Looks like Polanski will get away again.

[JimBenArm]

I don't care what label you put on him. He's definitely still a disgusting dirtbag, and needs to be tazed in the nads repeatedly.

 

[Pardalis]

and needs to be tazed in the nads repeatedly.

Wait, he might like that. Did you see Bitter Moon?

 

[ddt]

I saw that, but it is utterly irrelevant. Whether or not the judge informally told Polanski he would only have to serve 45-days, he never sentenced him, because Polanski fled.

This also strikes me as more contradiction on the part of Polanski, and even more strangeness to the Swiss decision. His justification for fleeing was that the judge was going to sentence him to more than 45 days. Now that he is about to be extradited, he's trying to claim that he "served his time" because the judge was only going to sentence him to 45 days. So which is it? And if the judge wasn't going to sentence him to more time, then why did he jump bail?

I don't see the contradiction. The Polanski story seems consistent to me.

August 9, 1977: plea bargain hearing. Polanski and the DA agree on the 90-day psych unit detention.

September 19, 1977: next hearing. The judge promises to Polanski that the 90-day psych unit detention will be the only sentence. When you look at the August meeting transcript, you see that this date was then fixed. Actually, you see that Gunson, the DA, and Dalton, Polanski's lawyer both say: 20 September, and then judge Rittenband says: OK, it'll be 19 September. Apparently, the transcript of that meeting is lost (or was never made). Otherwise, there wouldn't be a dispute now.

Polanski does his time - that is, the psychiaters release him after only 42 days.

February 1, 1978: Polanski hears from his lawyers that the judge will renege on his earlier promise and give a higher sentence, and takes the first plane to the UK and then France.

January 15, 2010: hearing about Polanski's request for sentence in absentia. Judge Espinoza denies the request, but notes there were irregularities in 1977 and muses that Rittenband initially agreed with the plea bargain. Polanski's lawyers ask for a hearing about the irregularities.

January 26, 2010: hearing about the irregularities. Gunson, the 1977 DA testifies that Rittenband promised at the September 19, 1977 meeting to Polanski that the 90-day sentence would be all. Gunson's testimony in 2010 was new, so Polanski couldn't bring it forward earlier.

I'm not saying all of the above is true, but this is what I piece together of Polanski's story, and to me, it sounds quite consistent.

Sure, you can ask questions with the story.

Why did Polanski flee the country? We're not told what prison term Rittenband had in mind. And deported, he wouldn't be able to collect a future Oscar anyway.

Why didn't he mention the September 19 promise from Rittenband earlier? Maybe he did, and anyway, his word or that of his lawyers would hardly carry the weight of the word of the DA.

Why didn't Gunson give this testimony earlier? It could be perjury, of course, but it could very well also be conscience playing up at old age, wanting to clean ship, etc., and the court cases Polanski filed gave a good opportunity for that.

Why are there no proceedings of the September 19, 1977 hearing? **** happens.

Why are the January 26 proceedings sealed? The only sensible reason I can think of is that Gunson implicitly incriminates Rittenband, and the latter cannot defend himself, having passed away.

For the Swiss, what matters is that they don't extradite someone who has been convicted and has done his time. If they'd do that and the person would be again convicted for the same, that would go against legal principles, wouldn't it?

So what Polanski argues is: the judge convicted and sentenced me, I've done the time - only he judge didn't yet write down the sentence, but he did tell me in court. And for that, he cites the (missing) September 19 proceedings and the (sealed) January 26 testimony of Gunson. The US Justice Department doesn't hand over the latter, so the Swiss say: then you won't get your guy.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

January 15, 2010: hearing about Polanski's request for sentence in absentia. Judge Espinoza denies the request, but notes there were irregularities in 1977 and muses that Rittenband initially agreed with the plea bargain. Polanski's lawyers ask for a hearing about the irregularities.

They asked for a hearing about the "irregularities" without Polanski present. In other words, they want Polanski to remain a fugitive, while they argue his case. And the judge ruled that, no, he needs to show up like every other defendant does, if he wants to argue that there was judicial impropriety.

January 26, 2010: hearing about the irregularities. Gunson, the 1977 DA testifies that Rittenband promised at the September 19, 1977 meeting to Polanski that the 90-day sentence would be all. Gunson's testimony in 2010 was new, so Polanski couldn't bring it forward earlier.

I'm not sure what about Gunson's testimony is new, however. There didn't seem to be much dispute that the judge initially accepted the plea bargain. The only dispute, as far as I can tell, is why he decided to change the sentence. But the judge already ruled -- Polanski can dispute the judge's actions, but he must be present to do so. Gunson testified at that time only so they could have his testimony recorded in the event he would be unavailable (e.g. deceased) at a later date.

