based subsidiary conspired with the CIA to operate the program.

    A trial court judge quickly dismissed the lawsuit after the Bush administration took over defense of the case from Chicago-based Boeing and invoked the state secrets privilege, demanding a halt to the litigation over concern that top secret intelligence would be divulged.

    A three-judge panel of the appeals court reinstated the lawsuit in 2009, but the full court overturned that ruling Wednesday.

    “We have thoroughly and critically reviewed the government’s public and classified declarations and are convinced that at least some of the matters it seeks to protect from disclosure in this litigation are valid state secrets,” Judge Raymond Fisher wrote for the majority. “The government’s classified disclosures to the court are persuasive that compelled or inadvertent disclosure of such information in the course of litigation would seriously harm legitimate national security interests.”

    Judge Michael Daly Hawkins wrote for the five dissenting judges, who said the lawsuit was dismissed too quickly and that the men should be allowed to use publicly disclosed evidence to prove their case.

    “They are not even allowed to attempt to prove their case by the use of nonsecret evidence in their own hands or in the hands of third parties,” Hawkins wrote.

    Ben Wizner, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents the five men, said he will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case.

    “If this decision stands,” Wizner said, “the United States will have closed its courts to torture victims while extending complete immunity to its torturers.”

    The Bush administration was widely criticized for its practice of extraordinary rendition – whereby the CIA transfers suspects overseas for interrogation. Human rights advocates said renditions were the agency’s way to outsource torture of prisoners to countries where it is permitted practice.

    Three of the five plaintiffs have been released from prison, Wizner said.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/08/extraordinary-rendition-court-sides-with-cia_n_709911.html

    Comment by Sonny | September 12, 2010 | Reply

    • Obama is the same kind of liar as Bush was, he’ll allow prisoners to be taken from US soil to be ‘questioned’, as if that would not entail torture by default. Does he think we’re that dumb to believe that? Don’t make me laugh. This sums it up: ‘Why would you send a captured terror suspect to another country to be questioned UNLESS you wanted to torture them? That makes no sense. New boss – same as the old boss’. Exactly. Or: ‘We Americans, at least our leaders of both parties, want to have it both ways, to declare war upon terrorists, and yet not abide by the rules of war at all. We have been creative about what we call those we seize, and about where we keep them in custody, all to avoid them falling into the protections of our Constitution’.

      Of courts there’s not much difference between the Polanski extradition issues or ‘rendition’ issues bar the scale of it, let alone rendition torture or courtroom torture/abuse, again, only by scale. After years of torture, these men are dead, no less they are still alive. But destroyed.

      Obama might in fact be worse that Bush after the world cheered the first black President, since he for one doesn’t clean up GWB’s s***, & now plants his own. I’ve never been to the US, & I sure as hell would’t go anywhere near it these days. Let alone ‘California’. I’d rather like to go to Paris & bump into Polanski by chance, to wish him all the best for the rest of his life.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 12, 2010 | Reply

  60. Lynch Mobs In America and American reactions to State Secret Privilege in Boeing extraordinary rendition case

    One of the primary functions of a court of law is to provide a venue that allows the powerless to challenge the powerful. By deciding that the powerless have no recourse to law and justice, this court has effectively ceded their power to the executive. The reign of terror has officially begun.
    ***********************************************************************
    Obama has disappointed his supporters by keeping Gitmo open and doing nothing to lead the nation away from the barbarism begun by Bush.

    Where is the change he promised?

    This may be a victory for Obama, but it is a defeat for America.
    ***********************************************************************
    So the government can secretly do anything in the name of protecting secrets? Who is going to protect us from this type of government? And who is going to protect us from these stooges wearing judge robes?
    *********************************************************************
    I think FEDERAL APPEALS COURT FLUSHES CONSTITUTION DOWN TOILET would’ve been a more accurate headline. The entire state-secrets concept should be abolished. Instead, even as a citizen, I have absolutely no guarantee that I can’t be kidnapped by the CIA at 3am tomorrow morning, tortured secretly in ‘black-box sites’, and have no legal recourse. So basically I have no rights anymore, even as a citizen. Right now we might be using these powers on ‘terrorists’, but it’s not inconceivable that an upcoming political regime in America could start labeling dissidents as ‘terrorists’. So welcome to ‘1984’, President Obama. I’ll be glad to see how President Palin uses these expanded powers you’re about to bequeath her. And the scariest part? No matter what country you’re in, the CIA can always find you if they really want to
    ***********************************************************************
    The Times editorial today really says it all, extraordinary rendition is a crime, not a secret. It is really quite disingenuous of President Obama to accuse Florida pastor Terry Jones of putting our soldiers in harm’s way by burning copies of the Quran when his administration continues to defend Bush policies of equating past torture with current national security. A national policy of secrecy regarding torture is going to recruit as many terrorists as the individual act of burning the Muslim sacred text. Obama is an embarassment. He promised an open administration and he has failed to deliver.
    ***********************************************************************
    Oh, that’s great. So now our brave SS-CIA-men may torture with impunity. But, as far as I remember, torturing constitutes international crime and so is universally punishable. Where is the justice, guys? And there is our democracy?
    ***********************************************************************
    This is just wrong. What it is about Mr. Obama that the right finds so abhorrent. He is just continuing the Bush/Cheney doctrine. Change?

    The United States has to do better than this.
    ***********************************************************************
    Another utterly shameful chapter in our nation’s history.
    ***********************************************************************
    The circular logic of the ruling would make Kafka proud, and may yet cause Orwell to rise from the dead.

    http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/us/09secrets.html?sort=recommended

    ***********************************************************************

    Comment by Sonny | September 14, 2010 | Reply

    • ‘Lynch mobs’ work ‘both ways’ – for one against an innocent, & for the other against some mighty perpetrator, the ‘state’, they’re fed up with. Those reactions only show that the public in fact are not all dumb sheeple & ignorant, except they only have their voices to complain, NO real powers to change anything. But then again, look at East Germany, after they were fed up with their oppressive regime at one point & demanded change – & look what they could achieve: reintegration with the West Germans. People power needs masses – but I’m sure if there’d ever be another revolution in the States, all they’d do is bring out their tanks & military to subdue them mercilessly, again. To mention Kafka is spot on; he ‘foresaw’ things like this would happen – as did Orwell.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 14, 2010 | Reply

      • Regarding State Secrets last century in a different country link to Paul Huebl aka crime file in Berlin.

        Comment by Sonny | September 16, 2010

    • Only shows that NO one is interested in showing that there were plenty men in power who wanted to end Hitler’s reign of terror – but obvious;y failed – since it would shed light on the fact that those Germans in the know were fed up with this madness. NO German [then or even still today] was allowed to be seen as ‘good’, ‘human’, or anti-Hitler. That other countries have committed just as horrendous atrocities also always seems to elude people – see Bush more recently.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 17, 2010 | Reply

      • I believe Bush and Cheney were involved and some others we don’t know necessarily. A new problem seems to be that Obama administration wants to cover up prior atrocities and torture under guise of State Secrets doctrine and the Federal Courts are helping him. So that is two branches of government covering up State Secrets, and Congress do nothing…so that is three branches.

        U.S.A. and England and the people whether duped by the bs or not are doomed to face the same thing again given the wrong circumstances and point the finger at other countries and people like Polanski, but refuse to see their own wrongdoing.

        Well Polanski directed “The Pianist” at a German Studios, and showed jews selling out other jews and betraying their own in the hope of survival which is an honest portrayal of their plight and human, even if not nice. People do bad things under the gun, just as Germans were forced to. But some refused.

        There was a film that coincidentally both I and Paul Huebl liked by Paul Verhoven called “Black Book”

        See http://www.crimefilenews.com/2009/08/black-book-2006-belated-crimefile-film.html

        It was not so popular in US although an excellent movie. The idea of a good Nazi was hard to swallow. But as I know there is no black and white.

        Not everyone is going to follow a despot.

        See

        Berlin, Germany—It was 1944 and what started out over a decade earlier as a new government offering Hope and Change progressed into a regime that kept horrible secrets from their citizens. Those who knew the secrets and tried to alert their neighbors were tried for High Treason, branded as Liars and sentenced to the guillotine or piano wire.

        Today at the Bendlerblock military complex in Berlin a portion of the property houses the German Resistance Museum. It’s dedicated to those 5,000 heroes who did too little, too late but lost their lives in the process. It’s too bad that we can’t force Americans visit this museum before they’re allowed to vote.

        The lesson to be learned from these resistance fighters is that perhaps killing Hitler years earlier would have spared tens of millions of lives. The problem was people believed in Time Magazine’s 1938 Man of The Year and the National Socialism he brought with him.

        We must stop Socialists and Communists in our government before it’s too late.

        Comment

        It was 8th Sept 2010 and what started out a few years earlier as a new government offering Hope and Change progressed into a regime that kept horrible secrets from their own citizens. See below.

        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_bi_ge/us_boeing_cia_lawsuit

        and the opinion itself

        http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/08/08-15693.pdf

        American reactions to this court ruling

        One of the primary functions of a court of law is to provide a venue that allows the powerless to challenge the powerful. By deciding that the powerless have no recourse to law and justice, this court has effectively ceded their power to the executive. The reign of terror has officially begun.

        Obama has disappointed his supporters by keeping Gitmo open and doing nothing to lead the nation away from the barbarism begun by Bush.

        Where is the change he promised?

        This may be a victory for Obama, but it is a defeat for America.

        So the government can secretly do anything in the name of protecting secrets? Who is going to protect us from this type of government? And who is going to protect us from these stooges wearing judge robes?

        I think 9th CIRCUiT FEDERAL APPEALS COURT FLUSHES CONSTITUTION DOWN TOILET would’ve been a more accurate headline. The entire state-secrets concept should be abolished. Instead, even as a citizen, I have absolutely no guarantee that I can’t be kidnapped by the CIA at 3am tomorrow morning, tortured secretly in ‘black-box sites’, and have no legal recourse. So basically I have no rights anymore, even as a citizen. Right now we might be using these powers on ‘terrorists’, but it’s not inconceivable that an upcoming political regime in America could start labeling dissidents as ‘terrorists’. So welcome to ’1984′, President Obama. I’ll be glad to see how President Palin uses these expanded powers you’re about to bequeath her. And the scariest part? No matter what country you’re in, the CIA can always find you if they really want to

        Extraordinary rendition is a crime, not a secret. It is really quite disingenuous of President Obama to accuse Florida pastor Terry Jones of putting our soldiers in harm’s way by burning copies of the Quran when his administration continues to defend Bush policies of equating past torture with current national security. A national policy of secrecy regarding torture is going to recruit as many terrorists as the individual act of burning the Muslim sacred text. Obama is an embarassment. He promised an open administration and he has failed to deliver.

        Oh, that’s great. So now our brave SS-CIA-men may torture with impunity. But, as far as I remember, torturing constitutes international crime and so is universally punishable. Where is the justice, guys? And there is our democracy?

        This is just wrong. What it is about Mr. Obama that the right finds so abhorrent. He is just continuing the Bush/Cheney doctrine. Change?

        The United States has to do better than this.

        Another utterly shameful chapter in our nation’s history.

        The circular logic of the ruling would make Kafka proud, and may yet cause Orwell to rise from the dead.

        Comment by Sonny | September 17, 2010

    • Of course anything pro-German even today isn’t welcome in the US – for the hypocrites they are.

      I can’t say I saw Black Box, but then I’m not really into ‘war’ films, be they pro or anti anyone, it’s just not my thing, because most of it is rewriting or twisting history to the advantage of certain countries. That of course excludes The Pianist, or other more accurate reflections of an era, historical event.

      No one is going to protest us from the [US] state or [their] judges, unless the people & those in other countries rise as they have done in the past to demand change – but with an utterly docile, fast-food-poisoned-trash-culture-infused America, they won’t bother any time soon.

      Though it looks like others have the same ideas as me, or the rest of the world for that matter, even they see it as it is, as this comment proves & I have said often enough before: ‘The circular logic of the ruling would make Kafka proud, and may yet cause Orwell to rise from the dead’.

      Obama lied to the world as had every other president before him, no matter what colour or party. After I had hoped that Obama might pull America back from the brink, he’s pushing it even closer to the edge – & how did Polanski say many years ago already: ‘The US will destroy itself soon in their [gun-obsessed] Puritanism’.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 18, 2010 | Reply

      • The Pianist was based on a true story with a “Hollywood” director from the Poland, who lived through that war. Same with Black Book, (must have made a typo) Paul Verhoeven was in a better position to paint a more realistic and less tainted picture because of his experience.

        http://www.reelviews.net/movies/b/black_book.html

        The story was written by Verhoeven and screenwriter Gerard Soeteman, The two men had been working on the script for fifteen years,

        “ In Black Book, everything has a shade of grey. There are no people who are completely good and no people who are completely bad. It’s like life.

        Black Book is not a true story, but Verhoeven states that many of the events are true.

        As in the film, the German headquarters were in The Hague. In 1944 many Jews that tried to cross to liberated parts of the southern Netherlands were entrapped by Dutch policemen. As in the film, crossing attempts took place in the Biesbosch.

        Events are related to the life of Verhoeven, who was born in 1938 and grew up in The Hague during the Second World War.

        Comment by Sonny | September 18, 2010

      • This is from the review of Black Book above which i agree with.

        I’m not familiar with Carice von Houten,

        lHaving viewed her fiery performance in Black Book, I’m an instant fan. This is fearless, camera arresting work. Despite some fine acting by a variety of co-stars, there’s no doubting that von Houten owns this movie. Not since Ellen Ripley (of the Alien series) has there been a female protagonist so strong and heroic.

        Verhoeven’s last few years in Hollywood were not happy ones; if this is the kind of work he can produce by returning to his native country, then I urge him to stay there. This is one of the best war movies to emerge about World War II in the last ten years. It has everything a good war thriller should have: impeccable period detail, wonderful performances, action, romance, tragedy, and heart-stopping suspense. Black Book offers the best of both worlds: Hollywood spectacle and European sensibilities. It’s 145 minutes well spent.

        Comment by Sonny | September 18, 2010

    • Polanski is not ‘from Poland’ – he only lived there as a child, he’s French born. At any rate, Verhoeven is just another good example of a skilled director stifled by the shallow Hollywood ‘star system’ & box office money machine madness, with equally shallow films the audience eat up, not wanting to tax their brains. Polanski’s Pianist is a masterpiece & perfect reflection of what occurred during WW II, & as Verhoeven, was much better off in Europe to make his better films there. If I might come across Black Box I will watch it.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 19, 2010 | Reply

      • I meant Black Book.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | September 19, 2010

      • Sorry Novalis the error is mine I originally said Black Box instead of Black Book.

        I guess I must have been thinking of Pandora’s box, when really I should have been writing the title of the movie Black Book.

        Comment by Sonny | September 19, 2010

    • Oh, ha ha – Black Book, Black Box, I was thinking airplane black box.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 19, 2010 | Reply

  61. And from the LA Times

    The Rules of the Game

    What is the difference between extradition and extraordinary rendition? I would say not much especially if the Justice Department’s extradition request to a foreign country is based on a lie.

    In addition what’s the difference between extraordinary rendition – which is a kidnapping of a foreign person and transporting them elsewhere in order to torture, and kidnapping a US citizen by transforming a Santa Monica Courtroom into a back alley, populating it with County of Los Angeles’s secret white sheriff deputy thugs so as to intimidate and torture the victim for reporting Official corruption and of course to end her case.

    For the already tortured Plaintiffs against a Boeing subsidiary – they should accept Judge Raymond C. Fisher’s authored en banc 9th Circuit decision of 9/8/10 as a blessing in disguise. The decision is a reason not to continue to beat their heads against a brick wall, since there will be no justice for them in America, as that is the status quo.

    If the Plaintiffs walk away now they will be free to get on with their lives as opposed to wasting their lives trying to squeeze an ounce of justice out of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or the US Supreme Court in America.

    Just as you can’t get blood out of a stone,

    an American government is NOT going to pay for torturing you whether you happen to be an innocent American or an innocent foreign person.

    The main inclination of US and local government is to cover up any Official wrongdoing, and not give any individual any acceptable settlement or justice whether they are American or foreign.

    So buyer beware, don’t waste your life seeking any justice in America. And even when you think you are winning another judicial decision will arrive years and years later to stab you and your case in the back from behind.

    Comment by Sonny | September 14, 2010 | Reply

  62. Spot on is all I can say. But then, ‘Les Règles Du Jeu’ always is. There’s NO justice to be had in America (unless you’re a rich American obviously), & Polanski’s case is the best example as the most ‘in/famous’ of NO justice ever achieved, only [more] injustice as infinitum.

    Comment by Novalis Lore | September 14, 2010 | Reply

    • Ad infinitum that is.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 14, 2010 | Reply

      • Well Phil Spector is or was a rich American. I am not sure that Los Angeles County prosecutors or Judge Larry Fidler gave him a fair hearing because he was a rich American. Might have had something to do with his hairstyle, (joke).

        Bottom line – A crap shoot.

        Comment by Sonny | September 14, 2010

    • If it had been ‘fair’, he’d not ever allowed Evidence Code 102 – to bring in all sorts of exes to lie for the prosecution. When I said ‘rich Americans’ I didn’t mean ‘rich artists’.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 14, 2010 | Reply

      • ‘Rich artists’ are made a special example off, or conversely are let off when it comes to sex cases. But they HAVE to be American & ‘Hollywood’, obviously.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | September 19, 2010

  63. COINCIDENTALLY Judge Raymond C. Fisher’s 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision

    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/08/08-15693.pdf

    that does not give any recourse for those kidnapped and transported to another country and then tortured because of State Secrets doctrine was filed on on Sept 8th 2010, which is California Justice Laurence D. Rubin’s birthday see the link below for verification true.

    http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/2ndDistrict/justices/rubin.htm

    County of Los Angeles & Judge Laurence D. Rubin’s operations in the Santa Monica Courthouse to let Santa Monica College Police Officers control hearings and populate the courtroom with secret white Sheriff’s to assault and batter the Plaintiff for reporting Santa Monica police corruption is a State Secret in and of itself, so this coincidence of the decision being filed on California Justice Laurence D. Rubin’s birthday of Sept 8th, 2010 is entirely appropriate.

    Judge Raymond Fisher authored two precedent decisions in my favor in my second Federal case which did not go far enough to assist me so I could have a trial and be represented by a lawyer which is the intent of the Federal Statute 42 USC 1988, and ultimately Federal Judge Jay S. Bybee who ratified the torture memos killed my case by changing the law in California ALONE so that the Federal Court could say after 12 years that I did not have a case.

    Interestingly enough all of these players have ties to entertainment figures as Raymond Fisher has been Clint Eastwood’s lawyer.

    And Laurence D. Rubin’s father when he was alive went to law school with Richard Nixon, and later was a lawyer who represented Goldie Hawn, Warren Beatty, and Paul Newman.

    Comment by Sonny | September 14, 2010 | Reply

    • Sounds very much like Rittenband – who had ties with the mob. He was friends with ‘mob man’ Sid Korshak who was the friends of mobsters & the ‘Hollywood fixer’, whose name is never mentioned when they talk about the judge – or vice versa.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 14, 2010 | Reply

  64. The most damaging people to Roman Polanski on both sides of the Atlantic have always been government officials (of course in the end there is the exception of Switzerland Justice) ,

    and as far as US it is those that are seeking Political advancement which was exactly the same thing in my case as Judge Laurence D. Rubin was promoted to become a California Appeal judge after he had helped Santa Monica College corruption and allowed secret white County of Los Angeles thugs into his courtroom, and allowed the Santa Monica College police officer to control the hearing, thus giving all advantage to Santa Monica College..

    The women whether underage or not in Roman Polanski’s case are used as a pretext to attack him, since he tells the truth whether in life or in his films.

    And some would rather that the truth of Judicial Corruption not be shown. After all look what happened to my Santa Monica Courtroom corruption case after 12 years. In the end the Feds helped to cover up State Secrets in California that included JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT in the Santa Monica Courthouse .

    I think with Charlotte Lewis her motivation probably was that she wanted the limelight again and would stoop so low to hurt the person who had first helped her – in the hope of jumpstarting her Hollywood career again.

    If she didn’t want to be there or have sex with him she should not have been involved in the film Pirates. It is hard for women if they are not really attracted to the man who will make them “A Star” but what is the price for being a star when you don’t fancy the director, but go ahead with the sex act anyway?

    Of course Lewis may have been attracted to Polanski she looked very happy and pleased with herself on the set of pirates.

    Novalis said “Indeed he has persevered inwardly too, true, Sonny. Polanski knows first-hand what injustice is – from childhood onwards – to this day. His lust for life & films enabled him to survive any of it. That’s why some want him destroyed, it’s their jealousy of his achievements, their inability to cope with life, using this case as a means to justify their attacks on him. See ugly traitor Lewis, who blamed her own self-abuse & drug addiction on him – of course only in order to influence the extradition – which failed spectacularly.

    Comment by Sonny | September 19, 2010 | Reply

    • Bottom Line is that two incidences of Judicial Corruption at the Santa Monica Courthouse have ruined three people’s lives at least, that I can think of.

      One is my life with assault and battery, Judicial and police corruption plus another 12 years of wasted life and resources since then in trying to obtain Justice which never came

      , and then the case of Roman Polanski and Samantha Galley and the Santa Monica Judicial corruption that ruined their lives. Whatever Samantha was up to she was too young to know any better and did not have a responsible mother.

      Samantha was only the tool for the harm to be committed by Officials and their corruption.

      Comment by Sonny | September 19, 2010 | Reply

    • Only Geimer was underage, that’s why they latched on to that so violently after her mother fell for her little white lies of ultimately discredited drugged rape & [double] sodomy & shifted all accountabilities of her irresponsible actions into Polanski’s court, let’s not minimise the teenager’s part in all this no matter her age, while no one punished the mother & her boyfriend for her much bigger drugs & booze abuse offences & child neglect to boot, at a time where other men were sent home before the US became the Mecca of sending them into prison hell for underage sex or on false rape accusations. As you said, Sonny, as I & plenty others have said all along, it’s all politically motivated, justice has zero to do with any of it no matter the name of the accused – or accuser/real victim.

