Patterico's Pontifications

12/21/2009

California Court Denies Polanski Appeal (Updated x2)

Filed under: Crime — DRJ @ 4:04 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

A California appeals court upheld a trial court decision and denied Roman Polanski’s appeal asking that his child sex case be dismissed for prosecutorial and judicial misconduct:

“In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal 2nd District said a lower court judge did not err a year ago when he ruled that the acclaimed director, then a fugitive in France, had to surrender to U.S. authorities before pursuing the misconduct claims.

Lawyers for Polanski, now under house arrest in Switzerland pending possible extradition to Los Angeles, had argued earlier this month that the “fugitive disentitlement doctrine” cited by Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza did not apply to the filmmaker because of the egregiousness of the misconduct alleged. But in a decision today, the justices disagreed.”

The appeals court recognized the seriousness of Polanski’s misconduct claims and urged the parties to address them. In light of this ruling, the only way Polanski can raise a claim of misconduct is by coming back to LA, willingly or unwillingly.

— DRJ

UPDATE: In the comments, Beldar provides a link to the court’s opinion. Don’t miss Beldar’s analysis in this comment and also in this one. My thanks to Beldar for the link and the analysis.

UPDATE 2: Polanski is completing work on a movie while under house arrest.

677 Responses to “California Court Denies Polanski Appeal (Updated x2)”

  1. There’s no doubt that’s the right answer. As long as he’s a fugitive, he’s not entitled to anything. If he’s permitted to pursue those kinds of claims while still being a fugitive, it becomes “heads he wins, tails LA loses.”

    Steven Den Beste (99cfa1)

  2. Well color me surprised. And good for them.

    Personally wouldn’t have had the chutzpah to ask for dismissal after I’d thumbed my nose at that very same court system for 30 years. But there you are.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  3. The court had no choice. The precedent set in allowing an on-the-run-criminal to dictate the conditions of his return is flat out unacceptable.

    Subotai (f29ffa)

  4. This appears to be a link to a .pdf scan of the opinion, which I hope to enjoy reading.

    Beldar (291ec9)

  5. That is wonderful news. Let’s hope the authorities can remove further impediments to Polanski’s return to submit to justice.

    Generalmalaise (a38f27)

  6. I’ve updated the post to add Beldar’s link to the court’s opinion.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  7. Mm-kay, I’ve read the opinion. It’s well done overall and quite thorough; nothing jumps out at me as a likely basis for reversal by the California Supreme Court.

    In particular, I don’t fault the Court of Appeals for the Second District for spending almost no time describing the hideously creepy circumstances of the crime. No issue was before it which required that discussion.

    By contrast, the opinion runs through all of Polanski’s allegations and arguments in terrific detail, and that’s a good thing in this context. Don’t be misled into thinking that this appellate court is necessarily sympathetic to those arguments or that it is yet convinced of the truthfulness of all of Polanski’s allegations (many of which, even if true, fall into the category of “so what?”). Remember that this is appellate whack-a-mole: The way an intermediate appellate court like this one best immunizes itself from being reversed is by dealing forthrightly and in detail with every argument it’s rejecting. And while Polanski’s attorneys will doubtless work hard to spin language from the opinion about how serious Polanski’s allegations are, and how important it is for the system of justice to plumb them fully at an evidentiary hearing that creates a full record, that and $4.15 will buy you the proverbial Starbucks’ Java Chip Frappuccino Light: This opinion doesn’t give Polanski an ounce of actual relief, even though it does dangle (but not promise) some scenarios in which he might do better or worse when and if he first returns to California.

    The opinion also seems to me to answer a question I’ve long wondered about by pointing me to California Penal Code § 1320.5. It looks as though this is the primary California statute for penalizing what in Texas and other states is often called the crime of “escape” — the new and independent felony that Polanski indisputably committed, irrespective of his plea bargain, when he fled the jurisdiction. I do wonder whether under California law, Polanski has been (or could be) charged with five counts of violating this statute — one for each of the original felony indictments with respect to the ultimate disposition of which he failed to appear — and if the one-year prison sentence for each could be stacked? (I’m not sure if that’s a subject on which our host, who probably does know or at least could quickly find out, feels comfortable opining here.)

    Beldar (291ec9)

  8. Thanks again, Beldar. I’ve also added a link to your comment and analysis.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  9. After further review, I think I was probably overstating one point in my comment just now (#7 — 12/21/2009 @ 6:29 pm) — specifically, when I wrote that the opinion “does dangle (but not promise) some scenarios in which [Polanski] might do better or worse when and if he first returns to California.”

    Starting with the bottom half of page 46 of the opinion, the Court of Appeals runs through the “Remedies Available to Polanski Today,” and includes among that the possibility that even without returning to California, Polanski (through his counsel) could make a discretionary request under California Penal Code § 1193(a) to be sentenced in absentia. And in footnote 27 at the bottom of page 47, the Court of Appeals notes that “[b]ased on the oral arguments of counsel, this court would not expect any objection to be made [by the prosecution] if Polanski should request to be sentenced in absentia.”

    This may be a pretty broad hint by the Court of Appeals as to what sort of deal it thinks the litigants ought to make and the trial court ought to approve. The implication is that the trial judge might grant such a request and thereby formalize and finalize Polanski’s sentence — whereupon Polanski could return for a further evidentiary hearing to air out the prosecutorial and judicial misconduct charges without being at risk of a longer sentence.

    I suppose that scenario is not necessarily inconsistent with the rest of what the Court of Appeals actually holds — which is that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to consider Polanski’s request for affirmative relief on grounds that as a fugitive, he’s equitably precluded from seeking any relief under the “disentitlement doctrine.” California law allows trial courts lots of discretion in applying that doctrine, and the Court of Appeals may be suggesting that by making such a formal request for in abstentia sentencing, Polanski might alter enough contributing factors to justify the trial court in deciding not to reject that request too.

    And it doesn’t answer my question about whether Polanski is still subject to prosecution for escape (or as it’s called in Cal. Penal Code § 13.20.5, failure to appear). (I’m assuming there’s no statute of limitations problem with such charges, even if they’ve not yet been filed, because generally an accused’s flight from the jurisdiction tolls the running of all statutes of limitations until he returns to the jurisdiction.)

    Beldar (291ec9)

  10. I will not be opining about whether Polanski could be charged with escape.

    Patterico (9c416d)

  11. One more thing I’ll mention, while I’m thinking about Polanski: The December 14, 2009, issue of the New Yorker contains an article about Polanski by Jeffrey Toobin. To put it mildly, I have not previously been a fan of Toobin’s legal punditry in either book or magazine form: I think he’s often sloppy with his facts and assumptions, that he relies too much on unidentified sources, that he does a poor job of explaining legal concepts and procedures to intelligent laymen, and that he’s particularly incapable of writing anything about the SCOTUS that’s deeper than a two-dimensional political cartoon. But this article is, I think, a good piece of work — almost certainly the best I’ve ever read from Toobin on any legal topic.

    The whole article still seems to be behind an online subscription firewall, but the short online abstract accurately summarizes Toobin’s purported thesis thusly:

    [T]he effect of [Polanski’s] celebrity was doubly, and inconsistently, pernicious[:] it obscured both how badly Polanski treated his young victim, and how badly the legal system treated him.

    Well, Toobin in fact does a very fine job of demonstrating how badly Polanski treated his young victim, and he also details several occasions on which Polanski’s celebrity cut decidedly in his favor (especially in ramping up the publicity of the case in a way that almost guaranteed a very reluctant complaining witness a/k/a “the victim”). But Toobin never actually lays out any evidence to support the back-end of his thesis (that Polanski was in any significant way victimized by the legal system on account of his fame). So if you ignore what Toobin says that he’s proving, and concentrate instead just on the facts he actually gathers and reports (many of which are in detailed paragraphs that cry for a good topic sentence), you may have the same reaction I did — a reaction that, indeed, I’d previously have thought was impossible: After reading article, I was left with an even keener hatred of, and heightened disgust for, Roman Polanski, the international scoff-law and serial, compulsive child molester.

    Beldar (291ec9)

  12. I’ve added a link to Beldar’s additional thoughts in comment 9.

    Beldar – Does it sound like the court is open to a guilty plea that also disposes of any fugitive claims?

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  13. I also thank Beldar for the link. It’s as trustworthy a statement of the facts of the case as we are likely to find. And I think, also, a very thoughtful analysis. To the extent that the conclusion was predetermined … just what legal leg does Polanski have to stand on?

    nk (df76d4)

  14. I read California’s statute of limitations http://law.justia.com/california/codes/pen/799-805.html and as best as I can see the defendant being out of the jurisdiction only tolls the statute by three years.

    nk (df76d4)

  15. If there is no indictment or information. Could there be a sealed indictment?

    nk (df76d4)

  16. nk: I assume you’re referring to section 803(d):

    If the defendant is out of the state when or after the offense is committed, the prosecution may be commenced as provided in Section 804 within the limitations of time prescribed by this chapter, and no time up to a maximum of three years during which the defendant is not within the state shall be a part of those limitations.

    Gosh, that’s an awful law! Why would the California Legislature want to reward people who’ve fled the jurisdiction by putting a three-year limit on tolling? (Texas, by contrast, has no such limit, see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 12.05(a), and I personally think that’s entirely preferable.)

    BUT: I think I read that when Polanski fled the jurisdiction and failed to appear for the next scheduled hearing, the trial judge issued a bench warrant. And Cal. Penal Code § 804 provides:

    For the purpose of this chapter, prosecution for an offense is commenced when … (d) An arrest warrant or bench warrant is issued, provided the warrant names or describes the defendant with the same degree of particularity required for an indictment, information, or complaint.

    So maybe that still unfulfilled bench warrant would become the basis of a viable (non-limitations-barred) prosecution for failure to appear?

    I’ve previously been surprised not to have seen anything in any of the reporting on Polanski that even mentioned potential liability on escape/failure to appear charges. DRJ, although there was a passing reference to section 1320.5 in the opinion, I don’t think the Court of Appeals directly addressed the subject of such potential charges against Polanski one way or the other. In fact, in listing Polanski’s options without mentioning the possibility of such charges, the opinion may imply that they are not, in fact, available for some reason that’s not obvious to me. Alleging and proving the elements of a section 1320.5 crime beyond a reasonable doubt would be a cinch, or so it seems to me. I understand why Patterico can’t undertake to clear this up for us, and unfortunately, we non-California lawyers from mostly civil-law practices may be missing something important here.

    Beldar (291ec9)

  17. If they didn’t file the failure to appear 28 years ago, it’s too late now. And if they did file a fta within the S/L we would have heard of it by now.

    Dave (3dac88)

  18. The bench warrant was issued so Polanski would be picked up and for the court to maintain jurisdiction.

    Dave (3dac88)

  19. Didn’t the Swiss detain Polanski on the outstanding warrant for failure to appear?

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  20. Dave: That’s a conclusion. Do you have reasoning, citations, links — anything — to support it? I’m very willing to be persuaded that you’re right, but your just saying “it’s too late now” isn’t persuasive.

    Beldar (291ec9)

  21. I added update 2.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  22. DRJ: Technically, California has to ask the US State Department to prepare and issue a warrant. Also, a bench warrant for failure to appear is not the same as filing a complaint charging the crime of failing to appear.

    Gee, Beldar, I didn’t think I would have to cite something so obvious like the Sixth Amendment to you. What authority do you have that a complaint can be filed 28 years after the S/L has run out?

    Dave (3dac88)

  23. Can there be a speedy trial issue if the defendant does not demand trial? I would look at California’s indictment/information requirement for felonies, to see if there is a certain time after issuance of the bench warrant that the case must go to a grand jury or a probable cause hearing.

    nk (df76d4)

  24. nk

    um, seriously, wtf are you talking about?

    if there has been any delay in the case, it is his fault, ergo, he can’t raise it. See the illustrious case of the man who killed his parents and then pled for mercy because he was a orphan.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  25. That’s what I said, A.W. Dave brought up the Sixth Amendment. Has the right to a speedy trial ever been extended to someone who is not being “held” for trial, whether in jail or on bail? I doan theenk so.

    And please notice also that we are talking not about the rape but the escape. We already saw that leaving the jurisdiction only tolls the statute of limitations for three year unless “prosecution has commenced”. Is the bench warrant enough or should an indictment have been obtained at some point, is my question.

    nk (df76d4)

  26. BTW, I understand that California has pretty strict rules against revealing a grand jury indictment before the defendant has been arrested. So nobody might tell us.

    nk (df76d4)

  27. A. W.: Delay in what case? No case was ever filed on the § 1320.5, failure to appear for a court hearing while on bail and it can’t be filed 28 years after the S/L has run.

    nk: A bench warrant is an order to have a defendant arrested. It is not the same as filing a complaint charging a violation of a statute.

    Dave (3dac88)

  28. Grand juries in California are rare and only done for certain types of cases. They would never convene a grand jury for a failure to appear. A filing deputy in the DA’s office will file a complaint, but it must be within the S/L which, in this case ran out 28 years ago.

    Dave (3dac88)

  29. nk: A bench warrant is an order to have a defendant arrested. It is not the same as filing a complaint charging a violation of a statute.

    Comment by Dave — 12/22/2009 @ 6:56 am

    It does toll the statute of limitations according to 804(d). But for how long is it good for? For S/L puposes, anyway? I have not been able to find a definite answer in California’s maze of a legal code.

    nk (df76d4)

  30. It tolled the statute on the rape charge. A bench warrant is a directive to arrest the defendant. It is not a separate charge. In order to charge a defendant with a failure to appear, the DA has to file a complaint alleging a violation of 1320.5. This was never done.

    Dave (3dac88)

  31. Allright, Dave. I am surprised though that indictment is not used that much in California. Up here, I’ve found, it’s a great advantage to prosecutors in both slam dunk cases and iffy ones because they do not have to litigate twice.

    nk (df76d4)

  32. Correction: The issuing of the bench warrant in this case allowed the court to maintain jurisdiction. There was no separate charge of violation of 1320.5 for the bench warrant to toll the S/L on when the bench warrant was issued.

    Dave (3dac88)

  33. nk: In California, a defendant has the right to demand a preliminary hearing after an indictment by a grand jury, which they always do. Law enforcement presenting their case to the DA who files a complaint seems much more efficient to me than a grand jury.

    One thing people don’t realize is how busy the courts are in California, especially Los Angeles. There are over a hundred criminal courts and tens of thousands prisoners are bused around each day over a wide geographical area.

    Dave (3dac88)

  34. #16

    This is a typical Division 7 opinion; very thorough and with extreme attention to the factual detail.

    Under California’s appellate system, any future cases go back to this panel, which is composed of 4 judges, any three of which will address a particular appeal.

    Having litigated before this panel several times, I can say that that this panel does not accept that it is in any way tied down by any issue it does not explicitly address. Its suggestions about various remedies Polanski may or may not have are exactly that.

    Cyrus Sanai (311cd8)

  35. Dave: You’re confusing concepts like jurisdiction, constitutional right to a speedy trial, and limitations. I would be absolutely stunned, for example, were California courts to hold that either their continuing subject-matter or in personem jurisdiction depended on the issuance of a bench warrant for someone who’s previously been in custody in California for a crime committed there. And you’re ignoring the text of Cal. Penal Code § 804(d) that I quoted above, through which the Legislature evidenced a very clear intention that in some circumstances, a bench warrant may satisfy the requirement of timely pleading in exactly the same manner as an indictment or complaint. I genuinely mean no disrespect — I’m not one of those who believes that only lawyers may intelligently discuss the rituals and lingo of our profession — but these things tend to diminish my confidence in your assertions regarding California law and procedure.

    As I’ve pointed out above, I’m not licensed in California, and even in the state where I do practice (Texas), I mostly do civil trial work. So I’m perfectly willing to be surprised and proven wrong in my observations about California law (I was wrong in presuming, for example, that California had an open-ended S/L tolling provision for defendants who’ve fled the jurisdiction). And I’m not being at all snarky or disrespectful when I ask you for support for your assertions, I’m being sincere. If, for example, you’re a lawyer licensed in California and you regularly practice criminal law, that might make me more inclined to credit your gut hunches. Or if you’ve got appellate decisions or other statutes to cite, that might also make your arguments more persuasive.

    Do you have either that personal experience or such sources?

    Beldar (24bc7a)

  36. Beldar

    btw, i am begging… blog again. i loved your stuff. :-)

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  37. Let me be as precise as possible: I haven’t seen the bench warrant. I would make a large wager, however, that it “names or describes the defendant with the same degree of particularity required for an indictment, information, or complaint.” I would further wager that the bench warrant includes a reference to the original five-count indictment and a factual that on a particular date and time, the defendant failed to appear. That is, I suspect the bench warrant probably suffices (for constitutional and procedural purposes) to put Polanski (who was of course represented by counsel) on at least constructive notice that he might also face a failure to appear charge under section 1320.5. Yes, it’s likely that a formal complaint or indictment may still need to be filed under section 1320.5; but when and if it is, and when and if Polanski (having returned first and cured his status as a fled felon) moves to dismiss it on grounds that it’s time-barred, then the prosecution will respond that “for purposes of” the chapter of the California Penal Code dealing with limitations, the new case under section 1320.5 must be deemed to have been commenced way back in 1977 by the bench warrant under section 804(d). Otherwise, why have a section 804(d)?

    Beldar (24bc7a)

  38. “and a factual that on a particular date and time” should have been “and a factual statement that on a particular date and time ….”

    Beldar (24bc7a)

  39. Beldar – ISTM that another complicating factor is whether or not 804(d), or any other relevant sections of California code, have changed since 1977.

    That is to say, if 804(d) didn’t say in 1977 what it does today, I’m not convinced that it can reach back to 1977; that would seem to be an ex post facto law.

    That said, I have no idea whether that section of the penal code has changed in the last 32 years.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  40. Yup, aphrael, you’re right — and the free online sources for legal research (like those nk and I have been consulting and linking) are generally less well equipped to permit the researcher to to trace a particular statute’s provenance back through history. Not for the first time, I’ve wished in connection with this post that I had one of those handy-dandy free-for-all-practical-purposes academic subscriptions to Westlaw or Lexis so I could do a better job of that. Alas, when I venture out of my pre-paid Westlaw plan (which doesn’t include the California cases or statutes), I have to pay a heavy price.

    Beldar (24bc7a)

  41. beldar

    check your state bars. Virginia for instance offers free access to findlaw, which is not as good but is alot for what you paid for it.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  42. […] How a girl’s stark words got lost in the Polanski spectacle Patterico’s Pontifications: California Court Denies Polanski Appeal (Updated x2) and Associate Producer of Polanski Documentary Spams This Blog With Multiple Anonymous Comments […]

    “You’ve Moved to the Sewer… You’re a Child Molester” — Dragnet’s Joe Friday vs. Roman Polanski (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  43. […] Hollywood: Hilary Swank: I Allow a Six Year-Old to See Me Nude Patterico’s Pontifications: California Court Denies Polanski Appeal (Updated x2) Sullivan, Big Hollywood: Garofalo Trashes ‘Tea-Baggers’ as ‘White Power Movement’ Led By Limbaugh, […]

    “Something Terrible Is Happening”… We Don’t Listen Enough to Ignorant, Overpaid Celebrities on Government-Run Health Care (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  44. I am astonished the Appeals court would view the documentary. There are so many problems with it as proper evidence. I think that viewing it biases there decision. The film takes selective items and strings them together in a sequencing that has a designed purpose on the viewer.

