Powered by TypePad

« From Copenhagen To Kabul - Rove Joins In | Main | Now Gates Is Dubious About Afghanistan »

October 01, 2009



You aren't one, but you'd be a good one if you chose to be one, TM. I think you're exactly right. Maybe LA ought to set up a special theater district court to handle celebrity cases. The D.A.s there do such a bad job in L.A.


They've had a terrible track record since 1987, with the Twilight Zone negligence
case, as I recall. So it strikes me, mulling
over Roger's formulation, that this undue
haste to excuse is racist, on the parts of the residents of Malibu and the Hollywood
Hills. So if you're a supremely connected
celebrity who has two treatments of Robert
Harris's novels on deck (priorities,people),
you can evade justice, great lesson to
teach the world.

David Walser

I fail to see how the prosecutor's miscues should in anyway lead to the charges against Polanski being dropped. At this point in the case there aren't any "charges" to be resolved at trial. Polanski plead guilty. His guilt is a legal certainty. The only question is what sentence the judge should impose on a man who's plead guilty to having sex with a minor. How could any of the prosecutor's alleged miscues -- after Polanski fled the court's jurisdiction -- have any bearing on what sentence Polanski should have received? Polanski created the opportunity for the prosecutor's office to mishandle his case in the decades since he fled to Europe. Reducing his sentence for miscues made by the prosecutors after he fled would reward him for fleeing justice.


Equating a rape charge of a minor with a civil suit is ridiculous. But even for the sake of argument "an inconsistency by the Courts" between a criminal and civil case would be exactly that, an inconsistency, which would not absolve anyone from a criminal charge. I suppose OJ could claim an inconsistency too, he was acquitted in the criminal case and convicted in the civil case, so maybe he could move to void the civil case due to the inconsistency.


Well what I don't understand is why it matters that much that the judge was going to go back on the plea deal. From what Nancy Grace said last night, I believe I caught her saying that if Polanski was not happy with the plea deal prceedings, he had the option of cancelling the deal and going to trial instead, although she didn't expand on that at that time.

But it makes sense to me. If he didn't trust the judge and the plea deal, he could have gone to trial and taken his chances of being found not guilty. A cushy plea deal is not a constitutional right. So I don't know how anyone can use a tainted plea deal as an excuse for Polanski.

Jack is Back!

When Polanski arrives back to LAX, instead of a jetway, they ought to roll this up to the door and make him walk through it.


Polanski plead guilty. His guilt is a legal certainty.

Not so fast. On p15 of the plea transcript, the judge advises Polanski that his plea isn't binding on the court, and that the court could withdraw its approval of the plea at the application for probation or pronouncement of judgement hearing, at which point Polanski could withdraw his guilty plea. Those hearings never took place, did they?


" and that the court could withdraw its approval of the plea at the application for probation or pronouncement of judgement hearing, at which point Polanski could withdraw his guilty plea."

Yes, that confirms my idea that Polanski could have withdrawn his plea and gone to trial.

Now probably the prosecutors wanted to avoid that because they didn't want to have the girl testify. There seems to be an idea back then and even today somewhat that having a rape victim testify, especially a child victim, was too traumatic. Although I think nowadays they are trying to debunk that notion and find that it's actually more cathartic and empowering for victims to testify, even children.

But I'm not sure how that works. If someone pleads guilty, and then withdraws the plea, how does that affect him at trial? Can some defense lawyer argue that that corrupts the process and then it becomes too late for a fair trial? Not sure.


If that's true, Ex, that makes him not only callous and willful, but remarkably stupid,
considering the path he would set upon, subsequently. Anyways, Surber, put forward
this contrasting picture, which should make
Applebaum, really crawl under a rock, she wont, though, in the LUN


When did the law become divorced from ethics and morality? There seems to be an almost autistic lack of empathy in many of the legal profession.

Phil Smith

Jeralyn is a hack. Rule 43 and Crosby v U.S. establish that a criminal defendant must at a minimum be physically present at the beginning of the trial. If the Polanski were convicted under the circumstances she requests, the conviction would be thrown out, and there would probably be sanctions levied against the prosecution. Jeralyn knows this. Seriously, she's incredibly dishonest here.