      As for Lewis, she cannot ever claim she never was attracted to Polanski & was ‘forced’ into the sex, the film, you name it. No, she made it clear years back that she wanted Polanski more than he desired her she now conveniently calls as being ‘misquoted’, & that they had a few months long affair while filming Pirates. What she said this year happened after she first met Polanski at his apartment is pure fantasy, (if they in fact ever had sex to start with at that point already) or she’d not have had that affair with him months later, unless she’s deluded & truly disbelieves in her own sordid sexual abuse lies. As a studied psychologist who taught it before I retired recently, I can tell you, she’s [still] highly unstable & projects her sexual aberrations on others, (i.e., real or imagined ‘abuse fantasies’ on Polanski) after she had prostituted herself with 14 in London for money & drugs, & then later in Hollywood both on her own free will.

      She became a drug addict in pursuit of a to-become-sordid-sex-films-only ‘career’ & more sex with anyone she could lay her hands on to further her very short-lived career that went up in a haze of pot, booze, Ecstasy & cocaine as in fact for most people who ended up in cheap nude flicks for no other ‘talents’. Once she ran out of money for her addiction/rehabilitation & people to blame for said addictions after relation after relationship went bust & repeat failures in life, she found the perfect target to blame in Polanski. She went to sleaze scandalmonger Allred, i.e., Cooley, in order to influence the extradition out of spite & self-imposed ‘female victimisation’ in line with today’s feminist dogma of all women are victims & all men are rapists, after Cooley & Co had whipped up the public with their ‘child rapist’ rhetoric enough already.

      She put on a great show of the poor victim that never was, (only in her delusional mind) & most in fact did NOT fall for her pathetic lies. She’s sad & used-up woman who had too much sex & drugs in her wasted life who needed to shift all responsibilities into the court of someone that had trusted her, slept with her, furthered her – & then moved on to find his current wife, Emmanuelle. Lewis is a borderline ‘jilted lover’ type & very selfish whiner, who would not shy from attacking his wife & children, either verbally or otherwise. Hence her saying that she had tried to talk to Polanski in Paris after his daughter turned ’16’, (if true or not, while he was in Germany to film The Ghost Writer). Women like Lewis are [dangerous] psychopaths who believe in their own delusions, plain & simple, for others to feel sympathy for their fuck-ups.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 20, 2010 | Reply

  65. Timing from April 2010 to July 2010 was this.

    On 8th April 2010 4/8/2010 I first visited the Swiss and French Consulates in Los Angeles…They were very nice in the Swiss Consulate and took my name,

    In the French Consulate they were fairly rude when I mentioned why I was there.

    However I knew the French diplomats were interested in the outcome of Roman Polanski’s Los Angeles legal battles since the head of that Consulate David Martinon had previously attended the California Appeal Court 2nd District hearing of Roman Polanski in addition to Polanski: Wanted and Desired film maker Marina Zenovitch.

    I lost my second Federal Case after 12 years the day after I visited these two European consulates in Los Angeles on April 9th 2010.

    Then my written request for pardon for Roman Polanski went to President Barack Obama on 24th April 2010, and also Polanski’s lawyers in France, Switzerland and US, were notified simultaneously.

    I thought my information about additional Judicial corruption in the same Courthouse, in a case other than Polanski’s case, showing the California and Federal authorities disdain for (European born) sexual assault victims who had been sexually assaulted by Santa Monica College American professors and police cover up of it would help to prove that Santa Monica Judicial corruption was the NORM

    BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY I WAS ABLE TO GIVE CRUCIAL INFORMATION THAT ROMAN POLANSKI WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO GIVE,

    THIS IS BECAUSE FROM MY VANTAGE POINT I KNEW THAT ROMAN POLANSKI WAS ALSO A VICTIM OF A DOUBLE STANDARD AT THE SANTA MONICA COURTHOUSE AND CALIFORNIA where the bias went against European Born people whether perp or victim AND of course if they did not work for CALIFORNIA STATE (like Arnie)

    My bad experience in the same Santa Monica Courthouse cancels out Polanski’s “crime” since American Professors can sexually assault and the same Santa Monica and Los Angeles authorities will cover it up if it is an American Santa Monica College Professor and perpetrator,

    This makes the DA’s Steve Cooley’s and the California appeal court’s action to extradite Polanski MORE DISCRIMINATORY because Santa Monica College professors can sexually assault in photography classes and the authorities including California Appeal Court Judge Laurence D. Rubin will cover it up help the corrupt police, populate the courtroom with undocumented corrupt sheriffs and frame the European born victim, but the California authorities will not cover up for or be fair to a European born perpetrator!!!!

    On May 2nd 2010 Roman Polanski issued his statement of 908 words – with at least one element paralleling my letter, that Santa Monica Judicial corruption is politically motivated, which results in promotions for Judges, & Los Angeles Prosecutors.

    To counter Polanski’s May 2nd announcement that he could remain silent no longer and to counter the French President’s support of Polanski’s release, the LA DA Steve Cooley was willing to entertain Charlotte Lewis so as to now turn Roman Polanski into serial rapist through Charlotte Lewis’s 20 year old venom.

    Also remember that Gloria Alred was a Roman Polanski hater from her tv verbal brawl with ex San Francisco Mayor Willy Brown before Charlotte Lewis came forward publicly.

    I doubt that Charlotte Lewis and her very old tale would have been entertained in Los Angeles was it not for Gloria Alred and Steve Cooley’s help.

    She was only used to build the case against Polanski as a serial rapist so that Cooley will gain fame and suck the good name and fame from Polanski so Steve Cooley can be elected the next Attorney General of California.

    Through my letter President Obama and Roman Polanski’s French and Swiss lawyers were notified of the double standard at the Santa Monica Courthouse in a police cover up of sexual molestation case, and that equates to discrimination against European born people in sexual assault cases in the Santa Monica Courthouse regardless of whether the European person is the victim or the perpetrator.

    By July 12th 2010 Roman Polanski was free.

    Novalis said “She [Charlotte Lewis] went to sleaze scandalmonger Allred, i.e., Cooley, in order to influence the extradition out of spite & self-imposed ‘female victimisation’ in line with today’s feminist dogma of all women are victims & all men are rapists, after Cooley & Co had whipped up the public with their ‘child rapist’ rhetoric enough already.”

    Comment by Sonny | September 21, 2010 | Reply

    • Funny that the French officials should be rude’. I’m sure once they read more first-hand accounts of the LA corruption, they no doubt rethought their position, but then again, the French government wouldn’t bother to extradite their own at any rate. I’m sure it made an impression to see just how they treat real victims in their LA courts, & to what lengths they go to smear someone. There’s a lot of political wrangling behind the scenes at any rate, & the more the US demands something or someone, the lesser the Euro folks give is to them, seeing them for what they are (or at least the government) – warmongering bullies that punish sex with vindictive zeal.

      You’re right, once Allred spoke out against Polanski as the pathetic man-hater she is, to stoke the anti-Polanski debate some more into base frenzy & to give herself more support – though many in fact hate her for what she is & those she represents: gold-digger prostitutes – Lewis said herself that she wanted ‘her’, to ‘represent’ her. Had she come out at any other time, no one had believed her lies, true. But then again, she wouldn’t have, since it’s all fabrication & only came out in order to give the extradition an extra nasty spin, which obviously went the other way entirely when the Swiss didn’t fall for Cooley’s little Allred/Lewis show.

      The Swiss waited for Gunson’s testimony at that point, Cooley refused it & gave us ugly backstabber Lewis instead, the Swiss let him go – & it all backfired massively. After he was released, this Vogelhut came out with some more lies – who was in fact even lesser believed for whatever reasons – just so to kill off Polanski’s reputation entirely, since Cooley had gloriously failed to drag the little Polish mouse back into his court in shackles. Serves him right & his corrupt lot. I’m sure your help in the matter highlighted all that hypocrisy just nicely, Sonny.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 22, 2010 | Reply

  66. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4425135/Barack-Obama-to-allow-anti-terror-rendition-to-continue.html

    “Despite ordering the closure of Guantanamo and an end to harsh interrogation techniques, the new president has failed to call an end to secret abductions and questioning.Obama signed this on January 22 2009

    Though rendition was widely deployed after the September 11 attacks, the programme began under Bill Clinton, the last Democratic president, in the early 1990s.”

    In addition the California Goverment Code 910 also allows SECRET ABDUCTIONS in the Santa Monica Courthouse (AND OTHER CALIFORNIA COURTHOUSES?) which turns a court into a back alley for secret police, secret abductions and questioning when the person has no chance of winning because of the California Government Code 910.

    The novel “The Trial” by Franz Kafka’s Trial comes to mind

    Comment by Sonny | September 21, 2010 | Reply

  67. Typo delete second trial above

    Comment by Sonny | September 21, 2010 | Reply

    • Sooner or later the US will be ostracised globally because of their continuous Human Rights violations & legal posturing, unacceptable warring, abductions & torturing, & general arrogance to think they can bully the rest of the planet.

      Same goes for the LA courts on a smaller scale, which however affects people more directly on a greater [personal] scale. Many in fact have cited Kafka’s Trial once Polanski was rearrested, as that it was – a travesty of justice.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 22, 2010 | Reply

  68. LA DA Steve Cooley has a new target Officials in Bell California who took the tax payers money and put it into their own bank accounts to pay off loans.

    The Show Pony has imploded.

    http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/bell/city-of-bell-officials-arreste/

    And Steve Cooley looks good…?

    Comment by Sonny | September 22, 2010 | Reply

    • Notice how they all are ‘Hispanics’? And according to the comments, Cooley did nada ‘before’ & his [‘American’] ‘buddy’ has escaped charges – of course. Most likely because he paid him off, while the others go down to look good & like he’s cleaning up the state of corrupt officials.

      This should sum it up: ‘Steve Cooley is FULL OF S***! We have been involved in city government for years. We have been lied to and stonewalled by Rizzo and the council. We went to Cooley TWO YEARS AGO and he DID NOTHING! Why? Because he didn’t want to embarass his good buddy Randy Adams’ sweetheart employment deal in Bell. Cooley – YOU ARE LYING!’

      So yeah, Cooley lost his little Polish show pony with Polanski, so now he targets [Hispanic] officials, be it real or staged ‘corruption’, to make it to AG in November. The majority have no clues about what’s going on at any rate, & the populace won’t elect any AG anyway, it’s his rich buddies. Just like any judges are put into office by the governor, i.e., Arnie.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 22, 2010 | Reply

    • Cooley never looks ‘good’ & neither does Allred’s who’s at it again (worth reading). As for Cooley & his show pony that got away, I can’t post the link I wanted to demonstrate that he’s still doing his smear campaign thing. For some reason WP won’t allow it, (or they hate Cooley too!) so you’ll have to search for Steve Cooley on below site to get to the third post there about him. They’ve got a few articles on Polanski too.

      http://www.mercurynews.com/

      (And no, it’s not the site owner who disabled my post, he’s a friend of mine & has no clue [either] why it’s not allowing that link. Maybe WP have blacklisted mercurynews.)

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 29, 2010 | Reply

  69. Hi Novalis. You are right. Yes I didn’t catch all the comments first time around but the comments are telling. And another police officer wins both ways because he gets off, gets the money and betrays the others to Steve Cooley.

    SEE California Watch Aug 17th 2010

    http://californiawatch.org/watchblog/discord-3-complaints-intimidation-under-district-attorney-cooley-151

    But according to Kevin James at KRLA in the last few nights said that all 40 police commissions or stations in California support Steve Cooley. I wonder why?

    See also the comments (and article) in

    http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/bell/city-of-bell-officials-arreste/

    Comment by Sonny | September 24, 2010 | Reply

    • Sometimes it appears that the criminals, or cops who are in Cooley’s pockets, aren’t really the worst to look out for in LA, but Cooley ONLY. And as I said, to bust a few ‘corrupt’ officials, (then smear his opponent for one lab technician’s drug use), while he has hundreds of complaints on his hands since years & a class-action suit against him, incl. Polanski he had smeared TWICE, is more than hypocrisy & I hope he will NOT make it to AG. Though I’m nowhere near LA. Nor would I want to be.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 24, 2010 | Reply

      • There are many pleasant people in Los Angeles.

        Who rules and corruption is a life threatening problem

        Comment by Sonny | September 26, 2010

      • I’m sure there are nice folks in LA – but they unfortunately have no say about any justice, & with sleazy ‘lawyers’ like ALlred & crooked DA’s like Cooley I sure as hell don’t want to be anywhere near them.

        Some of Lewis recent [smear campaign] interviews were removed from UK sites – & Vogelhut never even appeared on any of them, after she went under like a dead duck since they gagged her, big hat & all.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | September 26, 2010

  70. Life and Movie Making goes on for Roman Polanski. Thank God. Or should I say thank God of carnage?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/sep/27/roman-polanski-god-of-carnage

    Comment by Sonny | September 27, 2010 | Reply

    • We knew he was to film God of Carnage already last year, since Reza had announced she’d be working with him after he’d finished The Ghost (Writer) – but then he was arrested & they had to postpone it, though they resumed working on it while he was under house arrest. She did not let him down & sought another director, but waited for his release to get cracking & find the right actors who gladly will join his film. This casting story is around now since a week, & they all repeat/ed the same nonsense; as in, he is ‘forced’ to film in Paris because he can’t go to the US, always repeating ‘why’. But, just like most of these articles, this one gets it wrong too since he wasn’t to ‘stand trial’, or to ‘face [rape] charges’, or ‘police want him’ etc. pp BS, but to be sentenced to time served. They all of course deliberately omit that he had done his time long ago & was the reason why he was released. (Though Cooley of course won’t make that official in his vindictiveness the little shite.)

      Plus, Polanski never was ‘Hollywood’; he made only 2 films there & the last in 1973 – Chinatown – that’s 37 years ago. Furthermore & most importantly, the play is set in Paris to begin with. Only the Broadway version was set in Brooklyn, obviously, while the UK premier set the play in Paris too. It’s a French play, & Reza, like Polanski is also French. Ergo, HE DOES NOT NEED TO FILM IN THE US AT ANY RATE, nor does he ever want to if he could. That myth is just so they can keep on referring to the case & make it the ‘reason’ he’s filming in Europe, his ‘exile’, (though to live all his adult life in Paris where he was born is hardly ‘exile’) utterly ignoring that he prefers to film there any day because the Hollywood studio/star/money system goes completely against his directing demands. He made films in Europe exclusively even when he had the chance to film in Hollywood. Besides, as seen with The Ghost, there’s always CGI that can make anything look as required, even if it’s all filmed in Germany, with original American props like their gas-guzzling cars or US uniforms. It’s pathetic to go on about it, just so to tease people into commenting on the case in their typical bile spewing idiocy, rather than the film itself.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 27, 2010 | Reply

  71. Nothing is black or whtie. But only shades of grey. I guess people have certain enemies that may or may not change over time. But US people and actors are not necessarily Roman Polanski’s enemies otherwise we would not have Jodie Foster, Matt Dillon, Johnny Depp, Jim Belushi, Timothy hutton, Harrison Ford, and Jack Nicholson rooting for him, or flocking to be in his movies!

    Comment by Sonny | September 28, 2010 | Reply

    • Exactly – I’m sure none of them are ‘morally corrupt’ to work with him, i.e., think he’s whatever people call him outside director & still want the acclaim & money through him in their hypocrisy, but simply know it was a dumb [coz illegal] act of underage sex since they all would also know that MANY in their own ranks (or they too) did the same, & most of all the rest of the planet. They’re [brave &] loyal colleagues. Kudos to every single one of them.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | September 29, 2010 | Reply

  72. Kudos is not a good word for me, as a County of Los Angeles lawyer is actually called Kudo who is paid handsomely by the County of Los Angeles and their tax payer moneys to carry out the County of Los Angeles’s dirty deeds such as covering up County of Los Angeles sheriffs and County of Los Angeles judicial corruption and not to forget Santa Monica College police corruption and Official corruption.

    Coincidentally Kudo is also in real estate and is the person 3rd from the left in this photo from the internet. You can see how proud he is of his dirty deeds.

    http://www.localtoglobalrealestategroup.com/about-the-group.html

    Comment by Sonny | October 2, 2010 | Reply

    • I get what you’re saying, Sonny – but kudos means ‘praise’ in common lingo I’m sure you know – so if someone’s name is Kudo that’s just a bad coincidence. I don’t know Kudo, nor do I want to. Cooley or Walgren are bad enough

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 3, 2010 | Reply

      • Yes it is just a bad coincidence. I know that Novalis, but rather than say nothing, I did want to point out to you – a touchy word for me. Kudos is nothing nice to me. It represents hard slog for nothing re: County of Los Angeles corruption and excessive force against me.

        I am just letting you know about Richard K. Kudo because he works for EXACTLY the same Governmental Unit, County of Los Angeles like Cooley and Walgren.

        Cooley and Walgren did not come after me since I was a victim and their police and sheriffs were covering up for the Governmental abusers.

        And it looks as if Cooley will be working for California State soon just like the former County of Los Angeles Judge Laurence D. Rubin of the Santa Monica Courthouse who oversaw UNDOCUMENTED WHITE SHERIFF ASSAULT AND BATTERY OF ME.

        Laurence D. Rubin has been rewarded for his disservice to me by being promoted to a California State appeal court judge district 2 division 8,by a former California Governor Gray Davis (the one before Arnie) and Laurence D. Rubin is next door to division 7 that oversaw Polanski’s appeal proceedings.

        So it all ties up neatly in California’s corrupt politics which is bordering on being a totalitarian state.

        Comment by Sonny | October 3, 2010

      • I know, & the more you tell me about these people, the more America, or for now foremost California, is literally, well you know what. The land of [no] & hope & [no] glory. It IS a totalitarian state already, & Arnie did f all to change that.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | October 3, 2010

  73. Hi Novalis. More politics in Los Angeles against the woman running for Republican California Governor – Meg Whitman.

    Here is Gloria Allred on KRLA with Hugh Hewitt with the new bomb shell against the Republican candidate for California Governor Meg Whitman.

    http://townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=784c07c5-7d35-4d8a-af59-5f7ed76dafdd

    This is the press conference of Gloria Allred with her new client Nikki.

    This is Meg Whitman’s response and she thinks Gloria Allred conspired with Meg Whitman’s opposition Jerry Brown

    http://townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=45422adf-16ec-4427-9d4e-cc2308f3b7f1

    I have also noticed that the KRLA 870 radio station specifically Kevin James is ignoring that Gloria Allred represented Charlotte Lewis. The reason they are ignoring this is because it does not fit in with the Republican assertion that Gloria only intervenes when it is politics and Governor’s races. That is not exactly true. Gloria intervenes when she gets clients – and she also likes press conferences and the limelight. She is quite a strong debater. Hugh is pretty intense and self satisfied.

    Comment by Sonny | October 2, 2010 | Reply

    • I discussed Allred’s latest exploitation sleaze over on FB already. I came across articles naming her former ‘client’ Lewis & Polanski obviously amongst others & there’re always links to point to any of the ‘clients’ she represented.

      Allred is a weasel talker champion, using weasel wording (like hardcore feminists love to practice in their evasive BS arguments, or emotional blackmail analogies), as heard in that heated Hewitt interview. I loved it how he cornered her & she just hung up! Stupid fake ‘made his life’. It made my day! She wouldn’t know law if it hit her; how she ever got her license is beyond me. She should be barred for giving honest lawyers and women a bad name. She’s exploitative scum.

      If anyone’s a ‘hypocrite’ she called Whitman, than that’s Allred, being oh so proud of Nikki not having told Whitman she’s an illegal immigrant until it became [politically] ‘lucrative’ & damaging to her. Even if they knew & did her a favour by employing her, & then dropped her, but once Nikki came out herself after she gave them falsified documents to be legal in the first place, she’s still an illegal immigrant who had LIED to Whitman & should be shipped off, not receive a press conference that panders her OWN lies. Besides, if Nikki dealt with their mail, she could have vamoosed any immigration letters that might have exposed her. Whitman acted correctly by dismissing her.

      As Whitman said, it’s definitely a[nother] smear campaign with Allred at the helm more prominently to give points to the Brown opposition, just like she tried to influence the extradition in Polanski’s case with that grand liar Lewis show. Allred is pure sham & shame, pulling out irrelevant letters to give Nikki a flimsy backbone; it won’t succeed in any court. Nikki doesn’t look like she’s got enough mettle to go through with this stunt when it comes to the crunch at any rate. Once she notices she’s been used, she’ll pull out. But then again, it’s the usual, we don’t even want to go to court (see Lewis), all we want is to stage another sensationalistic public smear campaign to damage someone’s reputation America is so in/famous for in order for certain parties to win or regain ground. Brown is as crooked as Cooley to stage these smear shows through [their] lackeys like Allred & her own lowlife clientèle, she always so conveniently ‘finds’ when it’s getting critical.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 3, 2010 | Reply

      • Hey Novalis I did not read what you posted at FB not being a member. I had a take on the scenario as there are always two sides, it is which side can be proven.

        There are more than 12 million illegal Mexicans and others from South America in USA Some say there are 5 times that amount. So the reason for this is that they are cheap labor. I don’t mean to denigrate these people but they are here for a better living yet at the same time because they are illegal they are used and can easily be abused having no power. A bit like a sexual assault victim where one has more power than the other.

        Why don’t you post your take on this situation at this blog too.

        I suspect that Gloria is more after the limelight and defending her “clients” than anything else. I did not like her when she went against Polanski by representing Lewis but there is something to be said for representing the underdog.

        Comment by Sonny | October 3, 2010

  74. One other thing. If Meg Whitman ran Ebay and made it work, it is more difficult to believe she did not Know her home worker was illegal. It is a bit like saying Donald Trump does not know there is a fox in his backyard.

    Comment by Sonny | October 3, 2010 | Reply

    • So I smell a rat. And so did Gloria. Whether it will wash as a lawsuit since the poor girl has no papers is another matter. It will all be up to the California Judge. But it does damage Whitman’s campaign, as there is a question as to her credibility which extends beyond the Spanish speaking peoples.