    Hawk Koch the friend of Polanski who claims his father heard the Judge making statements about the case at a country club is one example. The judges allow themselves to take that in while watching the film. The films states that Polanski was to be granted a string of 90 day stays up to a year, because “90 days would sound better to the press” The record however is that the Judge was only to allow a single 90 day stay.

    And most significantly the “documentary” is not so much a documentary but a specific tool of the defense, created by the defense. Dalton by far is the most interviewed person in the film. He has a fiduciary duty to his client. He can not be interviewed without the permission of his client. So the documentary as viewed by the Appeals court was in fact a controlled evidence. Even if they wanted to review the interviews, they should have not viewed the entire film.

    How controlled?

    Here is the viewpoint of the documentary director who’s entire film was absorbed by the Appeals court, and lower court.

    “Despite what he did, Polanski was screwed over by the judge, he fled because the judge pulled the rug out from under him,” Zenovich says

    What about that content:

    “Not only were people like Dalton and close Polanski friend Andrew Braunsberg difficult to convince, they refused to sign releases for their interview footage until they saw the finished film.”

    After Dalton groomed and fed his little documentarian he finally gave her a reward at the end. “After literally years of trying, Zenovich did finally meet Polanski for an off-camera lunch in Paris near the end of filming. ”

    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/17/entertainment/et-polanski17

    Mark Lobo (9cdae4)

  45. If the trial court entered the documentary into evidence, and it might very well have for the statements of ADA Wells, there’s nothing wrong with the appellate court viewing it and giving whatever weight it merited.

    nk (df76d4)

  46. Mr. Lobo (#44 — 12/22/2009 @ 4:01 pm): I respectfully have a slightly different view about the documentary.

    You’re absolutely right, of course, that it is a media creation designed to influence people, that it tends to be heavily slanted in favor of Polanski despite its very superficial patina of journalistic fairness, and that it hasn’t been vetted at all using the standards we use for evidence in court.

    nk’s absolutely right that it does have limited evidentiary value, and might have been admissible in court for some very limited purposes. That’s very, very far from saying, however, that the Court of Appeals’ rulings were based on it. They weren’t — remember, Polanski got none of the relief he sought in this appeal, and this decision was an unqualified loss for him.

    Both in the trial court and, apparently (I haven’t seen the briefs), on appeal, Polanski’s lawyers demonstrated naïveté bordering on (or crossing into) malpractice when they assumed that the documentary had far more evidentiary value than it in fact could support. It’s as if none of them has the first clue about the hearsay rule (and related rules regarding authentication and competency). To say that the Court of Appeals opinion treated the documentary with appropriate skepticism, then, is probably an understatement.

    Now, when and if Polanski returns to California and/or there is otherwise a full evidentiary hearing at the trial court level, the documentary might very well furnish leads for developing important evidence through non-hearsay sworn testimony (tested by cross-examination) on appropriate topics through competent witnesses. It might also potentially be used to impeach witnesses at that hearing — if, for example, Wells sticks to his reported comments in which he recanted some of what he said in the documentary and insisted that he simply lied on camera (albeit not then under oath) to punch up the story line.

    And there are ample clues in the opinion to confirm that if there is such a hearing, the finder of fact at the trial court level — presumably the trial judge — will be given due deference by the appellate courts in making credibility determinations, and very broad deference indeed in making evidentiary rulings. The trial judge would make detailed written findings of fact and conclusions of law, probably with cross-references to the evidentiary record; and you can be pretty sure that those findings of fact aren’t going to be based primarily, or heavily, or probably at all (in any important particular) on the editorializing or opinions contained in the documentary.

    Beldar (ed59c2)

  47. Apologies for expanding an already too-long comment, but also:

    The Court of Appeals’ opinion does express concern about the factual allegations made by Polanski’s lawyers, some of which paralleled or were even based upon allegations made in the documentary. Wells’ alleged ex parte communications with the then-presiding trial judge, for example, would be an entirely legitimate matter for concern by everyone with an interest in a fair justice system. The fact that Wells appeared — in edited, unsworn, and since partially recanted statements in the documentary — to admit to conduct that reflects so poorly on both him and the DA’s office can’t be ignored WHEN AND IF Polanski returns to California to re-urge his motion to dismiss.

    But his motion to dismiss was denied, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling — despite the documentary, and despite the arguments made by Polanski’s lawyers that were based upon, or in parallel with, assertions and purported “admissions” (like Wells’) in the documentary. Whatever benefits may have accrued to Polanski from the documentary in the court of public opinion, in other words, it hasn’t yet helped him at all in the courts of the State of California — and arguably, by putting the case back into public view and embarrassing the District Attorney’s office, both the documentary and the motion to dismiss have so far served Polanski’s desires very poorly indeed. (Which makes me happy.)

    Beldar (ed59c2)

  48. BTW, has anyone tracked the odds on whether or not Polanski ever appears in an American (L.A.Co.) Court of Law?

    AD - RtR/OS! (a9bf4b)

  49. I give a hundred to one, in other words if he appears I pay you a $100.00 and if he does not I keep your dollar. But with the economy the way it is, and piano and horse-riding lessons, and the cost of brass these days, I reserve the right to refuse actual money bets. 😉

    nk (df76d4)

  50. This guys’ protected. How does that Hamlet quote go? A consumation much to be wished? He has two degrees of separation from every head of state in the world, from Carla Bruni, if nobody else.

    nk (df76d4)

  51. Comment by nk — 12/23/2009 @ 11:59 am

    Well, we could make that bet in brass (got .308?);
    but, I don’t think he’ll ever set foot in L.A.Co. unless they pull him out of his coffin, jam a pole up his ass, and plant the pole in the ground;
    before planting the Pole in the ground.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a9bf4b)

  52. Beldar, I think Polanski got quite a lot with the 70 page ruling. One part says if they can establish that the judge said he would only give Polanski the 90 day evaluation as punishment, they could not imagine the lower court would not honor that. How does an in chambers conversation become a promise that must be relied upon. Doesn’t the process of a public trial require that any ruling be done in the court itself.
    If the Appeals court holds the Judges to those standards, why not allow Prosecutor’s to rely upon plea bargain negotiations a what the defendant promised to plea.

    The documentary includes items such as Polanski’s wife being murdered. This is not part of the case at all. The judges had the option to view only the recorded interviews, the raw videos.

    There is quite a lot of coaching in the transcript of the interview with Wells. And it is clear that the lawyers of Polanski knew that Wells was either lying of hopelessly confused about the case.

    Wells says that Polanski went to Europe and was caught at Oktoberfest after he was released from Chino. And that it showed the photograph to Rittenband who became incensed. This is quoted in Dalton’s pleadings to the court. The problem is that is certainly not what happened. Polanski was at Oktoberfest before he went to Chino.

    The interviewer introduces the topic of Rittenband’s girlfriends. Which means that there were pre-interviews with the documentary interviewers, which should have been recorded on audio and submitted as well.

    The court should have never reviewed the documentary in its final form. THE FINISHED “DOCUMENTARY” WAS NOT THE BEST EVIDENCE. Unless I am mistaken, the court has an obligation to use the best evidence, and not some distillation. They should have only viewed the raw interviews period. There viewing of the documentary created bias.

    That bias is evidenced in the closing sentences of the 70 pages in which the appeals courts buys off on the argument of the documentary saying they should release a admitted rapist, if the court in some why mistreated the defendant.

    Lastly and most importantly, the documentary, was only to be able to be released in that form, provided that Dalton thus Polanski, signed off on it. Something that was not raised.

    If anyone has access to the pleading, I would love to read them.

    Mark Lobo (c405ff)

  53. Oh and BTW, had Polanski been give the Probation, he said he was entitled to by the judge, there is no doubt Polanski broke the rules of Probation.

    So the Appeals court does not comment on the rewards that Polanski gained by fleeing the court. It only comments on the length of the case, and how something that could be improper should allow Polanski to walk.

    Fleeing the court, appears to have so many upsides for any defendant. Why not flee, instead of appealing.

    Mark Lobo (c405ff)

  54. Courts, as a rule, know the difference between argument and evidence, Mark.

    nk (df76d4)

  55. Can anyone clarify why the Octoberfest outing was so significant, and why Polanski had to claim he was there on a business trip? I mean, I’m not aware that he was required to devote 100% of his time in Europe to work. Why couldn’t he have simply admitted he was there for fun but was spending most of his time working?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  56. It should not have been. And even if it was, a couple of lawyers, a prosecutor and a judge, should have had sense enough not to let anybody else know how they felt about it.

    nk (df76d4)

  57. From Polanski’s plea hearing:

    MR. GUNSON: What is the maximum sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse?

    THE DEFENDANT: It’s one to fifteen – – twenty years in State Prison.

    Nobody corrected Polanski when he said he believed the maximum sentence was 20 years, even though it was actually 50 years. Therefore, the plea isn’t valid and the Court’s approval of it should be withdrawn, because a defendant who pleads guilty must understand the potential consequences of the plea.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-norman/polanski-guilty-plea-coul_b_386007.html

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  58. It was twenty years, Jeff. Where did you get the fifty years from? And he did have a lawyer, did he not? Standing right by him? And money to hire the best there was? Asshole?

    nk (df76d4)

  59. Find me another case where somebody who raped a thirteen year old got the same breaks this creepy little producer got, Jeff?

    nk (df76d4)

  60. Certainly, Jeff, the validity of a plea is not based upon a test of the defendant’s memory of the advice he’s been given, only that it was given and he comprehended it in general. Its not a Trivial Pursuit contest.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  61. nk, 50 years is based on the 1977 statute which I saw, what the prosecutor then says the max was, what the prosecutor now says the max was and what the Department of Corrections now says the max was. How did you conclude the max was 20?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  62. SPQR, I don’t understand your point. Can you say it another way?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  63. Fine Jeff, let him come back, withdraw his plea, and ask for retrial. Because that’s the remedy. Not running away for thirty years and then asking that everything be forgotten.

    nk (df76d4)

  64. nk: “Fine Jeff, let him come back, withdraw his plea, and ask for retrial. Because that’s the remedy.”

    No, nk, that’s only your fantasy.

    A retrial is barred by double jeopardy. Even if it weren’t barred, there could be no retrial unless there had been a previous trial. In this case, there has not been a trial, so your “logic” is faulty in more ways than one.

    And let’s not forget the false certainty you asserted whilst questioning the basis of my accurate reporting: “It was twenty years, Jeff. Where did you get the fifty years from?”

    Frankly, I don’t see why anything you say deserves to be taken seriously. You’re obviously operating on a purely emotional level.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  65. What double jeopardy…he pled guilty.
    If he would like to withdraw that plea, it can go to trial.
    Personally, I think he’s in more jeopardy for the flight from prosecution than for whatever he might have got for the sex with a minor BS charge they bargained him down to.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a9bf4b)

  66. Mr. Norman: no offense, but you don’t appear to understand the concept of double jeopardy. You should educate yourself before using the phrase.

    Patterico (1aad26)

  67. A retrial is barred by double jeopardy. Even if it weren’t barred, there could be no retrial unless there had been a previous trial. In this case, there has not been a trial, so your “logic” is faulty in more ways than one.

    Coming from a man who ridicules another’s logic, that bit of logic-free fantasy is mildly humorous.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  68. Purity in anything is not one of my attributes. And I did research California’s sentencing laws, a while back, and it seems that at the time the pervert was raping the little girl the California legislature was changing the law — from indeterminate sentencing to the three level determinate sentencing. So even though the filthy little animal committed the crime during the one-to-fifty law for rape, under the rule of lenity he would only have been liable for a maximum of twenty at the time of his sentencing.

    And I don’t know why I should take anything one of Arianna’s houseboys says seriously.

    nk (df76d4)

  69. “Find me another case where somebody who raped a thirteen year old got the same breaks this creepy little producer got…

    I’m sure this could be done… even narrowed down to 13… but my brain would explode

    SteveG (909b57)

  70. Patterico: “Mr. Norman: no offense, but you don’t appear to understand the concept of double jeopardy. You should educate yourself before using the phrase.”

    Patterico, no offense, but you haven’t bothered to explain what you’re talking about.

    What is the meaning of double jeopardy, and what did I say that indicates I don’t understand it?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  71. Let’s see, if you’re tried and found not guilty and then you’re tried later for the same crime…

    How about a “DUH”?

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  72. ” . . . what did I say that indicates I don’t understand it?”

    You said:

    “A retrial is barred by double jeopardy.”

    Sometimes retrials are barred by double jeopardy and sometimes they aren’t.

    As you noted, a trial here would not be a “retrial” so it’s irrelevant anyway.

    Patterico (4ef72a)

  73. “Single Jeopardy” doesn’t fit here since the sentencing phase for the guilty plea was not completed, and Polanski could’ve withdrawn the guilty plea. Then a trial would’ve commenced.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  74. nk: “So even though the filthy little animal committed the crime during the one-to-fifty law for rape, under the rule of lenity he would only have been liable for a maximum of twenty at the time of his sentencing.”

    nk, it appears the only person with whom you are in agreement is “the filthy little animal.”

    Anyone can claim to have done “research.” I challenge you to share details of your purported research and explain EXACTLY how you determined the maximum sentence was 20 years.

    Go ahead, genius. We’re all waiting for you to dazzle us.

    Tick, tock, tick tock…

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  75. Got a rat in your pocket, Norman? Or should I call you Chubbsy Ubbsy?

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  76. Jeff Norman – You have not actually supplied any evidence for your 50 year sentence contention yourself. I would be nice to see some support for your position.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  77. Whilst reposing in my gentleman’s lair and quietly composing my latest interdiction on behalf of my misguided, but just, colleagues incapable of understanding that to fight the cause of right means subjugating their fiery tempo so that the unwashed shall not be alarmed, I decided to wade into the great mire of the hoi poilli to elicit awareness about a supposed injustice and how their feebled, furrowed ministrations were, to say the least, vapid.

    Nonetheless, as soon as I find my Boswell, perhaps with a legal education, amongst my peers, I will ask the question: What is this “double jeopardy?”

    But now, I must retire and drink in the wisdom of the light that embraces the collective souls of the down-trodden.

    Ag80 (525921)

  78. Patterico: “Sometimes retrials are barred by double jeopardy and sometimes they aren’t.”

    Get real, Patterico. As I hope you know, it’s extremely rare that a retrial is allowed. Furthermore, your bias is glaringly obvious when you choose to make an issue out of my reference to double jeopardy, as if I were out of line, and the commenter (nk) to whom I replied had made a good point.

    How about if we instead focus on the definition of red herring?:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/red+herring?o=100074
    red herring
    In argument, something designed to divert an opponent’s attention from the central issue.

    Remember the central issue, Patterico? It was that nk claimed the remedy is to retry Polanski.

    The record shows I appropriately mocked the genius commenter, and you claimed I misused the term “double jeopardy” because once in a blue moon a retrial is allowed. You’re so intellectually honest, Patterico.

    Patterico: “As you noted, a trial here would not be a ‘retrial’ so it’s irrelevant anyway.”

    Then why are you lecturing me about the need to educate myself?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  79. Well, I’m sure the Feds could always wade in with some sort of Civil-Rights violation, and take another bite of the apple – they seem to enjoy that.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a9bf4b)

  80. daleyrocks: “You have not actually supplied any evidence for your 50 year sentence contention yourself. I would be nice to see some support for your position.”

    You’re being tedious, but okay, I’ll indulge you for a moment.

    Is it that you didn’t read comment #61, or is it that you don’t believe me, or what?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  81. Jeff Norman reminds me of that Arizona vacation commercial. The one where everyone is making a run on all the grocery stores to stock up for the coming catastrophe. And then we see the reason for the run… a single cumulus cloud in the sky.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  82. BTW, Jeff Norman, just which state BAR association are you a member of?

    AD - RtR/OS! (a9bf4b)

  83. That would be Massachusetts, Boston to be more precise, where everyone knows your name.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  84. “Get real, Patterico. As I hope you know, it’s extremely rare that a retrial is allowed.”

    I know that it is extremely common that a retrial is allowed. They occur all the time.

    I mentioned it because you brought it up, on my site, and I like to educate my readers about the criminal justice system when it’s possible for me to do so.

    I prefer not to expound at length regarding certain specifics of the Polanski legal proceeding, such as his potential exposure (to take one example among many), because I would prefer to leave that to the people in my office tasked with addressing such issues. Even though I write on this blog in my personal capacity, there are certain issues that I just decide not to opine on publicly.

    However, I would like my readers to know some basics, such as the facts that 1) retrials are exceedingly commonplace; and 2) the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit retrials as a general rule, but only under specified circumstances not even remotely applicable here.

    It is indeed the case that the remedy for someone who has pled guilty — IF he can convince a judge to allow him to withdraw his plea (which is always a significant hurdle) — is to have the original charges reinstated and face a trial. The Double Jeopardy Clause has nothing to do with this, and is indeed a red herring. However, I did not raise the red herring; you did.

    Let’s dial down the acrimony, everyone. Sarcasm begets sarcasm and hostility. And Mr. Norman, I don’t need my intellectual honesty questioned. I have said nothing to prompt such a remark and I’d appreciate it if you’d be a little slower to reach for that particular arrow in your rhetorical quiver.

    Everyone on their best behavior!

    Patterico (4ef72a)

  85. “You’re being tedious, but okay, I’ll indulge you for a moment.

    Is it that you didn’t read comment #61, or is it that you don’t believe me, or what”

    Jeff – I did read #61 and the post you linked. You made assertions, which are as valid as the assertions you demanded nk back up with the details of his research and EXCACTLY how he determined his 20 year figure. I am requesting equivalency on your part. Saying you had conversations or saw a statute does not cut it friend. It is you who is being evasive and tedious here. Surely you can appreciate that.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  86. daleyrocks: “I am requesting equivalency on your part.”

    Okay, you have half a point. But the thing is, in my HuffPo article I cited Loyola Law School Professor Laurie Levenson confirming 50 years was the max.

    Furthermore, although the 1977 statute isn’t on the internet, there are numerous other references to the 50-year max which you could easily verify by doing a simple search that we all know how to do. (The kids call it “googling.”) By contrast, there is nothing to be found on the internet which supports the contention that the max was 20 years. What we have is nk pretending to know it, and then when I call him on it, he just backs down without even acknowledging his purported certainty was actually fake.

    There are aspects of the Polanski case which are in dispute, but what the maximum sentence was in 1977, isn’t one of them. Even so, I took the trouble of verifying it. So instead of grilling me to prove something I already confirmed (and which is easily verified on the internet), you should applaud me for pointing out what NOBODY else noticed: At his plea hearing, Polanski testified that he believed the maximum sentence was 20 years, and nobody corrected him. THAT is what’s noteworthy.

    “Rittenband could sentence him to up to 50 years in prison…”
    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski25-2009oct25,0,5337333,full.story

    “The maximum sentence was 50 years…”
    http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-12-02-roman-polanski_N.htm

    “Facing up to 50 years in prison if convicted at trial, Polanski pleaded guilty to one count of statutory rape.”
    http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1997/10/01/1997-10-01_deal_will_end_roman_holiday_.html

    Also, in the HBO documentary about the case and elsewhere, the original prosecutor (Roger Gunson) said the max was 50.

    Also, the spokesperson (Sandi Gibbons) for Patterico’s boss (LA County DA Steve Cooley) confirmed for me that 50 years was the max.

    Also, the spokesperson (Terry Thornton) for the California Department of Corrections confirmed for me that 50 years was the max.

