Looks like Polanski will get away again.

[Darat]

It's pretty close. The reason given was not that "the judge wanted to change the plea deal," but that the California courts couldn't prove to the Swiss satisfaction that the judge did NOT want to change the plea deal.

Here's the quote: "it was not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty that Roman Polanski had already served the sentence to which he was condemned at the time."

They changed the statement since I read it yesterday! The original version stated that: "... The reason for the decision lies in the fact that it was not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty a fault in the US extradition request, although the issue was thoroughly examined..."

I need to go and read the revised statement.

 

[drkitten]

Actually Roman isn't poor, couldn't he have just hired Jackson's lawyer?

He didn't need to. US incompetence and/or arrogance seems to have done the job for him.

 

[Darat]

Is there anyway to find out more about the judgement of the USA court that refused the request to unseal the records?

From the revised statement:

The request for the testimony transcripts made by the FOJ was rejected by the US Justice Department on 13 May 2010 after a US court had ruled that the testimony transcripts were to remain sealed.

 

[Segnosaur]

The swiss claimed that Polanski travelled freely and suggested that because of that, the U.S. lost at least some authority to pursue him. It is true that Polanski did have a house in Switzerland; however, the U.S. had made attempts to apprehend them.

those attempts were in conection to switzerland? did they demand to have him extradited before already?

There were no extradition requests made from Switzerland, but they were aware of an international arrest warrant as late as 2005. Just why exactly do they think they'd issue an arrest warrant if they didn't want him back?

And did the swiss think the U.S. had an army of investigators tailing Polanski night and day so that they'd know exactly when he'd be in Switzerland and could have him picked up?

...in order to be on the legal side, the swiss authorities need a confirmation that there is still open jail time, if there is not, it would not be lagal to extradite him.

Soooo....

Do you think the Swiss government should be applying for the Million dollar challenge? After all, the judge would not be bound by anything appearing in those documents when determining sentencing, and thus for the Swiss to determine if there were "still open jail time", they'd have to have to either have a fortune teller capable of telling the future, or a psychic capable of contacting the spirit of the original judge who can state what the sentence was.

Pretty magical, those swiss if they're able to do that.

sentencing him in absentia.

Yeah, Polanski's legal team tried to get the courts to do that, but the judge wouldn't...

From: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/23/2799608.htm
However Judge Espinoza denied the motion at a hearing Friday, saying the only way the 1978 case could be resolved is if Polanski returned to California. "I choose to insist in defence of the integrity of the judicial system. He needs to appear," Judge Espinoza said. ...
"The defendant is a fugitive," Deputy District Attorney David Walgren wrote in court papers. "The defendant should not, indeed must not, be allowed to dictate to this court or any other court, under what terms these proceedings should proceed. Mr. Polanski must surrender."

Frankly, I can't blame the courts for quashing any attempts to get the sentence set in absentia... Given the way his legal team works, if Polanski received a stiff jail sentence they'd probably complain that he wasn't there to defend himself.

 

[Segnosaur]

Ummm... so? Do you only believe things that are written in German?

When the country which is supposed to have officially written those statement, does not have them available in their own language, it is, shall i say, a bit suspect.

The statements appear to be from interviews to the English press. So why exactly is it suspect?

Source can be cited out of context. ETA: they can be mistranslated from german too. Also a speaker for the government is *NOT* the same as having the judge revising the case giving his opinion, even if it was the same person, as they may change their opinion after having reading precedent case and case of law. You realize that ?

First of all, the person that had said "the documents weren't necessary" was a spokesman for the Swiss... don't you think he'd have at least a little idea of what was going on in the department?

Secondly, was it even a judge that made these decisions? Any references I've found suggest that these were decisions by "Switzerland's Justice Ministry". I haven't found any reference to a judge making the ruling. Maybe there was, but I haven't seen any evidence for it yet.

read 9.4.d again "a certified copy of the remainder to be served". ETA 9.5 requrie 9.4 to be provided.

Which of course would be really amazing, since nobody actually knows how much time was going to be given. Not even those magic documents. Short of some supernatural ability to predict the future or communicate with dead judges, the Swiss can't tell for sure whether Polanski was going to receive time served, the full 90 days, or some other sentence.

Are we reading the same treaty ?

yeah.

Please show me in the treaty where it gives the Swiss the right to determine sentence length for American felons.

Well you are right. Reading your comment I am not so sure it makes any sense whatsoever that they keep the document sealed...

Ummm... because its a legal requirement?

The document the swiss wanted was created in case the prosecutor was unable to attend Polanski's sentencing (e.g. if he were dead). That's the only reason it was created. If Polanski wanted to know what the Prosecutor would say, he had to show up, so that the prosecutor could give his statement live and in person.

Just because a document can be unsealed in some situations does not mean it can be unsealed in all situations.

 

[Vortigern99]

For those who continue to use the word "rape" and "child rapist" with regard to this case, you are using those words inaccurately and not in accordance with California law. The article of CA law specifying this crime does not use the word "rape", but rather the phrase "unlawful sex with a minor".