      Comment by Sonny | October 3, 2010 | Reply

      • There won’t be any lawsuit, Nikki will be deported unless Allred ‘arranges’ to get her papers. That was purely to smear Whitman – & when that’s done & over, more or less successfully – she’ll drop Nikki like the rest. Just like in the Polanski case. If Allred knew Lewis had lied is irrelevant, as long as they both achieved their goal to smear him, which worked to some extend but failed in the long run to get him back to LA.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | October 3, 2010

    • To run an online company doesn’t make one a specialist on immigration politics. Whitman made it clear that Nikki gave her ‘legal’ papers which turned out to be falsified, i.e., she lied to her.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 3, 2010 | Reply

  75. In California one has to evaluate everything carefully before any decisions can be made.

    This made it to the LA times today

    Good for Gloria Allred!!!!

    If this is true and it can be proven that Meg Whitman Knew all along??????

    this may be a good preview, an indication of how California and its inhabitants could be USED and ABUSED until no longer needed by Meg Whitman if the inhabitants are dumb enough to elect Meg Whitman who employs people who can’t answer back.

    IT is not true that Gloria Allred only shows up for California elections.

    Gloria Allred also represented Charlotte Lewis’s french case that was twenty years old (Statute of Limitations?) against Roman Polanski which Los Angeles District Attorney’s extradition case FAILED MISERABLY, since the extradition request was found to be severely WANTING!!!!

    So do Republicans only become UNHAPPY when Gloria Allred – representing an illegal worker challenges how Meg Whitman who is running for governor of California, handled her undocumented worker, by blaming the worker when she becomes a liability i.e. IN THE END FOR HER ILLEGALITY– WHILE MEG’S FAMILY got the benefit of her for 9 years and had power over Nicandra because OF HER ILLEGAL STATUS

    Thanks Gloria Allred …More Lawyers are needed in California to even out the playing field in power inequities whether those power inequities occur between powerful male and powerless female or powerful female against powerless female!!!!!!

    The worker was not all bad otherwise Meg would have complained of something else illegal that she did, but that did not happen. The Nanny should have received ALL pay due to her and if she was so “illegal” she should have been let go earlier, NOT AT THE LAST MINUTE when Meg was running for GOVERNOR SO AS TO COLDLY COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA LAW, AND SO AS TO ON THE SURFACE LOOK GOOD FOR THE UPCOMING ELECTION.

    Comment by Sonny | October 4, 2010 | Reply

    • Whoever said more ‘lawyers’ like Allred are needed is as thick as a plank. I highly doubt Allred can prove anything since the timing of ‘Nikki’ coming out ‘now’ is far too iffy. SHE IS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN, END OF.

      As for those who cite Lewis, (if they believe her or not) they obviously [still] have ZERO clues as to ‘why’ she suddenly appeared with Allred of all sleazeballs.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 5, 2010 | Reply

      • As far as Gloria Allred and lawyers in general – they have different clients and cases. Some they win and others they lose. My slant was obviously against Charlotte Lewis since the case was ridiculous twenty years old and in a different country to boot.

        However my point is that it is Meg’s word against the illegal. But remember Adriano Desouza against Phil spector was also an illegal worker and Adriano was believed – because he was useful to the DA winning the case against Phil Spector, Adriano was also given a residency.

        My point is illegals and even legals like myself are vulnerable to spin by people with more power. Do you know Novalis that Meg did not know? And of course I don’t know that she did know of her nanny’s illegality.

        I am just pointing out the possibility and Gloria is trying to prove it, which may put a dent in Meg’s credibility and fitness to rule the state if it is true she uses people with no power and dumps them when expedient to do so..

        Comment by Sonny | October 5, 2010

      • Being an illegal working alien is not the end of the story. At least not in Los Angeles. See this picture of illegal worker Adriano De Souza. He later got a legitimate part in a Los Angeles trial

        http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/18686985

        Comment by Sonny | October 5, 2010

  76. Also Adriano De Souza got legitimate work in the Los Angeles trial. See link below for a picture of him at his legitimate workplace the trial of Phil Spector

    http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/18686985

    It was legitimate work because the California State and its DA Steve Cooley said it was legitimate work.

    It is interesting how illegals are transformed into legals depending on the political circumstances, and how other illegals are dumped depending on the political circumstances.

    Meg is not fit to rule if she did not know she had an illegal in her own back yard.

    Comment by Sonny | October 5, 2010 | Reply

    • Yes the bottom line is that Meg Whitman is not a FOX and is not fit to be California Governor if she did not know that she was employing an illegal in her own backyard, and

      But if Meg Whitman did know that her illegal worker was illegal then she is guilty of dumping her illegal worker for political expediency, just prior to the election of the California Governor for which she is the Republican candidate and is running for.

      So in a sense Meg Whitman is no better than Steve Cooley shitting on Polanski for political gain, and they are both Republicans running in the next California election.

      Comment by Sonny | October 5, 2010 | Reply

      • Don’t forget, Diaz came out herself only ‘now’ & said to be an illegal, & if Diaz gave Whitman allegedly ‘legal papers’, how else could she ‘know’ she’s an illegal; it’s not Whitman’s fault she was duped by Diaz & had a perfect right to ‘dump’ her. Besides, Cooley ‘makes’ people like De Souza legal (& to lie) true, if they serve him in his own cause to send innocent people to prison. Or damage their reputations as seen with Diaz. At any rate, [most] DA’s or politicians are all the same – they don’t give a shit about the[ir] people.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | October 5, 2010

  77. Hi Novalis. I am of the understanding there is a conflict in the story. There usually is in legal cases and one side is more true than the other side.

    Diaz is saying that Meg Whitman knew all along but only dumped her when she was running for governor of California and then cut her off without pay. And Meg is saying that she did not know of her nanny’s illegality. If what Diaz is saying is true then Meg Whitman is complicit in employing Diaz who she knew to be illegal, and then dumped her when she was running for Governor of California and thus was seen as a liability who needed to be dumped.

    If what Diaz is saying is not true and that Meg Whitman “did not know” then Meg Whitman a business person is shown to not be very careful in who she employs in her own home????.

    A “possibly” more certain way of guaranteeing citizenship or legality is to ask for the actual green card or a passport. And to do a background check.

    If Meg Whitman is so lax in who she choses to be a nanny in her house, why should she be voted in to be Governor of California by Californians? Wouldn’t it be easy for others to pull one over the Governor which would harm Californians.

    If this is true shouldn’t Californians know about this problem – regardless of whether Meg knew or not before the election.

    This evening Diaz was on the radio saying that she was not a puppet and that the Democratic Contender Jerry Brown had not put her up to this.

    Of course this may be true or not, but she said it herself.

    Comment by Sonny | October 5, 2010 | Reply

  78. Hi Novalis here is Nicky Santillan’s statement about Republican candidate for California Governor Meg Whitman

    Video link below

    LOS ANGELES — “I want everyone to know who I am. That’s why I am here today. I make my own decisions. I’m not anyone’s puppet.

    I really thought about it before I decided to speak out. Nobody made me do it. Meg Whitman was wrong when she said somebody put a gun to my head. Nobody did. I spoke out because I want people to know who Meg Whitman really is and I am glad that I did. I want to be heard.

    I want the people who clean houses and do the jobs that the others don’t want to do to be treated with respect and dignity. I feel that we have the right to be paid for all the work that we do. Housekeepers are human beings too.

    We laugh, we cry, we have feelings. Blood runs through our veins just like anyone else. I’m not doing this only for me, but also for all the people who are taken advantage of by their employers.

    I knew the risk of speaking out and I was afraid for my family. Despite my fear, I decided to come out from the shadows, the shadows in which millions of people live every day.

    It’s not fair that we work hard and then get thrown away like garbage. We have families to support like you do. We are here. We need you just like you need us.

    Meg Whitman: Don’t say I was part of your family because you never treated me like I was.

    http://www.fox40.com/ktxl-news-cap-nickystatement,0,7578197.story

    Comment by Sonny | October 5, 2010 | Reply

    • What Diaz is saying sounds more like a neatly composed script in the vein of what Lewis said, where she can say anything she likes to press the public emotion button; the poor illegal servant vs the rich biz woman/politician. But she needs real proof, not some press conference with a scandalmonger ‘lawyer’. Besides, if Diaz worked for Whitman for 9 yrs, she surely was part of the family, or she’d long simply left. They’re playing the, ‘of course I couldn’t just leave or complain since I was an illegal’ card.

      Diaz [was made to] came out to influence the election, just like Lewis was ‘found’ to influence the extradition – both under Allred’s ‘direction’ – in the name of the given opposition. Whatever Diaz says, she’s an illegal, she lied to Whitman about it, who might be considered unprofessional not having background-checked to see if the papers ARE genuine, true. But conversely, had she kept her on, knowing she was an illegal or not, the opposition had used that against her at any rate, since they always dig up some old closet skeletons. Or fabricate them. Like making the ‘illegal’ (i.e., forged) immigration papers ‘legal’ AFTER the fact. All they needed to tell Diaz was, you say so & so & we make you & your family legal, give her a few $ for it & bingo, Whitman is ‘exposed’ as a liar, NOT Diaz/Allred/Brown, & her chances of winning dwindle instantly.

      Diaz makes the same ‘emotional appeal’ [to the public rather than courts] by saying: “Don’t say I was part of your family because you never treated me like I was,” as Lewis had said: “I’m telling the truth and Roman knows I’m telling the truth.” It’s emotional blackmail people will always fall for, pointing to the very opposite that happened. Another sign of this being a ‘stage act’ is the, ‘I’m not a puppet’ line, which is also pure projection of the very opposite, as in, I AM a puppet, (of Allred/Brown [out] to destroy Whitman). Just like Lewis said she had paid for her own expenses to get to LA, i.e., did NOT pay for any of it herself, since that’s first of all utterly irrelevant to her claims. It’s clever detraction from the real issues, the in/famous ‘she said/she said-I’m the poor victim’ scenario only one side can win when the other is exposed as a liar. Which one the liar is in the Diaz/Whitman battle is to be seen.

      Besides, I’m sure they made her legal by now or otherwise she’d not be still in the run to speak out against Whitman, since the immigration office has zero to do with any governor elections & deport people as they find them. Or at least should. I can see where you might compare Whitman with Cooley, but I’d rather go with Brown to be like him; trying to destroy someone, i.e., Whitman/(Polanski) with fabrications through a third part, i.e., Diaz/(Lewis), with Allred always right in the middle as the PR manipulator. It’s just another smear campaign show as seen so often.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 6, 2010 | Reply

      • Hi Novalis. It is always difficult to fathom who is lying and who is telling the truth. But it seems Meg was not a professional, or should I say not used to Los Angeles politics so she left herself wide open. There is no smear on Jerry Brown apart from Meg saying he has no plan, and the Republicans saying that Jerry Brown is the spokesperson for the unions.

        I am not sure what the immigration problem is like in England or in London, but the reason people are not jumping all over Diaz for being illegal is that there may be as many as 50 million illegal Mexican and South Americans here. Although the official figure is 12 million. The borders obviously are not secure and they do jobs for less than minimum wage because Americans employ them, and the police do not enforce immigration, and the Feds are not enforcing it very well either.

        What was really interesting tonight is I heard County of Los Angeles Sheriff Leroy Baca who is in fact a Republican has endorsed Jerry Brown a democrat for governor. The reason given on the news was that Baca thought that Jerry Brown had worked hard, but apparently Sheriff Lee Baca has latin origin.

        http://www.metnews.com/profiles/baca.htm

        Comment by Sonny | October 7, 2010

      • As far as Diaz being legal. I have really not researched this, but I believe that she may have some children. If her children are born in the U.S. they are U.S. citizens and some people here call these babies anchor babies. I believe this means that the non legal person can then receive benefits from the state for these babies and it might help the parents stay here, since the babies are US citizens.

        Comment by Sonny | October 7, 2010

      • Not so fast on legal for Nicky. Here is a link. The topic goes on and on

        http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/10/conservative-tv-hosts-press-fe.html

        Comment by Sonny | October 7, 2010

  79. In a sense Meg Whitman (Republican Candidate for California) has alot in common with Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley (Republican Candidate for Californian Attorney General)
    The Los Angeles District attorney was trying to nail Roman Polanski using a false extradition claim for political gain, another notch in his belt against an aging world renowned movie director.
    And Meg Whitman dumped her foreign maid for political gain at the last minute to coldly comply with California law and look legal herself for the upcoming California Governor’s race
    Seems like County of Los Angeles Officials and other Californians when running for California State offices will do anything to win including taking a big dump on foreign born people.

    Today is the 12th anniversary of being beaten up and abused in the Santa Monica Courthouse so that County of Los Angeles Judge Laurence D. Rubin could get his promotion to the California Court of Aopeals where he is called “Justice” Remember the California Governor promoted him on police brutality day Oct 22nd 2001 to the position

    Its all corrupt here in Los Angeles.

    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

    Comment by Sonny | October 6, 2010 | Reply

    • You’re right, corruption is out of hand in LA by now, & California is the most bankrupt state in the US.

      Don’t dwell on your own case too much, Sonny; do as Roman does, steel yourself through your painful past experiences & forge ahead regardless. How do they say [here], don’t let the bastards get you down!

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 6, 2010 | Reply

  80. Hi Novalis thanks for the heads up.

    When in Rome I will do as Roman does, and in Paris too. I would like to do what Roman has done in Los Angeles also, which is to make some mighty fine movies such as Rosemary’s Baby and Chinatown.

    I am getting through some health problems this year, and had good news from the doctor today, but have another couple of tests to go through, and some excruciating side pain, but once I am on the up and up, I will try not to dwell on the past, and am willing to work in Europe too. And will see what comes up, once I am well.

    Novalis it sounds like you are from somewhere in Europe but now live in London? Or perhaps I have forgotten how English is spoken living here in Los Angeles!!!

    Comment by Sonny | October 7, 2010 | Reply

    • Well, as I said, that was merely a thought as to what the opposition could have done, to simply make her legal after the fact. Whether that apparently hasn’t happen, & they want her out, but not ‘pick on her’ & have no idea what to do with her now, that’s their problem not Whitman’s, Brown however uses against her. I’m sure the immigration influx is a problem, but I doubt it’s that’s much in actual figures. On the other hand, I don’t live in LA, nor do I want to, so I don’t know what or not they do in regards to illegals. Whitman plays it safe by not saying much against or for Brown, while the mudslinging is done from Allred’s court to discredit her, playing right into the public’s perception of: Diaz = poor underdog, yet illegal they don’t want.

      I think this comments sums it up: ‘This woman violated our laws to come to this country illegally and then she used someone else’s SSA number, illegally, to get a job. This was a good paying position that could have gone to a US citizen or legal resident. If the sister willingly let her use the SSA number, then the sister should be prosecuted for conspiracy. How could anyone even consider rewarding this woman’s behavior with a “path to citzenship”? She is a criminal, she violated US law. She simply hasn’t been prosecuted. And if CA Attorney Jerry Brown was upstanding and law-abiding and if he really didn’t get his “shill”, Gloria Allred, to trot this woman out at the 11th hour to embarrass his opponent, then HE should be the one taking the first steps to boot her out of this country. Governor Moonbeam, don’t give voters a comprehensive plan on how you plan on restoring this state, just demonstrate your insecurity and your lack of ethics by using a cheap trick to make Whitman look bad. I didn’t like Jerry Brown the last time he was CA Governor. I am not a Whitman fan either. Perhaps everyone should vote for the “Green” candidate and boycott both Brown and Whitman. It would certainly make a statement and how much worse could teh “green” party be?’

      That in fact was rather poor grammar & spelling in places though people obviously still understand what he means. My English is ‘my English’ as this commenter’s is his ‘American English’, as yours is yours. My English is perfectly correct; it’s just ‘me’ & well-‘European’ for sure. American English is slightly different as it is, just like our accents. As in, shorter sentences, different spelling, or words, even syntax, uses “ instead of ’, has double spacing between sentences rather than a single one. I speak several languages, so that might account for a more flamboyant narrative. Think Kafka’, he used endless sentences & plenty commas, as the Germans love doing it. It’s still perfect German while others might put a full stop after each short thought & use no commas (I in fact hate; it’s highly monotonous, no matter how interesting the told story might be). As long as it’s grammatically understandable & the spelling is correct, it’s each individual’s own ‘signature’, just like yours is distinctly yours you might not be aware of, & it’s very different to Dank’s or mine or others’. I use ‘&’ in comments e.g., while in my blogs I don’t. It’s all relative.

      So when in Paris, give Polanski my greetings in case you chance across him while filming there next year, & whatever your malady, Sonny, get well soon to come here one day & forget about nasty LA.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 8, 2010 | Reply

  81. Two Corrupt Judges at the Santa Monica Courthouse

    The corrupt Judge and system hurt Samantha Geimer far more than Polanski ever did – interview Oct 2010

    Having also been at the butt of Judicial corruption at the Santa Monica Courthouse I concur with Samantha.

    Comment by Sonny | October 9, 2010 | Reply

    • Link to Samantha’s interview http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/08/samantha-geimer-roman-pol_n_756346.html

      Comment by Sonny | October 9, 2010 | Reply

    • Indeed – she made that clear often enough. But of course people assign all sorts of ‘ulterior motives’ to her support for Polanski, rather than see ‘why’ she says what she does, i.e., because it never was ‘rape’ & both have been pawns of the appalling legal system ever since. All because the sister overheard her talking to her boyfriend about the champagne, the Quaalude, the hot tub, the sex, who then egged on the mother to call for the cops, after the bad bad director had taken the oh so shocking topless photos of her poor innocent daughter who then was ravished by him after they had a bit of bubbly & fun. So let’s call it rape & make her the entirely innocent party in this by ‘elaborating’ on certain things (like the anal sex & her ‘reluctance’) after the law took over & then went out of hand, hence the plea deal that also went out of hand. Geimer never wanted anyone to bring in the law or Polanski behind bars, but jealous & Quaalude-addicted older sister & stupid mom just had to go against her wishes, after they had allowed her to have sex & drugs & booze at home long before Polanski ever met her. But they thought, hey, it’s in/famous Polanski, let’s apply double standards & drag him before the bar, rather than her boyfriend & her mother’s boyfriend both eligible for statutory rape who both had their own designs on the girl. But, who only paid for it? Polanski.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 9, 2010 | Reply

  82. Samantha Galley paid for it as well. She learned from her experience but her experience is now of no use to her, since it was all out of her hands as a 13 year old girl.

    We do not choose who are parents are!

    And we also do not choose corrupt Santa Monica Judges who are also fools and WHORES for publicity and promotion.

    Larry Flynt was right and he said the same thing to a Federal Magistrate James McMahon on December 12th in the 1980’s…Larry Flynt went to jail for his statement to that Magistrate.

    Strangely enough Magistrate James McMahon was the Magistrate on my second federal case. He did me no favors favoring the County of Los Angeles corruption, and strung me along for years like a prison sentence!

    See http://openjurist.org/756/f2d/1352

    Comment by Sonny | October 10, 2010 | Reply

    • She paid not half of what Polanski suffered – she lived in happy oblivion on Hawaii for decades while he was still maligned. Sure, she had no choice as a teen, when the adults thought, hey, let’s play grown-up & punish the adult only because he was naughty. They should have listened to her to let him be, not blamed Polanski for it all.

      Can only agree with the judges & DAs being just that – & my, calling them names or swearing gets you 30 days. So much for abuse of power. Sure, let’s jail paralysed men in wheelchairs who swear a lot. Great planet we’re on.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 10, 2010 | Reply

      • Hustler magazine owner Larry Flynt got more than 30 days he got 30 days everytime he swore at Federal Magistrate James McMahon so Flynt got I believe more than 6 months for his truth session, I mean swearing session, and was still in jail when the 9th Circuit court of appeals decision was written to set him free.

        And Democratic runner for Governor Jerry Brown or one of his merry men just called Republican nominee for Governor of California, Meg Whitman a WHORE (caught on tape)

        http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/10/jerry_brown_wrong_word_fair_po.html

        Those in politics and some who are judges are whores, for political promotion and media recognition in California

        Comment by Sonny | October 11, 2010

    • Oh I know, Sonny – but it’s just too ridiculous to sling someone inside for swearing at an f-ing judge. Oops, where’s my 30 days? Fine them for contempt of court, but prison is for criminal, not swearers. But what do I know. It’s f-ing abuse of power Your Honour. Oops, another 30 days.

      As for Brown calling Whitman names, always seems the last & very childish resort if they don’t have any better arguments. Typical. Maybe they should introduce a ‘swearing law’, where you can get 30 days for swearing at someone, no matter who they are, ha!

      Here they’d asked for his resignation. Or at least public apology. Here we go: might I call the Right Honourable Ms so &so a so & so? And she’ll go: might I remind the Right Honourable Mr so & so of our policies not to call the Right Honourable members (of so & so) so & so names? We’re much more civilised in our [official] swearing. Unless you’re out in the streets, of course. Idiots. Oops, another 30 days…

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 11, 2010 | Reply

      • Brown did have a better argument, which he made his if it wasn’t his to begin with.

        NANNY GATE

        and then there was WHORE GATE.

        Can you see who is ruling California. Yes it is the terminator currently!

        Comment by Sonny | October 11, 2010

    • Not for long – in November is election time. So he’ll not ‘be back’.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 12, 2010 | Reply

  83. Warning… the following extracts contain strong language from the start….but it is funny…..

    LRRY FLYNT PART 1

    “A. Events Prior to the Hearing
    On December 12, 1983, Flynt appeared before United States Magistrate James W. McMahon for arraignment on an indictment charging him with flag desecration and unlawful wearing of a Purple Heart. Flynt, who is paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair, had worn an American flag as a diaper and pinned the Purple Heart to his shirt when he appeared at the courthouse in connection with an earlier unrelated contempt proceeding.

    During his arraignment on those charges, Flynt made a series of insulting, abusive, and obscene remarks to Magistrate McMahon. At the close of the arraignment, the Magistrate randomly assigned the trial on the issues raised in the indictment to United States District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall.

    On December 15, 1983, Judge Marshall ordered Flynt to undergo psychiatric evaluation at the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, in order to determine his competence to stand trial.