    Enough for you? Are you on my team now, daleyrocks?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  87. I was in the USMC at one time, but I was no Officer. I have, however, been accused of being ZZ Top and a mountain man. And the only reason I ever go to the huffington puffington post is when someone points and laughs. I wanna see the funny. Otherwise, I have no use for that dissembling rag.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  88. Regarding the huffington puffington post:

    What do you get when you mix one gallon of beef stew with one hundred gallons of chicken guana? Fertilizer

    What do you get when you mix one gallon of chicken guana with one hundred gallons of beef stew? Same fertilizer

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  89. Patterico, although there are exceptions, the Fifth Amendment does indeed state: “No person shall be…subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” That we have a disagreement about how often retrials are allowed doesn’t mean I don’t understand the concept of double jeopardy. I warmly invite you to concede that point, or identify what I said which indicates a miscomprehension of the concept.

    I wonder why you thrice pointed out the double jeopardy clause is irrelevant given that I said the same thing.

    Patterico: “However, I did not raise the red herring; you did.”

    The red herring was your accusation that I don’t understand the concept of double jeopardy, when my main point was Polanski can’t be retried, and when the ignorance of other commenters is far more flagrant.

    Patterico: “It is indeed the case that the remedy for someone who has pled guilty — IF he can convince a judge to allow him to withdraw his plea (which is always a significant hurdle) — is to have the original charges reinstated and face a trial.”

    Firstly, that’s not what nk said. Secondly, isn’t withdrawing the plea the remedy whether or not any charges are reinstated, and whether or not there is a trial?

    I’m sorry you were offended when I questioned your intellectual honesty. Let me put it another way: Given the level of discourse on your blog, I find it odd that you lectured me about the need to educate myself. I suspect what really bothers you is not my failure to reach the high standard maintained by commenters such as nk and John Hitchcock, but that I don’t embrace your particular bias.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  90. Mr. Norman, Polanski committed the rape in March 1977. Fine, the law at that time was one to fifty. In July 1977, the one to twenty law went into effect. (That was my research, BTW, and it took all of five minutes.) Polanski pleaded guilty in August, 1977. It was Polanski’s right to be tried and sentenced under the old law but he would have been a fool to exercise it.

    I’ll grant you that I don’t know what the exact California case law is on this but, as a general principal, when a law changes between the time of the commission of a crime and final judgment of conviction, the court will apply the law which gives the lesser punishment at sentencing, absent other considerations, and it will disregard even savings provisions in the new statute if it is in the interest of justice.

    The trial court in Polanski’s case was not entitled to make up a sentencing range, certainly, but it was on solid ground, legally and constitutionally, when it effect promised him that he would be sentenced under the new, more lenient, law.

    nk (df76d4)

  91. As for the news stories you have linked, their source is Polanski’s public relations firm. You should trust them as much as you would trust Polanski alone with your thirteen year old child.

    nk (df76d4)

  92. “It was twenty years, Jeff. Where did you get the fifty years from? And he did have a lawyer, did he not? Standing right by him? And money to hire the best there was? Asshole?”

    Comment above by nk — 12/23/2009 @ 5:50 pm

    Maybe you have a reference to a statute that has eluded all of us. My understanding is it was 50 years back then. It has since been reduced. The judge boasted to his fellow country club members that he was sentencing Polanski to 50 years. He didn’t pull that number out of his “asshole,” or did he?

    Why would a defense attorney correct the misunderstanding when it favors his client?

    “Find me another case where somebody who raped a thirteen year old got the same breaks this creepy little producer got, Jeff?”

    Comment above by nk — 12/23/2009 @ 5:54 pm

    Since 2004, the average sentence was a year. Some got more; some got less. Before that, you’ll have to do some homework to make the claim that the “creepy little producer” got a break. Let me know what you find out.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  93. As for the news stories you have linked, their source is Polanski’s public relations firm. You should trust them as much as you would trust Polanski alone with your thirteen year old child.

    Comment above by nk — 12/24/2009 @ 5:12 am

    The-media-is-controlled-by-a-PR-firm is a flavor of the wide range of media conspiracies. It is very useful in explaining away information one doesn’t want to believe.

    But in this case — have you read them? — they are not pro-Polanski’s stories.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  94. Mr. Norman, anything Polanski gets short of what the Hyman Roth character got in the Godfather II movie is mercy for drugging and raping a child, fleeing the country to avoid sentencing, and flounting the law ever since.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  95. “It is indeed the case that the remedy for someone who has pled guilty — IF he can convince a judge to allow him to withdraw his plea (which is always a significant hurdle) — is to have the original charges reinstated and face a trial.”

    Comment by Patterico — 12/24/2009 @ 12:00 am

    Based on your knowledge of the case, would you not say that the “significant hurdle” can be easily surmounted?

    As far as reinstating the original charges, whether or not to do so would be up to the prosecutor, would it not? And, wouldn’t that decision be profoundly affected by the quality of his case? So, I assume you mean that the original charges can be reinstated.

    Given the decision by the appeals court, what freedom of action would you say the trial court and the DA have in pursuing this case?

    If you were the DA, what would you do?

    Finally, if Cooley decides to proceed aggressively with this case, could he not be doing so for demagogic purposes?

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  96. Norman, your snark about double jeopardy seems to be based solely on the fact that people have used the term “retrial” to indicate that scenario where Polanski is allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and the conviction that was entered, and proceed to trial on the charges.

    That’s not as clever a snark as you seem to believe. Especially since you employ it so sloppily as to imply a double jeopardy issue that does not exist.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  97. “…the pervert was raping the little girl… So even though the filthy little animal committed the crime….”

    “And I don’t know why I should take anything one of Arianna’s houseboys says seriously.”

    Comment above by nk — 12/23/2009 @ 10:00 pm

    Your postings are a mix of the above and legal arguments. The feeling I get is that if you ran across information that was favorable to “the filthy little animal,” you might be disappointed.

    So, you should I take your legal arguments with a grain of salt? And, for the record, I don’t think you’re one of Patterico’s houseboys. But even if I did, I would be hard put to use it in a discourse on the law.

    Your may have noticed your ad hominem offense has not intimidated your adversaries. But it does work with some folks, I’ll grant you.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  98. jackbutler, you are asking questions that Patterico has long ago stated, and repeated in this thread, that he will not address given his situation.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  99. Why are so many folks invested in seeing a confessed, serial, child molester go free?

    nk (df76d4)

  100. Why the talk of retrials when he never had a 1st trial? The normans and butlers of the world are predictable, and sad.

    JD (b514b1)

  101. Patterico, although there are exceptions, the Fifth Amendment does indeed state: “No person shall be…subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”

    Thanks for the education. Now, since you’re the expert, tell us when the courts apply the Clause to bar retrials. And tell us also the facts and reasoning underlying your confident statement that retrials are allowed only “once in a blue moon.”

    Since you insist on discussing that irrelevant issue, and challenging my statements regarding that issue, let’s explore your understanding of the Clause — and the basis for your disagreement regarding the frequency of retrials.

    Patterico (1aad26)

  102. Retrials never happen after acquittals.

    They happen after hung juries, mistrials on other grounds, and reversals on appeal — all the time.

    All the time.

    Please agree with that indisputable statement so we can focus the discussion on relevant issues.

    Patterico (1aad26)

  103. jackbutler5555,

    SPQR is exactly right. It would be fun and educational to discuss these issues here, and you guys are welcome to. I am simply choosing not to publicly discuss precisely the kinds of questions you’re asking.

    Patterico (1aad26)

  104. “The red herring was your accusation that I don’t understand the concept of double jeopardy, when my main point was Polanski can’t be retried, and when the ignorance of other commenters is far more flagrant.”

    Actually, my commenters have all shown a better grasp of the Double Jeopardy Clause than you have demonstrated in this thread.

    “I’m sorry you were offended when I questioned your intellectual honesty. Let me put it another way: Given the level of discourse on your blog, I find it odd that you lectured me about the need to educate myself. I suspect what really bothers you is not my failure to reach the high standard maintained by commenters such as nk and John Hitchcock, but that I don’t embrace your particular bias.”

    I have asked people to be polite on this thread. There has been sarcasm on both sides. I’ll stack up the level of discourse here against that displayed at HuffPo any day of the week.

    I contested your false implication that retrials are generally barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause for the reasons I have already stated.

    Regarding the maximum punishment, I have no idea what it is. I have seen news stories that say 50 years and others that say 2. You did not quote the stories that say 2, but I know you are aware of them. If you are able to reconcile this discrepancy, I encourage you to do so. Again, I have no idea what the maximum is and express no opinion. I am simply pointing out that the extant news stories are less consistent than you have portrayed them to be.

    Patterico (1aad26)

  105. Patterico, all I can figure is that Norman thinks that he has some brilliant rhetorical point about some using the term “retrial” because Polanski was not initially “tried” but rather convicted on a guilty plea.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  106. Well, SPQR, that point by Mr. Norman is a good if pedantic point. But he claimed to have two separate points: one having to do with double jeopardy and one being the point you just highlighted.

    The “it’s not a retrial” point is correct.

    The “it would be double jeopardy” point is not, and appears to indicate a lack of understanding regarding the scope of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

    Patterico (1aad26)

  107. Patterico wrote: “Retrials never happen after acquittals. They happen after hung juries, mistrials on other grounds, and reversals on appeal — all the time. All the time. Please agree with that indisputable statement so we can focus the discussion on relevant issues.”

    I think you’re right, Patty. I didn’t mean to suggest I’m an expert. It was probably an exaggeration for me to say retrials happen once in a blue moon. But I think you also exaggerated when you at first said retrials happen all the time without explaining that “all the time” could apply only to hung juries, mistrials and reversals on appeal.

    I’m amused that you think this diversion has prevented us from discussing relevant issues. Now seems like a good time to point out that I am the only one who has tried to discuss the significance of establishing that a defendant understands the potential consequences of pleading guilty. I understand that you’re limited as to how much you can comment on the Polanski case, but I assume you can discuss, as a generic issue, to what extent it matters that a defendant knows what his maximum sentence is. You say you want to educate your readers. How about that topic? Maybe you could say a few words about Hill v. Lockart or U.S. v. Gray. (I’ll email you the latter decision as I have it only in PDF format, and I don’t think there’s a way to link to it in this forum.)

    Likewise, it seems you could address the factual issue of what Polanski’s maximum sentence was when he pled guilty. That’s not a sensitive matter. Your office is not disputing what the maximum sentence was.

    And what about all the commenters? Not one of them has addressed the significance (or lack of it, as one might believe) of the discrepancy between what the maximum sentence was, and what Polanski said he believed it was. So far I’ve been subjected to polite and impolite questions about the accuracy of my reporting, juvenile insults directed at me, and juvenile insults directed at Polanski. Sometimes I’m “guilty” of discussing side points and resorting to sarcasm or whatever, but not for the purpose of avoiding the issue at hand.

    So let’s get to what’s relevant, or at least what might be, and let’s educate your readers about the importance of a defendant understanding the potential consequences of his guilty plea.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  108. to insert myself a little here, what Patterico is saying about the double jeapordy clause is considered black letter law. that is lawyerspeak for a point of law that really isn’t up for serious contention.

    I mean its not quite as certain as “gravity pulls downward,” but its pretty hard to competantly dispute. the fact is polanski is screwed as a matter of law, and the only quibbling point is how badly he is screwed, as in will he go away for time served or for the rest of his life? I see no possibility of a defense, only mitigation.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  109. Alas, I’ve been unable to pull a coherent point about the double jeopardy clause from Norman’s comments as yet.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  110. Patterico: “Regarding the maximum punishment, I have no idea what it is. I have seen news stories that say 50 years and others that say 2. You did not quote the stories that say 2, but I know you are aware of them. If you are able to reconcile this discrepancy, I encourage you to do so.”

    You’re confusing stories that refer to what Polanski would face now (two years) for unlawful sexual intercourse with stories about what the maximum sentence (50 years) was when he committed his crime. There are no stories that say the max was two years when he pled guilty.

    Is there ANY point at which you and your commenters will admit he was facing 50 years when he pled guilty?

    I’ve cited numerous sources. Why is the only point that’s subject to such intense scrutiny?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  111. “Patty”? Very classy, unless I missed a “Patricia” posting earlier. I smell wrestlemania fans, Patterico.

    Eric Blair (584916)

  112. You have not addressed Norman’s sunstantive points! Therefore, Norman is your moral and intellectual superior. I have read his drivel a few times now, and do not see what his actual point is, though it seems designed to obfuscate for the child ass-rapist.

    JD (a606ad)

  113. Jeff Norman, actually there is a response above to the 50 versus 20 years issue. Is there ANY point at which you will address it? Further, given that as yet Polanski has not been sentenced to a term greater than 20 years, is there ANY point at which you’ll address its relevance?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  114. Commenter at HuffPo, right? Or should I say, “Left”?

    Eric Blair (584916)

  115. “…’No person shall be…subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb’…”
    Comment by Jeff Norman — 12/24/2009 @ 2:14 am

    Tell that to Stacey Koon.
    What you don’t know about the law would fill a Law Library.

    AD - RtR/OS! (396a30)

  116. Why the talk of retrials when he never had a 1st trial? The normans and butlers of the world are predictable, and sad.

    JD; It makes me sad when I make you sad.

    But predictable? I just landed here. I suspect you have a special talent in predicting what people are going to say.

    So, what am I about to say? Never mind. Just respond to it.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  117. SPQR is exactly right. It would be fun and educational to discuss these issues here, and you guys are welcome to. I am simply choosing not to publicly discuss precisely the kinds of questions you’re asking.

    Comment by Patterico — 12/24/2009 @ 9:32 am

    Understand. But I hope you’ll be able to offer comment that might shed light without directly referring to a specific case.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  118. jackbutler, its best to respect Patterico’s boundaries.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  119. SPQR: Thanks for letting me know that Patterico can’t answer the questions. Do you feel qualified to answer any of them? Here they are:

    Based on your knowledge of the case, would you not say that the “significant hurdle” can be easily surmounted?

    As far as reinstating the original charges, whether or not to do so would be up to the prosecutor, would it not? And, wouldn’t that decision be profoundly affected by the quality of his case? So, I assume you mean that the original charges can be reinstated.

    Given the decision by the appeals court, what freedom of action would you say the trial court and the DA have in pursuing this case?

    If you were the DA, what would you do?

    Finally, if Cooley decides to proceed aggressively with this case, could he not be doing so for demagogic purposes?

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  120. “I think you’re right, Patty.”

    “Patty”?

    “So far I’ve been subjected to polite and impolite questions about the accuracy of my reporting, juvenile insults directed at me, and juvenile insults directed at Polanski.”

    Sorry, “Jeffy.”

    If you address me with a minimal level of respect, I might be willing to converse with you.

    However, now is not the ideal time, as I am with family. And your idea of what is “sensitive” does not necessarily comport with mine.

    So: sorry. I have said all I’m interested in saying right now, for these reasons.

    You’ll get a better response from those who remain to converse with you if you refrain from sarcasm. I encourage everyone here to try to refrain as well. As difficult as that may be when someone from the Huffington Post chooses to lecture you on your tone.

    Patterico (4ef72a)

  121. nk: “In July 1977, the one to twenty law went into effect. (That was my research, BTW, and it took all of five minutes.)… The trial court in Polanski’s case was not entitled to make up a sentencing range, certainly, but it was on solid ground, legally and constitutionally, when it effect promised him that he would be sentenced under the new, more lenient, law.”

    That’s a highly creative interpretation.

    Because the crime was committed prior to July 1, 1977, he would be sentenced to a term as it existed at that time under the Indeterminate Sentencing Law (ISL). According to the California Department of Corrections, if he is sentenced to prison for the crime to which he pled guilty, his sentence would then be recalculated under the Determinate Sentencing Law (DSL) pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.2 based on the mid-term for that offense as if he committed the offense on or after July 1, 1977. He would then serve the lesser of the terms set pursuant to the ISL and DSL.

    The offense (unlawful sexual intercourse) Polanski pled guilty to in March 1977 carried a six months to 50 years term under the Indeterminate Sentencing Law. That was the law in place at the time of the offense.

    Polanski served a diagnostic commitment at California Institution for Men from Dec. 16, 1977 to Jan. 27, 1978. He was scheduled to be sentenced on Feb. 1, 1978, but he fled the country instead, as we all know.

    At the time of sentencing, the offense to which Polanski confessed carried a 16-month, two-year or three-year sentence.

    Pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.2, the sentence is based on the mid-term for that offense. In this case, the sentence would be recalculated to the mid-term sentence of two years.

    Keep in mind this is based only on the offense Polanski pled guilty to, Penal Code 261.5. It does not take into account any credits that could reduce the sentence or any enhancements that could increase it.

    Also, the Board of Parole Hearings could conduct a serious offender hearing. The BPH has the authority to extend the term.

    I don’t believe the max was ever 20 years, but I’m open to persuasion. Whacha got, nk?

    Regardless of any theory you might throw at me, it’s a fact that no jurist who has been or is involved with the case (including Patterico’s boss, Steve Cooley) has ever disputed that Polanski faced a 50-year max when he pled guilty. So your level of scrutiny on this particular issue relative to all other issues, is, shall we say, revealing.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  122. For the 20-cent intellectual…
    It is not that Patterico CAN’T answer your questions,
    it is that he WON’T answer them, due to ethical considerations
    (I know the word “ethics” is unfamiliar to many of those of the Left, but try to bear with us on this).

    AD - RtR/OS! (396a30)

  123. And, Jeff:
    Just which state’s Bar Association are you a member of (2nd request)?

    AD - RtR/OS! (396a30)

  124. 50 years seems about right for someone that drugged a teenage girl, and then proceeded to assrape her over her objections. But, he is a great film-maker, and was forced to live in France and his chalet in Switzerland, so we should just quit demagoguing this and let him go on with his life without facing punishment for his crimes. Whether the max was 2, 5, 20, or 50 years is simply obfuscation of the underlying issue.

    JD (c8af42)

  125. Patterico: “I’ll stack up the level of discourse here against that displayed at HuffPo any day of the week.”

    Not in dispute.

    At least three of you have mentioned my irrelevant affiliation with HuffPo. I’m interested in well-reasoned arguments, regardless of one’s affiliation. Please consider joining me on that level.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  126. If you would drag yourself up out of the gutter, I’m sure most here would be happy to meet you on the sidewalk.

    AD - RtR/OS! (396a30)

  127. Jeff is clearly trying to be civil here, and his analysis is very helpful. I’m not opining on whether he’s right, but he has backed up his claims with an analysis.

    Since he’s familiar with Hill v. Lockhart (as am I), let’s hear his analysis of what Polanski would have to prove to undo his plea under that case. Maybe that will also be helpful.

    Who has the burden, Jeff, and what is that burden?

    Patterico (593bee)

  128. After reading article, I was left with an even keener hatred of, and heightened disgust for, Roman Polanski, the international scoff-law and serial, compulsive child molester.

    beldar:

    Serial? Did he have unlawful sex with other children? Compulsive? The psychiatrists said he was not compulsive at the time of the crime? Had he become compulsive later on?

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  129. Sorry. I do not do subtle, nuanced, or outright obfuscation so well.

    JD (c8af42)

  130. If you would drag yourself up out of the gutter, I’m sure most here would be happy to meet you on the sidewalk.

    AD:

    Do you often find that people with whom you disagree live in the gutter or have serious moral failings?

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  131. Patterico: “I am simply pointing out that the extant news stories are less consistent than you have portrayed them to be.”