In your own state or nation, "unlawful sex with a minor" might be called "statutory rape", justifying your use of the latter word, but California law is what matters in this case, not your regional or personal terminology.

No instance of rape has been tried, proven, admitted to or convicted here. Polanski's acts are despicable enough without distorting the facts to make him seem even more heinous than he already is.

 

[Segnosaur]

There doesn't seem to be any reason whatsoever to demand the entire transcript of testimony, unless they want to retry the entire case themselves.

... as is their perogative. The Swiss could ask for Bill Gates' tax return and the secret formula to Coca-Cola as well. If the Americans refuse to comply,... well, the perp may well walk.

In which case an extradition treaty becomes useless.

After all, if a side holding a wanted individual can violate the spirit of an extradition treaty by asking for all sorts of irrelevant (and possibly impossible to provide documents), with the sole purpose of preventing the extradition, then what is the point of having an extradition treaty in the first place?

 

[ZirconBlue]

For those who continue to use the word "rape" and "child rapist" with regard to this case, you are using those words inaccurately and not in accordance with California law. The article of CA law specifying this crime does not use the word "rape", but rather the phrase "unlawful sex with a minor".

In your own state or nation, "unlawful sex with a minor" might be called "statutory rape", justifying your use of the latter word, but California law is what matters in this case, not your regional or personal terminology.

No instance of rape has been tried, proven, admitted to or convicted here. Polanski's acts are despicable enough without distorting the facts to make him seem even more heinous than he already is.

He admitted to sex with a girl too young to give consent. That makes him a rapist in my book regardless of whatever legalese you want to apply to it.

This semantic quibbling is like insisting that you can't call a person found guilty of manslaughter a "killer".

 

[Vortigern99]

I concede it's a semantic argument. The language of the law under discussion does not include the word "rape". If you call what Polanski admitted to "rape", then you are simply incorrect according to the law of the state in which the act occurred. In California, "rape" is one order of crimes; "unlawful sex" is another.

I submit this information not because I side with Polanski or wish to see him cleared or freed. I'm correcting the misuse of a word.

 

[drkitten]

In which case an extradition treaty becomes useless.

After all, if a side holding a wanted individual can violate the spirit of an extradition treaty by asking for all sorts of irrelevant (and possibly impossible to provide documents), with the sole purpose of preventing the extradition, then what is the point of having an extradition treaty in the first place?

Because without such a treaty, you typically have no way to get a wanted criminal out of a country. At least, not one that respects "rule of law."

Would you rather have some criminals back, or none?

 

[The Painter]

6 pages of crap. Good for the Swiss. I could care less about this case. Even the "victim" has said drop it. Let it go. Now he can live his life outside the USA (so he can't come back. BFD) I'm sure he is happy where he is. I can think of a lot worse places than Switzerland.

 

[Aepervius]

Middle-aged men having sex with teenage girls is the plot of most European films. In this county, we have "To Catch a Predator" on MSNBC.

This, in part, explains why Europeans and Americans see this case differently.

If you want to know, in france the minimum age is 15, but I still see sex with a 13 as disgusting.

But what make us apparently see the case differently, is that some people want to see Polanski extraded, NO MATTER if due process for extradition is respected or not, whereas other (to which i belong) don't want to see a slipery slope of extrading to please some people.

The bottom line none of you can erase, is that the US refused to provide the document requested. It is does NOT matter if you all eprsonally think the document were not requested. The swiss authorithy thought they needed it , the US justice departement refused it. Beyond that we have no info.

The failure of extradition is a direct consequence of providing those docs.

 

[Aepervius]

Wrong. Do you know why the Swiss let him go? Because he already served the agreed to sentence. The problem was, the judge wanted to change the plea deal and the Swiss agreed, as any civilized person would, that it was just wrong for the judge to do that.

Nobody does know that for sure. Actually the only certainty is that the US justice departement refused to provide a document to the swiss authority. This is *ALL* we know. Nothing more. The rest is really speculation on all side.

 

[Vortigern99]

I'm always flummoxed when someone posts that they have no interest in the topic under discussion. If you don't care, why/what are you contributing? If I posted "I couldn't care less about this" in every thread in which I had no interest, I'd be a busy, busy man, busily wasting my time telling people I'm not interested in a subject which interests them.

Great, you don't care. Thanks for the update.

 

[Aepervius]

Ummm... no he didn't. We won't know until he actually gets sentenced.

First of all, as another poster pointed out, the fact that they settled a civil suit is irrelevant when discussing criminal matters.

Secondly, while there was supposedly a settlement, its possible that Polanski never actually paid what he was supposed to. (This is from last year, so I don't know if there were any updates)

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/movies/05arts-POLANSKICIVI_BRF.html
...Roman Polanski was to pay at least $500,000 to Samantha Geimer, the victim in his 1977 child-sex case, under a settlement in a civil suit...It remained unclear whether the settlement was ever paid, though Ms. Geimer was still trying to collect as of 1996


I don't remember the victim ever claiming "justice was served". She has said she has forgiven him and wants the case dropped so she can avoid the publicity, but that's not the same thing as "justice being served".