    FN1. The dialogue in which appellant and the Magistrate engaged was as follows:

    THE MAGISTRATE: Mr. Flynt, if you tell me that you do not understand that you have the right to have an attorney represent you, I am going to be obliged, in order to protect your rights, to appoint an attorney to represent you.

    THE DEFENDANT (LARRY FLYNT): Don’t do me any favors, your honor. I mean, you are the MADAM, and over here (indicating) is another WHORE (County of Los Angeles attorney?) and this guy who says he is my attorney is a streetwalker.

    THE MAGISTRATE: Mr. Flynt, I expect you to behave yourself here.

    THE DEFENDANT: Then you might as well put my ass in jail. Now, I am trying to be nice to you, god damn it. Now, are you going to let me read my arraignment and plea or are you going to put me in jail again? What the fuck is going on here?

    * * *
    THE MAGISTRATE: All right. I am going to appoint Mr. Isaacman to represent you as your attorney for these proceedings. You may choose to call–

    THE DEFENDANT: Then take my ass to jail, cocksucker, because I–

    THE MAGISTRATE: All right.

    THE DEFENDANT: –refuse to go through this bullshit.

    THE MAGISTRATE: All right, would you proceed with the arraignment?

    THE DEFENDANT: You dumb, ignorant mother fucker. Now, I am telling you; you are not going to get away with this.

    THE MAGISTRATE: Proceed with the arraignment.

    THE DEFENDANT: There are no fucking way you are going to get away with it. You are denying me my counsel of my choice. You are just as
    dumb as that god damn Burger up there on the Supreme Court, and I am ready to stay in jail until hell freezes over or until I have the attorney of my choice.

    You god damn, no good, 14 karat piece of shit, you. Just cause you got on that robe, you don’t have any god damn right to abuse the Constitution that you are supposed to be upholding.”….

    to be continued…..

    Comment by Sonny | October 11, 2010 | Reply

  84. LYNT PART 2

    “Flynt’s defense consisted of testimony from seven non-expert witnesses, including himself and his bodyguard, concerning his mental and emotional conditions on the date of the alleged offense. In the course of Flynt’s direct examination, he was asked to state reasons for his outbursts before the Magistrate. He responded with a series of epithets directed toward the judiciary *1357 in general. Judge Real called a recess and ordered Flynt gagged. When the hearing resumed, Judge Real admonished Flynt that any further outbursts would result in summary contempt citations. He then ordered removal of the gag and Flynt resumed his testimony.
    FN4. Appellant’s remarks were a part of the following colloquy:

    Q: Mr. Flynt, is there any other reason you could give us that you already haven’t as to why you said the things you did to Magistrate McMahon on December 12 at the hearing?

    A: Yes, there is, Mr. Kahn.

    Q: What is it?

    A: I went to the United States Supreme Court and I called every one of them no-good, lousy, dumb, mother-fuckers, what assholes they were. And that I would be back as soon as I was allowed out of prison to tell them mother- fuckers they had violated my goddamn mother-fucking civil rights as long as they intend to, and if I am not kept in prison–

    MR. KAHN: Your Honor–

    :–until hell freezes over, I will kill–

    MR. KAHN: Your Honor, can we please–

    THE DEFENDANT:–every mother-fucking one of them. Blow those mother- fucking judges–

    MR. KAHN: Could we have a short recess, please, your Honor–

    THE DEFENDANT:–and I don’t want–

    THE COURT: No, Mr. Kahn, he knows what he is doing.
    THE DEFENDANT: No–I don’t–

    MR. KAHN: Your Honor–

    THE DEFENDANT:–and I am crazier than hell. I want a competency hearing.”

    tbc

    Comment by Sonny | October 11, 2010 | Reply

  85. FLYNT PART 3

    “At the close of Flynt’s testimony, his counsel asked him whether he had any further statements to make on his own behalf. Once again, Flynt responded with epithets. Judge Real summarily imposed a thirty-day contempt sentence. Flynt responded with more epithets, which were met by Judge Real with a second summary contempt sentence of thirty days. Flynt again responded with a round of epithets and Judge Real summarily imposed a third thirty-day contempt sentence, at which point Flynt was removed from the courtroom.
    FN5. The exchange between appellant and the court was as follows:

    FLYNT: I move that you call the U.S. marshal to the stand that was present when I took the drugs, when I was flung on the floor by an inmate, and when I was kicked when I was smacked. I want the U.S. marshal called, I also want the guard called that tipped me off that this asshole was sending me to Springfield.

    THE MARSHALL: Open up the door.

    THE COURT: No, that is all right. He’s got the responsibility.

    That is going to cost you 30 days, Mr. Flynt.
    THE DEFENDANT: Hey, you know what punishment–is. Well, you don’t give a fuck.

    THE COURT: Mr. Flynt, you just keep that up.

    THE DEFENDANT: Fuck you. Give me life without parole you foul mother- fucker.

    THE COURT: That is another 30.

    THE DEFENDANT: I want you–give me more. You chicken-shit son-of-a- bitch.

    THE COURT: That is another 30 days.

    THE DEFENDANT: Give me more.”…

    Comment by Sonny | October 11, 2010 | Reply

  86. FLYNT’s FINAL FLING

    “Flynt was subsequently returned to the courtroom where he completed his testimony without any further outbursts. At the close of the hearing, Judge Real found Flynt guilty of contempt in Magistrate McMahon’s courtroom and sentenced him to six months. In addition, Judge Real reiterated the three thirty-day sentences ordered pursuant to the summary contempt proceedings. Flynt responded to the sentencing with a final string of obscenities, for which Judge Real summarily sentenced him to an additional six months.
    FN6. Appellant’s final outburst occurred as follows:

    THE COURT: For the contempt of December 12th, 1983, the defendant shall be
    committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his representative for a period of six months, and for each of the contempts upon which he was cited here in court today, 30 days. Each of those sentences are to run consecutively to each other and not concurrently.

    THE DEFENDANT: Give me more, mother-fucker. Is that all you can give me, you chicken-shit cocksucker? Lay 18 months on me, you dumb mother-fucker.

    THE COURT: Now–

    THE DEFENDANT: Fuck you in your ass.

    THE COURT: That is enough.

    THE DEFENDANT: You suck–

    THE COURT: That will be another six months which will be also consecutive.

    THE DEFENDANT: I want you to give me more. Give me more.

    Flynt’s sentences totalled fifteen months. After appellant had begun serving his sentences, he petitioned Judge Real for an order releasing him on bond pending appeal. In his petition, Flynt indicated an intention to challenge, inter alia, the trial court’s denial of a continuance and its use *1358 of summary contempt proceedings. Judge Real denied the petition, concluding that release on bail would present a risk of flight and that the issues Flynt proposed to raise in his appeal were “frivolous.” Because, for reasons we need not detail here, it was perfectly clear that appellant’s release would not present an unreasonable risk of flight, and because even a cursory review of the law relating to the proper use of summary contempt proceedings showed that Flynt had raised substantial questions concerning Judge Real’s exercise of the summary contempt power, another panel of this court ordered appellant released on bond pending this appeal. At the time he was released, Flynt had already served five months and five days of his sentence.
    C. Issues on Appeal
    In this appeal Flynt challenges the district court’s denial of his request for a continuance and its subsequent invocation of its summary contempt power. In addition, Flynt contends that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, that he was entitled to a hearing on his mental competence to stand trial, and that his fifteen-month sentence is excessive.
    There can be no question that the type of conduct in which Flynt engaged cannot be tolerated in a courtroom. There are a number of measures that may be taken to bring such conduct to an immediate end. Punishment, including a term of incarceration, may be imposed, if appropriate procedures are followed. However, the issue before us is not whether Flynt engaged in the conduct with which he is charged. The issue is not even whether Flynt actually had the mental capacity to commit the offense of contempt. Rather the issues presented here are procedural ones that raise questions of essential fairness. No matter how opprobrious the offense, every person is entitled to have his guilt or innocence determined in a manner that complies with our rules, laws and Constitution.
    We conclude that in two essential respects Flynt’s convictions were obtained without affording him important procedural rights. Both involve the district court’s failure to allow Flynt to prove that he did not have the mental capacity to commit contempt. First, Flynt’s only defense to the charge of contempt that arose out of the magistrate’s proceeding was that he lacked the requisite mental capacity. The district court’s denial of a continuance of its hearing effectively foreclosed Flynt from presenting that defense. We must therefore reverse the conviction that was based upon Flynt’s conduct before the magistrate. Second, the evidence raised a substantial question as to Flynt’s mental capacity to commit the contempts that were based on his conduct before the district court. Accordingly, the district judge erred in punishing Flynt for that conduct without affording him a hearing at which he could present evidence on the issue of his mental capacity. For that reason, we must reverse Flynt’s four summary convictions for the conduct that occurred before the district judge. Because we reverse appellant’s convictions on these two grounds, we do not address his additional arguments.
    II. THE DISTRICT COURT’S DENIAL OF APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE”

    nb Larry Flynt is the publisher of Hustler magazine a movie was made about his life …by Milos Forman who also made One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Amadeus.

    Comment by Sonny | October 11, 2010 | Reply

    • I guess all LA judges ‘suck’. As much as I hate to hear mindless swearing, but if the receiving end deserves it, fine. It IS funny. And dumb – either way. Let’s send all the abusive judges & DAs to prison instead. Boy, would we be short of judges & DAs suddenly.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 12, 2010 | Reply

  87. Federal Magistrate James W. McMahon (now retired) was at Harvard Law School at the same time as my lawyer.

    Instead of using honest logic, James W. McMahon was adroit at using fallacies in his orders along with intentional errors against me McMahon said my prior case was dead when he knew it was not dead and used that factual fallacy as justification to dismiss my second Federal Case against the County of Los Angeles et al. The Federal Judge Spencer Letts backed Magistrate McMahon up. The Federal Judges generally do.

    Magistrate James W. McMahon first denied my case on January 11th 2000. (Remember January 11th plus a Harvard man. It is written in Robert Harris’s novel the Ghost which may have been published after January 11th 2006 but in reality I cannot imagine that Robert Harris knew ) ‘

    And two January 11ths add up to a dead case and January 22nd…And then of course coincidentally there was a false witness against me who had the name January. County of Los Angeles sheriff deputy Terry January.

    You would think this is a fiction from a movie like the Ghost, if you did not know it was true.

    Then in 2002 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Magistrate McMahon and the Federal Judge’s lower court decisions. The two precedent decisions 2002 and 2003 were written by 9th Circuit Judge Raymond Fisher who 7 years later now supports states secrets and no lawsuits at all. I would have been far better off if that was his stance in 2002.

    Judge Raymond Fisher did me no favors as his written ruling in 2002, 2003 along with the other Judges that supported him, asked that I shit on my lawyer and his Federal statutory attorneys fees under 42 USC 1988 to “win the case” by receiving some money.

    Since I was not a hypocrite and wanted my lawyer to receive statutory attorneys fees, 3 years later the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals pulled torture memos Judge Jay S. Bybee from under the rug and he – on the coincidental date of January 11th 2006 in a different case, ruled in a way that could be later used to dismiss my case.

    In 2010 the 9th Circuit would not reconcile my case to their January 11th 2006 decision even though the two precedent decision in my case are still good law, and let my case die, so California State Secrets like white sheriffs in the Santa Monica Courthouse to assault and batter and Judicial misconduct with phony and false witness African American County of Los Angeles Sheriff Terry January and the white sheriff thugs could be swept under the rug, just as the Judicial misconduct could be swept under the rug in Roman Polanski’s Santa Monica Courthouse case.

    So Samantha is right there is no justice, only Santa Monica Judges, Los Angeles DA’s, and Federal Judges seeking higher orafice,

    and as Larry Flynt says the Magistrate and the County lawyers are all WHORES.

    And as Moonbean Jerry Brown and his aids say the person running for Republlican Governor is a WHORE.

    I guess that sums it up for tonight Novalis. Glad you got a laugh. I admire Larry Flynt for saying that. Even though his saying all that came out of pain.

    Comment by Sonny | October 12, 2010 | Reply

    • Of course she’s right – or Flynt. It only proves that the omes in black can dismiss whatever they like that shouldn’t, but not when they should, like her case against Polanski. In fact, I think it’s an insult to whores to call the judges/DAs the same.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 12, 2010 | Reply

      • I totally agree Novalis. And Larry Flynt despite all the swearing is very bright. Since he called the Judge not a whore but a MADAM. The Judge is the organizer of whores. The County of Los Angeles lawyers are whores for money, and that money was once the County of Los Angeles tax payers money.

        Traditional Whores probably have much better ethics than Judges. A whores business might be more straightforward, sex for money, but a whore is not just a person who has sex for money…

        A Judge can knowingly screw a victim and re-victimize them for money or a bribe from the State, such as a promotion like County of Los Angeles Judge Laurence D. Rubin in my case so he could become California Justice Rubin, protected by a false witness County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputy Terry January (who is African American) And in denying my case and favoring the California Governmental unit – Santa Monica College and their corrupt police County of Los Angeles Judge Laurence D. Rubin went a whoring for his higher orafice to be called a Justice in California.

        And Larry Flynt called his Federal Magistrate Judge, James W. McMahon a Madam and the lawyers working for the County of Los Angeles whores.

        Men in Black or Madams in Black, now there’s a sequel…

        Comment by Sonny | October 12, 2010

  88. On and I forgot to tell you Novalis. This name calling is rampant in Los Angeles.
    The Federal Judge Spencer Letts publicized in a ruling in my first federal case, and called me a bad name. He called me a vexatious litigant on May Day in 2000 and also because I brought the second Federal case which he called frivolous.

    Neither the first nor the second case was found to be frivolous by the higher court and the 9th Circuit reversed some of Federal Judge Spencer Letts orders, but not the vexatious litigant stigmatization since Federal Judge Spencer Letts had already killed my first case.

    Eventually Federal Judge Spencer Letts after having two of his decisions reversed by 9th Circuit on the second Federal case recused himself from the second case and mentioned something about Pandora’s box as his reason for leaving. Unfortunately Magistrate McMahon never recused himself from my second case, so it was still a no win situation with more joining as time went on.

    Comment by Sonny | October 12, 2010 | Reply

    • ‘Frivolous’, eh? Yeah, like all those ludicrous lawsuits over x amounts of dirty $ just because someone looked at them in a ‘perceived’ overly ‘sexual manner’.

      Looks like you’ve gone through quite a list of useless judges just over one case.

      Rittenband too refused to recuse himself so that they could not cite [his] prejudice against Polanski. By stepping down ‘voluntarily’ after Dalton motioned for his disqualification, refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing, he got away with it all, the bastard. By then Polanski had long gone – & it all was far too late. They all failed him.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 12, 2010 | Reply

  89. Yes quite a list of useless judges. The tree trunk had branches of useless and poisonous Judges. The Judges were the fruit of the poisonous tree.

    The tree was born out of a sexual assault by photography teacher R.L.Jones in his photography class at Santa Monica College.

    Then this turned into Santa Monica College Official and Police Cover up powered by Piedad Robertson Superintendant, Board of Trustees and Police Officer Ron Marable.

    Then the County of Los Angeles their Judges and Sheriff Deputies joined to assist Santa Monica College Officials.

    Then the Federal Judges Spencer Letts, James W. McMahon, George KIng and Paul Abrams joined to defend County of Los Angeles and Santa Monica College et al. And the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals joined to assist California exploit and trample on peoples civil rights with the decision in Pony v. County of Los Angeles, authored by torture memos ratifier Jay S. Bybee.

    So much for civil rights in America. Bullshit walks and money talks – period.

    Comment by Sonny | October 13, 2010 | Reply

    • I like that line: ‘The tree trunk had branches of useless and poisonous Judges. The Judges were the fruit of the poisonous tree.’ I might use that in my blog – if I may.

      And that’s of course, ‘law': ‘Bullshit walks and money talks – period.’

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 13, 2010 | Reply

  90. Please Do Novalis!

    You do know that in US there is something in evidence “law” called fruit of the poisonous tree.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

    My prior comment above used the metaphor against the legal system using my experience to demonstrate how the poisonous tree grew. Just as a poisonous tree grew in Polanski’s case when the judge could not keep a plea bargain agreement and was chatting like a mad hatter to the World’s press about the case when there had been no trial.

    Lord Acton said “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” And this holds true in Santa Monica and Los Angeles California – yes on the other side of the pond also.

    Comment by Sonny | October 13, 2010 | Reply

    • Hell do I know that quote, even the Germans have it. Absolute Macht korrumpiert absolut. See Hitler.

      As for the poisonous tree, lovely if they’d keep to the rules, either in LE or courthouses.

      And to call Rittenband a mad hatter, I might even use that!

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 14, 2010 | Reply

      • Do the Germans give credit to Lord Acton for “Absolute Macht korrumpiert absolut” Or did someone in Germany also come up with the same idea?

        Comment by Sonny | October 14, 2010

    • I guess they based that on one of their own ‘masters of power abuse’. Someone like Hitler. I’m sure every country has that saying – since it’s ‘human nature’.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 14, 2010 | Reply

      • It looks as though the Germans too give credit to Lord Acton

        ttp://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.zitate-suche.de/macht.html&ei=TSW5TI7YH5KusAOGp8iuDw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CD4Q7gEwCA&prev=/search%3Fq%3DAbsolute%2BMacht%2Bkorrumpiert%2Babsolut%26num%3D30%26hl%3Den%26prmd%3Db

        Comment by Sonny | October 15, 2010

    • That link leads to a dead end, it ain’t loading. Too long.
      But I searched otherwise & it appears some East German anti-fascist writer came up with Acton as his source for the phrase during some demonstration in East Berlin that led a few days later to the fall of the Wall. Not his words, but the entire demonstration going on for days that forced the corrupt government to open the border/s after 28 yrs of oppression.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 16, 2010 | Reply

  91. Yes Alice in Wonderland does hold true with mad hatters and crazy courts even today.

    It is highly appropriate that Roman Polanski’s friend Johnny Depp played the part of the Mad Hatter in the recent movie.

    Also in 2000 before Federal Central District Court of California Judge Spencer Letts publicly stigmatized me as a vexatious litigant and ended my first case against Santa Monica College et al and County of Los Angeles et al, as well as affirming Magistrate James W. McMahon’s denial of my second case on Jan 11th 2000,

    I wrote a motion to Federal Judge Spencer Letts on March 20th 2000 which started like this

    TO THE HONORABLE J SPENCER LETTS

    1. In “Alice In Wonderland” the Queen’s white roses were painted red –to cover up that they were white – because the Queen’s roses were supposed to be red – not white.
    .
    2. And .in this case 1-10 County Of Los Angeles White sheriffs Of Judge Laurence D Rubin’s (Santa Monica Courthouse) courtroom have been painted brown – to cover up that they were white – just like the white roses were covered up in “Alice In Wonderland”

    3. And Appearances and Non Appearances and disappearing records are a recurring theme in this case – as County Of Los Angeles et al is declaring that Sheriff Terry January made an appearance in County Of Los Angeles Santa Monica Courtroom R on October 6th 1998 to take Plaintiff to the ground -which Plaintiff denies.

    4. And more recently on February 4th 2000 which is the concern of this motion – Sheriff Terry January and Sherman Moten are saying through their attorney Senior County (of Los Angeles) Counsel Jonathan H Geller that they have not appeared in this case. And they raised the insufficiency of service defense for the summons and complaint for the first time on FEB 4TH 2000, at a time after the time had run out on the order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed against them both for lack of prosecution, and after the statute of limitations had run out to file the case against them again personally with the summons and complaint.

    5. And (County of Los Angeles) Sheriff Lee Baca’s letter to the Plaintiff stating that Plaintiff was in a confrontation with Terry January when she has not been in any confrontation with Sheriff Terry January if he is African American was sent to Plaintiff on Feb 5th 1999.

    So Senior Deputy County Counsel Jonathan H Geller informed Plaintiff that Plaintiff had insufficiently served Terry January after a year had passed when Sheriff Lee Baca first informed her that she was in a confrontation with Terry January when she was not in any confrontation with Terry January if he is African American.”

    Bottom line any cover up is like painting the roses red in Alice in Wonderland. And any Judge can easily turn into a Mad Hatter or the Court in Alice in Wonderland.

    See below for lyrics to painting the roses red…

    Painting the roses red
    We’re painting the roses red
    We dare not stop
    Or waste a drop
    So let the paint be spread
    We’re painting the roses red
    We’re painting the roses red

    Oh, painting the roses red
    And many a tear we shed
    Because we know
    They’ll cease to grow
    In fact, they’ll soon be dead
    And yet we go ahead
    Painting the roses red

    Painting the roses red
    We’re painting the roses red
    Oh, pardon me
    But Mister Three
    Why must you paint them red?

    *talking*

    Huh? Oh! Well, the fact is, Miss
    We planted the white roses by mistake
    And…

    *singing*

    The Queen she likes ‘em red
    If she saw white instead
    She’d raise a fuss
    And each of us
    Would quickly lose his head
    [Alice:Goodness!]
    Since this is the part we dread
    We’re painting the roses red

    [Alice:Oh, Dear! Then let me help you]
    Painting the roses red
    We’re painting the roses red
    Don’t tell the Queen what you have seen
    Or say that’s what we said
    But we’re painting the roses red
    Yes, painting the roses red
    Not pink
    Not green
    Not aquamarine
    We’re painting the roses red!

    Comment by Sonny | October 14, 2010 | Reply

  92. Very apt, Sonny – very apt. Depp of course is perfect for anything like that – & he surely grasped what this case was all about when he said that ‘money exchanging hands’ played a role in Polanski’s mindless persecution. UBS comes to mind – Cooley’s nasty smear campaigns come to mind, since I highly doubt liar Lewis or ‘big hat’ [Vogelhut] weren’t generously reimbursed for their efforts to influence the extradition, or damage Polanski’s reputation some more for public entertainment.

    Who knows if Carroll had just that in mind, to deceive & play unfairly because you are in power, since all he wrote is highly symbolic, littered with ‘hidden messages’. Funny thing is, today people suddenly think he might have been a ‘paedophile’, just because he took pictures of young girls & boys, had ‘relations’ with them & the girl he modelled his Alice on, though obviously not in any form sexual. Just because today’s ‘morale’, sex language & sex laws have changed into insidious anti-sex feminist doctrines, where a mature teenager is a ‘little child’ suddenly, it entirely disempowers every female when it comes to sex.