Why are the January 26 proceedings sealed? The only sensible reason I can think of is that Gunson implicitly incriminates Rittenband, and the latter cannot defend himself, having passed away.

No... they explained why it was sealed, and that is not the reason.

For the Swiss, what matters is that they don't extradite someone who has been convicted and has done his time. If they'd do that and the person would be again convicted for the same, that would go against legal principles, wouldn't it?

He isn't going to be "again convicted" for anything. He is being extradited to be sentenced for the crime he committed and plead guilty to. The Swiss seem to be questioning the entire California judicial system, which I'd imagine they don't have the right to do. In fact, in an earlier statement, the Swiss justice ministry says as much:

But Folco Galli, a spokesman for the Swiss Justice Ministry, told The Associated Press that the sealed testimony was “irrelevant for the extradition proceedings” because the United States and Switzerland “have to work on the assumption that the facts in the extradition request are represented correctly.”

So what Polanski argues is: the judge convicted and sentenced me, I've done the time - only he judge didn't yet write down the sentence, but he did tell me in court. And for that, he cites the (missing) September 19 proceedings and the (sealed) January 26 testimony of Gunson. The US Justice Department doesn't hand over the latter, so the Swiss say: then you won't get your guy.

And the fact that the judge told him informally that he had served his time is not a sentencing. He is sentenced when he is sentenced.

ETA:
Actually based on the above article, I see what he is trying to argue. And if it is true, then the impropriety is still a big red herring, and the sentence even more so.

Polanski's lawyers argue that the transcripts would show that the judge overseeing Polanski's case in 1977 intended the filmmaker's 90-day diagnostic testing term in prison to be his full punishment behind bars. Polanski was released after 42 days. His attorneys say he fled the country after learning that the judge was going to send him back to prison for 48 more days.

Polanski's attorneys argue that the issue is important, in part, because the United States' extradition treaty with Switzerland allows the extradition of a defendant only if the remaining time still to be served is more than six months. They note that an affidavit by L.A. County Deputy Dist. Atty. David Walgren that was given to Swiss authorities does not say Polanski's diagnostic testing was meant to serve as his full prison term.

So basically, Polanski is trying to benefit from his own fleeing, and manipulate the system. He was going to be sentenced to 48 more days, so he fled. Now he is trying to argue that because the judge was going to only impose 48 more days, that should be his full, 'official' sentence, but because it doesn't reach the 6-month requirement, he shouldn't be extradited.

Except that since there was no sentence imposed to begin with, there is no "remaining time still to be served." Polanski tried (and was successful, apparently) to get the Swiss to guess what the judge might have sentenced him to. Whether he might have sentenced Polanski to less than 6 months is irrelevant, because that judge is not the one who will sentence Polanski now. Maybe the current judge will sentence him to time served, or an additional 48 days, but maybe not. If this were a fugitive who had already been sentenced, that 6-month mark might apply, but I don't see how it can now, given that Polanski was never sentenced to begin with. And the reason he was never sentenced is his own doing.

 

[Segnosaur]

But if the Swiss were asking for information/documentation that had no relevance (according to the interpretation of the treaty) then its not that of an unreasonable assumption to assume the Swiss made the mistake. (And the other mistakes that the Swiss made over the issue support that.)

I'm not a lawyer, but I do think that usually I try to think rationally. And like I said, my reading of the treaty document does not indicate the relevance at all of the supposed information they were seeking.

"if" - why would they be asking for something they didn't think was relevant?

I can think of a couple of scenarios....

- Perhaps it was a case of arrogance with some members of the Swiss legal system, with the attitude "Us enlightened Europeans know more about justice than those redneck Yankees" that caused them to overstep their authority. It certainly wouldn't be the first time people held their own justice system to be 'superior' to another's

- Perhaps there were people in the Swiss legal system who didn't think Polanski should go to jail (either because they had the same attitude that some French politicians have, or they wanted to improve relations with France/Poland), and the easiest way to protect Polanski was to request documentation they knew would be irrelevant/unlikely to be provided, so they can use it as an excuse.

- Perhaps it was an honest mistake by the Swiss, where they thought the information was needed, but didn't make a proper request (as one of my links suggests), and they didn't give the U.S. a chance to respond.

Now, I don't know if any of those scenarios are correct. But if you think the Swiss really were "in the right" to ask for information regarding sentence length, then can you point to the part of the extradition treaty that requires that? I certainly couldn't find anything relevant.