    That’s not true, Patterico. When you are done visiting with your family, I respectfully request that you concede I’m right about that, or cite articles that say the maximum sentence was two years when Polanski pled guilty. Again, there are no such articles.

    Moreover, whatever newspaper stories you have in mind or might find can’t erase the fact that 50 years was the max according to Roger Gunson, Steve Cooley, Laurie Levenson and the Department of Corrections. It is not even a matter of controversy, except here. It is a convenient way to avoid addressing my argument about why Polanski’s plea is invalid, and a convenient way to avoid discussing how legal experts generally agree that it is important to ensure at a plea hearing that a defendant understands the potential consequences of pleading guilty. STILL, nobody here has addressed that issue.

    By the way, I called you Patty before only to lighten the mood. No disrespect was intended.

    Awaiting your reply,

    Jeffy

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  132. Was his lawyer unaware of the potential sentence at the time? How does the potential sentence range matter since he chose to flee as a coward, and not face justice for drugging and assraping a teenage girl?

    JD (c8af42)

  133. #128,”Serial? Did he have unlawful sex with other children?
    Comment by jackbutler5555 — 12/24/2009 @ 11:35 am

    I believe that would be a big yes. Natasha Kinski for one.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  134. “By the way, I called you Patty before only to lighten the mood. No disrespect was intended. ”

    I’ve only seen one person and his followers use that name for Patterico and disrespect was definitely intended.

    Do you normally use a feminine familiar version of a man’s name in legal discussions?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  135. Jeff Norman, nk already explained why he thought that the lower sentence of the revised statute was being applied. You ignored that description and then demanded that he explain it.

    Regardless, as Polanski has not been sentenced to a term in excess of 20 years yet, you’ve failed to show why the advisement is at all relevant to the fact that Polanski pled guilty.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  136. Jeff,

    I think you’re right. News articles have said Polanski faces 2 years now, and faced 50 then. You have actually cleared up an aspect of the stories that confused me. I haven’t reviewed all the articles to verify that they stated this properly but I will assume they did for purposes of this discussion, meaning I was wrong to say the articles lacked consistency on this point.

    Before we get to the plea withdrawal issue, can you tell us whether 50 years is what he faced if he went to trial, or what he faced as the maximum sentence for the charge to which he pled?

    I have deliberately not learned these old sentencing rules since I am not opining on these matters publicly, and it would take a lot of (for me pointless) research to ensure that I had the rule correct.

    Patterico (593bee)

  137. Patterico: “Since he’s familiar with Hill v. Lockhart (as am I), let’s hear his analysis of what Polanski would have to prove to undo his plea under that case. Maybe that will also be helpful. Who has the burden, Jeff, and what is that burden?”

    According to Hill v. Lockhart, Polanski would need to prove a reasonable person would expect a defense attorney to correctly advise a client who’s pleading guilty what the maximum sentences is, and that had he been advised the max was 50 years rather than 20, Polanski would have insisted on a trial.

    Please consider these factors: Polanski testified there was no deal for a lighter sentence in exchange for his plea. The original DA and prosecutor both accuse the original judge of misconduct, and at least four other judges seem to agree. The original DA (Roger Gunson) even said he understands why Polanski fled. Therefore, it would be believable for Polanski to say he was already feeling extremely uneasy about pleading guilty when he believed the max was 20, and 50 would have been just too much for him to risk with a judge who couldn’t be trusted to act reasonably. There’s no reason to conclude that Polanski would have felt confident about exposing himself to 50 years by pleading guilty with that judge in charge of his sentencing.

    Furthermore, the counsel misadvisement argument isn’t the only basis for withdrawing a plea. There is also the judge’s failure. U.S. v. Gray is a 2009 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in which the defendant successfully argued that his plea should be withdrawn because the Court failed to advise him what the maximum sentence was for the crime to which he pled guilty.

    Judge Espinoza has the authority to withdraw the Court’s approval of Polanski’s plea even if the defendant doesn’t ask him to.

    Also, Steve Cooley could ask the Court to withdraw its approval of the plea. Cooley is not only the prosecutor; he is a public servant with the responsibility to make sure justice is served. Whatever one thinks of Polanski and his behavior, the rule of law must be upheld even when it would benefit an unpopular or repulsive defendant.

    I don’t know if it would benefit Polanski if his plea were to be withdrawn, and I don’t care. My position is that the plea should be rejected regardless of how it would affect the defendant.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  138. SPQR: “Jeff Norman, nk already explained why he thought that the lower sentence of the revised statute was being applied. You ignored that description and then demanded that he explain it.”

    See comment #121

    SPQR: “Regardless, as Polanski has not been sentenced to a term in excess of 20 years yet, you’ve failed to show why the advisement is at all relevant to the fact that Polanski pled guilty.”

    As I explained in my HuffPo article and this forum, it’s relevant because Polanski could plausibly claim he would have insisted on a trial if he had known the max was 50 years. Also, the current judge can withdraw the Court’s approval of the plea even if Polanski makes no such claim.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  139. Patterico: “Before we get to the plea withdrawal issue, can you tell us whether 50 years is what he faced if he went to trial, or what he faced as the maximum sentence for the charge to which he pled?”

    50 years was the max for unlawful sexual intercourse. I don’t know what the penalties were for the other charges.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  140. Jeff Norman, nothing in #121 addresses nk’s explanation. Your comment in fact ignores his explanation.

    He can’t plausibly claim that the difference between potentially being sentenced to more than 20 years would have made a difference when he’s not been sentenced to more than 20 years. Try some basic logic here rather than pretending that the exercise is to find some trivial error to justify Polanski’s evasion of justice for decades.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  141. Mr. Norman, you seem to reject the facts of the case for the propaganda put out by Hollywood and Polanski’s perverts.

    The girl was 13 years old. The Girl repeatedly said no. Polanski pled guilty rather than face a jury that would have racked him up on every count the DA brought against him. Polanski fled and lived a life of luxury instead of surrendering for his sentencing.

    Saying you and other Polanski supporters live in the gutter is polite compared to an accurate description of your lack of morals and ethics to even put forth any support of Polanski.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  142. Mr. Norman, I have defended a criminal case or two sometime and I can assure you that in accepting a guilty plea the judge does not predict what sentence the defendant will likely serve. That is the lawyer’s job. The judge is obligated to advise the defendant of what penalty the legislature has prescribed for the offense.

    nk (df76d4)

  143. True story. A lady not too long ago asked me how much she would get if she killed somebody. I told her that with record not more than twenty years. Unless she used a gun, in which case it would be forty-five years. And I did not feel about confusing her with day-to-day good time, administrative good time, and the 85% rule.

    nk (df76d4)

  144. with *her* record

    nk (df76d4)

  145. SPQR, I don’t know what you think I’m ignoring. I’ll paste your second paragraph below and then respond to it. If that’s not what you’re referring to, let me know. I deserve to be held accountable if I evade something, but please help me out by specifically identifying the evasion. If you don’t feel like explaining it, you could just paste the portion of nk’s argument that you believe I’ve avoided.

    You wrote: “He can’t plausibly claim that the difference between potentially being sentenced to more than 20 years would have made a difference when he’s not been sentenced to more than 20 years. Try some basic logic here rather than pretending that the exercise is to find some trivial error to justify Polanski’s evasion of justice for decades.”

    I cited case law which states, contrary to your assertion, the criterion is not based on how long a sentence Polanski might receive; it’s based on whether or not he would have insisted on a trial if he had known his maximum sentence was 50 years. Whether or not that criterion appeals to you, it is in fact the applicable criterion.

    My intent is not to defend Poanski. As I wrote earlier, I’m not even sure it would help him if his plea were to be withdrawn.

    It’s generally accepted by legal experts that it’s important to make sure at a plea hearing that the defendant understands the potential consequences of pleading guilty. Getting the maximum sentence wrong could be considered a harmless error if the amount of time is small, or if there’s evidence the defendant was otherwise advised correctly. But neither is the case here.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  146. PCD, it’s not a fact the girl repeatedly said no. It’s an accusation. That you believe it doesn’t make it a fact. Whether or not the accusation is true has nothing to do with my argument.

    Note to Patterico: I have no problem responding to this person even though he/she told me I lack morals and ethics and I deserve worse than to be told I live in the gutter. Yet somehow you think it’s beyond the pale for me to occasionally tinge my analysis with a dollop of sarcasm, and I shouldn’t expect civilized responses from anyone as a result of such etiquette breaches.

    I beg the arbiter to reconsider who is at fault!

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  147. Do you often find that people with whom you disagree live in the gutter or have serious moral failings?”

    Only when they defend pervs and lowlifes, and demonstrate a complete lack of morals!
    But, enough about you….

    AD - RtR/OS! (396a30)

  148. nk: “The judge is obligated to advise the defendant of what penalty the legislature has prescribed for the offense.”

    That is precisely what I wrote in comment #137. With whom and about what do you imagine you’re arguing, nk?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  149. With whom … do you imagine you’re arguing, nk?

    A dishonest, pedantic enabler of child molesters. Have a good life, Mr. Norman.

    nk (df76d4)

  150. “… it’s not a fact the girl repeatedly said no…”

    Accusation, Hell! It’s part of the transcript! Undenied by the defendant, since he pled GUILTY!

    AD - RtR/OS! (396a30)

  151. Mr. Norman: If you’re serious, direct your arguments to the trial court as a non-lawyer, non-litigant “amicus curiae.” Good luck to you with that. Please stop emailing me. Please understand that I will not reply further to either your emails or to your comments here, because I dislike your tone and because it would be a waste of my time.

    Folks: Stop feeding the trolls. Every lawyer has had potential clients who think they’ve “figured out the law” based on reading phrases or, occasionally, entire cases out of context and without any understanding of the rest of the law or the world in which it’s applied. There is a very good reason that not much of anyone else in the press or the punditry — except Mr. Norman, self-published through Huffpo — has spent any time mulling whether Polanski could get his guilty plea withdrawn (highly unlikely) or whether, if that happened, the Double Jeopardy Clause would prevent his [re-]trial. He’s entitled to express his opinions, of course. But I suggest you refrain from the impulse to further encourage him to do so here.

    Have a Merry Christmas instead.

    Beldar (70e6da)

  152. Merry Christmas, nk. You seem like a nice guy with no emotional issues who understands that repulsive defendants have no rights. That’s the essence of jurisprudence, right? I’m sure your clients are extremely well counseled. At least the likeable ones are.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  153. Jeff Norman, you are still ignoring nk’s comment, which you quoted partially so I know you found it.

    I agree with Beldar, you are wasting time pretending to be serious.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  154. Beldar, please don’t try to dismiss me by ascribing a crazy belief to me that I don’t actually hold. It would be like me saying you should be ignored because you insist the world is flat. Wouldn’t you feel I was being unfair if I were to give people the false impression that you think the world is flat?

    Contrary to your claim, I never said the double jeopardy clause would prevent Polanski from going on trial, and I certainly don’t think it would. I’d appreciate it if you’d refrain from disseminating that falsity in public forums. Thanks.

    I was responding to nk’s contention that “the remedy” is to “ask for a retrial” when I parenthetically wrote: “A retrial is barred by double jeopardy…so your logic is faulty in more ways than one.”

    Before taking the rather unusual step of explicitly trying to ostracize me, you should have at least made sure the basis of your hostile action was sound. My secondary point about double jeopardy was actually a generalization, not a reference to the Polanski case. That should have been clear when I pointed out (in comment #64) “there could be no retrial unless there had been a previous trial,” and when I wrote (in comment #89): “I wonder why you thrice pointed out the double jeopardy clause is irrelevant given that I said the same thing.”

    Unlike you, Beldar, I prefer to be judged on the merits of my reasoning, not on how many people might agree with me. Furthermore, the main reason my argument hasn’t been considered very much is because until I wrote about it, nobody had even noticed the discrepancy between Polanski’s maximum sentence, and what Polanski said he believed was the maximum sentence. Now that I’ve disclosed the discrepancy, there are legal experts who believe I’ve uncovered a significant issue, and their credentials are more impressive than yours. That doesn’t mean they’re right, but it does highlight the silliness and hollowness of your attempt to marginalize me.

    By the way, Beldar, there is another major issue you and your legal brethren have failed to consider, and I will soon reveal what it is. In the meanwhile, I hope to exchange thoughts about the Polanski case with anyone willing to do so, and I would like to emphasize that you didn’t even try to engage me here, so you subjected me to a very premature dismissal. I have people calling me a dishonest enabler of child molesters, and saying I have a complete lack of morals. As such, I think it’s bizarre that you’ve deemed MY “tone” unacceptable.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  155. SPQR: “Jeff Norman, you are still ignoring nk’s comment, which you quoted partially so I know you found it. I agree with Beldar, you are wasting time pretending to be serious.”

    I politely suggested you simply paste whatever Beldar said that you think I’m ignoring. Instead of doing so, you are again being mysterious. It seems you are the one who is wasting time.

    Again, I invite you identify whatever you think I’m ignoring, and I promise I’ll do my best to then address it. If you again refuse to do so, it will be irrefutably clear you only want to criticize me, and you have no real interest in getting me to address whatever I’ve supposedly evaded.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  156. “…there is another major issue you and your legal brethren have failed to consider, and I will soon reveal what it is. …”

    Hmmm. Sounds like “I work here is done.”

    Or so we all hope. I get a very odd vibe off this character. Especially today.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  157. “I don’t want you to talk Mr. Bond, I want you to die!”

    Your absence will suffice.

    AD - RtR/OS! (396a30)

  158. Patterico: “Jeff is clearly trying to be civil here, and his analysis is very helpful. I’m not opining on whether he’s right, but he has backed up his claims with an analysis.”

    I appreciate Patterico’s acknowledgment.

    I’m not sure why there’s so much hostility in this forum. If it’s because of Polanski, maybe one or more of you would like to comment generally on how important or unimportant you believe it is to establish at a plea hearing that a defendant understands the potential consequences of pleading guilty. Please explain your reasoning and cite any case or statutory law that might be pertinent.

    If the hostility is more due to my tone, please note that Patterico and I have managed, for the most part, to keep our exchanges on an analytical level. I invite others to similarly address my logic and offer theirs.

    My take on Polanski’s plea is summarized in comment #137.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  159. Beldar (in comment #35): “I’m not one of those who believes that only lawyers may intelligently discuss the rituals and lingo of our profession…I’m perfectly willing to be surprised and proven wrong…”

    Beldar (in comment #151): Every lawyer has had potential clients who think they’ve ‘figured out the law’ based on reading phrases or, occasionally, entire cases out of context and without any understanding of the rest of the law or the world in which it’s applied…Mr. Norman [is]… entitled to express his opinions, of course. But I suggest you refrain from the impulse to further encourage him to do so here.”

    The Beldar in comment #151 appears to be a tad less than “perfectly willing to be surprised and proven wrong” by a mere layman.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  160. Mr. Norman, in my estimation, you are a parasite who is making his living by exploiting veterans, and liberal idiots who oppose the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars. I wish you all the best luck trying to suck out all you can from Polanski.

    nk (df76d4)

  161. AD: “Accusation, Hell! It’s part of the transcript! Undenied by the defendant, since he pled GUILTY!”

    That there is a transcript of the girl’s testimony doesn’t turn her accusation into a fact.

    Likewise, the use of capital letters and exclamation points doesn’t turn a false statement into a fact.

    Here’s an example of a fact: Polanski did not plead guilty to having sex with the girl against her will. He claims she was willing.

    Again, it’s fine that you believe the girl, but in the absence of a conviction or confession, it’s just an accusation that Polanski subjected her to forcible sex. Such legal distinctions don’t change based on the crime or how upset you are.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  162. Jeff Norman – It is an interesting contention of yours that nobody in the courtroom on the day of Polanski’s plea agreement knew the correct potential sentence for the crime to which he was pleading guilty. By nobody I am including his counsel, with whom he conferred during the proceeding according to the transcript, the prosecution, and the judge. Is your contention that they were all idiots and ignorant of the applicable law, just too lazy to correct Polanski’s verbal restatement of the potential consequences of his guilty plea, or some other innocent or even malicious reason that is temporarily escaping me. Do you have a theory or are you just throwing it out there for shits and giggles because you have talked to people about the who are certain about the correct sentence but have yet to produce a citation of the statute, unless I have missed it.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  163. Only when they defend pervs and lowlifes, and demonstrate a complete lack of morals!
    But, enough about you….

    Comment by AD – RtR/OS! — 12/24/2009 @ 1:17 pm

    Ah, only those folks who lack morals are a problem for you. Who can blame you? A fella like you with all the morals one could hope for would naturally have this reaction.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  164. It wasn’t rape-rape. It was just ordinary sex, right? Note how he accepts many things as fact beyond dispute when he feels it advances his position, but the actual undisputed facts are mere allegations. He drugged and then assraped a teenage girl, obviously without her consent, and over her protestations. That you attempt to defend, deflect, and obfuscate on the rapists behalf does not speak well of you. At least he made great movies. DOUBLE JEOPARDY !!!!

    JD (3fc3d5)

  165. I was wondering. Are most folks here interested in reinforcing their existing viewpoints or are they interested in exchanging ideas?

    The reason I bring this up is I sense a hostility to those who would question the manner in which the Polanski matter has been handled.

    Maybe I misunderstand. Resisting the possibility that Polanski was poorly handled is being reinforced by the appeals court.

    Perhaps, folks here want to devote their resources to attacking that decision. Instead, I find myself defending that decision. Am I out of place here? Is it possible I’m intervening in a mutual massage?

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  166. It’s Chinatown JD!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  167. “Am I out of place here?”

    jack – Do you feel out of place? We’re not mindreaders.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  168. Comment by Jeff Norman — 12/24/2009 @ 3:55 pm

    Is it, or is it not, a FACT that Mr. Polanski entered a plea of GUILTY in the original court proceeding, but then skipped town prior to sentancing?

    I don’t think my emphasis changes the basic meanings of those words.

    You Sir, are beginning to bore me.

    AD - RtR/OS! (396a30)

  169. It wasn’t rape-rape. It was just ordinary sex, right? Note how he accepts many things as fact beyond dispute when he feels it advances his position, but the actual undisputed facts are mere allegations. He drugged and then assraped a teenage girl, obviously without her consent, and over her protestations.

    JD:

    Let’s say you’re a prosecutor attempting to prove that what you wish were true was actually true. How would you go about it? Would you feel confident that your calling the one witness to make that claim to the stand? What if that witness did not want to cooperate? Would you be concerned that the medical exam does not corroborate the claim?

    Or, maybe you don’t want to play the role of prosecutor. You just want to have a catharsis. So, you visit a blog and emote. Is that enough for you?

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  170. jack – Do you feel out of place? We’re not mindreaders.

    I believe I’m not out of place here. After all, how can your interest be sustained without someone here to challenge you? Or, do you seek the warm comfort of posters here who say you’re right?

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  171. Comment by jackbutler5555 — 12/24/2009 @ 4:13 pm

    Au Contraire, Mon Ami.
    Most here think that the Appeals Court got it pretty right, and gave the defense a smart back-hand.
    What Mr.Polanski needs to do now is to surrender to authorities for deportation back to L.A.Co. where this matter can be disposed of at the trial level,
    and then he can pursue appeals, and/or action against his attorney’s for incompetent counsel, it he feels he has grounds for such avenues.
    Anything he gets from the court is a lot better than the Hell he provided for the victim.
    Just because he is a gifted autor does not give him the right to flout the laws regarding his personal conduct vis-a-vis others, particularly minors.