JUst saying but it is mentionned that Geimer said in 1997 that she was paid (see wiki ojn Polanski). But really, I fully agree, I don't care a bit if he settled civilly. That is a red herring ehre, as the saliant point is , document were requested and refused. And that alone brought the process of extradition to shatter.

 

[Aepervius]

I really do struggle with your struggle. As noted, the documents are sealed. That means they are not available for just anybody who wants to see them, including the Swiss.

You have rightly emphasized in this thread the need to follow laws and precedent in this matter. Well, not giving away sealed documents is doing that very thing.

Can the documents be unsealed? I don't know, but I would guess there are court proceedings that could lead to that end. Since the Swiss are the ones who want secret documents, it would seem to me the next step for them is to go to the US courts and make their case why unsealing the documents serves the end of justice. Or at least meets the criteria for such a step.

If one is to follow the letter of the law , then I assume yopu agree that the swiss also followed it : they requested a document , it was refused, they then concluded they can't extradite.

IOW, It isn't swiss place to force an unsealing of the document. Which MEANS , neither it is the place of the would be procurator here to force the swiss to extradite

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

... as is their perogative. The Swiss could ask for Bill Gates' tax return and the secret formula to Coca-Cola as well. If the Americans refuse to comply,... well, the perp may well walk.

So in other words, the Swiss were requesting something absolutely absurd and irrelevant, because they could. That doesn't exactly make me feel great about their actions here. So sure, you can argue the operated within the letter of the law, which apparently means they can simply refuse to extradite anyone for the heck of it, if they so desire.

Article 10. If the "Requested State" feels that the information provided is insufficient, they can request additional information. Nothing in article 10 limits such requests to what the requesting state considers reasonable.

No, but there is such a thing as operating in good faith.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Do you know what is in the sealed documents? I suspect you don't, and neither do the Swiss which is why they could not be certain that the extradition would be lawful.

The Swiss stated why they wanted the document: to verify if the judge had "promised" Polanski an additional 48-day sentence, which would not meet the 6-month requirement of the treaty.

My point is that even if the Swiss had that document, and verified that information, it is completely irrelevent. Polanski was never sentenced to begin with, and what a judge might have sentenced him to, had he not fled, has no bearing on that fact. He can be sentenced to up to 2 years, which more than meets the 6 month requirement.

The Swiss have unilaterally decided that his sentence is less than 6 months, when the entire point of his extradition is so he can be sentenced.

 

[Aepervius]

The statements appear to be from interviews to the English press. So why exactly is it suspect?

Because I have yet to see such official statement not given in the language of their own folk. YOu find that surprising, but it is usually a law to at least make such statement available in the local language.

First of all, the person that had said "the documents weren't necessary" was a spokesman for the Swiss... don't you think he'd have at least a little idea of what was going on in the department?

Secondly, was it even a judge that made these decisions? Any references I've found suggest that these were decisions by "Switzerland's Justice Ministry". I haven't found any reference to a judge making the ruling. Maybe there was, but I haven't seen any evidence for it yet.

You have YET to prove that the person making the initial statement had the authority and knowledge to say in advance what would be the decision of the ministery after careful reading of the request. That is not a given, as usually extradition are a difficult problem. Really why do you think extradition are so long to be studied and decided ? Get real here.

And more importantly, such press release and interview are NOT BINDING.

Which of course would be really amazing, since nobody actually knows how much time was going to be given. Not even those magic documents. Short of some supernatural ability to predict the future or communicate with dead judges, the Swiss can't tell for sure whether Polanski was going to receive time served, the full 90 days, or some other sentence.

Itr does not MATTER.

What matter is that the swiss felt they required some info and the USA refused it. You seem to be putting the whole burden of the shattering on the swiss because they required a document that YOU feel should not be required. Well tough luck, you are neither swiss, nor a ministry of justice. I have *YET* to see you asking why the US did not unseal the document to allow the extradition. You seem to respect the US court decision but refuse to respect the swiss decision. I have to question why. Do you think the US court are more "equal" than the Swiss one ?

Please show me in the treaty where it gives the Swiss the right to determine sentence length for American felons.

Point 9.4.D but even if you think it was not applicable point 10 give them the RIGHT to require a document for their decision. If they think the sentence length is an important point, and as 9.4.D shows, they think it is otherwise it would not be ion the treaty, then POIN T 10 allow them to ask for the doc.

Now please show us where in the treaty the USA can refuse the docs, and still expect an extradition.

 

[DC]

The Swiss stated why they wanted the document: to verify if the judge had "promised" Polanski an additional 48-day sentence, which would not meet the 6-month requirement of the treaty.

My point is that even if the Swiss had that document, and verified that information, it is completely irrelevent. Polanski was never sentenced to begin with, and what a judge might have sentenced him to, had he not fled, has no bearing on that fact. He can be sentenced to up to 2 years, which more than meets the 6 month requirement.

The Swiss have unilaterally decided that his sentence is less than 6 months, when the entire point of his extradition is so he can be sentenced.

i think that is a good point you raise.