Yes we think we are "modern" but we aren't that different from Afhganistan and Pakistan underneath. When it comes to violence and abuse against women, women are often the first to condemn other women. Which is perhaps why women are still subordinate.

Look at this case, the Duke case. Even look at the reaction to the Mackensie Phillips story last week and how so many people don't believe her. I mean her father was a long running hard core addict with a troubled personal life, and STILL people have a hard time believing it? It seems some don't beleive it because Mackensie was a drug addict as well. But the thing with sexual abuse and rape is that perpetrators are smart and often victims are chosen because they aren't the most believable because they are troubled. They don't often choose the prom queen. They choose the addict or the stripper. And sadly the tactic still seems to work with the public even today.



Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar Admits He Poorly Handled Underage Sex Case

Kevin Jennings was teaching high school in 1988 when a gay student confessed an involvement with an older man. Rather than reporting it, he told the boy, "I hope you knew to use a condom."


This is not a complicated case. The facts in evidence are not challenged, everyone agrees Polanski had sex with a 13 years old and that he fled the country illegally. The rest is fluff and legal antics and Hollywood being Hollywood. Whoopi doesn't think it's rape?...Whoop-di-do...


Why is someone alleged to be a fugitve allowed to defend their property but not their liberty? There's lack of consistency here

Should we want the State to be able to compel you to appear physically for every civil court action? That would be the flip side of so-called "consistency".

But if we could criminally try people without them actually appearing in court, I guess we could stop worrying about someone being a flight risk, right? Especially if they've already flown.

David Walser
"Polanski plead guilty. His guilt is a legal certainty."

Not so fast. On p15 of the plea transcript, the judge advises Polanski that his plea isn't binding on the court, and that the court could withdraw its approval of the plea at the application for probation or pronouncement of judgement hearing, at which point Polanski could withdraw his guilty plea. Those hearings never took place, did they?

Please excuse the imprecision of my wording. In the context of arguing "charges should be dropped" because of the bad acts of the prosecutor's office, the usual assumption is the defendant still has the presumption of innocence because the defendant has not yet had the chance to defend himself against the charges before a jury of his peers. In Polanski's case, he willingly gave up that right and pled himself guilty. At this point, his guilt is a legal certainty. His guilt's no longer a question for a jury to resolve.

None of that means Polanski could not withdrawn his guilty plea. It just means he's in a different legal position than he was before his plea. It also puts any post-plea actions of the prosecutor's office in a completely different context. Failure to pursue a case for years might be a valid argument for dropping any charges when those charges have yet to be settled as a matter of law. (It may be manifestly unfair to ask someone to defend himself against charges decades after a crime. After so much time, it may be impossible to find witnesses and physical evidence to rebut the prosecutor's theory of the crime.) Failure to pursue a case for years AFTER guilt has been determined does not present the same set of concerns. (Most people convicted of a crime would enjoy an indefinite deferral of serving their sentence!)

So, yes, Polanski's guilt is a "legal certainty" even if he could have reopened that question by withdrawing his guilty plea. Note: I don't know that he can still withdraw his plea. Would the court allow him to demand a trial after all these years only to have the prosecutor's office be forced to drop the charges due to a lack of evidence? (I don't know that there would be any undue burden on the prosecutor because of the lapse of time, but the witnesses and evidence that would have been available in 1979 may not be available in 2009.) Again, that would seem to be rewarding Polanski for fleeing the court's jurisdiction.


I think he'd forego the opportunity to reopen because he took the fugitive route , but if there's some cockamamie California rule or kooky judge who rules otherwise, the key witnesses are the girl and Angelica Houston who are both very much alive.


"rewarding Polanski for fleeing the court's jurisdiction."

If I read Patterico's take correctly, his point is the judge was only going to require a full 90 days plus deportation. IOW 48 more days beyond the 42 RP already completed and had been promised would be enough.

If 42 days is just a wrist slap for rape, then another 48 days is just another wrist slap ... followed by banishment from Hollywood Heaven to Paris Hell.

Based on that it does not seem accurate to say RP "fled to avoid" his 2nd wrist slap. More plausible RP self deported on fulfilled conditions of the "original deal".