    People of ‘then’, today can be seen in a totally different, ‘immoral’ light. Unfairly of course, since it was their time, not ours. People did exactly the same in Polanski’s case, where underage sex is suddenly seen as the evil of all evils – while in the 70s no one cared, except in his case, of course, purely for who he was – or that glossy magazines had nubile girls depicted nude in erotic poses who were most certainly not of age. Just as he had done – except Geimer’s sister wasn’t too pleased with her topless pictures he took of her, jealous, & urged their mother to call the cops, because she had slept with an ‘older man’. And then it was suddenly rape, purely for her age.

    Comment by Novalis Lore | October 14, 2010 | Reply

    • I think money played a role perhaps in Switzerland,

      but in Los Angeles Steve Cooley was after consuming Roman Polanski and his famous name for Steve Cooley’s own gratification and political campaign, never mind about the victim Samantha Geimer.

      It was only – gimme gimme gimme Roman Polanski then I, Steve Cooley can be in the World’s press. Steve Cooley would not get any world’s press any other way.

      I agree with you Novalis, big hatter and the fetus (that is what Walter Mathau called Charlotte Lewis were just the Queen’s (that is Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley’s pawns)

      Comment by Sonny | October 16, 2010 | Reply

      • Correct, Sonny – but, Geimer doesn’t consider herself as ‘victim’, & though technically she might have been once because she was underage, she was an accuser, not real ‘victim’. Victim implies that she was harmed by the accused – she herself said often enough he was harmed by anyone BUT Polanski. So let’s not call her that. As for that ugly ‘foetus’, Lewis made herself Cooley’s corrupt pawn. Trash usually attract more trash. See sleazeball Allred.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | October 16, 2010

      • Novalis I am using victim in the sense for Samantha Geimer because she is a victim. She is Steve Cooley’s victim and the County of Los Angeles prosecutors’ victim. They are victimizing her by bringing this up 33 years later without her consent. It is humiliating to have to go into the gory details over and over again. It is her private business and it always should have been her private business not the worlds business.

        What the County of Los Angeles officials have done to Samantha Geimer is secondary victimization. The first victimization was helped by her mother. Of course we do not know what happened between her and Roman Polanski, but she should never have been left alone.

        Comment by Sonny | October 16, 2010

      • I get what you’re saying, Sonny, but she’s not Polanski’s victim, not the way she made it out & the world to believe since decades. HE did not victimise her, everyone else did & most of all the law disallowing her to consent. But, whenever we see her name with reference to ‘victim’, people automatically think she’s HIS victim, & that’s simply not true. It was her own decision to go public, she was not forced to do so. So, had she remained anonymous, no one would know her [name] to put a face to Polanski’s ‘victim’.

        Geimer was left alone with others before & even with Polanski prior to the Bisset/Nicholson shoot, but only Polanski got the rap for it all. Once she told King in 2003 that a girlfriend wanted to come along, which is not true (just because she had said once that she had ‘thought’ of asking him if she may come along but never did ask him), then she told King this year her mother wanted to come along. She isn’t even consistent in her later statements, & they don’t tally with her own original testimony in part either. Her mother asked Polanski only once before they had their FIRST photo session if she could come along, NOT the last, & he said it’ll be better not to for her to be more natural since her mother wanted to take her own pictures of them. And, according to him, she told him she didn’t want her mother to come along anyway because she would have told her do this do that she’d hated, & most of all interfered with his directing her, while she later said the opposite just so to make the mother appear more responsible.

        Had she really said no to him, as she had claimed, he’d not touched her, guaranteed. Some of what she told the grand jury simply doesn’t tally however you dice it, but it certainly makes her & her mother look better. She said often enough herself it wasn’t ‘rape’, or to be ‘his’ victim. Sure she’s a victim of Rittenband & Co, & Cooley & Co, but so is Polanski, & that times infinite unlike her the ‘victim’. The fact that she was underage doesn’t diminish her & her mother’s part in it, who was never punished for her own negligence of letting her have sex & drugs & booze at home, with a drug-addicted half-sister long before Polanski ever met them.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | October 17, 2010

      • In America it seems the government wants to be in the bedroom of Roman Polanski but did not want to look in the “bedrooms” of its own Hollywood police who were going with underage girl scouts at the same time that Polanski got his rap, as his lawyer Douglas Dalton mentioned the crimes of the Hollywood police to Santa Monica Judge Laurence J. Rittenband at the time..

        As far as Samantha Galley of 13 years, a Californian underage girl in 1977 in a work setting, she may have been attracted and may have been attracting Roman Polanski, but she was only 13 years old, and there is some culpability from Roman Polanski, more than 40 years old, in his judgment to go ahead, succumbing to Samantha’s charms, (of course many, not just Roman Polanski were doing it young then and now( he had no option but to admit unlawful sex and he paid his dues in Chino.

        Samantha was victimized by her family and the courts and the press. Samantha did not have an honest relationship with her mother since she did not disclose the nude shoot. Her mother could have helped her daughter avoid this if she was a different kind of mother. Her mother was the only adult that could have had her underage daughter’s best interests at heart, but she was extremely negligent.

        Roman Polanski also an adult had his own interests at heart and he was not strong enough at that moment to put the cake “Samantha” down.

        However Polanski more than paid his dues in 1977 and 1978, the rest from the Mad Hatter Judge Rittenband and DA Steve Cooley has been to cover up that Roman Polanski had already paid his dues as per the plea agreement.to gain political favor from the dense masses.

        Mad Hatter Judge Rittenband and Los Angeles DA Steve Cooley are the same as the cover up artists in Alice in Wonderland who painted the roses red to cover up that they were white. Just as Terry January who is brown – was used to cover up that the County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s in the Santa Monica Courthouse who assaulted and battered me were white

        Comment by Sonny | October 17, 2010

      • While I agree with you on most points, the entire issue of the sex is much more complicated than it looks. The human element is missing in all the recounts of the story the cold law likes to ignore.

        Polanski was solely held responsible because he was the adult, while she should have carried a certain degree of accountability for her own actions (& her mother), but of course the law entirely excused her purely for her age & let the mother off in return for that plea. Had Geimer really resisted him, said no, he’d let her be – but she did not give him the required signs, no matter what she said later in order to ‘abide by the law’. Had she simply conceded to the sex, the case had been dismissed like any other at that time.

        Polanski is what’s called a situational offender, acting out of character for the particular set of circumstance & string of events leading up to the sex that day – the romantic elements of champagne, posing for a glossy magazine, the bit of Quaalude making them more uninhibited, the ‘pretty’ hot tub, & several other crucial factors many don’t see. There were emotional & physical factors at work that usually don’t end up as it did, simply for her age. He wasn’t interested in her sexually before that particular moment.

        People have to remember that what Polanski did wasn’t even a crime in his own country, France, having sex with a minor, since it’s not underage where he comes from. That’s why the probation report cited a severe culture clash, and his naiveté over underage sex to be acceptable in the US, or topless photos taken for a French magazine.

        We also may not forget that ever since Tate’s murder, his deepening depression had taken on a different dimension that led him into the act of seeking sex with a young girl. Had he had professional counselling in 1969 as the prison psychiatrists had said he’d desperately needed, he’d not lost himself into deeper depression and sex to end up with her in the first place.

        One could say the more mature she looked & acted, attracted him that moment, she was too young by her chronological age to allow him to have that cake, true, but let him taste it anyway – with horrendous consequences for both. All over sex, which should never be punished.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | October 17, 2010

    • Yes when I was growing up in London, what about all those semi nude poses in the Sun (daily newspaper) And there was the American Musical “Hair” with everyone nude on stage.

      Also Twiggy was pretty young when she started modellng managed by Justin De Villeneuve.

      Roman Polanski was in London at the same time in the mid 1960’s making films like “Repulsion” and” Cul De Sac” which won the Silver Bear in 1965 and 1966 in Berlin Germany, just as “the Ghost” did this year 2010.

      http://www.filmreference.com/Directors-Pe-Ri/Polanski-Roman.html

      Comment by Sonny | October 16, 2010 | Reply

  93. Correct – & he made Dance of the Vampires there too, with Tate. I love all three films.

    The article is fine, except, Polanski is not ‘Jewish; his parents were agnostics & they never practised the faith, let alone during the war. He is also not Polish, he was born in France, that makes him French. He holds dual French/Polish nationality, but he is French-born

    To say, ‘onvicted by his own plea of unlawful sexual intercourse in California, 1977; committed to a diagnostic facility, Department of Correction; upon completion of study, returned to Paris’, should say, after completion of a forced prisoner term of 42 days at Chino under the guise of a diagnostic study, & a pleas deal that this was his entire punishment, which then was broken by the judge, he left the US.

    ‘Convicted’ by his own plea is also incorrect, since Rittenband never made it official. Cooley, not recognising that was his entire sentence, Polanski therefore was never ‘convicted’ either. He’s a non-sentenced, non-convicted fugitive, despite having done his time in even two prions for longer than what Rittenband had in mind, endured nearly ten months of unwarranted house arrest, after everyone had agreed not to send him to jail in the first place.

    Comment by Novalis Lore | October 16, 2010 | Reply

    • Hi Novalis I think you could consider Roman Polanski and his parents to be Jewish, even if he does not practice. See below for more info.

      http://www.adherents.com/people/pp/Roman_Polanski.html

      states “Roman Polanski’s parents were both agnostic Jews. Neither his father nor mother were religiously observant Jews. When he was very young in Poland, Polanski had no concept of what it was to be Jewish, but he came to understand that he was Jewish when his family was imprisoned in a Nazi-built ghetto. As an adult, Polanski was known to be Jewish, and he apparently had at least a slight sense of Jewish identity, although he was in no way religiously observant. Polanski received his first and only Best Director Academy Award for The Pianist, a film about Jews in a ghetto in Poland during World War II.
      After being introduced to Catholicism primarily by a Catholic family that he lived with while hiding from the Nazis, Roman Polanski became a religious Catholic when he was about 10 years old. He staunchly identified himself as Catholic until he was fifteen years old.

      In his 1984 autobiography Polanski said that the murder of his wife Sharon Tate shattered any remaining religious faith he had, and reinforced his “faith in the absurd.”

      Roman Polanski recalls Christmas celebration, one of his earliest memories as a child growing up in Poland, from: Roman Polanski, Roman by Polanski, William Morrow and Company: New York City (1984), page 14:

      I was never bored. There was always something worth watching from the windows on either side of the apartment. In any case, it was difficult to be bored in a city like Krakow, with the trumpeter up in St. Mary’s church tower sounding his ritual fanfare on the hour…
      There was winter magic as well. The sparklers fizzing on our Christmas tree mesmerized me with their cascades of silver fire–minieature fireworks in our own home! That, together with the taste of dried raisins, figs, and walnuts, went to make up my first remembered Polish Christmas at 9 Komorowski Street. Snow, too, became part of that Christmas when Uncle Stefan bought me a pair of skis and I tried them out for the first time…

      When he was a child, Roman Polanski’s non-observant Jewish father and mother became increasingly concerned about the rise of Nazism in nearby Germany. From: Roman by Polanski, page 16:
      …the hawker was doing a roaring trade. My father told me that the cartoons were of Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, and Goring. He explained who they were and why the Nazis represented a threat to our country.
      These names began to crop up more and more often… my father decided to give up the Komorowski Street apartment and rent a hideout in Warsaw, much father from the German-Polish border. Meantime, while awaiting developments, we were to move in with my grandmother and my two unmarried uncles, Stefan and Bernard. Apparently the situation had become so grave that it seemed safer to concentrate the family under one roof.

      My grandmother’s apartment in Kazimierz, Krakow’s only approximation to a Jewish quarter, was in total contrast with our former home…

      Roman by Polanski, pages 21-23:
      The first Jews came to Poland from Prague and Germany early in the eleventh century. It was Kazimierz the Great who, three hundred years later, invited the Jews to Krakow from other parts of Europe and bestowed upon them great privileges and opportunities. He saw them as economic pump primers who would turn Krakow into a commercial center rivaling the major cities of Europe.
      By the time World War II broke out, Krakow’s 60,000 Jews had lived cheek by jowl with the rest of the population for more than 500 years and were fully integratd. Although there was a predominantly Jewish quarter, where my grandmother lived, nothing remotely resembling a ghetto existed because–thanks to King Kazimierz and his successors–Krakow’s Jews had enjoyed full rights of citizenship from the very first. They had played an important role in the city’s development, contributing not only to its commercial growth but also to is reputation as a cultural and intellectual stronghold, with the world-famous Jagiellonian University, magnificent Renaissance architecture, flourishing theaters, fine art galleries, and prestigious publishing houses.

      One question is always asked whenever the “Final Solution” comes up: Why did the Jews allow themselves to be slaughtered during World War II? Why weren’t they aware, from the outset, of what was in store for them; why didn’t they grasp the truth earlier and rise en masse against their oppressors?

      The main reason why their apprehensions were only gradualy and belatedly aroused was that the Holocaust had yet to come. It was outside any known frame of references. Pressures built up slowly and did not at first seem more than mildly threatening. The Germans’ method was to lull people into passivity, to foster a sense of hope, to persuade the Jews that things couldn’t possibly be that bad.

      My own feeling was that if only one could explain to them that we had done nothing wrong, the Germans would realize that it all was a gigantic misunderstanding.

      What happened to my family is a perfect illustration of the way the “Final Solution” worked.

      Superficially life resumed its normal course after our return to Krakow, yet nothing was quite the same.

      I started school. It was just around the corner, and I didn’t like it. School meant sitting in rows and filling up exercise books with Ala ma kota (“Ala has a cat”). I don’t think I got much farther than that because after I was enrolled for only a few weeks, Jewish children were suddenly forbidden to attend. That was all right with me because the tedium of it all would have been unendurable except for a gadget the teacher sometimes produced. This was an epidiascope used for projecting illustrations onto a screen in the school hall. I wasn’t at all interested in the words or even the pictures it projected, only in the method of projection. I wanted to know how the gadget worked and constantly examined its lens and mirror or held up the proceedings and made a nuisance by myself by masking the beam with my fingers.

      I also found I culd draw… The portraits I made of my family were recognizable. I also remember sketching a pretty good likeness of a German soldier in his teutonic helmet. The only thing I wasn’t able to copy, for some reason, was one particular Star of David. The two triangles that made up the star were interlaced with great complexity. I had plenty of time to study this pattern, however. From December 1, 1939, onward, my family had to wear strange white armbands with the Star stenciled on them in blue. I was told it meant we were Jewish.

      My parents had never practiced their religion. My mother was only part Jewish, and both she and my father were agnostics who didn’t believe in religious instruction for children. Now, being Jewish meant that we couldn’t stay where we were.

      We moved yet again–not voluntarily, as at the outbreak of war, but under compulsion. We didn’t have to move far. Our resettlement, which proceeded without fuss or threats, was handled by the Krakow municipal authorities, not by the Germans. Though permitted to take only as much as we could carry, we found our new quarters no worse than the old except for overcrowding. Our allocated ground-floor apartment, on Podgorze Square, on the far side of the Vistula, was bigger than my grandmother’s but shared by several families. Granny was no longer with us. She had been assigned a diminutive room at the older end of Krakow’s new “Jewish area.”

      …This was the first phase. We could come and go freely, and I played with Polish, not just Jewish, kids. The only reason my father didn’t buy a Christmas tree that first winter was that he preferred not to draw attention to himself.

      Soon afterward Annette took me to the window and pointed. Some men were at work on something right across the street. It looked like a barricade.

      “What are they doing?” I asked.

      “They’re buiding a wall.”

      Suddenly it dawned on me: they were walling us in. My heart sank; I couldn’t stop crying. This was our first real sign that the Germans meant business.

      Roman by Polanski, pages 24-25:
      During these early months the ghetto was–despite periodic bouts of terror–a self-contained town where people went courting, got married, and even entertained. In addition to its own Jewish police force, or Ordnungsdienst, the local administration, or Judenrat, its makeshift health service and social workers, the ghetto boasted a small restaurant and a shabby, open-air cafe cabaret with a band in which accordions predominated… The wal of the cafe was adorned with a mural; it depicted a Hassidic Jew, in traditional garb, being checked by a Polish policeman, while from the tails of his long black coat protruted the head of the goose he was smuggling into the ghetto…
      Though peaceful enough, these weeks were marked by small but ominous turns of the screw. My father’s beloved Underwood typewriter was confiscated. Not long after the wall was completed, all Jewish familes had to hand in every scrap of fur in their possession. They stood in line for hours. My mother surrendered her fox; my grandmother, her fur collar.

      Roman by Polanski, page 29:
      My father had made plans for my survival should he and my mother both be taken away. Having a lot of friends and acquaintances in town, he found a couple, Mr. and Mrs. Wilk, who were prepared to help me. I was not to live with them but they agreed to find a family that would take me in. I was fortunate in not looking Jewish–one of the factors that persuaded the Wilks to look after me. The other factor was money. My father made this rrangement in the early days, hen ghetto laborers could still move around unescorted, and it cost him plenty–all the family jewelry and his life savings.
      My youngest uncle, Stefan, married a very pretty, Aryan-looking girl, Maria, who had forged papers enabling her to live as a Pole outside the ghetto. She must have paid off a guard because she once managed to slip in and visit her new husband. While there, she taught me how to make the sign of the cross and the basic Catholic prayers–further protection if I had to make it on my own.

      Roman by Polanski, pages 30-31:
      Not long after this latest move my father learned that another raid was imminent. My mother took me out, on her pass, to the Wilks’. When the time came for me to go back, it was my father, not my mother, who collected me on his way from the factory in town where he was employed as a metalworker. He had bribed a guard to let him quit work early and was returning to the ghetto without his armband. When Mrs. Wilk handed me over to him in the street, he hugged and kissed me with surprising intensity.
      As we were walking back across the Padgorze bridge toward the ghetto, he started weeping uncontrollably. At last he said, “They took your mother.”

      I said, “Don’t cry, people are watching.” I was afraid his tears might advertise the fact that we were Jews, unescorted and off limits. He pulled himself together. Then, near the entrance of the ghetto, we joined a group of returning workers.

      My mother’s disappearance affected me far more deeply than Pawel’s, but there was no doubt in my min that we would be reunited.

      “On the day that the Krakow ghetto was finally liquidated, March 13, 1943,” Roman Polanski’s father helped him escape, sending him to live outside the ghetto with the Wilk family (Roman by Polanski, pages 34-35). Polanski’s autobiography has much more about this topic, the time he and his family were confined to a Nazi-built ghetto, not excerpted here.
      Living with the Wilk family, free from Nazi imprisonment in the ghetto, Roman Polanski became known as “Roman Wilk” (page 36). After a while, the Wilk family became tired of taking care of young Roman. The boy was moved to a small village named Wysoka where he lived with Buchala family, who were peasant farmers. It was here that Roman first lived with devout Catholicism. From Roman by Polanski, pages 39-40:

      The whole family revolved around Mrs. Buchala, a strong, scrawny, energetic woman whose head scarf was as much a part of her as her amiable, gap-toothed grin. She was the civilizing influence that made everything bearable. She was also the real head of the family, deeply religious but without cant, kind and sensitive but almost as illiterate as her husband. Her kindness to me was all the more remarkable in that the Puteks [the friends of Roman’s father, who had been paid to make sure Roman was taken care of] rarely paid her anything for my keep; most of my father’s unofficial trust fund had seemed to vanish en route.
      The day began with her singing, as she kindled the fire, “When comes the dawn, all living creatures render thanks unto thee, O Lord.” It would have been unthinkable to start a meal without first making the sign of the cross.

      Although Roman’s parents were agnostic and did not practice Judaism religiously, Roman was indeed circumcised as an infant, something not true of non-Jews in his country. Roman by Polanski, page 40:
      Although I was never seriously ill at Wysoka, I always had boils on my legs, was covered in insect bites, and had to be regularly deloused with kerosene. Such washing as we did was done in the cowshed, to which I would duly retire with my pitcher and basin, careful never to expose myself. In Poland only Jews were circumcised.
      Roman by Polanski, pages 41-42:
      It was during this cold weather, with the countryside at its bleakest and strong winds whistling through the leafless trees, that I saw, a long way off, a man making his way toward me in the snow. He looked familar; for one delirious moment I thought it was my father, released from the concentration camp and coming to fetch me. Then, as he drew nearer, I saw that he didn’t resemble my father in the least. When he was out of sight, I burst into tears and, swept up by my new faith, began praying fervently with my well-learned Catholic verses.
      Polanski describes his first Christmas while living with the devoutly Catholic Buchala family as a boy, in Roman by Polanski, page 42.
      Roman by Polanski, page 43:

      It was soon after this that I came across some moldy old papers and mouse droppings alongside a trunk left behind by Mrs. Buchala’s eldest sister, a schoolteacher. There was a dog-eared copy of a Catholic magazine entitled The Soldier of the Immaculate Queen, full of accounts of miracles, bleeding stigmata, and edifying tales of divine retribution visited on sinful children. I also found The Song of Roland. Though practically illiterate, I struggled through every word. So the first book I ever read was a twelfth-century French epic poem translated into baffling archaic Polish.
      Poland was liberated from the Nazis in 1939. Young Roman Polanski returned to Krakow. The Russian military that had helped to liberate Poland came. Roman converted to the religion of Communism. From: Roman by Polanski, page 49:
      The Russians brought their ideological pageantry with them–not just billboard portraits of Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin, but huge plaster of paris busts of them as well. They also erected obelisks adorned with red stars and inscriptions extolling the heroism of their soldiers. It all seemed designed to appeal to children, and it did. Without understanding what communism was about, I became a convert.
      I rushed to see my first Soviet film… the plot was… outside my experience: a heroic Red Army soldier trapped behind the German lines, tapping out messages in Morse to his headquarters.