Now don't get me wrong I don't have any trust in any government and of course the Swiss may have screwed up but I try to follow the evidence and the evidence, at least so far, is that the extradition failed because the USA would not provide some evidence that the Swiss authorities required.

Yes, that's the excuse given. I still can't see how the evidence that the Swiss though was required was actually covered under the extradition treaty.

My speculations on this matter lie in the direction of why didn't the USA provide the Swiss with the information they requested, that seems a rather strange position to take if the USA wanted the extradition to go through.

Well, like one of the references I provided suggests, maybe it was a screwup by the Swiss in the way they made the request.

Or maybe they felt that any technicalities in the case should be sorted out via the American court system, not the Swiss court system.

 

[Segnosaur]

The Swiss seem to be questioning the entire California judicial system, which I'd imagine they don't have the right to do. In fact, in an earlier statement, the Swiss justice ministry says as much:
But Folco Galli, a spokesman for the Swiss Justice Ministry, told The Associated Press that the sealed testimony was “irrelevant for the extradition proceedings” because the United States and Switzerland “have to work on the assumption that the facts in the extradition request are represented correctly.”

You know, something really doesn't make much sense...

The article you referred to was written in April 2010, long after the extradition proceedings began. So, at that time, they said the documents weren't needed. Yet Polanski was eventually freed, in part because those same documents (the ones they supposedly didn't need) weren't provided.

So, what happened?
- Was the spokesman for the Ministry wrong when he made the statements that the documents weren't needed?
- Was the decision to release Polanski done by someone who made a mistake in assuming the documents were required when they weren't?

 

[DC]

Perhaps it was a case of arrogance with some members of the Swiss legal system, with the attitude "Us enlightened Europeans know more about justice than those redneck Yankees" that caused them to overstep their authority. It certainly wouldn't be the first time people held their own justice system to be 'superior' to another's

like the USA about the International Court of Justice in Den Haag?

But if you think the Swiss really were "in the right" to ask for information regarding sentence length, then can you point to the part of the extradition treaty that requires that?

Article 9.4
or
Article 10
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_documents&docid=f:td009.104.pdf

 

[Segnosaur]

Perhaps it was a case of arrogance with some members of the Swiss legal system, with the attitude "Us enlightened Europeans know more about justice than those redneck Yankees" that caused them to overstep their authority. It certainly wouldn't be the first time people held their own justice system to be 'superior' to another's

like the USA about the International Court of Justice in Den Haag?

Even if the U.S. is wrong in its dealings with the International court, as the saying goes "2 wrongs don't make a right".

But if you think the Swiss really were "in the right" to ask for information regarding sentence length, then can you point to the part of the extradition treaty that requires that?

Article 9.4
or
Article 10
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_documents&docid=f:td009.104.pdf

As I said before, I've already read through the documents. 9.4 lists the following:
- certified copy of the judgement of conviction (so, no relevance to what the Swiss were asking for)
- A copy of the charges (again, not relevant to what the Swiss were asking)
- A copy of the arrest warrant (again, not what the Swiss were asking for)
- A copy of the sentence, if it has been pronounced (which, since Polanski fled and no sentence was actually given in court, this is not relevant)

So, nothing in 9.4 is related to that documentation about sentence length.

As I said before, section 10 is a little vague. It mentions they can request more documentation if what was provided was insufficient, but there's still nothing suggesting they require more information than would appear on a copy of the charges, the arrest warrant and the judgement.

Plus, there was the reference to the articles that RubberChicken referred to which stated that the Swiss themselves said they didn't really need the sealed testimony (and a statement from a judge indicating they never actually requested it either.)

 

[DC]

Even if the U.S. is wrong in its dealings with the International court, as the saying goes "2 wrongs don't make a right".

As I said before, I've already read through the documents. 9.4 lists the following:
- certified copy of the judgement of conviction (so, no relevance to what the Swiss were asking for)
- A copy of the charges (again, not relevant to what the Swiss were asking)
- A copy of the arrest warrant (again, not what the Swiss were asking for)
- A copy of the sentence, if it has been pronounced (which, since Polanski fled and no sentence was actually given in court, this is not relevant)

So, nothing in 9.4 is related to that documentation about sentence length.

As I said before, section 10 is a little vague. It mentions they can request more documentation if what was provided was insufficient, but there's still nothing suggesting they require more information than would appear on a copy of the charges, the arrest warrant and the judgement.