ISTM Maguire is correct about the original deal. My guess is the reneg was because the original deal was politically untenable.


Good points, David.

He copped to the lesser charge -- unlawful sexual intercourse -- but could have been tried for rape if not for the deal. The page I linked to from the plea transcript says the judge could withdraw the approval of the plea "in light further consideration of the matter," at either of the two hearings specified, neither of which have taken place yet. So presumably, assuming he's extradited, the new judge can withdraw approval of the plea, and he can be tried for the more serious charge. Considering the fact that sex with a minor under 14 was an aggravating circumstance in the charge he pled to (see p14), that may also be the case if the charge was rape rape.

Hard to imagine based on what he admitted in court, but if the plea is withdrawn, he has the presumption of innocence again, at least on a rape charge.

It's not difficult to destroy meaning.

JiB, every human action is performance art. Get it?

And what follows is that none are.


Meh, Jeralyn's just a pedophile-admirer and a pedophile-enabler.

Her big defense of this kiddie-fucker is that she's watched a "documentary" made by some propagandist (a la Al Gore, Michael Moore), which somehow "proves" that Polanski was going to be treated unfairly three decades ago -- loosely defined as "he might have had to serve more than a month and a half in a psych eval ward for repeatedly shoving his dick into a liquored up, drugged little girl's ass."

That she's being dishonest while doing her kiddie-fucker enabling and admiring is just second nature to her. It's who she is; it's what she does.

She's a natural-born liberal.


She also a defense lawyer I think. It's her job to think like that and persuade people. The response is the jury.

Some can elect to not report, others cannot.

Extraneous, wasn't Keith Jennings a 'mandatory reporter'?


I think so. Not sure if it's a crime or just a firing offense, though.


Btw, Whoopi is a spokeswoman for Toys"R"Us...it's a true measure of the liberal mindset that she doesn't think defending child rapists is somewhat incompatible with her role of promoting toys to children.


Well, what are we waiting for? We should be writing to Toys R Us demanding they sever their contract with her.


James H

It's hard to imagine Polanski getting bail from a Swiss court. If he remains in prison while fighting extradition, those days should count toward service of his sentence. If he is imprisoned in Switzerland for 48 days, can his lawyers just say he fulfilled the original plea bargain, he's clearly self-deported, and the matter is moot?


"Btw, Whoopi is a spokeswoman for Toys"R"Us...it's a true measure of the liberal mindset that she doesn't think defending child rapists is somewhat incompatible with her role of promoting toys to children. "


Write to the company.

Rick Ballard

I would think there is still a flight charge pending.

Rob Crawford

If he remains in prison while fighting extradition, those days should count toward service of his sentence.

And the days he spent as a fugitive should be added.


"I would think there is still a flight charge pending."

And excess baggage.



She's not this kiddie-fucker's defense lawyer.

She is under no obligation to defend this kiddie-fucker. This is freelance kiddie-fucker defending on her part.

She chooses to repeatedly excuse and defend his behaviour -- vehemently so.

She's posted multiple entries in this kiddie-fucker's defense on her blog. She is routinely deleting comments there that point out that yes, this sick kiddie-fucker actually is a sick kiddie-fucker who drugged a little girl and then anally raped her, who deserves to face the courts now regardless of how long he's been eluding justice by hiding in Europe.

This isn't a job for her; it's what she is: a pedophile admirer and enabler.


Polanski - An alternative punishment.



This was the closest I could find on the site to something you could write to them. What we really need is their corporate communications person.


On the other hand, what's to make any plea deal stick? Can't any prosecutor offer someone say a two day sentence, tempt the defendant to plead guilty, and then change the sentence later after it's signed to a more severe sentence? That would save prosecutors a lot of work. Could a defendant sue for breach of contract if it doesn't pan out? Just kidding with that, sort of. But I'm wondering how that works. Actually Europe makes fun of us for the whole plea concept anyway, they think it's unethical.


Go to the ToysRUs website, hit "contact us" and ask if Whoopi isn't the wrong choice to be the company's spokesperson.

I'd suggest contacting The View but my hope is this will be the end of that demented show.Maybe they can do a special closed circuit Behar and Goldberg version for insane asylums.


