Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland on 31-year-old warr..

Paul Valois · External Since: Jan 14, 2009 Posts: 40

nmstevens wrote:

> But the judge in question -- the one that set aside the deal, was
> found guilty of judicial misconduct. So his actions in this case were
> also found to have been wrong.

When did this happen? The last judge who looked at the case refused to
rule on it without Polanski present.
>
> And "judicial" wrongs are a very different order of wrong than
> criminal wrongs.

I've never had a jury trial yet where the judge didn't make a mistake.
Sometimes on my side, more often on the prosecution's side. I think
most judges are keenly aware of the Double Jeopardy clause of the Fifth
Amendment and they know that if they rule against the prosecution, the
case is dead forever (with the Judge's name printed next to it in the
record) whereas if they rule in favor of the prosecution, the defense
can challenge the decision in an appeal.

Thus, in the minds of many judges, there is an incentive to rule in
favor of the prosecution on close issues and take the attitude that the
appellate courts can settle it out and take the insuing political heat.
>
> A crime can be despicable. What Roman Polanski did was despicable.
>
> What Miranda did (of Miranda Rights fame) was equally despicable. He
> was a rapist.
>
> But I am, as a rule, always more concerned when the state does wrong
> than when a citizen does wrong.
>
Me too. However, there are ways to deal with it. Miranda did it the
right way. Polanski did it the wrong way.

nmstevens · External Since: Sep 03, 2009 Posts: 15

On Sep 29, 1:14 am, Paul Valois <mval....DeleteThis@vbclegal.com> wrote:
> nmstevens wrote:
> > But the judge in question -- the one that set aside the deal, was
> > found guilty of judicial misconduct. So his actions in this case were
> > also found to have been wrong.
>
> When did this happen? The last judge who looked at the case refused to
> rule on it without Polanski present.

As I've heard the matter discussed recently (I have to confess, this
isn't something I've followed with any obsessive interest down through
the years) the original judge was found guilty of judicial misconduct
*after* Polanski headed for the hills, his attorneys subsequently
attempted to have Polanski's case resolved with him still a fugitive
-- basically to get the court to accept the original plea deal -- and
they've never been able to get any judge to go for that. The judge,
rightly, has always said that if Polanski wants his case heard, he's
got to come back and take his chances just like everybody else.

>
>
>
> > And "judicial" wrongs are a very different order of wrong than
> > criminal wrongs.
>
> I've never had a jury trial yet where the judge didn't make a mistake.
> Sometimes on my side, more often on the prosecution's side. I think
> most judges are keenly aware of the Double Jeopardy clause of the Fifth
> Amendment and they know that if they rule against the prosecution, the
> case is dead forever (with the Judge's name printed next to it in the
> record) whereas if they rule in favor of the prosecution, the defense
> can challenge the decision in an appeal.
>
> Thus, in the minds of many judges, there is an incentive to rule in
> favor of the prosecution on close issues and take the attitude that the
> appellate courts can settle it out and take the insuing political heat.
>
> > A crime can be despicable. What Roman Polanski did was despicable.
>
> > What Miranda did (of Miranda Rights fame) was equally despicable. He
> > was a rapist.
>
> > But I am, as a rule, always more concerned when the state does wrong
> > than when a citizen does wrong.
>
> Me too. However, there are ways to deal with it. Miranda did it the
> right way. Polanski did it the wrong way.

No disagreement from me there.

NMS

Skipper · External Since: Jan 19, 2009 Posts: 22

In article <h9s4hb$2pr$1@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Valois
<mvalois.DeleteThis@vbclegal.com> wrote:

> wrabkin wrote:
> >> Why are you guys so quick to apologize for a man who allegedly drugged,
> >> raped and sodomized a kid against her will and who plead guilty to
> >> raping her?- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Because we hate America and freedom, Paul.
>
> This much is self-evident.
>
> But, let's say hypothetically that we're in that Hollywood Dream Land of
> Saudi Arabia, where any Saudi citizen can rape any child he wishes, as
> long as the child has mere immigrant servants for parents.
>
> The question remains, why do you guts stick up for a guy like this who
> is not only alleged to have drugged, raped and sodomized a kid, but who
> has actually plead guilty to child rape?
>
> Huh?
>
> Seriously?
>

Because they all wish it had been them.