Plus, there was the reference to the articles that RubberChicken referred to which stated that the Swiss themselves said they didn't really need the sealed testimony (and a statement from a judge indicating they never actually requested it either.)

the claim about Folco Galli is not sourced in the linked article. i was not able to find such a statement by him in German, maybe you have a better source for that claim?

article 10 is enough to justify the request of additional information.
or do you think you have better judgment about what information is needed and what not?

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Well even though he hasn't served his prison time for the violent crime he committed I'm glad he's at least not in our country.

I wish more violent criminals would exile themselves. I wonder if America would be better off banishing violent people from the land instead of keeping them in a time-out for a few years and letting them run wild again.

Is there anything wrong with a society rejecting bad people instead of housing them in a restricted area for a relatively short period of time?

Cruel and unusual punishment.

The exile and loneliness eats at them. They start doing crazy things; corks on their hats, swimming with sharks, throwing bent sticks at themselves. Their speech becomes distorted and unintelligible.

Then you end up with a giant mad house, filled with the degenerate spawn of the lunatics and criminals you originally housed there.

All in all, it's probably better just to humanely drown them, like kittens.

 

[Segnosaur]

the claim about Folco Galli is not sourced in the linked article. i was not able to find such a statement by him in German, maybe you have a better source for that claim?

Not sure what you mean by the claim was not 'sourced' in the linked article. The article appearing on the New York times site was linked to a Yahoo/Associated Press article that is no longer valid, but the New York Times is generally seen as a rather respectable news source. Do you have a reason to believe the New York Times is lying/wrong?

The same information is repeated on other sites, such as:
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news_di...se_bid_to_unseal_transcript_.html?cid=8856638 (A Swiss site)
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr...bSnyMjZhhRBk1v7vMBZGnVX1LCNn8j412!-2100866372 (A relatively mainstream source dealing with entertainment issues)

Do you think all of those sources are wrong when they make statements suggesting the Swiss didn't actually want the documentation?

article 10 is enough to justify the request of additional information.

Ummm... why?

I can understand if, for example, they didn't provide a proper description of the charges laid against them, or the judgement, etc. (as per section 9) But to assume the Swiss can ask for any document (even one that has nothing to do with section 9) appears to be a rather gross abuse of the spirit of the agreement. Basically, it would allow one of the countries to set the bar of proof so high that nobody would ever be extradited.

I can just imagine what type of extradition requests that would result... "Before we extradite, we want a document showing your bank account information so we can transfer the wealth of a Nigerian prince into it. What, you don't want to give us your bank account information? Well, we won't extradite him".

or do you think you have better judgment about what information is needed and what not?

Well, given the fact that:
- an article appeared in a reputable news source (the New York Times) which referred to statements from Swiss authorities stating "we don't need these documents"
- The idea that Section 10 can allow any document to be requested would end up violating the spirit of the agreement
to me suggests that my understanding of the situation may not be too far off.

 

[DC]

Not sure what you mean by the claim was not 'sourced' in the linked article. The article appearing on the New York times site was linked to a Yahoo/Associated Press article that is no longer valid, but the New York Times is generally seen as a rather respectable news source. Do you have a reason to believe the New York Times is lying/wrong?

The same information is repeated on other sites, such as:
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news_di...se_bid_to_unseal_transcript_.html?cid=8856638 (A Swiss site)
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr...bSnyMjZhhRBk1v7vMBZGnVX1LCNn8j412!-2100866372 (A relatively mainstream source dealing with entertainment issues)

Do you think all of those sources are wrong when they make statements suggesting the Swiss didn't actually want the documentation?

i didn't assume they lied, i was just confused by the link that went into nothing, and i didn't find his statement in german.

Ummm... why?

I can understand if, for example, they didn't provide a proper description of the charges laid against them, or the judgement, etc. (as per section 9) But to assume the Swiss can ask for any document (even one that has nothing to do with section 9) appears to be a rather gross abuse of the spirit of the agreement. Basically, it would allow one of the countries to set the bar of proof so high that nobody would ever be extradited.

I can just imagine what type of extradition requests that would result... "Before we extradite, we want a document showing your bank account information so we can transfer the wealth of a Nigerian prince into it. What, you don't want to give us your bank account information? Well, we won't extradite him".

the request was related to the validity of the extradition request.

Well, given the fact that:
- an article appeared in a reputable news source (the New York Times) which referred to statements from Swiss authorities stating "we don't need these documents"
- The idea that Section 10 can allow any document to be requested would end up violating the spirit of the agreement
to me suggests that my understanding of the situation may not be too far off.

maybe but maybe not.

maybe its not imaginable to you, but it could be that the US authorities screwed it up.

 

[Darat]

I can think of a couple of scenarios....