PUK, actually there is a body of growing jurisprudence that is doing exactly that, divorcing the law from that tired old Judeo-Christian ethical system. Was reading recently of one of the big legal academics whose career output seems to be just that.

Many years ago, Jules Feiffer wrote a play/movie called Little Murders in which the protagonist would not allow any reference to God in his life. One of the funniest scenes on film is Donald Sutherland playing a hippie minister grappling hilariously with the dilemma. It's worth it to find it on Youtube.

Today we're in the same position. Our leaders are trying to create a system which is utterly independent of an ethical system based upon historical norms. In other words, they have none.

Dave (in the People's Banana Republic of MA)

This loathsome "Whoopi" creature is also a pitchman for T-Mobile.


OT: Roger has replied to those who commented over at FWDAJ - in case you are interested.


(Interesting variation on a name) Yeah Jeryln is not Polanski's lawyer, but if she wants to make the case that's her business. Big Whoop.

I really don't care about public opinion in this case, I'm far more worried about the judicial system folding in the name of Hollywood. Jerilyn certainly isn't important enough to tilt the dial on that one.

Richard Aubrey

If you read TalkLeft long enough, on criminal issues, you'll find an appalling lack of interest in the victims of the crime in question.
Its a defense attorney's tic, I suppose, or world view, that victims are monumentally inconvenient.
If the bastards hadn't gotten themselves raped or murdered or robbed, we wouldn't have this fine person at risk of his liberty.


Richard Aubrey.

It is a policy of the left to designate criminals as victims of society,thus not responsible for their actions. This is at the root of much of the decay in western society.


From that POV there are victims who need defense lawyers and victims who don't.


Whoopi's notions of rape seem based on the types of definitions that Clinton used. On the other hand, it reminds me of one of the great answers in daytime TV: "It be da butt, Bob."

Rob Crawford

If you read TalkLeft long enough, on criminal issues, you'll find an appalling lack of interest in the victims of the crime in question.
Its a defense attorney's tic, I suppose, or world view, that victims are monumentally inconvenient.

They're lefties. In their "world", the accused are the real victims.

Dave (in the People's Banana Republic of MA)

MarkO, the story to which you refer has a whole new angle these days.


I want to take this opportunity to thank Roman Polanski.

His tireless effort to elude justice have managed to drag a little sanity from nearly 1/3 of a century ago into the present, where people had grow used to "I didn't have sex with that woman" and "It's only sex" which had diminished the better of society.

Roman Polanski, you glorious pedophile ba$tard ... salute
.. and don't bend over in prison


Forget the celebrity. Forget the criminal offense. There's a more fundamental principle involved:

A person who flees the jurisdiction of any court shows ipso facto contempt for that court - and should not have been permitted to have access to that court's civil jurisdiction, until he had purged his contempt by accepting the jurisdiction. Other wise the court's jurisdiction is subverted.


Whack a Whoopi.

I salute you, John Kerry, and bend over by the guillotine.

Neo, I had a similar feeling about Kerry dragging the Vietnam War into the 21st Century. I re-visited my anti-war stance.


"If he remains in prison while fighting extradition, those days should count toward service of his sentence"

Absolutely. Let's say he should get 15 years for raping a child. Less 30 days in jail in Switzerland it will cut it to 14 years and 11 months.



Roman Polanski thriller The Ghost in jeopardy after director's arrest

Gregory Koster

Dear All: Try this for T-Mobile:

Robert Dotson CEO
Susan Nokes COO
Larry Myers HR Executive
Mr. Kim Thompson Corporate Communications

Address: 12920 SE 38th St. Bellevue WA 98006

Telephone: 425-378-4000

Be aware that the FEC folks say Dotson sent John Conyers $1000 to be re-elected in 2008, so you are dealing with a 200 proof liberal.

As for Toys 'r Us:

Gerald L. Storch CEO
Claire Babrowski COO
Dan Caspersen Human Resources

Address: 1 Geoffrey Way Wayne NJ 07470-2066

Telephone: 973-617-3500

">http://www2.toysrus.com/about/execCommittee.cfm"> Here's brief profiles of these folks. Nothing at FEC on Storch and the search function there collapsed when I tried the other two.