Paul Valois · External Since: Jan 14, 2009 Posts: 40

Wordsmith wrote:

> A big enough fine will hurt him. That's not letting him off.
>

Bullshit. You're talking about a man who has tossed away millions of
dollars to avoid imprisonment.

I represented a client who was convicted of having non-forcible sexual
contact (without intercourse) with a 12 year old child and who will be
in prison for 10 years. And he got off light, considering recent jury
verdicts against others.

Why should a guy who drugged, raped and sodomized a child do less time?

Because he's rich? Because he fled? Because he's talented? Because
he's evaded justice for 30 years? Because his victim doesn't want the
press and wants the whole thing to go away?

This man needs to face justice. Period.

There is no defensible contrary argument.

Your Mom · External Since: Aug 08, 2009 Posts: 8

On Sep 28, 4:12 pm, Alan Brooks <ch... DeleteThis @panix.com> wrote:
> "Your Mom" <alex.s.f... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> > And why isn't anyone else talking about that shitty, shitty ending to
> > "The Ninth Gate!?" Colossal letdown, man. Colossal.
>
> Because you and the other 6 people who saw the film have already discussed
> it?

There were at least eight people in the theater. IN YOUR FACE, BROOKS!

Steven J. Weller · External Since: Oct 07, 2003 Posts: 998

On Sep 28, 10:04 pm, Paul Valois <mval... DeleteThis @vbclegal.com> wrote:

> The question remains, why do you guys stick up for a guy like this who
> is not only alleged to have drugged, raped and sodomized a kid, but who
> has actually plead guilty to child rape?
>
> Huh?
>
> Seriously?

No one's sticking up for the man, or defending his actions, Paul.
We're sticking up for the American system of jurisprudence, and
condeming the man - a judge - who sullied same (and who was convicted
of judicial misconduct by his peers). Polanski's a bad, bad man, and
that wouldn't have changed if the cops who arrested him had just
dragged him out behind the police station and set him on fire. But no
matter how bad a man he is, those cops would still have been guilty of
murder for doing so.

Two wrongs, as someone clever once noted, don't make a right. The
judge was wrong - at least according to his judical peers, who stuck
him with the whole 'judicial misconduct' rap. If you have a beef with
that, take it up with them.

--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary

Steven

Steven J. Weller · External Since: Oct 07, 2003 Posts: 998

On Sep 28, 11:20 am, Paulo Joe Jingy <pa....DeleteThis@royalcool.com> wrote:

> I have no idea what happened with this repulsive child-rapist 31 years
> ago, or what deal he made.

I can tell.

> (Or whether the "I'm a famous director"
> defense should be allowed or not.)

'Allowed' isn't the case, but in practical terms, it enters into the
equation whenever there's a famous person involved.
>
> But if that is allowed, I could see it now -- "Yes your honor, I'm
> currently employed as a petty thief, but I aspire to be a famous
> director, so shouldn't you cut me some slack on my statutory-rape of a
> thirteen-year-old-girl conviction?"

Therein lies the rub. He <wasn't> convicted. He plead guilty to a
lesser charge, because the p;rosecution offered him that option, and
offered it with a specific sentence attached. Polanski was, in our
system, innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Could
have gone to trial, mounted a defense, brought in witnesses and
experts and GOKW to convince a jury of his peers that he wasn't
guilty. The prosecution could have brought witnesses and experts and
so on to try to convince that same jury that he was guilty. Neither
side wanted to do that, because neither side was entirely convinced
that they'd win.