    But, that’s just my opinion, YMMV!

    AD - RtR/OS! (396a30)

  172. I love how those that obfuscate and dissemble on behalf of a child assrapist have the temerity to claim some kind of intellectual high ground, as though they are somehow above the fray, and seekers of truth. Your boy plead guilty to avoid much more serious charges at trial, and then cowardly fled prior to being sentenced. That was only slightly less cowardly than drugging an undferage girl before raping her repeatedly. You seekers of truth are just defending a great moviemaker.

    JD (42d1cb)

  173. Well JD, what can you expect from a 20-cent intellectual?

    AD - RtR/OS! (396a30)

  174. “… it’s not a fact the girl repeatedly said no…”

    Accusation, Hell! It’s part of the transcript! Undenied by the defendant, since he pled GUILTY!

    Are you familiar with the case? The reason I asked is that the transcript you refer to is the girl’s accusations. He didn’t plead guilty to that. Do you know that? Don’t you think you ought to know more about the case before you opine?

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  175. If he is going to dispute those undisputed charges, he should present himself to the Court and sack up, jack. But he remains a coward what assrapes little girls after drugging them, and has people like you out trying to muddy the waters on his behalf. He pled to the lesser counts to avoid trial for the far more serious counts. That in noi way suggests that the top counts could not be proven, or that there is some lack of evidence. Be proud of yourself that on Christmas Eve you are out being an apologist for a vile cretinous rapist.

    JD (42d1cb)

  176. He pled to unlawful intercourse with a minor, because he was fearful of the consequences of going to trial on the assorted charges supported by her deposition. If her accusation was false, he should have pled NOT GUILTY and faced a jury, where he would have the opportunity under cross to destroy her testimony.
    He didn’t do those things, which leads a reasonable person to assume that the facts as related by the victim were true, and that the legal consequences of the serious charges that he side-stepped in taking the plea for “unlawful intercourse” were much more than he could contenance. And then we find that the reduced charge, and the concomittant lighter penalty associated with it, were too much for him too.
    Or, how else do you explain thirty-years on-the-lam?

    AD - RtR/OS! (396a30)

  177. AD: If those other charges could be proven, why would the DA make a deal?

    JD: I’m sure he’d appreciate your legal advice, but he may end up taking the advice from his lawyers. It’s not personal; it’s just he may have the impression you may not be advocating for his best interests. Could he be wrong?

    JD: There’s something about the word, assrapist, that appeals to you. If you were to become more familiar with the case, the word would still have a strange appeal, wouldn’t it?

    AD: What an unusual analysis. If I understand you correctly, the fact he said nothing about the charges were not part of the plea agreement is proof positive that he was guilty of the charges. If you are ever involved in a criminal case, I wonder how you’d react to having someone like you on the jury.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  178. AD: “Is it, or is it not, a FACT that Mr. Polanski entered a plea of GUILTY in the original court proceeding, but then skipped town prior to sentancing?”

    It’s a fact, but he didn’t plead guilty to the crime PCD (in comment #141) and you (in comment #150) alleged.

    AD: “You Sir, are beginning to bore me.”

    I know the feeling.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  179. The DA offered him a deal, absent of which he would go to trial on the original charges.
    Since he offered to plead guilty to the lessor charge, a reasonable man would be lead to believe that Mr. Polanski did not like his chances on going to trial on the more serious charges, and decided that the devil he knew was better than the one he didn’t.
    If he was innocent of any wrongdoing, he would have gone to trial.
    That is what you would do, right?

    AD - RtR/OS! (396a30)

  180. “It’s a fact, but he didn’t plead guilty to the crime PCD (in comment #141) and you (in comment #150) alleged.”

    Goalpost transposition.
    I asked if he pled guilty to a charge of unlawful intercourse with a minor, irrespective of what the arguments on this page are.
    And, now, you have admitted that in fact, Mr. Polanski has pled guilty in a court of law to that unlawful act, for which he could have been sentenced to a term of greater than one year in the state penitentiary (we usually call that pleading to a felony).
    You, Sir, are an ass!
    As is your buddy, the 20-cent intellectual.
    Have a Merry Christmas!

    AD - RtR/OS! (396a30)

  181. AD:

    But why would the DA agree to a deal? I understand why you think the defendant would want a deal, but why would the DA go along with it? I suggest to you the DA didn’t have the goods. But maybe I’m missing something. What did the DA have? It’s a he-says-she says on the other charges. It takes two to make a deal.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  182. At the end of one of my comments above (#11 — 12/21/2009 @ 7:32 pm), after discussing and linking an abstract of Jeffrey Toobin’s New Yorker article about Polanski, I referred to Polanski as an “international scoff-law and serial, compulsive child molester.” That prompted jackbutler5555 (#128 — 12/24/2009 @ 11:35 am) to ask:

    Serial? Did he have unlawful sex with other children? Compulsive? The psychiatrists said he was not compulsive at the time of the crime? Had he become compulsive later on?

    Toobin’s reporting about Polanski, from both before and after 1977, very amply document particulars to support each descriptive term, and of course there is a great deal of similar reporting that you can easily find with Google or even just a Google-search of Patterico’s Pontifications. It wasn’t just Kinski, although she’s certainly the most famous of Polanski’s 15-year-old “lovers,” and Toobin reports in considerable and (to me) convincing detail on other specific young girls with whom Polanski had sex both before and after his rape of 13-year-old Samantha Geimer. As for the nature of his compulsion and his psychosexual pathology, I don’t care what whitewash he got from the prison psychological evaluation, no more than I credit his probation officer’s report. Theirs are what trial lawyers call “self-exploding opinions,” meaning that they’re so ludicrous and counter-intuitive on their face that jurors will likely be shaking their heads and laughing even before the opinions’ proponents have been cross-examined. And certainly other professionals from the medical and criminal justice systems would disagree with their conclusions that Polanski is a harmless genius whose child molestation ought be overlooked.

    In fact Polanski’s unwholesome and criminal fascination with having sex with young teens is a multi-decade phenomenon about which he’s repeatedly bragged for publication. (Read the quotes in the Toobin article.) Any rational person can confidently confirm that Roman Polanski is, indeed, a serial, compulsive child molester.

    As for him being a scoff-law, no one has yet argued the contrary case. As discussed above, I don’t know for certain whether Polanski still faces potential prosecution for his felony crime of failure to appear/escape, but the fact of his guilt is already and inescapably clear beyond a reasonable doubt, whether a judgment to that effect against him is ever rendered or not.

    Beldar (a4ffc3)

  183. (If Polanski disputes the truth of my accusations, I invite him to come in person to Texas to sue me. If it’s an enticement, I’ll waive my NYT v. Sullivan defense.)

    Beldar (a4ffc3)

  184. beldar:

    Unlawful sex? Unlawfull sex. I don’t see it.

    Does Toobin convince you that his opinion as a lawyer-journalist overrides the opinion of two trained psychiatrists?

    I don’t find that persuasive.

    Do you find yourself denigrating people you disagree with simply because you disagree with them? The reason I ask is that you didn’t think much of Toobin until he started throwing red meat into your cage. Just asking.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  185. And the reason, at least as it appears to me and others as discussed here before, that the DA agreed to this farce, was 1) to spare the victim from having to testify in open court as to what had happened (a situation that is not unique to this case); and 2) It was Chinatown – a Hollywood biggie was getting a favored deal due to his stature in the community.
    Again, if Mr.Polanski was innocent of any wrong-doing, why did he accept the deal?
    As to the DA, he just wanted to close the case, and he got a felony plea out of it – it wasn’t the most serious of the felonies that he could have charged, but it was a felony nevertheless!

    AD - RtR/OS! (396a30)

  186. I was wrong!
    You’re not a 20-cent intellectual;
    you’re a 20-cent jackass.

    AD - RtR/OS! (396a30)

  187. daleyrocks (with a good question): “It is an interesting contention of yours that nobody in the courtroom on the day of Polanski’s plea agreement knew the correct potential sentence for the crime to which he was pleading guilty. By nobody I am including his counsel, with whom he conferred during the proceeding according to the transcript, the prosecution, and the judge. Is your contention that they were all idiots and ignorant of the applicable law, just too lazy to correct Polanski’s verbal restatement of the potential consequences of his guilty plea, or some other innocent or even malicious reason that is temporarily escaping me. Do you have a theory or are you just throwing it out there for shits and giggles because you have talked to people about the who are certain about the correct sentence but have yet to produce a citation of the statute, unless I have missed it.”

    I don’t know why nobody said anything, but nobody did. Therefore, it’s plausible for Polanski to claim nobody properly advised him. According to case law and common sense, defendants must know the potential consequences of pleading guilty.

    It’s possible Polanski was correctly advised by his attorney apart from the plea hearing, but I’m aware of no evidence that happened.

    I think the plea hearing is the only time the judge had the responsibility to advise him, and he failed to do so.

    U.S. v. Gray is a 2009 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in which the defendant successfully argued that his plea should be withdrawn because the Court failed to advise him what the punishment was for the crime to which he pled guilty. You can access it online.

    The statute for unlawful sexual intercours is California Penal Code Section 261.5. I can’t easily”produce” the 1977 version of it because I can’t find it online. I can fax it to you, though, if you give me your fax number. But as I said earlier, none of the key players dispute that 50 years was the max. I named my sources, and it’s all verifiable.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  188. jackbutler will be getting coal in his stocking.

    JD (ab38a3)

  189. To all you nice people spreading Christmas warmth:

    It’s nonsensical to call me a Polanski apologist or any such thing, because I haven’t even said anything positive about the guy, and I haven’t concluded it would benefit him if the plea were to be withdrawn. Ultimately, it might hurt him.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  190. Damn my bones, but I have ignored my own suggestion about troll-feeding. Confiteor, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione verbo, et opere: Mea culpa. And again, Merry Christmas.

    Beldar (a4ffc3)

  191. Beldar insists the New Yorker article supports his contention that Polanski is a “compulsive child molester.” I haven’t previously heard that Polanski has been accused of molesting anyone other than Samantha Geimer. So if the article contains the information Beldar claims it contains, it would indeed by a blockbuster story by any reasonable standard. Unfortunately, without buying the magazine, we can only read the abstract to which Beldar linked, not the full article.

    I noticed that the abstract doesn’t even mention the blockbuster information Beldar insists is in the article. I wonder if that’s because the New Yorker failed to realize that information about other molestations is newsworthy enough to highlight in the abstract, or because Beldar’s claim is false. I have a feeling it’s the latter reason, because I think it would have made news elsewhere if the New Yorker had reported evidence of multiple molestations.

    I also noticed that Beldar said Jeffrey Toobin is “often sloppy with his facts and assumptions.” Might the critic who authored comment #11 in this forum be guilty of the very same sin?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  192. Beldar – No need to apoogize. Sometimes mendacity and sophistry, the likes of which we are seeing here, desperately deserves a good whack. That you did it with such kindness and civility is a credit to you. I tend to be less subtle 😉

    Merry Christmas !

    JD (fe64d8)

  193. “…Might the critic who authored comment #11 in this forum be guilty of the very same sin?…”

    To coin a phrase: Ho, ho, ho…. It’s always amazing to me how often the people who want “to teach a lesson” to folks here seem to display the same traits they claim to find abhorrent in others.

    More “humor” from our polite and strangely intense new friend, no doubt.

    This is just a silly game, and on Christmas Eve? They are just trollin’ around, folks. Better leave them be before they hit the egg nog too hard. Again.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  194. Beldar, your original advice was sound, but no one blames you for playing whack a troll. Again, it’s just a silly game to these people.

    I especially liked the bit about teaching “you lawyers” the errors of your ways.

    Why, that, um, self confidence sounds a bit like some of our other hit parade of “special” posters. I wonder if this one ever played soccer at the Soviet Embassy?

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  195. But Eric, it’s the ignorant and inferior troll/layman who once again is focusing on evidence, while you and your ilk focus on something else…

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  196. Mendoucheous sophists, norman and butler are. Rather transparent.

    JD (fe64d8)

  197. Jeff Norman:

    I think you are far to confused to be making a ton of assertions. If you have something you want to reveal just do it btw, don’t tease.

    1. 6 grand jury indictments were given to Polanski
    2. In a plea deal Polanski plead guilty to the charge of “unlawful intercourse with a minor” and the remaining 5 charges would be dismissed AFTER sentencing. As he was never sentenced all 6 charges remain pending, which Cooley has alluded to publically.
    3. As the court accepted the plea of Polanski, it remain very unlikely that the court not accept it upon their own action. And the court would not likely grant a request from the DA to reject the plea.
    4. Polanski has an absolute right to withdraw his plea. He can do so. If he were to do it, he would be facing all the charges, in the trial that would result.
    5. Regarding the 50 years vs 20 years, it is entirely moot, given the sentencing is under the 20 year mark. Further, Polanski stated at his plea he was aware of the consequences of the crime, and that he was well reviewed and briefed by his lawyers. The 20 vs 50, is moot, in its end effect, regardless of whatever you claim as rationale. A legal argument can be made for anything, what is accepted is bound by precedents.
    6. Again, Polanski said he was informed by his own lawyers of the consequences of pleading guilty, there is no assertions by anyone, that Polanski was not served well by his lawyers.
    7. Double jeopardy is not at all at issue here. Under the first scenario Polanski is sentenced to the Plea deal he worked out. The sentencing hearing never took place. Under scenario 2, Polanski asks and gains withdraw of his plea, and the case is brought to trial for the first time, to a jury.
    8. Nothing is served by asserting that double jeopardy is at stake, and arguing for or against it as you are filling space, is without merit.
    9. To as your article says at the end, in fact, Van de Kamp did write a letter to ask why the Plea was accepted, it was because of his celebrity which exposed the victim to huge amounts of pressure. You can read the letter to the judge.
    10. The plea is solid as far as he freely gives it, and his lawyers gave him sound advice. The Plea is not improper. However, Polanski has the right to withdraw this plea, this is not disputed by anyone. He can do it. If he did do it, the case against him is so strong, that it would stand up today, easily. Polanski wrote an autobiography where he freely admits he had sex with the girl. This would be usable in court. And that fact by itself is a conviction. Not to mention the grand jury testimony and the Op-Ed by Geimer.

    So given all that, Norman do you have a point to make?

    Mark Lobo (ceae40)

  198. Polanski does not have an absolute right to withdraw his plea.

    Patterico (4ef72a)

  199. He certainly can request to withdraw his plea, and I doubt the court of the prosecutor would object. I believe the prosecutor would love to try the case against Polanski, in 2010. The motion to dismiss the other charges was never entered, as he was never sentenced, there could even be an argument that his fleeing jurisdiction nullified the plea agreement. But given the Appeals courts lackadaisical remarks on Polanski fleeing, it sure makes sense for everyone to give it a go. When in doubt, just flee

    Responding to a description by the film mogul Harvey Weinstein of Mr. Polanski’s sex act with a 13-year-old girl in the 1970s as a “so-called crime,” the report said, Mr. Cooley responded: “Mr. Polanski pled guilty to a crime, so apparently Mr. Polanski believes it’s a crime.”

    Somewhat more ominously for Mr. Polanski, Mr. Cooley referred to the original charges against Mr. Polanski, including rape, as remaining on the table, despite an earlier plea deal under which Mr. Polanski was convicted of having unlawful sex with a minor. “There’s still five or six other much more serious charges pending that have yet to be resolved,” Mr. Cooley said. “They won’t be resolved until he’s finally sentenced.”

    Mark Lobo (ceae40)

  200. Lobo, re: your silly top 10 list…

    1. Not in dispute
    2. Not in dispute
    3. You provide no reasoning. Therefore, I’m not impressed.
    4. You fail to support your ridiculous conclusion with anything. There’s absolutely no reason to assume all the charges would be reinstated.
    5. I’ve already cited case law which indicates the criterion you mention is irrelevant. I won’t take you seriously unless you address my argument.
    6. No, he did not say he was informed what the maximum sentence was.
    7. Not in dispute.
    8. I’ve repeatedly said double jeopardy doesn’t apply here.
    9. What letter? Can you provide a link?
    10. No, Polanski does not have the right to withdraw his plea; he must persuade the Court if the Court does not independently withdraw its approval of the plea. I agree there is evidence that might be sufficient to convict Polanski of unlawful sexual intercourse. I don’t agree the grand jury testimony is admissible, because Polanski didn’t have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

    Lobo: “So given all that, Norman do you have a point to make?”

    I made my argument, and as I said, I won’t take you seriously unless you address it.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  201. If you happen to be a subscriber, you can find the Toobin article here, and at page 52 (bracked portion, italics, and ellipsis in Toobin’s version and presumably by him):

          Polanski’s period of house arrest will mark a return to an alpine village that has long been a favorite escape for him. Friends of Polanski brought him to Gstaad to help him recover from his grief over the murder of Sharon Tate. On that visit in the late sixties, Polanski discovered that Gstaad was, he wronte in an autobiography, “the finishing school capital of the world [with] hundreds of fresh-faced, nubile young girls of all nationalities.” At the time, “Kathy, Madeleine, Sylvia and others whose names I forget played a fleeting but therapeutic role in my life. They were all between sixteen and nineteen years old…. They took to visiting my chalet, not necessarily to make love — though some of them did — but to listen to rock music and sit around the fire and talk.” He described sitting in his car outside the schools at night, waiting for his “date” to climb out over the balcony after roll call. At this age, Polanski wrote, the girls “were more beautiful, in a natural, coltish way, than they ever would be again.” The autobiography, “Roman, by Polanski,” was published in 1984, seven years after his guilty plea, and suggests a lack of contrition about his actions. While exile and tragedy have been persistent themes in Polanski’s life, so, too, has a sexual obsession with very young women. He started dating the actress Nastassja Kinski when he was in his mid-forties and she was in her mid-teens. He has been together with his wife, Emmanuelle Seigner, since he was fifty-one and she was eighteen.

          And then, of course, there is the criminal case involving thirteen-year-old Samantha Gailey. In his autobiography, he wrote of the day that [LAPD Dectective] Vannatter arrested him, “I was incredulous; I couldn’t equate what had happened that day with rape in any form.” In an interview two years after the crime, with Martin Amis, Polanski spoke in even blunter terms: “When I was being driven to the police station from the hotel, the car radio was already talking about it…. I couldn’t believe…. I thought, you know, I was going to wake up from it. I realize, if I have killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But … fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls — everyone wants to fuck young girls!”

    Yeah, I think I’ll stand by “international scoff-law and serial, compulsive child molester.”

    Beldar (a4ffc3)

  202. The goal, friends and neighbors, is for the trolls to get you to waste your time. But their manner tells all. They just want to fight and try to score “points.”

    They don’t sound happy, do they?

    Eric Blair (f67b76)

  203. A nit: The bracketed portion regarding Vannatter actually was my explanatory insertion; Toobin had quoted Vannatter earlier in the article about how he’d decided to arrest Polanski despite suggestions that as a Hollywood celebrity, the police should wait until Polanski was indicted before arresting him.

    Beldar (a4ffc3)

  204. Beldar, thanks for providing the copy you’re relying on.

    The passage you quote doesn’t confirm Polanski had sex with any minors, or that anyone was molested. Molestation is a crime. Surely a lawyer who has no tolerance for a layman with a bad attitude recognizes the significance of using that term.