      Roman, now eleven years old, was reunited with his uncles Stefan (who was married to an Aryan-appearing wife named Maria) and David, who had “survived deportation by becoming a Kapo, or concentration camp trusty. Bernard, the eldest and my favorite, was not as fortunate. We were soon to learn that he had been killed–clubbed to death, ironically enough, by a Kapo wielding a chair leg” (Roman by Polanski, page 53).
      Roman by Polanski, pages 54-55:

      Gradually Red Army propaganda displays gave way to Polish government posters carrying announcements of all kinds. Various organizations were being founded or reconstituted. In my need to belong to something–anything–I joined the Boy Scouts. Filling out the application form, I wrote “Wilk, Roman.” I hesitated when I came to the space beside “Religion,” then put “Catholic.” It wasn’t just that my real religion might have debarred me from membership. Roman Wilk, Catholic–that’s who I felt I was.
      My small size and lack ofuniform set me apart from the rest. After my first outing with the troop my feet hurt so much I knew I had to have some proper shoes. I didn’t want to ask Uncle Stefan, but one of his friends advised me to try the local Jewish relief organization. Roman Wilk, Catholic, felt somewhat uneasy about this. “We help only Jewish children,” I was told.

      After detailed questioning I came away with a magnificent pair of brand-new black rubber-soled boots…

      My relations with Uncle Stefan went from bad to worse. Eventually Aunt Teofila took me to live with her and Uncle David. They and their seven-year-old daughter… shared a large but crowded apartment with the Horowitz family… Regina Horowitz was a typical Jewish mother, warm, resilient, and vital–a tower of strength. She always lit candles on Friday nights, and for the firs time in my life I found myself in a household where Jewish rites were observed. It was a strange and unfamiliar experience. Jews were still very reluctant to practice their religion in public–a great deal of anti-Semitism still existed in Poland. Several pogroms took place at this period, at least one of them in Krakow.

      Roman by Polanski, pages 56-57:
      Whether or not I derived some stimulus from the sight of my on naked body, stripping for bathing after years spent in households were baths were unknown, I discoverd masturbation. It gave me some inkling of why grown-ups made such a fuss about sex. The trouble was, I believed it to be an invention of my own, so its pleasures were marred by a profound sense of guilt. I prayed to God, less in the hope of resisting temptation–that, I knew, was too much to ask–than as a kind of talisman designed to preserve me from temptation in the first place. When I prayed, I still prayed as a Catholic.
      Much to the surprise of Roman and his relatives, Roman’s father survived the Nazi concentration camps and was reunited with Roman (Roman by Polanski, page 57). Roman’s mother had not survived. Roman’s father soon re-married and the family was soon quite affluent. Roman did not like his mother-in-law at all, and his father arranged for him to have his own lodging in town. His father also hired a tutor to help the thirteen-year-old Roman prepare for school after years without any formal education (Roman by Polanski, pages 58-59).
      Roman began attending a Catholic school, where he took religious instruction classes. From: Roman by Polanski, pages 62-63:

      In other teachers’ classes we [Roman and his friend Piotr Winowski] both engaged in varying degrees of hooliganism. It was during religious instruction that Winowski really went to town. Father Grzesiak was a ruddy-cheeked priest with pale blue eyes… and the face of a bewildered peasant. Winowski did some truly terrible things to him. He would start cleaning the blackboard, then surreptitiously grab the volleyball from the closet beside it and embark on a lightning game behind the priest’s back. Far worse was his tripwire routine, which he referred to as bearbaiting. To get Father Grzesiak moving in the required direction, he would punctuate his remarks by twanging a steel comb… When Father Grzesiak charged in the general direction of this infuriating sound, he would trip and fall flat on his face. Getting to his feet, the unfortunate man would clasp his hands and roll his eyes heavenward in silent prayer.
      [Polanski describes more of the mean things that his friend Winowski did to Father Grzesiak.]

      Polanski discusses at some length (pages 64-67) his experiences with the Boy Scouts. Roman by Polanski, page 64:
      One thing I couldn’t share with Winowski. His limp precluded him from joining the Boy Scouts, and my new school troop–No. 22–was becoming the focal point of my life.
      Polanski first became enthralled with acting while performing comedy skits for his Boy Scout troop (Roman by Polanski, pages 66-67).
      From the time he was about ten years old until he was fifteen, Roman Polanski had a strongly Catholic self-identity. He describes the events that led him to turn his back on Catholicism at the age of fifteen. Roman by Polanski, pages 72-74:

      Thanks to all these novel distractions, my school grades further deteriorated. Winowski and I walked a tightrope. We were just good enough to move up with our class at the end of the year, but ours were the lowest grades of those who did. Then Father Grzesiak took his revenge.
      I came home one day to find him deep in conversation with Mrs. Sermak. It was exceptional for teachers to visit their pupils, so my heart sank at the sight of him. Mrs. Sermak disappeared into the kitchen, and the priest started interrogating me. He wanted to know all about my past.

      I already had an inkling that he regarded me with suspicion because of something that had happened in church one Sunday. Catholic prayers I could recite by heart, but the ritual of confession was a mystery to me–I didn’t know the proper words to use so I never confessed. Realizing that it was a heinous offense to take communion unshriven, I’d been horrified when Winowski gave me a surreptitious tug that landed me on my knees beside him in a row of boys awaiting the wafer and chalice. On reaching me, Father Grzesiak pointedly passed over me as if I didn’t exist, then went on to the next in line. Now he fixed me with his beady blue eyes.

      “Who exactly are you?” he asked. “Where were you baptized?” I mumbled something about living in the country during the war. “Where?” he insisted. “What was the name of your parish priest? Tell me, and I’ll write to him.”

      I ducked his questions and retired to my room. Grzesiak followed me, superciliously noting the picture of the Black Virgin of Czestochowa above my desk. In the absence of a Winowski to cut him down to size, he pursued his inquisition to the bitter end.

      “You’re a little liar,” he said finally. “You’ve never been baptized at all.” He took me by the ear and led me over to the mirror. “Look at yourself. Look at those eyes, that mouth, those ears. You aren’t one of us.” On that note he flounced out of the room. My mind was in turmoil. Being Polish was more than a question of religion or registration; it was like belonging to a select club. In quest of an identity I could take pride in, I’d falsified my membership form. I had sinned by omission in failing to disclose that I was Jewish, not out of shame, but because, after my Wysoka years, I tended to regard myself as a Catholic. Now my sin had found me out.

      I was enraged that the priest should have discussed me and my family background with Mrs. Sermak; I felt it was none of his damned business. Worse still, I suspected that he might have been tipped off by none other than Winowski for the sheer fun of it. He had once seen Mrs. Horowitz light the Friday night candles. I never found out.

      As soon as Grzesiak had gone, I took another look at myself in the mirror. I didn’t look Jewish, with my fair hair and upturned nose, but I did look undersize and puny for my age. My face I couldn’t change, my physique was another matter. I took a pillowcase and went straight downstairs to the street, where I filled it with some cobblestones left behind by some road workers. From then on I engaged in daily weight-lifting and body-building sessions, determined that no one should humiliate me in the same way again.

      Like many youngsters growing up in Communist Poland, I was not unnaturally torn between Catholicism and Marxism. The effect of Communist propaganda on the young was considerable–after all, the Red Army had liberated us from German occupation–but something of Mrs. Buchala’s simple faith had lingered with me. Now that Catholicism wore the face of Father Grzesiak, I turned my back on it.

      At fifteen I had reached the stage where Polish children either transferred to a lyceum, which prepared them for admission to a university, or went straight to a vocational training school…

      Roman was fifteen or sixteen years years old when he experienced his first real teen love and kiss. Roman by Polanski, page 80:
      By the time I left Rabka I was head over heels in love, even though Krysia and I had done no more than kiss, hold hands, and talk. She’d given me her address in Krakow, but I couldn’t summon up the courage to call on her. Poland was still an orthodox Catholic country with narrow views on boy and girl relationships, and it would, for example, have been unthinkable to expose my beloved to the disapproving gaze of Mrs. Sermak [the elderly woman he was lodging with at the time].
      About a year later, at the age of seventeen, Roman Polanski lost his virginity to a sexually experienced fourteen-year-old girl whose name he eventually forgot. He did remember, however, that he was fortunate to have this happen with a young, attractive girl, rather than with “some fat old prostitute, as so many of my Krakow classmates did…” (Roman by Polanski, page 90).
      In chapters 8, 9 and 10 (pages 91-136) in his autobiography (Roman by Polanski), Polanski describes his later teen years and his early film school years in Poland. A large proportion of these chapters describe the increasingly pervasive and repressive influence of the Russian-based Communists who took over Poland in those years.

      From Roman by Polanski, page 135:

      I paid Arct a visit. He looked a mess–black eye, swollen lips. Some fellow patients had roughed him up for trying to wrench a crucifix off the wall. He was quite demended. “There are two kinds of people in here,” he whispered hoarsely, “Communists and Catholics, but the Communists are just Catholics in disguise.”
      Polanski finally left Poland and moved to Paris, France, where he continued his film studies and budding career as a filmmaker (Roman by Polanski, page 136). In Paris, Polanski first stayed with his sister Annette and her husband. From: Roman by Polanski, pages 138-139:
      Although Annette’s husband wan’t an Orthodox Jew, I underwent another brief immersion in the kind of close-knit Jewish family atmosphere I’d last known when lodging in Krakow with the Horowitzes. Annette and Marian took me to delicatessens, where I ate kosher food for the first time in ages…
      Roman by Polanski, page 163:
      [Pierre] Roustang himself was to play a prominent part in my life for the next few years. A rotund, balding man with gold-rimmed glasses and a distinctly parsonical maner, he had an aristocratic wife, a Jesuit brother, a luxurious Paris apartment… Before becoming a [film] producer, Roustang had run an advertising agency that handled films recommended by Catholic associations. When we first met, he was at the zenith of his career and sat on an influential Catholic film vetting committee. He wound up turning out soft porn.
      When Roman Polanski first came to the United States (after having worked and studied in Paris), he first worked with minor television producer Archer King. From: Roman by Polanski, page 200:
      When my [Roman Polanski’s] Air France plane touched down at Idlewild, Archer King was there to meet me in person. An ebullient, fast-talking New York Jew, he showed up at the airport with his PR girl…
      Roman by Polanski, pages 207-208:
      The Compton Group had been making so much money of this operation that it was anxious to change its image, so its interests coincided with Gene’s and mine. Thanks to this combination of circumstances, two more figures on the fringe of the film industry entered my orbit: Tony Tenser and Michael Klinger, who owned the Compton Group. I flew over to London for exploratory talks with them.
      Michael Klinger’s father, a Polish Jew, had been a presser in a tailor’s sweatshop in London’s East End. Thickset and bald, with heavy horn-rims, an ever-smoldering King Edward cigar, and an inexhaustible fund of Jewish jokes, Klinger spoke only a few words of Polish but was fluent in “Jewish,” his term for Yiddish. He had been variously employed, in the course of a checkered career, as a sausage salesman, a bouncer, and a nightclub manager.

      Tony Tenser, another East End Jew, had adopted a completely different persona. A tall man with a cliped gray mustache, he held himself ramrod straight and could have passed, except when betrayed by certain rare vocal inflexions, for a retired colonel.

      Despite their eagerness to make a film with Gene and me, however, neither Klinger nor Tenser would consider If Katelbach Comes. What they wanted was a horror movie. Back in Paris, Gerard and I started work. We completed the script for Repulsion [the film Polanski made for Klinger and Tenser] in seventeen days.

      Roman by Polanski, pages 213-214:
      Looking back, I find it strange that those first few months in London should have brought me into contact with so many people who were to play an important part in my life. While Gerard and I were still putting the finishing touches to Repulsion with David Stone, I received a call from someone who said we’d met in Paris. I didn’t remember, but I asked him around for a drink anyway. His name was Simon Hessera, and his considerable ambitions ran the gamut from scriptwriting to direction and production…
      Unlike Simon Hessera, who was permanently broke and thoroughly un-English–he was a French Moroccan Jew–Andy Braunsberg lived in a gracious Regent’s Park house and made an ultra-British impression despite his German Jewish origins.

      Roman by Polanski, pages 286-287:
      It was through us that [Peter Sellers] met Mia Farrow–a true soulmate if ever there was one. Like her, Peter was heavily into the whole range of crackpot folklore that flourished in the 1960’s, from UFOs through astorlogy to extrasensory perception. They both liked dressing up as rich hippies, complete with beads, chunky costume jewelry, and Indian cotton caftans.
      Lovable though he was in many ways, Peter’s idiosyncrasies could be a drag. Just as, on the set, he would walk off if anyone appeared wearing purple, an “unlucky” color, so he would walk out of restaurants if he picked up “bad vibes.” To my embarrassment, this often happened at The Luau. I grew to dread the moment when, after ordering, Peter would whisper, “Ro, I can’t stand it . . . bad vibes in here . . . let’s go somewhere else.”

      Roman by Polanski, pages 291-292:
      It was around this time that Mia [Farrow] and Peter Sellers started their romance, and the four of us [Farrow, Sellers, plus Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate] saw a lot of each other. We spent one weekend at Joshua Tree, a spectacular stretch of desert near Palm Springs. Because of its reputation for UFO sightings, it was much in vogue. After smoking some grass one evening, Mia and Peter wandered off into the desert, hand in hand. I picked up a stick and tiptoed after them.
      They were deeply engrossed in a mystical dialogue about the stars, the infinite, and the likelihood of extraterrestrial life. I decided to enrich their experience and threw my stick high in the air so it landed at their feet–a real-life manifestation of the inexplicable.

      “Did you hear that?” I hear Peter whisper in awe.

      “What was it?” Mia whispered back.

      “I don’t know, but it was fantastic. Fantastic!”

      At this point they found the stick that testified to the presence of the supernatural in a treeless, uninhabited desert.

      “We’ve got to tell Roman and Sharon,” Peter said. “They’ll never believe this.”

      I scurried on ahead through the darkness, back to the motel where were were staying, and got there just in time to fill Sharon in. When they arrived, panting, at our door, we both expressed suitable wonder.

      At the time of the premiere of Rosemary’s Baby, from: Roman by Polanski, page 294:
      As for Peter and Mia, they were in the heyday of their Indian period, all beads and chains and billowing muslin.
      Roman by Polanski, pages 292-293:
      For some time I’d realized that Sharon was something permanent in my life. The thought of marrying and raising a family scared me, not because it might encroach on my freedom–Sharon, I knew, would never let that happen–but because personal ties made me feel vulnerable. This fear was a hangover from my childhood, from the insecurity I’d experienced at the age of five or six, when my family began to disintigrate. The only way of not getting hurt, I’d always felt, was to avoid committing myself deeply in the first place. There was implicit insecurity in any relationship–the awareness that any emotional attachment carried the risk of heartache…
      Against this was the fact that Sharon made no secret of her strong desire to have a child. Although she never mentioned marriage, and despite her liberated California life-style, I knew that her Catholic upbringing made marriage important to her.

      I proposed off the cuff, over dinner in a restaurant. The date we settled on–January 20, 1968–fell a few days before her twenty-fifth birthday.

      …The wedding ceremony at the Chelsea Registry Office in the King’s Road [in London] turned into a media event…

      Before Polanski’s wife, actress Sharon Tate, could give birth to their child, she and the baby were murdered by the followers of Charles Manson. From: Roman by Polanski, pages 323-324:
      The thing that amazed me about the Manson “family” was the extent to which it had been dominated and exploited by a single individual. Prior to the murders, I’d never thought of hippies as potentially dangerous. On the contrary, I’d found them an attractive social phenomenon–one that had influenced us all and affected out outlook on life. I’d also seen their movement as one more proof of American affluence. What other society in the world could have supported such a sizable fringe of people who, through wholly unproductive, contrived to live relatively well?
      Clearly I’d underestimated the dangers latent in the hippie life-style, for which Sharon and I both had felt a certain admiration, seeing only its absence of cant, its freedom from hang-ups and hypocrisy. “I want a hippie wife,” I remember telling Sharon on more than one occasion. I had not expected that she would lose her life because of this obscene pervision of hippie values.

      Sharon’s death is the only watershed in my life that really matters. Before she died, I sailed a boundless, untroubled sea of expectations and optimism. Afterward, whenever conscious of enjoying myself, I felt guilty. A psychiatrist I met shortly after her death warned me that it would take me “four years of mourning” to overcome this feeling. It has taken far longer than that.

      There used to be a tremendous fire within me–an unquenchable confidence that I could master anything if I really set my mind to it. This confidence was badly undermined by the killings and their aftermath. I not only developed a closer physical resemblance to my father after Sharon’s death but began to take on some of his traits: his ingrained pessimism, his eternal dissatisfaction with life, his profoundly Judaic sense of guilt, and his conviction that every joyous experience has its price.

      In 1978 Roman Polanski was convicted for drugging and statutory raping 13-year-old Samantha Geimer. Polanski in his autobiography claims that he did not drug the girl, but admits committing statuatory rape (“consensual” sex with a minor). Eventually he fled to Europe to avoid further prison time. But Polanski did spend time in a U.S. prison. An anecdote from that time, from Roman by Polanski, page 420:
      Aside from being visited by some clergymen and a rabbi, I was interviewed as a matter of course by two psychiatrists and a psychologist–the purpose of my imprisonment. The psychologist, a woman, made me do all sorts of written tests with multiple choice answers. she also issued me two sheetsof paper and asked me to draw a man and a woman. I’d attended life classes so often at art school in Krakow that habit prompted me to draw them naked. [Polanski’s attorney] Doug Dalton’s comment when I told him was “Oh, sh–!”
      “What was I supposed to do,” I asked him, “give them fig leaves?”

      It is difficult to ascertain the degree to which Polanski is remorseful about the statuatory rape he was committed of. He generally lived a libertine lifestyle, and although his autobiography seems to acknowledge some wrongdoing, he mostly seems to explain away what he did. Roman by Polanski, pages 402-403:
      Many people who appeared sympathetic were really only eager to boast of having met the notorious Hollywood rapist. Overnight I’d crossed the fine line between decent folks and scum. In all my many premonitions of danger, one thought had never crossed my mind: that I should be sent to prison, my life and career ruined, for making love.
      Tempermentally, howeer, I was on the side of law and order. I had a great admiration for American institutions and regarded the United States as the only truly democratic country in the world. Now, because of a moment’s unthinking lust, I had jeopardized my freedom and my future in the country that matterd most to me.

      Roman by Polanski, pages 449-450:
      Since Sharon’s death [Roman Polanski’s wife Sharon Tate was murdered]… and despite all appearances to the contrary, my enjoyment of life has been incomplete.
      In moments of unbearable personal tragedy some people find solace in religion. In my case the opposite happened. Any religious faith I had was shattered by Sharon’s murder. It reinforced my faith in the absurd.

      I still go through the motions of being a professional entertainer… but I know in my heart of hearts that the spirit of laughter has deserted me. It isn’t just that success has left me jaded or that I’ve been soured by tragedy and by my own follies. I seem to be toiling to no discernible purpose. I feel I’ve lost the right to innocence, to a pure appreciation of life’s pleasures. My childish gullibility and loyalty to my friends have cost me dear, not least in my relations with the press, but my growing wariness has been just as self-destructive.

      I am widely regarded, I know, as an evil, profligate dwarf. My friends–and the women in my life–know better.”

      Comment by Sonny | October 17, 2010 | Reply

      • See, this is how falsehood is perpetuated –

        In the article, I know, & in fact own the actual book & the rare advance reader copy which offers a few crucial things the published version does not, this is utterly incorrect: ‘In 1978 Roman Polanski was convicted for drugging and statutory raping 13-year-old Samantha Geimer.’

        NO, he was NOT ‘convicted’ of anything since he was never officially ‘sentenced’ no matter he did his time (no one asked for & Cooley of course won’t acknowledge to be his entire punishment & should be made official), nor did he plead to drugging her in any form, only to the unlawful sexual intercourse. Five of the six counts were dropped, incl. drugged rape, in exchange for the plea deal at no evidence to support her other claims.

        Articles like this are highly misleading, since they cite facts & then mix it all with fabrication &/or errors – & people unfortunately believe it all to be true.

        As for the Jew issue, no matter if circumcised, only practising Jews are considered ‘Jewish’. It’s clear why they didn’t practice it, but technically he’s not Jewish. Or Polish.

        He denounced religions of all kind for himself ever since Tate’s murder – hence his words about his faith in the absurd.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | October 17, 2010

      • I agree that the above is misleading on the issue of drugging etc. I believe Roman Polanski pled guilty to the unlawful sex having no option but to do so in the plea bargain agreement and because panties had been found. I believe he had sex with the young girl. I agree the world’s press get all of that mixed up and don’t mean to vex you since I know what the deal is and accept only the consensual sex with underage girl part for which he paid for on account of the so called DEAL with the mad hatter Judge.

        I posted the above to show Roman Polanski’s mainly Jewish origins. When I say jewish I don’t mean practicing Jewish. There are many jewish people that don’t practice. Yes in the jewish religion only practicing jews are considered jewish. But the Germans considered Roman Polanski jewish, and his family jewish. That is why they were halled off to Concentration camps and his mother died. That is why his life was in danger as a young boy and the Catholic religion was inflicted on him. The same is shown in the Black Book movie by Paul Verhoven a great Dutch film director.

        Also it is shown that times the Jewish considered Roman Polanski jewish i.e. for new shoes in that article, and in addition even if Roman Polanski does not look Jewish in his ways sometimes and in his sense of humor there are jewish aspects to him.

        In addition Roman Polanski must have gone to his roots to make the movie the Pianist. Hollywood gave him an Oscar for that movie, since they know how hard that must have been for him to face and the fact that he made such a good movie, far more honest than Stephen Spielberg who never had to face what Roman Polanski has faced in his life.

        You have also heard of the wandering jew. I think Roman Polanski fits the description of wandering jew since he is more of a world citizen than that of an individual country. He loves everyone, he has forgiven Germany who love him, and his world citizen status is represented by his marrying non-jewish ladies, just as the late great Stanley Kubrick did.