This info comes from the subscription database REFERENCE USA, available at many public libraries (advt.)


Here's a piece on the Court ruling on FBI Plame case interview with Cheney--Judge orders tape released; govt will appeal:

Captain Hate

Clarice I'm confused: What do those CREW idiots think will be revealed in those tapes? If Cheney said anything damaging Fitz would've already used it or Holder would be doing such now. Or am I missing something?


Capt, you probably aren't, but then he might have said he knew Plame was a supersecret covert agent and he told everyone to leak her name to get even with her husband for saying he went to wherever he went at Cheney's "behest" and Fitz just decided that was not a crime.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Posted at Big Government:


Original MikeS

I'd like to hear the tapes. What I'm hoping for is to hear Cheney saying Joe Wilson should go f_ck himself.

Is this game fair?

Hah, MikeS, more likely wondering why a low level person would out his own wife.


Ace digs up advice on picking up 15-year-olds from our man Polanski.

One day a German gossip columnist invited me out on a double date with two girls he wante me to meet. Both were young and, in different ways, strikingly beautiful. One of them was rather dowdily dressed. I asked her name. "My friends call me Nasty," she said. [...] Very late that night, after a long round of discos, the four of us ended up in my suite. Leaving Nasty with the journalist, I took the other girl, a stunning blonde, to bed. By the time I surfaced the journalist had gone. Nasty was half-asleep in an armchair in the sitting room. Taking her by the hand, I led her back into the bedroom.

We never repeated this threesome, though I saw a lot of both girls thereafter. I dated the blonde for several weeks, but it was Nasty who grew on me more and more. [...]

Nastassia introdued me to her mother, who discussed her career with me [...]. That was when I first learned Nastassia's age. She was only fifteen.

We made love more than once during my three months in Munich. [...] On the night we met I'd thought her a couple of years older than her friend, who was, in fact, seventeen.



Oh, and that was before the adventure at Nicholson's house, from Polanski's own memoir.


This won't be the last time the cultural elite find themselves out in the cold, but this time the economic consequences will be substantial..The petition will prove an Albatross around the necks of those stupid enough to have signed it.


Also from Ace,

Well and Truly, the Man Has Suffered Enough: Check out the gulag where Polanski's been languishing in exile.


From my limited reading on his virtually fool-proof m.o. (bringing extra outfits so as to require a wardrobe change at some strategic moment during the shoot, for example), it seems Polanski had the good sense to discuss the careers of these aspiring starlets with their mothers. I haven't seen any mention of whether the girls had fathers in the picture, though, so to speak. Perhaps he was smarter than he gets credit for.


I realize the press is more protective there, but shouldn't we be seeing some sort of story referencing one of Polanski's French conquests pretty soon?


OT Senator Begich corrruption update:

Today the ADN published a Letter to the Editor from Senator Begich hammering his critics and proclaiming his innocence. The Talk Radio boys remain on full attack. ">http://www.thealaskastandard.com/content/mark-begich-getting-desperate"> this link The Alaskan Standard Blog has 3 or 4 posts near the top that republish Begich's ADN letter and give insight into why citizens are positive that Begich intentionally deceived the public by withholding info he was required to pass on by Law to the Assembly. In addition comments and questions from angry Assembly members are being broadcast continuously on 3local talk stations which really hammer this deception home, but I won't oversaturate you with that tonight. Assemblyman Coffee's excellent question which got the Dem yesterday to vote to approve an investigation was essentially this: "Begich was required by Law to give us this budget info so we could make a decision on the budget. He didn't do that, he instead hid the info. The question then is, if he wasn't going to provide that info at the time of the Budget decisions, then when the heck was he ever going to reveal it?"

Begich never did reveal that info. His crony successor started revealing parts of it months later, after Begich was long gone to DC and the deficit erupted as if out of thin air.

It also came out today from Assembly Minutes at the time, that after hiding the received memo from his Chief Financial Officer, warning him to immediately institute a hiring freeze (because pushing the Union Contracts would bust our budget by 30 to 100 million) Begich and the Finance Officer then appeared at Assembly meetings and encouraged tabling of a motion to get Budget info presented so Board Members could have updated info that would have revealed this massive hidden budget deficit. The motion was tabled, the Budget passed, we are 33 million dollars in the hole, and citizens and Assembly members are extremely angry.