    Frankly, I think you’re sloppy with facts and assumptions, and you hold others to a stricter standard than the standard to which you hold yourself. Get it together, counselor. You owe me an apology.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  205. The passage you quote doesn’t confirm Polanski had sex with any minors, or that anyone was molested. Molestation is a crime. Surely a lawyer who has no tolerance for a layman with a bad attitude recognizes the significance of using that term.
    Comment by Jeff Norman — 12/24/2009 @ 8:36 pm

    And here the danger of a layman trying to argue legal points is demonstrated. When you separate the facts from theory it’s easy to forget things. He admitted having sex with her, that confirms it. She was underage by any measure, at a minimum it’s molestation and by how far it went, rape. He knew how old she was and admitted it. He admitted giving her drugs and alcohol. Polanski disputing the girl’s account of whether she consented doesn’t matter, it’s still rape because she was too young to consent. Kinski was also underage. This demonstrates his pattern which is also supported by the “everybody wants to” statement. He raped a little girl according to his own statements. He didn’t want the consequences so he ran away. Looking for legal loopholes to avoid the consequences of raping a little girl is what rapists frequently do. Why are you looking for loopholes? Why would anyone want to help Polanski avoid the consequences for raping a little girl, the facts of which he has already admitted to? I hope that if you are wronged, justice is not thwarted by someone perverting the legal system or fleeing.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  206. Stashiu3, we were discussing whether or not Polanski molested people other than Samantha Geimer. But thanks for your valuable insight.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  207. Um..

    “Frankly, I think you’re sloppy with facts and assumptions, and you hold others to a stricter standard than the standard to which you hold yourself.

    Get it together, counselor. You owe me an apology.”

    Hey, I have a great idea that will save everyone time and trouble.

    Mr. Norman, we have your website information over at PuffHo. Why don’t you just wait there for your well deserved apology. It’ll be right there, you non-trollish absolutely polite poster you.

    Please be patient.

    I’m getting back to playing Santa for my kids. But I know someone who is getting some carbon neutral coal in their stocking!

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  208. Hey, I got it: this guy is channeling Paul Lynde, but without the warmth.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  209. In a London lawsuit Polanski filed against Vanity Fair alleging defamation, he reportedly admitted having sex with teenagers after his wife’s murder:

    “But the Polish film-maker told jurors he took solace in sex following Tate’s death, and seduced numerous teenagers from a finishing school in Gstaad, Switzerland …”

    Without knowing the ages of the girls or where the incidents occurred, I don’t know whether his liaisons would be statutory rape but it does show a pattern regarding Polanski’s preference for teenage girls.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  210. “4. You fail to support your ridiculous conclusion with anything. There’s absolutely no reason to assume all the charges would be reinstated.”

    Jeff – The transcript of Polanski’s plea agreement is perfectly clear in when the other charges get dismissed – upon sentencing. He was never sentenced. The charges were never dismissed. Cooley and Beldar are correct.

    I think your logic and research are seriously sloppy here.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  211. daleyrocks: “The charges were never dismissed. Cooley and Beldar are correct. I think your logic and research are seriously sloppy here.”

    Not really, but I could have been clearer. I was referring to Lobo’s contention that Polanski would go on trial for those charges. I said we shouldn’t assume all the charges would be “reinstated” if his pleas is withdrawn. Not the best word to use. I meant we shouldn’t assume he’d go on trial for all the crimes he was originally charged with just because his guilty plea for one of the charges is withdrawn, if it is.

    You’re right that the charges haven’t been dismissed; I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.

    What do you mean Cooley and Beldar are correct? About what?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  212. DRJ, this Statutory Rape Grinch has issues. It’s just arguing.

    Our brilliant poster just knows everything. All those people are just fools. And you know what his, um, self confident style reminds me of?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EkBuKQEkio

    Merry Christmas!

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  213. And the reason, at least as it appears to me and others as discussed here before, that the DA agreed to this farce, was 1) to spare the victim from having to testify in open court as to what had happened (a situation that is not unique to this case);

    Hmmm. So, when a celebrity is accused of unlawful sex, the DA drops most of the charges out of a concern for the victim — because the victim must be spared. But a non-celebrity has to deal with all of the charges. Is that what you’re saying? Or, are you saying all such cases are handled similarly?

    and 2) It was Chinatown – a Hollywood biggie was getting a favored deal due to his stature in the community.

    Ah so, the DA backed off from most of the charges because he’s a great director. Bad directors got to face the music, eh?

    Again, if Mr.Polanski was innocent of any wrong-doing, why did he accept the deal?

    Because he had “unlawful sex.” And the girl said he was guilty of the other charges, which he says he wasn’t. The risk to Polanski was that the jury would believe the girl, even though much of what she said can not be corroborated — which was a risk to the prosecutor. Both gained by the deal.

    As to the DA, he just wanted to close the case, and he got a felony plea out of it – it wasn’t the most serious of the felonies that he could have charged, but it was a felony nevertheless!

    The deal worked out with the DA was for a misdemeanor. As with plea deals, the judge goes through a long list of questions to the defendant. The purpose of that back-and-forth is to assure the defendant that just because he worked a deal with the prosecutor, the judge is under no obligation to abide by the deal. Hence, one set of questions reinforced the judge’s ability to ignore that part of the deal by having Polanski agree that the judge determines whether it is a felony or a misdemeanor.

    I hope you’re enjoying your holiday.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  214. Without knowing the ages of the girls or where the incidents occurred, I don’t know whether his liaisons would be statutory rape but it does show a pattern regarding Polanski’s preference for teenage girls.

    Dr. J:

    I admired your achievements on the basketball court. But I wonder how your references to apparently legal sex relates to a court of law discussion.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  215. Somewhat more ominously for Mr. Polanski, Mr. Cooley referred to the original charges against Mr. Polanski, including rape, as remaining on the table, despite an earlier plea deal under which Mr. Polanski was convicted of having unlawful sex with a minor. “There’s still five or six other much more serious charges pending that have yet to be resolved,” Mr. Cooley said. “They won’t be resolved until he’s finally sentenced.”

    marklobo:

    What prosecutor would not say what Cooley is quoted as saying? Would you expect him to say, “We don’t have much evidence on the other charges. We just mainly have what the girl says what happened. So, we’re not sure what we’re going to do. Maybe he’ll get scared and we can sentence him longer. But I doubt it.”

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  216. (If Polanski disputes the truth of my accusations, I invite him to come in person to Texas to sue me. If it’s an enticement, I’ll waive my NYT v. Sullivan defense.)

    beldar:

    How generous of you to waive Times v. Sullivan. At a preliminary hearing, the judge assigned to the case may have heard about about that case. Even in Texas. (Actually, the Times case is aimed at news media. Other cases have included other sources of libel, such as yourself.)

    The first question I have is, which of the other charges would you feel confident you could defend as truth? All of them?

    The next question is, if you are found to have written untruthful information, how would you be able to defend yourself against the assertion you recklessly disregarded the truth? After all, a person like you would be familiar enough with the law to have known better.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  217. jackbutler will be getting coal in his stocking.

    If I do, I’ll know who’s been tattling to Santa Claus.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  218. Amusing how much of Jeff Norman’s argument is based upon his own ignorance of events, isn’t it?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  219. DRJ: “Without knowing the ages of the girls or where the incidents occurred, I don’t know whether his liaisons would be statutory rape but it does show a pattern regarding Polanski’s preference for teenage girls.”

    Now THAT is an accurate and responsible statement. Beldar, by contrast, gives more weight to his emotions than to evidence – and flirts with defamation – when he insists Polanski is a “compulsive child molester.”

    Polanski already has a bad reputation, but he does not have a reputation as a REPEAT offender, at least not in the criminal context Beldar has publicly alleged at least twice. Therefore, Patterico’s pugnacious poster from Texas might be vulnerable to a defamation suit. After all, Polanski is not shy about protecting his rights. He’s already filed one lawsuit since beginning his house arrest: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/12/polanski-seeks-110000-from-magazines-that-ran-photos-of-him-under-house-arrest.html

    Beldar, what is it about the Polanski case that makes you come unglued?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  220. I see that the norman/butler traveling road show in defense of child rapists continues apace.

    JD (90be5f)

  221. Amusing how much of Jeff Norman’s argument is based upon his own ignorance of events, isn’t it?

    SPQR:

    I don’t want to single you out, but do you think generalizations are persuasive? Generalizations which are unsupported by substance?

    Then there are the accusations. In what way is Jeff Norman ignorant of the facts you apparently are not ignorant of? What are those facts?

    Most of the folks here seem to be fine with such “argumentation,” but a fellow like you with a finely honed rhetorical skills must be capable of something better. No?

    You hint that there’s something amusing but you don’t share it. It’s this kind of self-amuse that may need some self-examination.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  222. I see that the norman/butler traveling road show in defense of child rapists continues apace.

    JD: I don’t know about Norman, but I’ve been known to defend people falsely accused of murder, too.

    I wonder if I could introduce the subject of fairness, without rattling too many cages. What I defend are efforts to impose unjust remedies to people who find themselves before the bar of justice with a judge who hadn’t quite bought the idea he should be impartial.

    Maybe you thought the judge in the original case was fair. Feel free to state your case.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  223. Change impose to nullify above.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  224. Polanski admitted having sex with a 13 year old.
    Polanski admitted knowing she was 13 years old.
    Polanski admitted giving alcohol to a 13 year old.
    Polanski admitted giving a drug to a 13 year old.
    Polanski fled prior to sentencing.
    Polanski had sex with Kinski when she was 15.

    Anything wrong with those facts?

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  225. jackbutler, implying that Polanski was falsely accused? Cute.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  226. No way Polanski sues Beldar. Why? Because if he raped other underaged girls, that might well come out in any lawsuit.

    Patterico (7f12c1)

  227. Equally amusing is that Jeff Norman is still ignoring nk’s points about the maximum sentence.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  228. Butler is a cowardly child assrapist defender. Period. Full stop. And a sophist.

    Fairness, by any measure, would include Roman being punished for drugging and raping a teenage girl. Until the coward submits to the punishment for his crime, fairness seems rather irrelevant.

    JD (b17a29)

  229. No way Polanski sues Beldar. Why? Because if he raped other underaged girls, that might well come out in any lawsuit.

    Raped other underage girls? Oh, if…

    And if he didn’t, then suing Beldar might be feasible?

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  230. Kinski. Plus the others in Gstaad he admitted to. But sophists like butler/norman breezily ignore those. Because he was a great movie-maker. Beldar pegged you clowns from the get-go.

    JD (b17a29)

  231. Butler is a cowardly child assrapist defender. Period. Full stop. And a sophist.

    All this time I thought you were holding back, unable to express your feelings. Now I bet you feel a little better. I thought perhaps your emotions were preventing you from engaging in a discussion of the law.

    BTW, the relevant content of a discussion of law is not that he fucked other young women. It’s whether he was found guilty of child rape in doing so. Ya’ follow?

    Kinski — you like bringing her up. Looks like he didn’t rape her. That includes what you probably would call statutory rape. Too bad. I know it’s one of your hot buttons.

    You’re aware, aren’t you, that the age of consent varies from country to country?

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  232. This is like arguing with Rosie O’Donnell over whether steel can burn, or like wrestling with a pig (which gets you both very dirty, but the pig likes that).

    The relevant holding of NYT v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279 (1964), was to create “a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with ‘actual malice’ — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Later cases extended that rule beyond public officials to public figures generally, which includes Polanski.

    The reason I would be willing to waive my right under Sullivan and its progeny to require Polanski to prove not just falsity but actual malice — provided that Polanski come in person to Texas to sue me — is that I am very confident that Polanski can’t even prove falsity.

    That clarified: I stand behind what I’ve written in the comments to this post, and I’m now done here with jackbutler5555 as well as with Jeff Norman.

    Beldar (d87840)

  233. jackbutler,

    Are you disputing any of the facts I outlined above? Note that I didn’t say that Kinski was raped, statutory or otherwise. Whether he was found guilty or not of other rapes is also not the question. The question is, did he commit other rapes? The lack of a guilty verdict doesn’t change what did or didn’t happen. If a murder is unsolved, is the victim still alive? Of course not, it happened. If he didn’t rape any other little girls, then discovery shouldn’t be a problem.

    As you say, age of consent varies… and he admits having sex with a 15 year old (Kinski). He has a demonstrated pattern of behavior. This discussion is not just about law, it is about facts. Mostly, the fact that Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old by his own admission. That he was charged with less before he fled is less relevant than what actually happened. He deserves consequences. Why would you look for loopholes to benefit someone who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl?

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  234. Stashiu3 asks if anything is wrong with the following “facts”:

    “Polanski admitted giving a drug to a 13 year old.”

    No, he denied it.

    “Polanski had sex with Kinski when she was 15.”

    I’m not sure. Are you?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  235. Jeff Norman, you again show your ignorance of the facts. Polanski admitted to giving a drug to the victim in his plea.

    Why is it that you are so ignorant of the real facts and yet so passionate in defending Polanski?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  236. Patterico: “No way Polanski sues Beldar. Why? Because if he raped other underaged girls, that might well come out in any lawsuit.”

    P, taken in context, your first sentence indicates you know he raped other underaged girls. What makes you so sure, and how do you reconcile your use of the word “if” in your third sentence with the certainty asserted in your first sentence?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  237. These sophists are rather disgusting, attempting to obfuscate for a monster. It would be one thing for them to make substantive arguments, but their path seems like the type that the imdw and actus’ of the world choose. Ignore the inconvenient. Breezily dismiss that which does not conform with their defense of Roman, the great film-maker. They are providing dishonest rhetorical cover for a cowardly sick twist that fled and continues to do everything in his power to avoid the legal consequences of his actions. That you and your ilk see fit to provide said service tells us much about you, and none of it good.

    JD (a2cd1c)

  238. Jeff Norman,

    Polanski and Kinski have both spoken publicly about being lovers when she was 15. Do you have any reason to believe they lied?

    Any other quibbles?

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  239. Did he or did he not admit to having sex with Kinski @ her age of 15? Did he or did he not admit to seducing teenagers from the prep schools is Gstaad in the wake of his wife’s passing? These clowns are rather dense.

    JD (a2cd1c)

  240. SPQR: “Jeff Norman, you again show your ignorance of the facts. Polanski admitted to giving a drug to the victim in his plea.”

    I don’t think he did. Even you probably realize it’s impossible to prove a negative. So even if I’m correct, I can’t possibly prove Polanski did NOT admit it. But if Polanski confessed as you claim he did, that CAN be proven. So the burden is on you. I won’t hesitate to admit I’m wrong if you can accurately quote the purported confession.

    SPQR: “Why is it that you are so ignorant of the real facts and yet so passionate in defending Polanski?”

    I don’t know what you interpret as me defending Polanski.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  241. Here is what Jeff Norman has stipulated so far (still waiting on jackbutler):

    Polanski admitted having sex with a 13 year old.
    Polanski admitted knowing she was 13 years old.
    Polanski admitted giving alcohol to a 13 year old.
    Polanski admitted giving a drug to a 13 year old.
    Polanski fled prior to sentencing.
    Polanski had sex with Kinski when she was 15.

    Will Jeff Norman now admit that Polanski raped a little girl and fled to avoid sentencing? Will jackbutler? Simple question even with those two items omitted (not conceded, just omitted).

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  242. Stashiu3: “Polanski and Kinski have both spoken publicly about being lovers when she was 15. Do you have any reason to believe they lied?”

    I said I don’t know what they did with each other. I have no reason to think you or they lied.

    “Any other quibbles?”

    I don’t think Polanski confessed he gave her drugs as you claim.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  243. Stashiu3, in comment 241 you blatantly misrepresented my stated position on the Polanski-Kinski relationship. Why?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  244. How did I misrepresent your position? I struck the two items you disputed and left four that I understood you to acknowledge. The drug and Kinski statements are lined out since you don’t accept them. Would this be better?

    Polanski admitted having sex with a 13 year old.
    Polanski admitted knowing she was 13 years old.
    Polanski admitted giving alcohol to a 13 year old.
    Polanski fled prior to sentencing.

    Will you now state that Polanski raped a little girl and fled to avoid sentencing? I found articles to support both of the other statements, but I’d rather keep it simple than go off on a tangent about credibility of sources and such. Given those four stipulations, are you willing to answer the question?

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  245. Stashiu3: “The drug and Kinski statements are lined out since you don’t accept them.”

    I merely said I don’t know what happened with Kinski. No need to make it seem as if we have a disagreement when we don’t.

    “I found articles to support both of the other statements…”

    Polanski is quoted confessing that he gave her drugs? Why don’t you share it with us?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  246. Stashiu3: “Will you now state that Polanski raped a little girl and fled to avoid sentencing?”

    Is this a press conference? Why do you want me to issue a statement?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  247. I cannot imagine why anyone would think that norman/butler are defenders of, or apologists for the child rapist.

    JD (a2cd1c)

  248. Jeff Norman,

    You’re the one who accused me of having “blatantly misrepresented” your position on Kinski when I hadn’t represented it at all. I actually removed it. Why are you going off on the exact tangent I said I was avoiding by removing those two statements, leaving four you stipulated? It appears you are trying to avoid answering the question. You first accuse me of dishonesty when I wasn’t, then try to deflect away from the question. If you prefer not to answer, please just say you prefer not to answer and we can cease discussing this. Given those four stipulations, will you now state that Polanski raped a little girl and fled to avoid sentencing?

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  249. Stashiu – Can I venture a guess at your question?

    JD (1357bf)

  250. Is this a press conference? Why do you want me to issue a statement?
    Comment by Jeff Norman — 12/25/2009 @ 10:51 am

    Is there a problem with your position on this? It’s difficult to have a discussion unless we understand what the other believes. If you won’t share what you believe, I have no reason to continue this discussion with you. I haven’t attacked you, misrepresented you (which you should acknowledge), or behaved other than in a civil manner. I’ve asked a question and you keep avoiding giving an answer.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  251. Can I venture a guess at your question?
    Comment by JD — 12/25/2009 @ 11:01 am

    Hold off please JD, otherwise your “blatant misrepresentation” of his views will become the main topic instead of what his actual answer eventually is.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  252. Stashiu3, I think it’s clear I’m fine with the four facts you list in comment #244. What’s not clear is why, in addition to confirming I’m fine with those facts, you want me to issue some sort of a statement about facts #1 and #4.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  253. Can I answer yet, Stashiu? Because it is clear norman/butler won’t.

    JD (48aa1d)

  254. What’s not clear is why, in addition to confirming I’m fine with those facts, you want me to issue some sort of a statement about facts #1 and #4.
    Comment by Jeff Norman — 12/25/2009 @ 11:13 am

    I am trying to determine if we are working from different conclusions. If we are, we should figure out why or just cease discussing this. It’s not “issuing a statement”, it’s answering a simple question which has been repeated several times and which you continue to avoid. Also, you should acknowledge that I didn’t misrepresent you at any point, much less blatantly. I would rather you skip that if it means you will answer the question. You really should do it in addition to, but not instead of, answering the simple question.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  255. Because it is clear norman/butler won’t.
    Comment by JD — 12/25/2009 @ 11:19 am

    If the next response doesn’t answer, feel free… I’ll be done with him. Other than giving a conclusion that is. 😉

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  256. Stashiu3: You’re the one who’s refusing to be specific about whatever it is that you think needs clarifying. I told you I agree it’s accurate to characterize these statements as facts:

    Polanski admitted having sex with a 13 year old.
    Polanski fled prior to sentencing.

    You then ask: “Will you now state that Polanski raped a little girl and fled to avoid sentencing?”

    I then tell you it seems to me that you’re asking me to state what I just stated as if I hadn’t already stated it.