        Comment by Sonny | October 17, 2010

    • The plea ‘bargain’ was struck far later for other reasons than the ‘panties’ – they had been analysed before the grand jury hearing took place – & ruled inadmissible because Vannatter had received them two whole days later only after Geimer fetched them from her bedroom, utterly contaminated ‘evidence’ since securing the chain of custody was completely corrupted. Rittenband rightfully disallowed them, since they could have been anyone’s panties & ‘semen evidence’ means nothing in itself. Since Geimer changed when she got home, the clothes she wore at the hospital for Larson to check after he had examined her, were obviously not the same, when the original clothes should have been taken off her right after they had called the cops. But, because she had changed rather than secured ‘evidence’ of intercourse, her [‘rape’/sodomy] claims are even less believable, & of course there was no semen found inside & on her body either where she said Polanski had deposited it. Science doesn’t lie, only people who could misuse it.

      People keep bringing the panties into the foreground being the reason for the plea deal, & Silver likes to accredit them to having been the cause even in Zenovich’s documentary ‘Wanted & Desired’. Not so, it’s misleading, since it was on the pressure of the mother after it became clear there was no rape/sodomy & that she had made a terrible mistake to call the cops against Geimer’s wishes, hence no demands for prison time. Geimer herself said that she never got over that grave mistake. Polanski pleaded to the one count left supportable only five months after the events, &, had Rittenband played by the rules, that had been it & he could have finished his film abroad after he had lost the one he was working on already due to his arrest.

      I think the Jewish community might consider him Jewish for having been dubbed a Jew as kid during the war & ghetto years, since his roots were Jewish, sure. Conversely, some idiots think that because half of Hollywood is Jewish that’s the reason they defend/ed him, & of course smacks of anti-Semitic to begin with to say that. They mainly defend him as their own, an artist, (which isn’t really a great idea & only counter-productive) or, as a human being who had endured so much shit unlike most of them. Mostly older people who had been there in the 70s [& Hollywood] & know that underage sex, drugs & booze was nothing out the ordinary. It still isn’t, only today it’s suddenly demonised by über moralists & sanctimonious hypocrites.

      I agree with you on Spielberg’s film, The Pianist is far more superior & honest, better crafted & realistic, based also on real events & more importantly Polanski’s own experiences brought in to gel the story. (Polanski was allowed to demolish an entire set of old Russia barracks located outside Berlin for the film.) Though Polanski said while making the film, it was purely technical directing & treating it like any other process of filming, of course there were moments of overwhelming grief for him & even other people on set who had no war experiences, were deeply touched about the entire thing or single poignant moments between the actors. Like the one were Spielman is detected by Hosenfeld who helped the ‘pianist’ to survive & later plays for him in that icy room.

      That Polanski did not ‘look’ Jewish was of course a massive plus, though had his father not told him to sod off, they might have gassed him just the same. Or, if he had been left with his father at the camp he was sent to, he could or could not have survived there so young alongside him. He had a far better chance to manage while being left to his own devices & other families who didn’t really want him, but took his father’s trust fund rather than look after him. A gruelling camp life is obviously not comparable with kind people like ‘big mama’ Buchala, he could snuggle on to, feel safe for short while.

      As for being a wandering Jew, why not, though I rather see him as global citizen too with a mixed identity & culture, & he in fact sees himself more as Polish than Jewish since he had lived there to start off his film career, & of course feels primarily French. Polanski is one of the few people who harbour no hatred even for those who had injured him gravely, not even Manson, since that would make him one of the haters – or he’d not ever had that short liaison with Kinski, a ‘German’, or would make films & stage shows there or in Austria where his father was imprisoned. He has many friends from all over the world – & lived all over the world. He’s European. That he can’t enter the US is of no meaning to him. Other than that he would like to visit Sharon’s & his baby’s grave one last time.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 18, 2010 | Reply

      • Sorry, that should say, Szpilman, not Spielman – I was thinking Spielberg, ha ha.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | October 18, 2010

      • I was of the understanding from the Zenovitch movie Polanski Wanted and Desired which I have not viewed for some time that Roman Polanski had initially denied any sex with Samantha. Then the panties led him to admit to sex with Samantha. If this change of plea is true wasn’t it the panties that led to the change of plea from nothing to 1 count of unlawful sex? Or was it something else? I am confused.

        Comment by Sonny | October 19, 2010

      • Hey Novalis you said had County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Courthouse Judge Laurence Rittenband played by the rules…

        Have you not learned yet from hearing about my experience, that in Los Angeles and in California there are no rules, only double cross. No justice only money, media recognition, and promotion for Judges and District Attorneys who break the rules against those who are weaker than they are, since they have been given County of Los Angeles and California State’s power. Even with the best lawyer Roman Polanski was jerked around, so take lawyers out of the equation as they unless they work for the County or the State of California – they have no power to help and only take your money if you have any…

        Just as Roman Polanski was jerked around by Santa Monica judge Rittenband who held a staged hearing, – so too I was jerked around by a Santa Monica Judge Laurence D. Rubin in a staged hearing 20 years after Santa Monica Judge Laurence Rittenband’s staged hearing. There were undocumented County of Los Angeles white sheriffs deputies stationed in my hearing to assault and batter me. Yes shades of Rosemary’s baby. As the devil could be in the next Courtroom with closed doors at the Santa Monica Courthouse, County of Los Angeles California.

        Comment by Sonny | October 19, 2010

      • Hollywood Jews may have considered Roman Polanski as Jewish.
        Roman Polanski worked with other jewish artists Ira Levin who wrote Rosemary’s Baby, and Ruth Gordon who received an Academy Award for Rosemary’s Baby, but Roman Polanski has always been a world citizen, learning to adapt early on when he lost his real jewish parents to concentration camps.
        And in contrast Roman Polanski has worked with Ariel Dorfman and many from all over the world.
        Also Roman was European, not American, and still is. When he came to America he was a stranger in a strange land, where sex drugs and rock and roll is frowned upon, and there is hypocrisy everywhere especially in Hollywood. And then there is politics as well.

        Remember another Europena film maker had a problems in USA with Hoover – Charlie Chaplin. Remember Charlie Chaplin also could not return to America for different reasons, and also lived in Switzerland.

        Also remember that Roman Polanski made the movie Pianist which showed Jewish people having to shit on other Jewish people in war torn Poland (one of the things that is endearing about Roman Polanski’s movies is his wish for honesty) (unlike American Steven Spielberg who wants to avoid the subject)

        and Roman Polanski is right, Jews shit on other jews in peacetime as well as war since Santa Monica Courthouse Judge Laurence Rittenband was jewish and he was a mad hatter Judge who didn’t care about double crossing Roman Polanski so the Santa Monica Judge could retain favor with the public and the press.

        Roman Polanski gravitated to American people that were like him then, such as Mia Farrow, Sharon Tate,Hugh Hefner, Jack Nicholson later on.

        Roman Polanski had managed somehow to survive early on in Poland, and he just about survived Los Angeles in 1969 as what would have happened if Roman Polanski was at home the night the Manson gang arrived?

        Polanski has really lived a charmed life over and over and over again.
        No a mixed bag of people from all over the world have defended Roman Polanski, and neither is Hollywood, the movie industry in California all Jewish, nor have all Jews in Hollywood defended him. Actor, Producer Michael Douglas who is ill , who has a son in jail was very cold about Roman Polanski and Jamie Lee Curtis, Tony Curtis’s daughter I think also.

        But the Sharon Tate family did, Mia Farrow of course, the Weinstein brothers did, Marina Zenovitch, and so did Woody Allen, Johnny Depp, the cast of The Ghost of course, his long time friend the British movie producer Andy Braunberg, Richard Brennerman at http://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/category/roman-polanski/

        not to forget Whoopie Goldberg, and so did the French President Nicolas Sarkozy, plus his wife, and Bernard-Henri Lévy at

        http://laregledujeu.org/2010/07/12/2353/la-suisse-nextradera-pas-roman-polanski/

        And of course Crime File at http://www.crimefilenews.com/search/label/Roman%20Polanski

        And you and me

        Also I have a question now since Howard Koch senior died in 1995 (who wrote Casablanca), I guess it was Howard Koch junior in the documentary Polanski : Wanted and desired that said his father heard Laurence J. Rittenband publicly break the plea bargain agreement with respect to Roman Polanski’s sentence at the Hillcrest country club gentlemens’ room.

        http://books.google.com/books?id=Q9MDuOGkt9IC&pg=PA252&lpg=PA252&dq=Howard+Koch+and+polanski&source=bl&ots=9dCpRBB6i3&sig=1ufiLqsR44-a-SlfssRZM0nRX98&hl=en&ei=Y3i-TJfXH4-WsgPIkZmjDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Howard%20Koch%20and%20polanski&f=false

        Novalis said “I think the Jewish community might consider him Jewish for having been dubbed a Jew as kid during the war & ghetto years, since his roots were Jewish, sure.

        Conversely, some idiots think that because half of Hollywood is Jewish that’s the reason they defend/ed him, & of course smacks of anti-Semitic to begin with to say that.

        They mainly defend him as their own, an artist, (which isn’t really a great idea & only counter-productive) or, as a human being who had endured so much shit unlike most of them. Mostly older people who had been there in the 70s [& Hollywood] & know that underage sex, drugs & booze was nothing out the ordinary. It still isn’t, only today it’s suddenly demonised by über moralists & sanctimonious hypocrites.”

        Comment by Sonny | October 19, 2010

      • I think that Polanski is too intelligent to take a group of people and dismiss then by saying they are all bad. I think he shows this in his movie the Pianist. Also German’s regime in Poland had gone – which slowly paved the way to forgiveness, and now a new generation.

        Also German girls are very attractive…

        But currently the regime in Los Angeles California against Roman Polanski still exists, planted by Santa Monica Judge Laurence J. Rittenband which continues like a virus out of control 34 years later, because Polanski had the gaul to skip town, and so far has in the minds of Los Angeles prosecutors and the “Terminator” “got away with it”.

        Again Roman Polanski does not blame all Americans, but I think he really wantd to make peace with California, hence the California lawyers and litigation prior to his arrest in 2009,

        The problem is the California Los Angeles Authorites run by Los Angeles DA Steve Cooley did not want to make peace with Polanski. I wonder if Arnie will pardon Polanski when he steps down from being California’s Governor shortly. It would be a bold gesture! But I think unlikely.

        Novalis said, “As for being a wandering Jew, why not, though I rather see him as global citizen too with a mixed identity & culture, & he in fact sees himself more as Polish than Jewish since he had lived there to start off his film career, & of course feels primarily French. Polanski is one of the few people who harbour no hatred even for those who had injured him gravely, not even Manson, since that would make him one of the haters – or he’d not ever had that short liaison with Kinski, a ‘German’, or would make films & stage shows there or in Austria where his father was imprisoned. He has many friends from all over the world – & lived all over the world. He’s European. That he can’t enter the US is of no meaning to him. Other than that he would like to visit Sharon’s & his baby’s grave one last time.

        Comment by Sonny | October 19, 2010

      • Not to forget Samantha Geimer and Emmanuelle Seigner Roman Polanski’s wife, who also have greatly supported Roman Polanski in his recent turmoil.

        Comment by Sonny | October 19, 2010

      • Sorry Novalis. I forgot the most important support for Roman Polanski who really must be commended for his honesty.

        Former Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson. He tried to get rid of the Mad Hatter Rittenband in 1977 but his superiors stopped him, then he stood up this year for Roman Polanski with the truth of the hearings with Rittenband i.e. what Rittenband agreed to – in the plea bargain. Truly a friend of Roman Polanski. Roger Gunson is a true hero and a rarity in that he did not cave in to Los Angeles County’s CODE OF SILENCE when officials do wrong.

        Also other supporters of Roman Polanski were the Chino prison authorites who recommended no more prison time for Polanski in 1978 which infuriated Santa Monica Judge Laurence J Rittenband.

        Comment by Sonny | October 20, 2010

    • True, true. Gunson was – or still is – a shining example of rare honesty, shame he was no more successful than others to see this case finally dismissed, closed, litigated, anything but this. It should be very telling that a former prosecutor would side with the defence, and the luckless defendant. Gunson knew too well what Rittenband was up to.

      And btw, I have to correct myself, re Judge Villar – she allowed for his deposition, yes, but it was she who sealed it once Polanski had spoken out, not Espinoza as I stated before – on Cooley’s ‘orders’. Either way, it’s sealed till his death – so it will never be used while either he or Polanski are still alive, (unless he gets dragged before the LA courts after all) & once they’re gone it’ll be an utterly wasted effort on his part & far too late to achieve final justice for Polanski.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 20, 2010 | Reply

      • First I scold myself for forgetting and then remembering modest former Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson and the CRUCIAL part he played.

        NOVALIS. I think you may be severely downplaying what former Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson was able to achieve for Roman Polanski by his giving a deposition this year.

        I believe Roger Gunson may have played a HUGE part in getting Roman Polanski off the hook for extradition from Switzerland to USA. Former Prosecutor Roger Gunson MUST NOT BE FORGOTTEN I STRESS because of his honesty and in Roger Gunson lies the only hope, the only honest seed for County of Los Angeles and Santa Monica Courthouse Justice.

        Also remember Roger Gunson was in the documentary movie Polanski: Wanted and Desired which I am sure the Swiss Justice was able to see, even if it was not “proper” evidence. But his appearance in the documentary and what Roger Gunson said there – did point to Santa Monica Judge Rittenband’s judicial misconduct and double cross of Roman Polanski on the plea deal. And because the deposition papers was refused to Switzerland that gave Switzerland another excuse to deny the extradtition papers and the extradition itself.

        First and foremost Former Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson STOOD FOR THE TRUTH.

        That is all any man can do, BUT ONLY IF YOU believe in standing up for the truth, and NOT adhering to the popular LOS ANGELES OFFICIAL CODE OF SILENCE. To stand up to his superiors and peers takes courage, and it will also alienate you from many of the other Los Angeles prosecutors and District Attorney who don’t care what the truth is, but would prefer another notch on their belt and a promotion to be Attorney General at Roman Polanski’s expense.

        This code of silence applies to Judges, LAPD and the County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and permeate prosecutors and certain attorneys. This code of silence also applies to certain 9th Circuit court of appeals Judges since certain District Attorneys (Roger Gunson’s superiors) were promoted their by Presidents.

        Also remember now the newest President wants a Code of Silence on secret rendition.

        Former Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson also did not cave in to peer pressure. Former Los Anglees Prosecutor Roger Gunson is a HERO. HE BROKE THE CODE OF SILENCE , and ADHERED TO GOOD OLD HONESTY.

        If it were not for former Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson’s integrity (a rare thing in Los Angeles) Switzerland Justice may have granted the extradition of Roman Polanski. So I for one will never downplay Former Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson’s part in Roman Polanski’s release – something he worked on for 33 years after the plea bargain had been struck.

        Comment by Sonny | October 20, 2010

    • True, Gunson is one of a kind – shame he’s ill, or we’d not actually have his deposition. We can only guess what cancer he’s suffering from, but that didn’t prevent him from giving his vital testimony, no matter the courts sealed it, which certainly prompted the Swiss to put the extradition on hold. When Polanski spoke out after that to point them them to it, & they demanded the testimony, they had no other choice but to let him go when it became clear that Polanski had done his time in 1977/8. They showed Cooley the finger after he tried to deflect from that fact with ugly liar Lewis, which obviously failed big time.

      I’m sure the Swiss looked deeper into the issues surrounding the old case on every level, or the flawed extradition request itself (& Lewis’ far too obvious lies backfiring), since Polanski’s defence team gave them their own depositions to back up their side & point them to all the misconducts, & of course Geimer’s wishes to let him be were taken into account. They considered their own political position in the entire drama as well (if not foremost), & as to how he suddenly could be arrested after he lived there on & off since like four decades & owns his chalets in Gstaad since some years.

      They even changed the law because of that incident, so that only the director of the Justice Ministry – who was the one handling the extradition (apart from Widmer-Schlumpf having a last say) – can order an arrest warrant to make way for some extradition request. If that had been in place, no lowly official could have set the ball in motion & arrested Polanski, who was in & out of Gstaad before that for months when filming/finishing his Ghost. Especially not after some (UBS) bank clerk whistled on Polanski to the Ministry who informed Cooley’s office to have him rearrested, in exchange to pawn him off to the US for them to go easy on their IRS investigations. Which obviously failed since the UBS/IRS dealings were settled months before he was released.

      Polanski had been a political pawn all his life – first of the Nazi regime he escaped by a hair’s breadth, then the Polish ghetto years & communism he finally deserted for more liberal shores, (then he had the Manson ‘Family’ wreak devastating havoc on his life), then he had to move from Italy when the Red Brigade muscled in, then of course we have the LA courthouse/media shenanigans that exiled him from the US, & then he became a US-Swiss pawn over shady banking deals & some nasty smear campaign (Allred/Lewis) in Cooley’s name – quite some list. Let’s hope he wont make AG.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 21, 2010 | Reply

      • I am sure the Swiss were not ridiculous enough to spend a fraction of a second on Charlotte Lewis and Gloria Allred. That was just American and British TV and press entertainment for the masses. So they could be duped even further since the alleged “crime” with Lewis had not been reported at the time or even a couple of years after, that it took Lewis 20 years to report it, that she did not immediately report it when Polanski was arrested in 2009, and California does not have any jurisdiction over Paris the alleged crime scene twenty and more years ago, so this was just defamation of character by Lewis bolstered by Allred which benefitted no-one other than Cooley and Allred for press purposes.

        Comment by Sonny | October 21, 2010

      • Yes it is true Polanski’s own defense lawyer Douglas Dalton gave a deposition

        and perhaps even Laurence Silver who was Samantha’ Geimer’s lawyer also,

        BUT NO DEPOSITION WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN FORMER LOS ANGELES PROSECUTOR ROGER GUNSON’S DEPOSITIN since what Roger Gunson had to say in his deposition was against his client’s interest, since he did at one time work for the County of Los Angeles as a prosecutor and was Roman Polanski’s prosecutor

        WHAT WAS VERY DAMAGING TO THE CURRENT LOS ANGELES PROSECUTION WAS THAT EVEN THE FORMER LOS ANGELES PROSECUTOR ROGER GUNSON WAS SAYING THE SANTA MONICA JUDGE RITTENBAND WAS A BLABBERMOUTH, A DOUBLE CROSSER, THAT AS OF SEPT 2009 LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY STEVE COOLEY’S EXTRADITION PAPERS WERE FLAWED AND THAT ROMAN POLANSKI HAD SERVED HIS TIME IN CHINO BY JANUARY 1978.

        Novalis said, “I’m sure the Swiss looked deeper into the issues surrounding the old case on every level, or the flawed extradition request itself (& Lewis’ far too obvious lies backfiring), since Polanski’s defence team gave them their own depositions to back up their side & point them to all the misconducts, & of course Geimer’s wishes to let him be were taken into account. They considered their own political position in the entire drama as well (if not foremost), & as to how he suddenly could be arrested after he lived there on & off since like four decades & owns his chalets in Gstaad since some years.”

        Comment by Sonny | October 21, 2010

      • Unfortunately Steve Cooley has so much support that he will be AG of California.
        However I did not vote for him. Results before Guy Falkes day.

        Comment by Sonny | October 21, 2010

    • I wouldn’t be too sure about Cooley winning this –

      http://www.laweekly.com/2010-10-21/news/hollywood-backs-harris-as-cooley-pulls-away/

      We’ll see.

      As for his nasty smear campaign – i.e., Allred/Lewis – that deservedly backfired big time. That’s why he (&/or Allred/Lewis) brought in Vogelhut with her big hat & more big lies.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 22, 2010 | Reply

  94. My mistake – if you look the h is missing from the http: It works with the h of course.

    Power

    The merciless weapon
    is the calm statement of the facts.
    Raymond Barre

    There is no greater power in the world,
    as a determined man.
    Author Unknown

    Money is the crowbar of power.
    Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900)

    I’ve never heard of a man,
    which power has attacked, but do not do for themselves.
    Elias Canetti (1905 – 1994)

    In the shadow of power growing opportunists.
    Alfred Grosser

    No farewell to the world is more difficult
    as the departure from power.
    Charles Maurice de Talleyrand (1754 – 1838)

    Power is defined as
    For your own decision.
    Author Unknown

    Power is the only pleasure,
    which one never tires.
    Oscar Wilde

    Power corrupts, and
    absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    Lord Acton

    You can not give power to the weak,
    by weakening the strong.
    Abraham Lincoln (1809 – 1865)

    Want to know the character of a person,
    give him power.
    Abraham Lincoln (1809 – 1865)

    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.zitate-suche.de/macht.html&ei=TSW5TI7YH5KusAOGp8iuDw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CD4Q7gEwCA&prev=/search%3Fq%3DAbsolute%2BMacht%2Bkorrumpiert%2Babsolut%26num%3D30%26hl%3Den%26prmd%3Db

    Comment by Sonny | October 16, 2010 | Reply

    • Ahhh, silly me, I could have spotted that. But yeah, looks like Acton was the source of quotes even in Deutschland.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 17, 2010 | Reply

  95. I voted in CA today. I found that California Justice Laurence D. Rubin was not promoted by Gov Arnold Schwartenneger even though Governor Arnold Scwartzenneger initially wanted California Justice Laurence D. Rubin to become Presiding Justice of Division 8 back on March 10th 2009.

    See Met News

    http://www.metnews.com/endmomarch09.html

    “Presiding Justice Candace Cooper retired from Div. Eight Dec. 31. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has submitted Acting Presiding Justice Laurence Rubin’s name to the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation as a candidate to replace Cooper.”

    And the other link to Laurence D. Rubin when he was a County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Courthouse Judge is

    Its all corrupt here in Los Angeles.

    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

    Comment by Sonny | October 19, 2010 | Reply

    • Let me reply to your comments as new post, Sonny.

      As I said, he pleaded not guilty to all counts, as one does, April 15 at his arraignment, and the case was transferred to the Santa Monica courtroom of, yes, Rittenband. When he was arrested on statutory rape by Vannatter March 11th 1977, he was booked, fingerprinted, & released on $2500 bail the same evening. After that friends found him Dalton as defence lawyer. Two weeks later the grand jury was convened March 24, at which her mother & sister, officer Tumas (who was the cop to interview Geimer after they had called the police), lab technician Mann (who had examined the dress & panties she wore March 10th & examined the rape kit slides taken that night), Geimer & Dr Larson (who examined her) testified – in that order (amongst others of no relevance to this part).