...snip...

Now, I don't know if any of those scenarios are correct. But if you think the Swiss really were "in the right" to ask for information regarding sentence length, then can you point to the part of the extradition treaty that requires that? I certainly couldn't find anything relevant.

You've got this the wrong way around - you are saying/claiming the evidence we have i.e. the Swiss statement is wrong so it is up to you to provide the evidence to show it is, not me to prove it isn't wrong!

You are also assuming your conclusion when you say "to ask for information regarding sentence length" the Swiss apparently wanted some documentation that has been sealed by a USA court, by the fact it is sealed we cannot know what was in it. Which is the reason the Swiss give for not allowing the extradition i.e. "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."

In other words the Swiss simply did not have access to all the documentation they knew existed regarding the case and therefore could not be certain that the extradition would have been lawful; it may well be that the extradition would have been completely lawful but because of the USA's decision they could not be certain and therefore the extradition failed.

Yes, that's the excuse given. I still can't see how the evidence that the Swiss though was required was actually covered under the extradition treaty.

...snip...

And this is right in the land of conspiracy theories "the excuse given"! It is not an excuse it is the reason, unless of course you have some other evidence that shows it was not the reason?

 

[Noztradamus]

Cruel and unusual punishment.

The exile and loneliness eats at them. They start doing crazy things; corks on their hats, swimming with sharks, throwing bent sticks at themselves. Their speech becomes distorted and unintelligible.

Then you end up with a giant mad house, filled with the degenerate spawn of the lunatics and criminals you originally housed there.

All in all, it's probably better just to humanely drown them, like kittens.

Huh! like that would ever happen

 

[Rolfe]

Now that's done, and we can move on.

I don't have a horse in this race. But you know what annoys me no end?

It's when someone, in the middle of a complex argument where there are a number of different viewpoints being put forward, simply makes a dogmatic statement of his own viewpoint, and announces "I'm the only one that's completely right, that settles the matter."

Rolfe.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I guess, as long as he only gets to **** little French girls and little Swiss girls, and little girls from other parts of Europe, and not **** any more little American girls, he's not really our problem.

He really ought to be held accountable under our laws for the one little American girl that he ****ed, but if the Europeans want to protect him, and let him go free to **** their little girls, then I guess that's their choice.

 

[Morrigan]

I guess, as long as he only gets to **** little French girls and little Swiss girls, and little girls from other parts of Europe, and not **** any more little American girls, he's not really our problem.

He really ought to be held accountable under our laws for the one little American girl that he ****ed, but if the Europeans want to protect him, and let him go free to **** their little girls, then I guess that's their choice.

Classy guy, aren't you.

 

[DC]

I guess, as long as he only gets to **** little French girls and little Swiss girls, and little girls from other parts of Europe, and not **** any more little American girls, he's not really our problem.

He really ought to be held accountable under our laws for the one little American girl that he ****ed, but if the Europeans want to protect him, and let him go free to **** their little girls, then I guess that's their choice.

so instead of going with the facts you decided to make up crap ?

not suprising considering it comes from you.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I guess, as long as he only gets to **** little French girls and little Swiss girls, and little girls from other parts of Europe, and not **** any more little American girls, he's not really our problem.

He really ought to be held accountable under our laws for the one little American girl that he ****ed, but if the Europeans want to protect him, and let him go free to **** their little girls, then I guess that's their choice.

Vile.

You see no problem with child rape as long as it's kept out of your country. As it is said above, you are one classy guy.

Given you are concerned about Child rape in the US, you could make a start on the sexual abuse in your own church.

 

[Aepervius]

I guess, as long as he only gets to **** little French girls and little Swiss girls, and little girls from other parts of Europe, and not **** any more little American girls, he's not really our problem.

He really ought to be held accountable under our laws for the one little American girl that he ****ed, but if the Europeans want to protect him, and let him go free to **** their little girls, then I guess that's their choice.

It is a question of principle and respect of the local due process.

if an US guy, do diddle a little girl, but his Miranda right are not read during arrest, and never mentioned to him, what do you think will happen ? If the proof are gathered illegally, what do you think will happen ? If the Swiss ask to extradite a guy, but don't give all the required document to the US procurator what do you think will happen ?

It isn't a question on what he did or did not do. It is a question of principle. I am all for releasing prisoner, no matter what they did, if the due process is not respected. I am all for refusing extradition if the documentation is not provided as requested.

OTOH if due process is respected, and extradition done as requested, keep him and throw the cell key away.

But until then, on principle, he is free, as I would expect anybody in the same situation, celeb or not, to be.