    Rather than accuse me of avoiding your question, why don’t you just tell me what the difference is between the supposedly unanswered question, and the indisputably answered question? Then I’ll be able to address whatever it is you want me to address here.

    “Also, you should acknowledge that I didn’t misrepresent you at any point, much less blatantly.”

    I already explained that it seemed to me you presented my response as if I disagree with you when all I really said is I don’t know (about Kinski).

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  257. I’ll check back later. Magic 8-ball says, “Outlook uncertain”. 😉

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  258. I already explained that it seemed to me you presented my response as if I disagree with you when all I really said is I don’t know (about Kinski).
    Comment by Jeff Norman — 12/25/2009 @ 12:04 pm

    Read #241 again, where you say I misrepresented your response. Here is where you make the claim I misrepresented you. I don’t even mention it. I just strike-through the entire line since you disputed it and I decided it wasn’t necessary for my question.

    I’m not accusing you of avoiding the question, I’m pointing it out because you haven’t in fact answered it. Since you’ve repeatedly avoided answering, I’ve repeatedly pointed it out. It’s a yes/no question… and I’ll removed the word “state” or “statement”. Did Polanski rape a little girl and flee to avoid sentencing? If you think your answer is sufficient, which one applies? Yes or No? Agreeing with the statements does not mean we necessarily have the same conclusions. I’ve already specifically explained twice why I’m asking. If you have come to a different conclusion, say so. Or say you prefer not to answer. We could have moved on long ago with a simple yes or no from you.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  259. But see, Stashiu3, it’s not about any of that. It’s more Monty Python “Argument Room” antics from the giant brainiac who is going to set the legal profession on its collective ear.

    Either a person in need of Haldol or Just. Another. Troll.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  260. Forget it, you’re either not commenting in good faith or unable to read for comprehension. To say I’ve misrepresented you or not been specific is ludicrous. You’ve shown that you’re not to be taken seriously and should be dismissed.

    JD, play with him if you like. I’m done with him. Thank you for being patient my friend.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  261. EB, I think Polanski should retain him. He could be lead counsel if there is at least one licensed attorney also, right? His legal theories are intriguing and I’m wondering if he has a newsletter.

    I think I was patient with him long enough to deserve that.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  262. Beldar: “The relevant holding of NYT v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279 (1964), was to create ‘a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with… knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not’… I am very confident that Polanski can’t even prove falsity.”

    Actually, Polanski only needs to prove that Beldar showed “reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” when the pugnacious poster from Texas repeatedly insisted that Polanski molested multiple victims. It’s “reckless disregard” because Polanski hasn’t even been accused of such crimes let alone convicted of them. Yet somehow Beldar believes it’s appropriate to publicly state, as if it were an undisputed fact, that Polanski is a “compulsive child molester.”

    Beldar might have a legitimate defense if he were aware of evidence that Polanski has molested multiple victims. But when asked to support his contention, Beldar revealed that he’s relying on a magazine article that doesn’t at all corroborate his libelous assertions.

    Verdict: GUILTY

    As Beldar is confident I’m wrong, I hope he continues to defame Polanski until we find out for sure.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  263. Stashiu3: “Read #241 again, where you say I misrepresented your response. Here is where you make the claim I misrepresented you. I don’t even mention it. I just strike-through the entire line since you disputed it and I decided it wasn’t necessary for my question.”

    Not in dispute. What’s your point?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  264. Jeff Norman,

    Polanski is an admitted child molester. He would have a hard time successfully suing anyone for defamation.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  265. Did Polanski rape a little girl and flee to avoid sentencing?

    Stashiu3: “It’s a yes/no question.”

    Ha ha! Sure it is.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  266. Has Beldar been convicted of defamation? How can you make that claim without a conviction? By your reasoning, it’s reckless disregard.

    You’re dismissed. Move on to another thread or back to HuffPo. You have no credibility here. Another layman pretending legal knowledge he doesn’t possess in the face of practicing attorneys. Maybe we can have a Truther thread just for you. Have you met blubonnet?

    I believe Polanski is a compulsive child molester and rapist. Is that actionable? Shall I prepare a defense? Feel free to forward it to Polanski’s attorney along with your “novel” approach towards his case. I’m sure they’ll appreciate it… for the laughs.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  267. Not in dispute. What’s your point?
    Comment by Jeff Norman — 12/25/2009 @ 12:56 pm

    Beyond you, obviously. Continue to beclown yourself.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  268. DRJ: “Polanski is an admitted child molester. He would have a hard time successfully suing anyone for defamation.”

    I hear you, DRJ. He’s not a sympathetic character, that’s for sure. I wouldn’t bet on him suing Beldar, or bet on him winning if he does sue him. But I think he has an arguable case because there’s a significant difference between having unlawful sexual intercourse once, and molesting a series of victims. Given the lack of evidence supporting his contention, do you think it’s admirable for an attorney to make the sort of accusation that Beldar has repeatedly made? Would you like to now publicly make the same accusation?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  269. Those two might not be “assholes”, but they surely play them over at HuffPo.

    AD - RtR/OS! (3759d6)

  270. Stashiu3: Regarding your childish rant in comment #266, there’s a difference between expressing an opinion, and stating something as if it were an undisputed fact.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  271. Stashiu3: “You’re dismissed. Move on to another thread or back to HuffPo.”

    I’ll consider moving on when you cite evidence that Polanski confessed to furnishing a minor with drugs. Remember you said it’s a “fact” he made that confession? Then why can’t you find it on the internet? Is it because there’s not enough coverage of the Polanski case? Or is it because you’re WRONG?

    SPQR claimed: “Polanski admitted to giving a drug to the victim in his plea.”

    What’s taking you geniuses so long to prove it?

    Tick, tock, tick, tock…

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  272. Childish? You’re really not very good at this you know. You make it too easy to belabor your flaws.

    I’m out for a while folks, looks like DRJ is around though. I’m not claiming I have a life, just something to do. There’s a difference. One is an opinion, the other is an undisputed fact. 😉

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  273. Jeff Norman, you don’t get to ask me questions anymore until you answer mine. Then we’ll see. I encourage everyone else to do the same.

    DRJ may have done a drive-by, so no moderator for a while I guess. I’ll clean up if necessary when I get back.

    Be well.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  274. Stashiu3: “Polanski admitted giving a drug to a 13 year old.”

    Tick, tock, tick, tock…

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  275. Weren’t we promised a new novel defense theory by this brilliant legal mind last night? So far, all it has proven is that it will claim that facts are arguable, oh, and that Beldar is guilty guilty GUILTY. Funny how it is willing to be the judge and jury on Beldar, but not willing to accept undisputed facts as evidence. How many teenage girls would be enough for you to form an opinion, norman/butler?

    JD (e91ae1)

  276. JD:”Funny how it is willing to be the judge and jury on Beldar…”

    Funny how you interpret my analysis as being the judge and jury.

    “.. but not willing to accept undisputed facts as evidence.”

    What undisputed facts am I unwilling to accept as evidence?

    “How many teenage girls would be enough for you to form an opinion, norman/butler?”

    Opinion as to what? My opinion is he was (maybe still is) attracted to teenage girls and he apparently had sex with some of them. I don’t know exactly how old they were at the time, and I’m not aware of any evidence that, apart from Samantha Geimer, he had unlawful sex. Are you?

    Is that a bad opinion?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  277. Jeff – Is your real interest in the Polanski case to advocate lowering the age of consent so that adults can snork teenage kids without getting in trouble with the law?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  278. So…do you think that this character is mentally imbalanced, or simply a troll? And is the other one redolent of sock lint?

    I’m just asking questions. And soon I will present a theory that shows the entire legal profession my brilliance. After I find the missing key to the locker that has the strawberry ice cream.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  279. Sophists like norman/butler disgust me. Hiding behind some BS standard that it was not contrary to some age of consent standard in whatever country he was in at the time he raped some young teenage girl. Kinski was fifteen. That is beyond dispute. Polanski admitted to seducing teenagers in Gstaad. And he drugged and raped the 13 year old in this case. People like you wish to play word games and act all cute and above the fray while obfuscating on behalf of a rapist.

    JD (23eb30)

  280. daleyrocks: “Jeff – Is your real interest in the Polanski case to advocate lowering the age of consent so that adults can snork teenage kids without getting in trouble with the law?”

    No. What gave you that impression?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  281. Oh, come on guys. These guys/this guy are just playing games:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdoGVgj1MtY

    That or we should just call them Sexual Predator Smurfs. Except that nomenclature makes several assumptions.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  282. Daley – He is not defending Polanski. What would ever give you that idea? 😉

    JD (b86d0b)

  283. I still say that the Pervebot should just wait at his PuffHo site and wait for that apology. It will be arriving soon, I’m sure.

    Oh, and no one is insulting this character. It’s just more humorous banter to lighten the mood.

    I mean, this guy can’t prove otherwise, right?

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  284. JD: “Sophists like norman/butler disgust me. Hiding behind some BS standard that it was not contrary to some age of consent standard in whatever country he was in at the time he raped some young teenage girl.”

    JD, I haven’t said you or anyone shouldn’t discuss morality. Why are you so hostile to me just because I’m interested in discussing legal issues in a forum I thought was meant for such discussions? I haven’t expressed any approval of Polanski’s behavior, or suggested he should be treated leniently for any crimes he might have committed. So what exactly is your beef?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  285. “No. What gave you that impression?”

    Jeff – Perhaps it’s your inability to answer simple questions such as those posed by Stashiu3 with a yes or no. Your evasiveness does not do you any credit.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  286. Daley, the Pedophile Mastermind is just playing games. That’s all.

    Oh, and he can’t prove I was calling him a pervert defender of child rapists. I could have been referring to someone else. Like his sock puppet.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  287. So…do you think that this character is mentally imbalanced, or simply a troll? And is the other one redolent of sock lint?
    Comment by Eric Blair — 12/25/2009 @ 2:22 pm

    1. Mentally unbalanced troll. Not mutually exclusive and frequently overlapping. Didn’t take long for his true nature to emerge. I’m starting to hope he sticks around. Low-hanging fruit, but better than some of the others.
    2. Neither is a sock, best I can tell.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  288. And if you look around, the schtick is not one he only plays here:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/why-are-these-artists-def_b_372306.html

    If you want to play with the troll, try asking him about OJ.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  289. “Here’s an example of a fact: Polanski did not plead guilty to having sex with the girl against her will. He claims she was willing.

    Again, it’s fine that you believe the girl, but in the absence of a conviction or confession, it’s just an accusation that Polanski subjected her to forcible sex. Such legal distinctions don’t change based on the crime or how upset you are.

    Comment by Jeff Norman — 12/24/2009 @ 3:55 pm”

    Jeff – I think the above gives away part of your game. You don’t consider Polanski’s crime rape rape because he never admitted the girl was unwilling and it was never proven in court, even though her grand jury testimony makes Polanski sound like a complete and total slimebag. So if you ask where I come up with the thoughts that I do, it is directly from comments of yours like these.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  290. Daley, here is a clue to why Mr. Norman is playing these games. Two words: Scott Ritter.

    Take Rosie O’Donnell’s advice…and you will see why the fellow is acting out here and elsewhere.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  291. Comment by Eric Blair — 12/25/2009 @ 3:14 pm

    Bwahahaha…ha! He gets his butt handed to him over there as well. Even they notice that he constantly defends Polanski while denying that he’s defending Polanski. That article seems to have struck a nerve. Also, notice that jackbutler5555 responds positively to at least one his comments, so they came here together. Finally, check out that picture. Beta-male with a vast over-estimate of his own intelligence and low self-esteem. I won’t bet against daleyrocks. I could add several guesses about his history based on similarity to former patients, but I’d hate to make him cry.

    I take back what I said earlier. We don’t need to keep him.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  292. Just ask him how he feels about Burger King, Stashiu3. The Ritter conection makes it all pretty clear.

    Of course, I am making no accusations. Ahem.

    Eric Blair (ba5ac9)

  293. Eric – I’m just thrilled that Mr. Norman is defending Roland Burris and Blago, because they were UNDESERVEDLY attacked by lynch mobs. Heh!

    Those of us who live in Illinois could put him in some knowlodge.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  294. Of course, I am making no accusations. Ahem.
    Comment by Eric Blair — 12/25/2009 @ 3:47 pm

    Of course not. Think he watches MSNBC, or is it too painful? Maybe just Matthews, then back to CNN.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  295. Eric – Nicely done. Special kind of crazy there. Scott Ritter, afterdowningstreet, assorted other loons. It makes sense that Jeff found a home at Puffing Hos.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  296. Yes, daley, but you weren’t there, and you lack the finely tuned, genius level mixture of fairmindedness and outright telepathy displayed by this MacArthur Grant awardee.

    The real question is how you feel about Burger King.

    Eric Blair (ba5ac9)

  297. Eric – I am not a patron of Burger King. I do not like their fries.

    Do you think he campaigned for slappy Cindy?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  298. daleyrocks: “Jeff – Perhaps it’s your inability to answer simple questions such as those posed by Stashiu3 with a yes or no. Your evasiveness does not do you any credit.”

    The question: Did Polanski rape a little girl and flee to avoid sentencing?

    Contrary to Stashiu3’s claim, it’s obviously not “a yes/no question.”

    It’s actually two questions. What if the answer to one question were yes, and the answer to the other were no?

    Also, I don’t think it’s in dispute that Polanski fled to avoid sentencing. (If there are other theories, please let me know what they are.) So is there some underlying question I’m really being asked such as do I think it was justified? Honestly, I have no idea what’s on Stashiu3’s mind here, so I don’t know what to say.

    As for the first part of the question, I don’t know if I’m being asked if it’s okay to refer to unlawful sexual intercourse as rape, or if I think Polanski raped Samantha according to the statutory meaning of rape.

    It’s not my fault Stashiu3 has refused to give me the clarification I requested.

    How does my confusion about the question indicate my real goal is to get the age of consent lowered?

    Given that you object to evasiveness, how do you feel about the failure of Stashiu3 and SPQR to cite evidence supporting their contention that Polanski confessed to furnishing a minor with drugs?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  299. Did you ever hang out at BK, Mr Norman? As I say, a little research has shown why you have a sensitive spot on this kind of unpleasant topic.

    Eric Blair (ba5ac9)

  300. #298

    Contrary to Stashiu3’s claim, it’s obviously not “a yes/no question.”

    Uhm, yes, it is.

    300!

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  301. Eric, you’re much dumber than daleyrocks, who points out in comment #293 that I have a tendency to defend unpopular individuals who are subjected to lynch mob justice when people like you ignore the rule of law.

    Once that fact is understood, it will also be understood that anyone who claims I’m motivated by an interest in any particular person or crime, will expose himself as a fool.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  302. In a world where “opinions are like assholes, everyone has one“, these two are hemorroids.

    AD - RtR/OS! (3759d6)

  303. Dumber? My, how elegant, especially from a fellow so certain of his own erudition.

    But with your history, you might be just a little more temperate. Don’t you think? Well, actually I am not so sure that you do. So do rave on.

    Eric Blair (ba5ac9)

  304. Plenty here are not being civil to Jeff. Unfortunately, Jeff is not being civil to everyone himself.

    If memory serves, Polanski has admitted supplying part of a Quaalude to Geimer, albeit not in his plea. Why is it so important whether he admitted it in his plea?

    Tick tock.

    Patterico (554225)

  305. I don’t care for apologists for child molesters and perverts, Patterico. Even ones who try tiresome Clintonian parsing and call it “fairness.”

    But I am happy to stop thwacking this silly little troll. Your site, and I apologize to you for my posts.

    Eric Blair (ba5ac9)

  306. Patterico (re-introducing an actual legal issue): “If memory serves, Polanski has admitted supplying part of a Quaalude to Geimer, albeit not in his plea. Why is it so important whether he admitted it in his plea?”

    It’s not important to me where/when he confessed it if he confessed it. But did he?

    Tick, tock, tick, tock…

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  307. I asked if you would accept those as facts and discarded the two you disputed. You can keep trying to deflect to an irrelevant point, but nobody is buying.

    It is a yes/no question, in two parts. If the answer to either part is no, the answer is no and you could have explained why from the beginning. The more you avoided answering, the less opportunity to explain was extended. If both parts are yes, then the answer is yes. It doesn’t matter if the rape is statutory, forcible, rape by drug, date rape, or whatever other category you want to come up with. But even if you believe Polanski when he says it was consensual (I don’t), a 13 year old who has been drinking alcohol cannot consent. Sometimes, an 18 year old who has been drinking cannot consent and it is still rape. Both are rape-rape, if you’re making that asinine distinction. I had to simplify it to the point of yes/no because you wouldn’t answer and wouldn’t explain why. You just kept deflecting and your HuffPo comments make it clear why.

    I will stipulate that I did not prove that Polanski admitted giving the girl drugs. I didn’t prove any of the other things you agreed to stipulate… that’s the point of asking what you’ll agree to without argument. I’ve already withdrawn it because it is not relevant to the question I was asking and is a different discussion. I don’t need to prove a statement I withdrew long ago and your desperate focus on it is pointless. I asked which of those six statements could be mutually agreed upon so we could move directly on from there and not get into the “You used FreeRepublic, they’re partisan!” or “You used d-Kos, they’re partisan!” nonsense. I immediately discarded the two you disputed. If I had wanted to discuss the merits of the individual statements I would have documented them from the beginning or omitted them entirely. Do I believe Polanski drugged the girl? Absolutely, based on the girl’s Grand Jury testimony. That’s my opinion, not a statement of fact. It’s really hard to believe you can be this dense. I haven’t evaded anything, nor have I misrepresented your position… something you have yet to clearly acknowledge because you’re dishonest.

    I would have been glad to let you know what was on my mind as soon as I was sure we were using the same definitions and conclusions. Since you chose to evade and deflect, all you get now is mocking and scorn.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  308. The world’s most insincere apology! Eric Blair states: “I apologize to you for my posts.” But in the same post, he says he’s”happy to stop thwacking this silly little troll.” If he wasn’t apologizing for remarks like that one, what was he apologizing for?

    What self-awareness!

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  309. OK

    1. Is it okay to refer to unlawful sexual intercourse as rape?

    2. Did Polanski rape Samantha according to the statutory meaning of rape?

    My guess is you answer

    No to #1
    Yes to #2

    But if the law says “okay” to #1 then Polanski has a problem since ignorance of the law is no excuse

    SteveG (11baba)

  310. Plenty here are not being civil to Jeff. Unfortunately, Jeff is not being civil to everyone himself.
    Comment by Patterico — 12/25/2009 @ 4:35 pm

    I was plenty civil to him until long after he accused me of “blatant misrepresentation” of his position when I hadn’t even mentioned it in the comment. It’s turned into a long thread, but I’ll gladly apologize if you look back and think I started this. I was a veritable Job until he became a job. 😉

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  311. This is rather resembling a Monty Python bit, maybe the Black Night in Holy Grail. Someone has pretty much had the legs cut out from under him and he keeps wanting to claim victory. You know, just because Polanski and Natasha both claim they had sex when she was 15 doesn’t mean they did because he didn’t plead guilty to it in this other case. What proof do you have they were not both lying? How can you accuse him of doing something just because they both say it’s true?

    Watching this person try to play legal word games with practicing attorneys is rather like watching a couch potato who saw a neat move on TV and thinks he can take on a professional cage fighter.

    Bringing Blubonnet into this discussion was too much. Someone should condemn himself.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  312. I had to step out…

    if Polanski wants to come back and argue that unlawful sexual intercourse is not “rape” and that his behavior never reached that threshold, have at it.