      Remember, a grand jury hearing is for indictment purposes only – any given testimony has no veracity as long as a trial did not corroborate them. There never was a trial – hence, the plea deal. Polanski would give his account later for the probation report which included the psyche reports asking for no jail time.

      Mann could not fully determine semen stains on the panties (& found none at all on the dress she handed the cops she apparently wore that day), after he conducted a chemical acid phosphatase test on the crotch area of her underwear in an effort to obtain spermatozoa, which it proved unsuccessful. Yes, he wasn’t quite sure either way for the variables, but it doesn’t matter if there was semen since the garment was not taken off her body directly but from another part of their home since she had changed, i.e., is inadmissible.

      The panties ‘might’ have semen stains on them, but the (rape kit) test slides did not. They had established all that before the grand jury took place, & as I said, he pleaded 5 months later right on Sharon’s death anniversary of all days, after the other 5 charges were dropped at insufficient ‘proof’ after a consensus in favour of sentencing developed to plead to unlawful sexual intercourse & avoid a trial for the both of them, purely for her age. Otherwise the case had been thrown out for no verbal/physical force involved. That’s why she wants it dismissed today.

      So, what they said in that documentary is rather misleading, since the panties were NOT the reason for pleading, but more likely the incident outside Gunson’s office she’d never admit to & of course because she refused to stand trial to be cross-examined. Plus, Huston’s coerced testimony to back up Geimer’s ‘double sodomy’ scenario would have proved a disfavour unless rendered inadmissible, rather than what Huston & Polanski had originally said and that she did not interrupt them, but the light on the phone when she returned to make a call before she was introduced to Geimer only then. He never said he did not sleep with her – he refused to admit to the drugged rape/sodomy angle that could never be proven to begin with, & that’s why the charges were dropped at no physical evidence.

      Even with the best lawyer Polanski was jerked around, true, & he still is today no matter what. America was always puritanically backward concerning sexual freedom, drugs & underage sex. Chaplin was ousted, true, except when it comes to their ‘own’, like Flynn et. al., then the cases are dropped like hot potatoes.

      I wasn’t aware that Rittenband was Jewish, but he certainly was a mad hatter judge who didn’t care about double-crossing Polanski to retain favours with the public and the press.

      Many wondered what would have happened if Polanski had been at home the night the Manson ‘family’ arrived. Polanski most probably would have put up a deadly fight, to the bitter end if need be, to fight for his wife & child – friends. He said so in his autobiography. He was very fit in these days & had been trained by Bruce Lee in martial arts, so that might have come in handy. But then again, once you’re incapacitated & tied up, the chances drop to zero – or where knives & bullets are involved. On the other hand, the harsh war & ghetto years might have triggered some survival instinct powers in him to fight for their lives.

      Sex-obsessed Douglas is a hypocrite, & if Tony Curtis’ daughter is not a supporter of Polanski is of no concern, no matter her father was part of Rosemary’s Baby.

      And yes, Howard Koch junior said what he said about the Hillcrest country club ‘gentlemen’s room’ & Rittenband, which was one of the reasons for Dalton to file for his removal. Too late obviously.

      I btw own every book out there on Polanski, incl. old mags with interviews & then some – so Sandford’s disappointing hatchet job is familiar to me. He gets too much wrong &/or cites/recycles from very dubious/incorrect sources like character assassin Kiernan who had lied his head off with his despicable Polanski bio 30 yrs ago, to make the ‘case’ look worse than it is in very crucial areas. Sandford mixes facts & factoids – like Kiernan had on the BAD & SORDID scale. But that becomes only apparent if you know all the Polanski bios, including his own autobiography (& interviews) I give more credit than anyone’s.

      As for Schwarzenegger, I highly doubt he will pardon Polanski when he steps down from being California’s just as useless Governor. Besides, that would leave people only in the belief Geimer’s version is the correct one & that Polanski got away with it all. Bad idea.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 20, 2010 | Reply

      • Hey Novalis, you mention that you have every book on Roman Polanski. You must have been interested in him for a long time. Was your interest because of his movies?

        Comment by Sonny | October 21, 2010

    • I followed his interesting life since decades. I got the books & mags either from friends or bought them over the years. I got all his movies & collect films in general – & biographies.

      My interest in him specifically is purely from the human angle, not so much the artist, the legal side of things & psychology behind his life. I studied psychology many years ago & taught it until recently after I retired on health grounds.

      Not many led a fascinating life like Polanski has, so successful against all odds, & I admire his powerful survivor spirit & instinct, unsurpassed skills & work. One could say I know him well.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 22, 2010 | Reply

  96. The extradition to US was on hold before Roger Gunson gave his testimony in 2010 I believe, since extradition lost ground as soon as Polanski was released on bail Dec 4th 2009 just after Thanks Giving Day last year.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/11/polanski-remains-in-prison-swiss-await-45-million-bail.html

    Maybe even my information regarding a double standard at the Santa Monica Courthouse helped Roman Polanski’s defence in Switzerland since I informed the Swiss authorities of the double standard and what I had experienced personally i.e. assault and battery at the Santa Monica Courthouse after experiencing sexual assault and College police cover up of it at Santa Monica College.

    However I do think that Roger Gunson’s testimony which the Americans did not give the Swiss Justice Authorities was a perfect excuse ( hook on which to hang their hat).

    http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/the-polanski-case-who-knew-what-and-when/?pagemode=print

    Comment by Sonny | October 21, 2010 | Reply

    • That’s true, after the three judges residing over Polanski’s dismissal plea on December 10th didn’t come to any conclusion, the Swiss announced December 16th that they put the extradition proceeding on hold until next year. So I might have mixed up the timeline.

      At any rate, they obviously didn’t want to ship off an old man before X-mas & New Year who had lived in Switzerland since decades before he had exhausted all his appeals, & because no one would bother with any proceedings in LA & he’d just sit on remand for weeks in some LA jail in danger of attacks. Gunson gave his deposition after he had come clean last January that he had tried to get rig of Rittenband much earlier before Polanski even pleaded, but his superiors foiled that. He never told Dalton about that, before Dalton had to do it himself after Polanski had to flee. Of course, the two superiors became judges regardless – Trott & Mantagna.

      Gunson therefore gave his deposition to make good on that & because he’s ill to preserve that vital testimony, after both had already talked about what Rittenband had done in 2008 in Zenovich’s documentary. So technically that info was out there long before he was rearrested, & that he had done his time. That doc, as Polanski said, triggered this entire vindictiveness to pursue him suddenly – since Cooley of course could not allow for Polanski to be set free finally.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 22, 2010 | Reply

  97. It is Oct 22nd 2010 police brutality day in America and Obama is town for police brutality day. I guess he got my message.

    Also he probably knows already because the Rodney King beating on tape and the LA riots whey back when.

    Comment by Sonny | October 22, 2010 | Reply

  98. With L.A.’s help, Cooley leads in attorney general’s race, Times/USC poll finds

    latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/10/poll-california-attorney-general.html

    for some reason I cannot put the first part of the link -tried 10 times today Oct 22nd 2010. Perhaps it is because Obama is in town for the official police brutality day in America.

    Comment by Sonny | October 22, 2010 | Reply

  99. More brutality on police brutality day

    http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/iraq-war-reports/

    Comment by Sonny | October 22, 2010 | Reply

  100. On Oct 22n 2010 the UK Guardian put Chinatown: as the best film of all time
    Roman Polanski’s ‘neo-noir’ starring Jack Nicholson and a killer last line takes first place in poll of Guardian and Observer critics

    Andrew Pulver
    guardian.co.uk, Friday 22 October 2010 16.16 BST

    Bloodied but unbeatable … Chinatown. Photograph: Ronald Grant Archive
    It’s the film that cemented Jack Nicholson’s reputation as the best American actor of his generation, and it was the last film Roman Polanski would make in the US before he fled the country in disgrace. Now, almost 40 years later, their 1974 release Chinatown has now been named the greatest film ever made.

    Chinatown
    Production year: 1974
    Country: USA
    Cert (UK): 18
    Runtime: 131 mins
    Directors: Roman Polanski
    Cast: Faye Dunaway, Jack Nicholson, John Huston

    More on this film
    The Chandleresque “neo-noir”, with an Oscar-winning script by Robert Towne and a superlative performance by Nicholson as detective JJ Gittes, was voted into first place by a panel of Guardian and Observer critics.

    Chinatown beat six other films in a shortlist drawn from the top-named films in the recently-published seven-part series of the 25 greatest films in seven genres, which concluded today. In joint-second place were Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (from the Horror section) and Andrei Tarkovsky’s Andrei Rublev (the leading film in the Arthouse section).

    The Guardian’s film critic, Peter Bradshaw, said: “Chinatown is such a powerful piece of myth-making, a brilliant evocation of Los Angeles as a spiritual desert.” The Observer’s Philip French considers it a movie of “near perfection”, ending “unforgettably with the line ‘Forget it Jake, it’s Chinatown!'”.

    Alongside Nicholson, Chinatown features career-best performances from Faye Dunaway – who notoriously clashed on set with director Polanski – and legendary film-maker John Huston, who played sinister landowner Noah Cross. Polanski himself had a cameo as a stiletto-wielding hoodlum who slices Nicholson’s nose open.

    Originally titled Water and Power, Chinatown was intended by scriptwriter Robert Towne to be the first of a trilogy examining the corrupting effects of Los Angeles’s natural resources on the development of the city. But production of the second film, The Two Jakes, was much delayed and only emerged in 1990, with Nicholson himself as director. The disappointing critical and commercial reaction meant the third film, Gittes Vs Gittes, was never made.

    The full result:

    1) Chinatown (Roman Polanski, 1974)

    =2) Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock, 1960)

    =2) Andrei Rublev (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1966)

    4) Annie Hall (Woody Allen, 1976)

    5) 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)

    6) Brief Encounter (David Lean, 1945)

    7) Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979)

    Comment by Sonny | October 25, 2010 | Reply

    • Though I like Chinatown, it’s not the best film ever made per se – & that poll was only conducted in the UK by some more or less objective newspaper panellists. I’d say it’s [one of] the best film of its genre, but not of all time. Films should be chosen per genre to start with, & if we’d do a countrywide poll, or worldwide, I’m sure that would look entirely different with each country or worldwide, & it would change with each new generation not even knowing older films to begin with.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 27, 2010 | Reply

  101. interview with roman polanski on internet

    Comment by Sonny | October 25, 2010 | Reply

  102. Seems like Charlie Rose had a great belief in the good of the California Judicial system, but I think Polanski’s instincts were correct.

    Comment by Sonny | October 26, 2010 | Reply

    • Absolutely – Rose was very naive if well-meaning & I’m sure the more intelligent folks watching this will not agree with him – or Polanski, obviously. But already then Polanski had told the public that he had done his time & that Rittenband messed him over & Rose seems to have agreed with that fact – Yet, no one took any notice of Polanski’s words, as usual.

      Comment by Novalis Lore | October 27, 2010 | Reply

  103. Posted on 20th April 2010 at Huf.

    Will a little diplomacy help Polanski to remain a ghost in america.

    Apparently French President Nicolas Sarkozy hand-deliver a letter last week to President Obama from fugitive director Roman Polanski asking for leniency.
    In an astonishing act of backroom international diplomacy, French President Nicolas Sarkozy hand-delivered a letter from fugitive Oscar-winning filmmaker Roman Polanski to President Barack Obama last week on the sidelines of the international anti-nuke proliferation summit in Washington, according to a small and little-noticed article embedded in the prestigious French political magazine, L’Express.

    http://www .lexpress. fr/actuali te/indiscr ets/la-let tre-de-pol anski-a-ob ama_884410 .html

    The Polanski letter, which is not directly quoted in L’Express’ article, is said to suggest that the two months the aging director spent in a Swiss prison—in addition to the 47 days that he spent in detention in California in 1977—should suffice for the crime of unlawful sexual intercourse he pled guilty to. (Polanski is now under house arrest at his chalet in Gstaad, Switzerland while authorities seek his extradition to the United States.)

    Polanski’s letter also suggests that extraditing the Polish-born filmmaker who became a French citizen would do little more than feed the appetite of the American media that he believes just wants to humiliate him.

    Also this was in the british mail on 19th April 2009
    http://www .dailymail .co.uk/new s/worldnew s/article- 1267240/Ho use-arrest -looked-be tter-Shame d-director -Roman-Pol anski-enjo ys-sunny-l unch-frien ds.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/the-ghosts-of-tony-blair_b_509269.html

    Comment by Sonny | October 26, 2010 | Reply

  104. That’s such an old hat – & Obama did not comment on it at all. He didn’t do anything, or in fact should have. That was not up to him, but the Swiss to tackle the extradition request properly first – as they did eventually – or at most Schwarzenegger to pardon Polanski which obviously also never happened or will, & whoever will do so is dead politically. I wrote about that in my blogs when the news broke & is long of no importance anymore.

    I read these articles already then – the HuffPo Ghost post is ok & the comments are more civilised. MailOnline is a UK [celebrity] trash site (where Lewis left her ugly lies) & the idiotic comments are matching that perfectly.

    Comment by Novalis Lore | October 27, 2010 | Reply

    • It is not relevant whether it was up to President Obama or not. What is relevant is that Roman Polanski is free now and President Nicolas Sarkozy, former Prosecutor Roger Gunson, and many others including myself helped Roman Polanski and even President Obama may have helped Roman Polanski. We don’t know as there are an incredible amount of U.S. state secrets.

      The fact that the French President Nicolas Sarkozy hand delivered a letter from one of his french citizens, Roman Polanski to US president Obama said alot about what French President Nicolas Sarkosy wanted of US officials as far as Roman Polanski and was some strong support for Roman Polanski.

      President Nicolas Sarkozy was Roman Polanski’s messenger, if you will, rather complimentary for a person who had once been a small boy in a Polish Ghetto, on someone’s death list

      As far as what President Obama did or did not do for Roman Polanski, we don’t know, he may as you say have done nothing, but you never know he could have done something behind the scenes without admitting he was helping Roman Polanski. After all isn’t that what being a politician is all about.

      Also this hand delivery from the French President Sarkozy to the US President Obama came after I had gone to the French and Swiss Consulate in Los Angeles on April 8th 2010 and had informed Swiss Justice and Roman Polanski’s lawyers in Europe that I had done so to inform about the double standard at the Santa Monica Courthouse California with my own eye witness account of the double standard in place.

      Also the idea of a pardon for Polanski from President Sarkozy to President Obama was a fine piece of direction from Roman Polanski to his President not only because French President Nicolas Sarkozy took the direction and became Roman Polanski’s messenger, but also because the publicity of this letter gave me the GREAT idea to write to President Obama also to ask for a pardon for Roman Polanski because of double standard at the Santa Monica Courthouse which is ongoing – see letter posted at 34 and I have posted it again below.

      So I do find the letter that the French President Nicolas Sarkozy gave to the US President Obama of great importance, not because President Obama may have done anything although he may have, but because Roman Polanski’s hand delivered letter prompted me to write a letter to the US President Obama also on Roman Polanski’s behalf and to inform of the double standard at the Santa Monica Courthouse, and inform Polanski’s European lawyers that I had done so

      President Obama must have got my fax because he was in Los Angeles just recently on police brutality day – Oct 22nd 2010.

      Re: A Pardon For Roman Polanski & Double Standards in California Justice

      Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:21 PM

      From: Jayne Doe
      To: president@whitehouse.gov

      From Jayne Doe

      President Barack Obama
      The White House
      1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
      E-mail: president@whitehouse.gov
      Phone: (202) 456-1414 Fax: (202) 456-2461

      April 24th 2010

      Dear President Barack Obama

      I am writing to you today if you could do me a big favor, and pardon French & Polish Citizen Roman Polanski.

      I am also writing to you today to inform you that a double standard exists in how sexual assault cases are decided at the County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Courthouse, California, which depends on who the perpetrator is.

      I would ask you to pardon Roman Polanski because he was not treated straightforwardly by the Judge at the County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Courthouse, California in 1977, which is why this case has lingered on for 33 years.

      I believe that Roman Polanski wanted to make good in 1977 since he would not have returned to America, and served time at Chino California, if this were untrue.

      I have also faced a staged hearing and Judicial and police corruption in the same Santa Monica Courthouse as Roman Polanski, through my being a victim of sexual molestation at Santa Monica College, & because the Santa Monica College officials and their police covered up my claim of sexual molestation and ongoing sexual discrimination at the College.

      Because I have experienced this I am in the very unique position to inform you that a double standard is in operation at the Santa Monica Courthouse, which double standard 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’ crimes.

      But if the perpetrator or victim are not working for the California state and its subdivisions, and were born in another country, then the Santa Monica Court and other employees will act against them, using any means and foul means. See the link cached below in 2000 for more details.

      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

      In addition as French/Polish citizen Roman Polanski admitted to a crime through a plea bargain, the Santa Monica Judge should have honored it.

      When the Santa Monica Judge Rittenband wanted to force Polanski into deportation, using illegal coercion in the sentencing, the Santa Monica Judge broke the plea bargain agreement,
      and through the Judge’s use of bait and switch justice, betrayed the righteous legal process, destroyed Roman Polanski’s trust in it, and caused Roman Polanski to flee.

      I have also faced the equivalent in the same Santa Monica Courthouse.

      On Oct 6th 1998, when Laurence D. Rubin was a County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Judge, the County of Los Angeles Judge allowed the defendant Santa Monica College police officer Ron Marable to control the hearing and also permitted undocumented white sheriff deputies to assault and batter me in Rubin’s courtroom in a staged hearing, for reporting Santa Monica College police cover up of my sexual assault complaint against a Santa Monica College photography Instructor.

      County of Los Angeles Judge Laurence D. Rubin was promoted on police brutality day, 22nd Oct, 2001 to become a California Justice at the California Court of Appeals by the former California Governor Gray Davis.

      California Appellate Justice Laurence D. Rubin has since stated that only one African American Sheriff Deputy Terry January was present in his Santa Monica courtroom #R, but this not true.
      In fact Terry January wasn’t involved in assaulting and battering me.

      Terry January is employed as a facade for County of Los Angeles’s contaminated process at the Santa Monica Courthouse so as to rule in favor of police and official cover up of sexual assault cases.

      Terry January was also convicted in a different matter in the CACD Federal Court in 2008, which is other evidence which puts into question the California Justice Rubin’s credibility and the County of Los Angeles’s cover-up story in my case.

      See link. 5:07-cr-00050-SGL USA v. January – https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl

      Please do not be fooled because my Federal Cases …were denied in the Federal Courts, by Judges. The facts are real.

      California Officials are not policing their own California institutional sexual offenders who work for the State and its subdivisions, but instead will act to cover up, and harm me, and frame me, a victim of sexual molestation and police cover up of it, instead.

      In view of the double standard I would respectfully ask you to pardon Roman Polanski, a Polish & French artist as soon as possible. I believe it is a good time to pardon Roman Polanski,

      and for California Justice to attend to its own ills.

      Many people all over the world would be very happy if you could pardon Roman Polanski as soon as possible.

      If you would like any further information from me, I would be happy to provide it. Thank you for your help in this matter.

      Sincerely

      Jayne Doe

      Comment by Sonny | October 28, 2010 | Reply

      • I don’t want to deflate your enthusiasm about this letter, Sonny, but it is actually not clear if that letter really existed, since this ‘news item’ was only published in one French newspaper & has never been confirmed by Sarkozy, or Polanski’s legal team, nor Obama’s aides. It was ultimately down to the Swiss Justice Minister to release Polanski for knowing he had done his time (after Polanski had said so & for Gunson’s earlier deposition that to be fact), & not for Obama or anyone else ‘helping’ her to decide on that. I’m sure any good word put in for Polanski was of help per se, but what Widmer-Schlumpf decided on was up to her alone, & in the name of her people, not Obama’s. The only thing Sarkozy in fact was ‘helpful’ with, was that he could ‘convince’ the Swiss to grant Polanski bail finally & be put under house arrest for his age & because of the entire UBS scandal, nothing else.

        Comment by Novalis Lore | October 28, 2010

      • Novalis Widmer Schlump was not operating or making decision about what to do about Polanski in a vacuum, and not all her decisions were consistent. And ultimately she was swayed against Los Angeles. But in the middle it was a political nightmare for her.

        By the end she and President Sarkozy knew she was dealing with a faulty extradition request from Steve Cooley district attorney of County of Los Angeles, that was omitting former Los Angeles Prosecutor’s Roger Gunson’s key testimony on the subject that Polanski had already served his time by 1978 and thus the extradition request from Los Angeles County and the US Department of Justice was faulty. LiKE FAULTY TOWERS.

        You are correct Novalis it is not CERTAIN that this letter from Polanski was hand delivered by French President Sarkozy to American President Obama or that the letter actually existed.

        However your assertion that this “news item” was only published in one French newspaper is not exactly true. (See Below for more links to press on Roman Polanski’s letter to President Obama claiming its existence and also links denying that the letter existed )

        It does not matter whether the letter existed or not –

        because just like a Hitchcock “Mcguffin” see

        http://www.essortment.com/all/alfredhitchcoc_rvhd.htm for explanation of film term Mcguffin.

        Even if Roman Polanski’s letter to President Obama did not exist – IT DID NOT MATTER SINCE THE IDEA THAT IT DID EXIST – DROVE THE PLOT FORWARD TO THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION – FOR HIS RELEASE

        The news articles and press of ROMAN POLANSKI’S letter to Obama and President Nicolas Sarkozy delivering it to Obama was good press and support for Roman Polanski,

        PLUS THE LETTER DID SOMETHING ELSE – WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED OTHERWISE – THE NEWS OF THE LETTER PROMPTED ME A WITNESS TO THE DOUBLE STANDARD IN SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES AT THE SANTA MONICA COURTHOUSE TO SEND A LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA, I who had been exploited and beaten up on Oct 6th 1998 by the County of Los Angeles Court “system” SEE ABOVE AT 34 and 105.

        President Obama’s office only the day before I faxed my letter to the US President Obama on 24th April 2010 had denied receiving Roman Polanski’s letter from French President Nicolas Sarkozy according t