So they reached a compromise. Instead of risking losing it all while
trying to win it all, they'd agree to meet in the middle - plead
guilty to <something> and get <some> punishment, so no one loses
everything. As if it were Final Jeopardy and instead of answering the
final question (questioning the final answer?) the three contestants
just agreed to split the prize money equally.

Only the judge decided to renig on the deal - took the plea (to the
lesser charge) and then decided not to abide by the agreed-upon
punishment. It's not supposed to work that way,Mr. P realized he was
getting hosed, and fled.

--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary

Steven

Paulo Joe Jingy · External Since: Sep 28, 2009 Posts: 9

One other thing no one has mentioned. Technically we don't know what
the judge "would have" done at the sentencing, because Polanski skipped
town "before" the sentencing.

So the judge got judged and convicted (apparently) of an act he never
had a chance to commit. We can talk until we're blue in the face about
how the judge "was going to" violate the terms of the plea bargain, but
it never actually happened, did it?

Polanski is not only a child rapist, he's a brainless moron. With all
his adoring fans in Hollywood, even if the judge had the chance to
violate the terms of the plea bargain (which he didn't), Polanski
probably would have served a couple of months (at the most) after the
appeal, or complaint, or whatever. The judge probably would have been
sentenced to hard time, for daring to want a convicted child-rapist to
serve more than 42 days in jail. Hollywood would have apologized to
Polanski for "all the inconvenience they put him through". And Polanski
could have gone his merry, child-raping way, Scott-free.

Instead Polanski chose to run and hide in France for 31 years and blame
those evil police "barbarians" who wanted to harm "him" all this time.
Meanwhile the people of France who got to ass-snuzzle a convicted
child-rapist can show their loathing for the uncivilized American now
that he's been arrested "after all this time". And gee, the girl, who
is now a grown woman and got paid-off by Polanski, wants it all behind
her. I mean, "Good lord, can't they just leave the poor man alone?!
Hasn't he suffered enough?"

Maybe he should get another award: "A lifetime achievement of bravely
fleeing a child-rapist conviction".

"Free Polanski -- No justice, no peace!"

--
Paulo Joe Jingy
"I just couldn't live in a world without me."

Avoid normal situations. · External Since: Aug 15, 2005 Posts: 407

wrabkin <wrabkin.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 4:12???pm, Alan Brooks <ch....TakeThisOut@panix.com> wrote:

[..]

> Funny you should mention that. The reason I stopped posting here for
> weeks was because I researched and wrote a long post after someone
> asked how many movies there were with number titles between 1 and 100.
> I came up with about 85. (Yes, I was desperate not to work, thank you
> very much.) And it was one of the posts that disappeared into Google
> purgatory...

All the more reason for you to start working from a real environment.
Whenever something like that happens to me, I just do a vi -r, and... ta da!
The post is back from the dead.

--
alt.flame Special Forces
"A society made up of individuals who were all capable of original thought
would probably be unendurable. The pressure of ideas would simply drive it
frantic." -- H.L. Mencken

Avoid normal situations. · External Since: Aug 15, 2005 Posts: 407

Steven J. Weller <az941.TakeThisOut@lafn.org> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 10:04 pm, Paul Valois <mval....TakeThisOut@vbclegal.com> wrote:

> > The question remains, why do you guys stick up for a guy like this who
> > is not only alleged to have drugged, raped and sodomized a kid, but who
> > has actually plead guilty to child rape?
> >
> > Huh?
> >
> > Seriously?

> No one's sticking up for the man, or defending his actions, Paul.
> We're sticking up for the American system of jurisprudence, and
> condeming the man - a judge - who sullied same (and who was convicted
> of judicial misconduct by his peers). Polanski's a bad, bad man, and
> that wouldn't have changed if the cops who arrested him had just
> dragged him out behind the police station and set him on fire. But no
> matter how bad a man he is, those cops would still have been guilty of
> murder for doing so.

> Two wrongs, as someone clever once noted, don't make a right. The
> judge was wrong - at least according to his judical peers, who stuck
> him with the whole 'judicial misconduct' rap. If you have a beef with
> that, take it up with them.