The local Media remains completely in Begich's corner, as well as the 3 local TV News stations.

Begich and his spokesperson Julie Haskett have refused to appear on local talk radio, (which they always used to do) and have now resorted to the ADN and the Media outlets to try to bury this story.

That's the story as of today.

Strawman Cometh

Can you file an ethics complaint against Begich, or do those only apply to Sarah er Rethuglicans the guv?


O/T too, but if more ways are needed for unions to bust a budget, here are some ideas. Bought to you by Big Government, who got the story from the Federal Times.

"The U.S. Postal Service, struggling with a massive deficit caused by plummeting mail volume, spends more than a million dollars each week to pay thousands of employees to sit in empty rooms and do nothing."


Insanity at work!

Melinda  Romanoff


what your company did for that poor young girl in Arkansas was just heart lifting. In case no one has said so, that was really, really amazing effort.


Thanks Melinda,

Tis a good company and an outstanding boss. Know from personal knowledge he went way out of his way and beyond the call of duty during a merger a while back, to personally ensure an employee new on the property was given complete funding for major, major medical costs and care for a dependent child. Never hit the headlines 1 bit.

PS Do you have a favorite version or 2 of "Brazil" that you can link. Great tune, but some are too overblown. Would love to find an uplifting, exciting version for my Olympic hopes.


Strawman, so far just Repub's get clobbered with such stuff. But lets keep our fingers crossed. The Dem Assembly members are running scared and the guys who organized the successful Property Tax Cap that I collected signatures for (which Begich and the ADN opposed by the way) are back with a passion. This community organizing thing may actually bear fruit.


What about Frank Sinatra singing "They've got an awful lot of coffee in Brazil"?

Barry Dauphin

Interestingly, Jay Leo keeps hammering away with Polanski/Hollywood jokes. He said gee why is everyone so upset that Polanski raped a girl, it's not like he did something serious like colorize a black & white film. Again he brusquely upbraids negative reaction from audience with the sarcastic, yeah I'm really out of line with this, shut up.



Love your updates. If it weren't for you, we would know squat about what is going on in Alaska.

Hey, look at this: David Letterman blackmailed over alleged affairs

“This morning, I did something I’ve never done in my life,” Letterman said on Thursday’s edition of CBS’ “Late Show.” “I had to go downtown and testify before a grand jury.”

As part of the testimony, Letterman admitted that he had engaged in sexual relationships with staff members.

“My response to that is, yes I have. Would it be embarrassing if it were made public? Perhaps it would,” Letterman said. “I feel like I need to protect these people — I need to certainly protect my family.”

Malkin tweets:
Maybe Letterman will shut up and leave the Palin family alone now.


As Nelson Muntz would say, "ha ha" I know it's terribly immature, but such is life, karma's a rough ride sometimes

Melinda  Romanoff


I have one, and even I don't like it, that said, I'll keep the ears peeled just the same. Unless I am evacuating to a secure location for the rally/riot tomorrow at Daley Plaza.

Jim Miller

Jeralyn reminds me the Chicago Bears lineback Dick Butkus. No, wait, I will show you the connection. Really.

Butkus was always contemptuous of the Chicago offense (usually with good reason). At the end of one season, someone asked a team mate who Butkus would be cheering for in the Super Bowl. "The defense", replied the team mate.

And so it is with Jeralyn; she always cheers for the defense, even, to some extent, Scooter Libby. That's probably functional considering what kind of lawyer she is, but it makes her incapable of thinking clearly about crime.

JM Hanes

Interesting observation, Jim.

Na na na na na na na naaa.

daddy, search youtube for The Real Tuesday Weld, 'Return I Will to Old Brazil'.


I am wondering what, exactly, is the penalty for contempt of court and fleeing. I'm pretty sure that Polanski could do some pretty heavy time just for that and leave the victim from having to testify at all.

Seems that they could offer him a deal, half of the max on the fleeing and contempt if he pleads out or the max if he doesn't. That way the not so young anymore lady doesn't have to fight through it again.

The comments to this entry are closed.