For the record, I may continue to see Polanski's movies, but I'm never
going to invite him over for dinner.

--
alt.flame Special Forces
"A society made up of individuals who were all capable of original thought
would probably be unendurable. The pressure of ideas would simply drive it
frantic." -- H.L. Mencken

wrabkin · External Since: Mar 01, 2009 Posts: 15

On Sep 29, 9:56ï¿½am, "Avoid normal situations."
<byend.removethisbityousillyper... DeleteThis @eskimo.com> wrote:
> wrabkin <wrab... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 28, 4:12???pm, Alan Brooks <ch... DeleteThis @panix.com> wrote:
>
> ï¿½ [..]
>
> > Funny you should mention that. The reason I stopped posting here for
> > weeks was because I researched and wrote a long post after someone
> > asked how many movies there were with number titles between 1 and 100.
> > I came up with about 85. (Yes, I was desperate not to work, thank you
> > very much.) And it was one of the posts that disappeared into Google
> > purgatory...
>
> ï¿½ All the more reason for you to start working from a real environment.
> Whenever something like that happens to me, I just do a vi -r, and... ta da!
> The post is back from the dead.
>
> --
> alt.flame Special Forces
> "A society made up of individuals who were all capable of original thought
> would probably be unendurable. The pressure of ideas would simply drive it
> frantic." ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½-- H.L. Mencken

Good idea. I gave it up and finished my book instead...

Paulo Joe Jingy · External Since: Sep 28, 2009 Posts: 9

wrabkin wrote:
> On Sep 29, 9:56ï¿½am, "Avoid normal situations."
> <byend.removethisbityousillyper....DeleteThis@eskimo.com> wrote:
>> wrabkin <wrab....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 28, 4:12???pm, Alan Brooks <ch....DeleteThis@panix.com> wrote:
>> ï¿½ [..]
>>
>>> Funny you should mention that. The reason I stopped posting here for
>>> weeks was because I researched and wrote a long post after someone
>>> asked how many movies there were with number titles between 1 and 100.
>>> I came up with about 85. (Yes, I was desperate not to work, thank you
>>> very much.) And it was one of the posts that disappeared into Google
>>> purgatory...
>> ï¿½ All the more reason for you to start working from a real environment.
>> Whenever something like that happens to me, I just do a vi -r, and... ta da!
>> The post is back from the dead.
>>
>> --
>> alt.flame Special Forces
>> "A society made up of individuals who were all capable of original thought
>> would probably be unendurable. The pressure of ideas would simply drive it
>> frantic." ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½-- H.L. Mencken
>
> Good idea. I gave it up and finished my book instead...

I should have stayed away too. I just realized that Skippy and Paul
(the killfiled) are posting on the Polanski thing, accusing people of
being in favor of child rape.

I mostly posted because I was ticked because of all the people
supporting that "poor man" Polanski. (I mean, goodness, he's suffered
enough, hasn't he?)

But yeah, people, including the government, should stand by their word.

Now I'll just slither back out of here.

--
Paulo Joe Jingy
"I just couldn't live in a world without me."

Steven J. Weller · External Since: Oct 07, 2003 Posts: 998

On Sep 29, 3:13 pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr....RemoveThis@yahoo.not> wrote:

> Type as many words as you want. You're still just trying to reason away
> why he shouldn't face justice.
>
> That's because you can't deal with evil very well.
>
> Because you largely are.

I'm a little bit worried for you, you ridiculous putz, because somehow
- maybe you're in the midst of a stroke, or the alzheimers' is kicking
in, or perhaps you've just dropped some more acid - your reading
comprehension has gone out like a candle flame in a hurricane.

> In article <h9tll4$hk...@reader1.panix.com>, Steven J. Weller
>
> > No one here - NO ONE - is defending Polanski. No one's condoning what
> > he did. No one's excusing what he did. Polanski had access to
> > appeals, sure. Should he have taken his punishment and then availed
> > himself of those appeals? You bet'cha. Absolutely. Pretty sure that
> > I've never said othewise, here or elsewhere. He was and is a bad guy,
> > as I've noted here before, and what he did was inexcusable,
> > regardless.

(snip stuff about the judge also being wrong)

> > Was Polanski right to flee? No. No, he wasn't. Read that again, you
> > ridiculous putz of a failed Scientologist, so no one has to explain it
> > to you again. He was NOT RIGHT TO FLEE. He should have STAYED AND
> > FACED HIS PUNISHMENT.

(snip more judge stuff)

> > Polanski's a
> > sick bastard who committed a terrible crime, and who deserves to be
> > punished for it.

....leading up to me, asking:

> > Now, please point out to me which part of the above tirade equals my
> > condoning the rape of a child.

Still waiting for your 'For Dummies' interpretation, showing how the
above equals me trying to reason away why he shouldn't face justice.
In case you're still struggling - maybe it's peyote, this time, or the
side effects of auto-erotic axphixiation? - my position is, and always
has been, that Polanski absolutely SHOULD face justice. Which is the
opposite of saying that he SHOULDN'T face justice, you ridiculous
putz.

And yes, while none of my girlfriends have ever committed suicide, I
do still struggle with my weight.

--
I Did Remember To Mention
That You're A Ridiculous Putz!

Steven

Paul Valois · External Since: Jan 14, 2009 Posts: 40

Steven J. Weller wrote:
> Two wrongs, as someone clever once noted, don't make a right. The
> judge was wrong - at least according to his judical peers, who stuck
> him with the whole 'judicial misconduct' rap. If you have a beef with
> that, take it up with them.

I don't have any beef with anyone except the guy who admitted under oath
that he raped a kid. Apparently, the original prosecutor has
backtracked on his allegations of judicial misconduct. But it really
doesn't matter. The courts have mechanisms in place to deal with such
misconduct, if it happened. Dude needs to face justice.

Hercule Platini · External Since: Jan 19, 2009 Posts: 4

"Paul Valois" <mvalois RemoveThis @vbclegal.com> wrote in message
news:ha145d$d2a$1@reader1.panix.com...
> Steven J. Weller wrote:
>> Two wrongs, as someone clever once noted, don't make a right. The
>> judge was wrong - at least according to his judical peers, who stuck
>> him with the whole 'judicial misconduct' rap. If you have a beef with
>> that, take it up with them.
>
> I don't have any beef with anyone except the guy who admitted under oath
> that he raped a kid. Apparently, the original prosecutor has backtracked
> on his allegations of judicial misconduct. But it really doesn't matter.
> The courts have mechanisms in place to deal with such misconduct, if it
> happened. Dude needs to face justice.

Actually, as far as he's concerned he doesn't need to face justice. From
his point of view, what he always needed to do was just stay in France.
Now, from his point of view what he needs to do is fight the damn thing.
>From his point of view he already did face justice and walked away when that
justice was going to cheat him.

When people say "he needs to face justice", what they mean is "I want him to
face justice". "That boy needs a slap" - no he doesn't. You want to slap
him, which is a completely different thing.

Skipper · External Since: Jan 19, 2009 Posts: 22

In article <ha145d$d2a$1@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Valois
<mvalois.TakeThisOut@vbclegal.com> wrote:

> Steven J. Weller wrote:
> > Two wrongs, as someone clever once noted, don't make a right. The
> > judge was wrong - at least according to his judical peers, who stuck
> > him with the whole 'judicial misconduct' rap. If you have a beef with
> > that, take it up with them.
>
> I don't have any beef with anyone except the guy who admitted under oath
> that he raped a kid. Apparently, the original prosecutor has
> backtracked on his allegations of judicial misconduct. But it really
> doesn't matter. The courts have mechanisms in place to deal with such
> misconduct, if it happened. Dude needs to face justice.
>

Don't confuse Weller with the facts. He's a guy who shoots porno (fact).