    SteveG (11baba)

  313. Bringing Blubonnet into this discussion was too much. Someone should condemn himself.
    Comment by Machinist — 12/25/2009 @ 4:57 pm

    Mac!

    Too true, but I think you just did it for me in your own subtle way. 😉

    In mitigation, it probably didn’t sting as much as it would a regular who knows blu. Context would indicate the insult, but only experience would indicate the severity.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  314. Steve, I like your brevity and clarity, so you get an answer.

    1. I prefer not to refer to unlawful sexual intercourse as rape, because the two crimes are different, and as I just said, I like clarity. But I realize unlawful sexual intercourse is tantamount to statutory rape, and some people use rape as an abbreviation for it. So as long as what’s being said is understood, I don’t think it’s a big deal one way or the other.

    2. I don’t know. Not enough evidence.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  315. Stash,
    Probably true, Sir. 😉

    Machinist (9780ec)

  316. And now we get to the heart of the matter. Jeff Norman doesn’t believe there is enough evidence to support statutory rape despite stipulating that the girl was 13, Polanski knew she was 13, and that they had sex.

    SteveG’s question:

    2. Did Polanski rape Samantha according to the statutory meaning of rape?
    Comment by SteveG — 12/25/2009 @ 4:51 pm

    Jeff Norman’s answer:

    2. I don’t know. Not enough evidence.
    Comment by Jeff Norman — 12/25/2009 @ 5:07 pm

    One of the great legal minds of our time.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  317. Beldar said it. They’re trolls. Ignore them.

    nk (df76d4)

  318. 2. I don’t know. Not enough evidence.

    Comment by Jeff Norman — 12/25/2009 @ 5:07 pm

    He plead guilty to it. He has admitted it after fleeing to Europe. What evidence do you need?

    I’t not dead, it’s pining for the fjords.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  319. Machinist: “Watching this person try to play legal word games with practicing attorneys is rather like watching a couch potato who saw a neat move on TV and thinks he can take on a professional cage fighter.”

    The practicing attorneys not only failed to notice that Polanski apparently didn’t understand the potential consequences of pleading guilty, but failed to offer even a brief analysis of Polanski’s testimony with respect to Hill v. Lockart and U.S. v. Gray.

    Is that a word game?

    If the ignorant layman is so obviously wrong, it should be VERY easy to dismiss me in just a sentence or two. All I ask is that the response, however brief, is actually analytical, and actually addresses what the following exchange means with respect to case law:

    MR. GUNSON: What is the maximum sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse?

    THE DEFENDANT: It’s one to fifteen – – twenty years in State Prison.

    The maximum sentence was really 50 years, and nobody corrected the defendant.

    What do the practicing attorneys have to say about that?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  320. Sounds like you have them on the hip. Take them down!

    They are obviously intimidated by your insightful grasp of legal nuance. Keep them off balance.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  321. Stashiu3’s most recent misrepresentation: “Jeff Norman doesn’t believe there is enough evidence to support statutory rape…”

    The question I answered: “Did Polanski rape Samantha according to the statutory meaning of rape?”

    I meant there’s not enough evidence to conclude he raped her based on the definition of the crime that’s actually called rape. Obviously, evidence is not even an issue with respect to unlawful sexual intercourse, as the defendant pled guilty.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  322. Perhaps when your legal revelations are shown to a judge and Roman is exonerated and set free, he will show his gratitude by inviting you to one of his parties. That should be fun for you.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  323. Machinist: “They are obviously intimidated by your insightful grasp of legal nuance. Keep them off balance.”

    I like your sarcasm. It helps me highlight that STILL nobody has met my VERY modest challenge.

    By the way, you seem like you might know who’s a lawyer here and who isn’t. Would you be willing to give me some sense of the lawyer to non-lawyer ratio amongst these nice people?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  324. Mr. Norman, do you know what “statutory” means?

    I plead guilty to sex with a 13 year old. That is rape by definition. There can be no legal consent from a 13 year old. That is why it is called “statutory rape” as opposed to forcible rape or rape with an object. “statutory” is a modifier for “rape”. It is still rape according to lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and the law. Or did you find something else they all missed?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  325. “By the way, you seem like you might know who’s a lawyer here and who isn’t. Would you be willing to give me some sense of the lawyer to non-lawyer ratio amongst these nice people?”

    No, I could not. I do know several of the people here are lawyers. I have considerable respect for most of them, which is not true of all lawyers by any means. I wonder how this is relevant?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  326. Why would you think I am being sarcastic? Isn’t this what you have been claiming for most of this thread? Couldn’t I just be impressed? Maybe you are the criminal version of Erin Brockovich?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  327. Machinist: “Mr. Norman, do you know what ‘statutory’ means?”

    Yes, genius. Do you?

    “I plead guilty to sex with a 13 year old. That is rape by definition. There can be no legal consent from a 13 year old. That is why it is called ‘statutory rape’ as opposed to forcible rape or rape with an object. ‘statutory’ is a modifier for ‘rape’. It is still rape according to lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and the law. Or did you find something else they all missed?”

    I don’t know if they all missed it, but you apparently missed that unlawful sexual intercourse (or statutory rape, if you prefer to call it that) and rape are two separate crimes in the California Penal Code. When it comes to proving guilt and sentencing, that’s sort of a significant distinction.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  328. #324 should be “He plead…”. I don’t spell or proofread well but I don’t rape children.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  329. Machinist: “I don’t spell or proofread well but I don’t rape children.”

    You’re not the only one who’s unduly proud of not raping children. It’s the right way to behave, of course, but maybe you could set your sights a little higher.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  330. There are various kinds of murder but they are still murder. There are various kinds of larceny but they are still larceny. There are various kinds of assault but they are still assault. And statutory rape is still rape.

    I will defer to any lawyers who care to correct me on this but the fact you don’t consider statutory rape to be rape does not convince me, Sir.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  331. I like your sarcasm. It helps me highlight that STILL nobody has met my VERY modest challenge.

    You can tell it’s a brilliant mind when they use ALL CAPS to MAKE THEIR INANE POINTS. Truly, we are in the presence of a being of otherwordliness – most likely from the areas located under viaducts.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  332. #329, and just what do you think you know about my standards or values, Sir? What have you deduced from my writings or your research. Perhaps we could find a mental health professional here to compare your observations with.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  333. I meant there’s not enough evidence to conclude he raped her based

    When you’re finished with your self – imposed circle jerk on this issue, just sent us all a tweet, eh?

    Dmac (a964d5)

  334. BTW, I’m almost 90% certain that it’s really i like amerikka.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  335. I misrepresented nothing and you continue being dishonest. You lied about the first one and you’re lying about this one. Murder in the first degree and Murder in the second degree are both Murder. Forcible rape and statutory rape are both rape. If having sex with a 13 year old (especially knowing that they are only 13 years old and below the age of consent) doesn’t qualify as statutory rape, what does? He’s admitted to those things and you say, “Not enough evidence.” You’re an apologist for a child molester and rapist. There’s no other rational conclusion. Get help.

    Mac, the only layman opinion here that counts is his, the only attorney opinion that counts is one that agrees with him. I urge him to share his legal reasoning with Polanski’s attorney, get his party invite, and live the good life forevermore.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  336. Perhaps we could find a mental health professional here to compare your observations with.
    Comment by Machinist — 12/25/2009 @ 6:00 pm

    heh. We have a few, don’t we?

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  337. Sometimes it seems they are needed.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  338. BTW, I’m almost 90% certain that it’s really i like amerikka.
    Comment by Dmac — 12/25/2009 @ 6:02 pm

    Doesn’t appear to be a sock of anyone we know. Also, uses the same name at HuffPo and a sock is unlikely to burn a real name trolling. He’s legitimately this dense.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  339. When I signed on to do this for the Polanski defense team, I told them I wanted to have holidays off and an eight-hour shift. Well, you know how lawyers are. They said, “sure, sure.”

    I come back and I see my name bandied about, but as you can imagine, I really think I should have some time off.

    Out of curiosity, what would you guys talk about if it weren’t for Jeff and me? I can detect no sign of sincere gratitude for what we’re doing here. And on a day off.

    In any case, I have asked the Polanski team for more resources. We need people for all three shifts and weekends. We need to staff up for the West Coast business and for holidays. Maybe Patterico can kick in some funds.

    I’ll send them a link to this site, as a way of demonstrating the demand is certainly there.

    And I’ll give you this tidbit about Kinski’s age.

    “This is linked to controversy as to the year of her birth, apparently reported to American authorities as 1959, although German records purportedly indicate 1961. (Variety cites 1960.[3])”

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

    But I will stipulate she was 15 when she and Polanski were having sex, since it has no legal ramifications. I won’t be calling it rape. That has a legal meaning. I’ll also confine myself to legal discussions. Maybe we can bring on a staffer who can get into some of the emotional stuff you guys like. But that depends on the resources we will be assigned.

    When I sign on again, I’ll look at the business which has come in and try to deal with it. My eyes started to glaze over when i started to read it. But there’s so much work and so little time I can devote to it.

    Now, I’ll take a few questions.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  340. Machinist: “I have considerable respect for most of them, which is not true of all lawyers by any means. I wonder how this is relevant?”

    I expect most lawyers to have more legal expertise than most laymen, so I’m wondering what perspective I’m getting here. Isn’t that the relevance you had in mind when you mentioned I’m dialoguing with practicing attorneys?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  341. Machinist: “Why would you think I am being sarcastic? Isn’t this what you have been claiming for most of this thread? Couldn’t I just be impressed? Maybe you are the criminal version of Erin Brockovich?”

    If that’s what you really meant, I apologize.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  342. I did not claim it was what I meant. I asked why you would assume it when you have spent so much time on this thread telling us this is the case and demanding someone prove you wrong.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  343. Regarding comment #330 by Machinist and comment #335 by Stashiu3, you both seem to have some beef with me about the definition of rape, but I don’t understand what either of you are objecting to. Please take a look at my comment #314 (part 1) and let me know what, if anything, seems amiss about it.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  344. I did not say “dialoguing with practicing attorneys”, I said playing legal word games. “Dialoguing implies or requires listening and you have not shown much interest in that.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  345. Okay, I’m done with this for the night. We’ve seen the real agenda and it’s not pretty. They’re Polanski apologists (freelance) on the same level as Truthers. Engage at your own risk, I’ll lurk this thread for now (unless I change my mind).

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  346. Machinist: “What have you deduced from my writings…?”

    You seemed to be patting yourself on the back unduly when you pointed out that you don’t rape children.

    Neither do I. I also don’t murder or torture people. But I don’t think refraining from such actions is noteworthy.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  347. “I prefer not to refer to unlawful sexual intercourse as rape, ”

    As I said in #324, “…That is rape by definition. There can be no legal consent from a 13 year old. That is why it is called “statutory rape” as opposed to forcible rape or rape with an object. “statutory” is a modifier for “rape”. It is still rape according to lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and the law. Or did you find something else they all missed?”

    He plead guilty to this. For you to say there is not enough evidence seems silly in light of this.

    Does disagreement imply a “beef”. Have I insulted you or used offensive language?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  348. Comment by Jeff Norman — 12/25/2009 @ 1:10 pm:

    Given the lack of evidence supporting his contention, do you think it’s admirable for an attorney to make the sort of accusation that Beldar has repeatedly made? Would you like to now publicly make the same accusation?

    As I read Beldar’s comments, he believes Polanski has molested more than the girl he admitted raping in LA 30+ years ago. Given that rape, Polanski’s relationship with Kinski, his admission regarding the girls of Gstaad, and his preoccupation with teenage girls, Beldar may be right.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  349. #324. I said I don’t rape children. How is this patting myself on the back? Is it patting myself on the back when I say I don’t practice law? I could I make this simple statement of fact in my admission of an error without “patting myself on the back” in your estimation?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  350. Machinist (quoting me): “I prefer not to refer to unlawful sexual intercourse as rape, ”

    Machinist (his words): “As I said in #324, ‘…That is rape by definition’….”

    Not according to the California Penal Code.

    Machinist: “He plead guilty to this. For you to say there is not enough evidence seems silly in light of this.”

    As I said, evidence isn’t even an issue with respect to his plea. There’s not enough evidence to convict him of rape, which you haven’t yet acknowledged is a different crime than the one to which he pled guilty.

    “Does disagreement imply a ‘beef’.

    Synonyms, I think.

    “Have I insulted you or used offensive language?”

    No

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  351. Mr. Norman,
    Since I have answered your last two questions and you clearly read mine, I hope you will explain what I have said that justifies your assuming that your standards are any higher than mine. Wouldn’t that be rather an arrogant thing to assume without reason? Do you assume that about everyone you encounter? If not, than why me? What did I do or say?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  352. Machinist: “I said I don’t rape children. How is this patting myself on the back?”

    It just struck me that way. I’m not sure why you would say it if you don’t think it’s somehow noteworthy. I’m not insisting anything here…

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  353. Machinist: “I hope you will explain what I have said that justifies your assuming that your standards are any higher than mine.”

    I’ll gladly explain if you just clarify what you’re referring to.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  354. “I’ll gladly explain if you just clarify what you’re referring to.”

    You have said that my statement that I don’t rape children implies my standards for myself are no higher than that.
    “You’re not the only one who’s unduly proud of not raping children. It’s the right way to behave, of course, but maybe you could set your sights a little higher.”

    You have said your own standards are higher.

    “Neither do I. I also don’t murder or torture people. But I don’t think refraining from such actions is noteworthy.”

    You are the only one who has spoken of this as patting ones self on the back or indicating values. I expressed a fact, without value judgments.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  355. Was I patting myself on the back when I said I don’t spell or proofread well? I barely made it out of high school so I R dummy.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  356. He’s legitimately this dense.

    Also creepy beyond belief.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  357. Please note that the high school comment was not meant as bragging or meant to indicate a claim to moral accomplishment.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  358. “It just struck me that way. I’m not sure why you would say it if you don’t think it’s somehow noteworthy. ”

    My comment as written said I plead guilty which would indicate I did rape children, so I was explaining that it was a typographical error and that I did not rape children. Why would this strike you otherwise?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  359. DRJ: “As I read Beldar’s comments, he believes Polanski has molested more than the girl he admitted raping in LA 30+ years ago. Given that rape, Polanski’s relationship with Kinski, his admission regarding the girls of Gstaad, and his preoccupation with teenage girls, Beldar may be right.”

    You again use appropriately careful wording, unlike Patterico’s pugnacious poster from Texas.

    Anyone who saw what he wrote knows what Beldar’s belief is. But it’s not his belief I’m assailing; I’m criticizing him for publicly insisting, as if it were an undisputed fact, that Polanski molested multiple victims.

    You know what I’m talking about, DRJ. It’s why news reporters tend to use the word “alleged” or the like when referring to people who have been accused but not convicted of crimes. With respect to the standards of journalism and the legal profession (as opposed to my standards), Polanski deserves even more consideration, because nobody except Beldar has even accused the filmmaker of molesting multiple victims.

    If you disagree, DRJ, is it because you believe it’s lawful and ethical to publicly state, as if it were an undisputed fact, that Polanski molested multiple victims? Or do you disagree because you think Beldar used language that makes it clear he was only making an argument as opposed to asserting a fact? If the latter, what exactly is the language that you think makes it clear Beldar was just giving his opinion?

    Beldar’s published statements:

    “After reading article [sic], I was left with an even keener hatred of, and heightened disgust for, Roman Polanski, the international scoff-law and serial, compulsive child molester.”

    “In fact Polanski’s unwholesome and criminal fascination with having sex with young teens is a multi-decade phenomenon about which he’s repeatedly bragged for publication.”

    “If Polanski disputes the truth of my accusations, I invite him to come in person to Texas to sue me.”

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  360. Beldar speaks for himself as we all do, but I feel sure he meant it when he invited Mr. Polanski to sue him in Texas.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  361. “I’ll gladly explain if you just clarify what you’re referring to.

    Comment by Jeff Norman — 12/25/2009 @ 6:50 pm ”

    I have done so, Sir. Waiting on you.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  362. How can we be sure that Jeff and 5555 are not pimps for Polanski?

    AD - RtR/OS! (3759d6)

  363. DRJ, I salute you for your cordial tone and willingness to remain focused on legal issues. But you avoided my question about whether Beldar’s statements were expressed as opinions or purported facts.

    Maybe you’ll answer this generic question:

    Is an attorney legally and ethically entitled to defame a person who is too compromised to file a lawsuit?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  364. I think attorneys have the same right to free speech that any citizen has. However, since I assume none of us knows Polanski or has personal knowledge of the facts, we’re all simply stating our opinions.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  365. Machinist (quoting me): “I’ll gladly explain if you just clarify what you’re referring to.”

    Machinist (his words): “I have done so, Sir. Waiting on you.”

    I already told you it was just my impression, because it seemed to me you would say you don’t rape children only if you thought it was noteworthy. To indicate I might be wrong, I added that I’m not insisting on anything.

    You’re not required to be pleased by my answer, but why are you pretending I didn’t answer you?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  366. Must be a screenwriter since he likes putting words in other people’s mouths.

    AD - RtR/OS! (3759d6)

  367. #366,
    This answer says a great deal.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  368. DRJ: “I think attorneys have the same right to free speech that any citizen has. However, since I assume none of us knows Polanski or has personal knowledge of the facts, we’re all simply stating our opinions.”

    What an interesting response.

    Of course attorneys have the same free speech rights as anyone, but should they not be held to a higher ethical standard when it comes to publicly alleging that someone has committed a crime?

    If you’d like, you can assume our ignorance indicates we’re all simply stating our opinions, but wouldn’t a court focus on the content of Beldar’s speech? Are you suggesting Beldar could defend himself against a libel suit by claiming he has no personal knowledge of the facts? That’s a novel defense!

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  369. “But you avoided my question about whether Beldar’s statements were expressed as opinions or purported facts.”

    Jeff – No she didn’t. She said Beldar speaks for himself? Do you expect her to read Beldar’s mind?

    “Is an attorney legally and ethically entitled to defame a person who is too compromised to file a lawsuit?”

    Jeff – Neato mosquito assumption that it is defamation, especially of a public person and that the rights of attorneys should be different than those of other people!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  370. “Are you suggesting Beldar could defend himself against a libel suit by claiming he has no personal knowledge of the facts?”

    Jeff – Are you again suggesting that DRJ put words in Beldar’s mouth. I suggest you stop going down that road.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  371. Jeff Norman:

    Of course attorneys have the same free speech rights as anyone, but should they not be held to a higher ethical standard when it comes to publicly alleging that someone has committed a crime?

    Why?

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  372. DRJ:”Why?”

    Because, ostensibly, they understand, better than the general public, what the meaning and consequences of criminal allegations are. And while the situation we’re discussing might not be explicitly addressed, there are Professional Codes of Ethics that require such integrity.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  373. I think we should all go to the nearest Burger King and make sure Scott Ritter is not there. Maybe Polansky can party with them when he comes back.

    Clearly norman/butler do not think that this was a rape-rape. Or even a rape. /spit

    Hey, Machinist. Too long.

    JD (0af302)

  374. The idea that Beldar is the only person to have expressed said sentiment, as the child assrapist apologist noted above, is so overly broad and patently ridiculous that it made Mt Dew squirt out my nose.

    JD (0af302)

  375. Thank you, JD. Nice to see you Sir.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  376. Ewww. Mt Dew as nasal flush?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  377. I am not very nice-nice. Sorry.

    JD (0af302)

  378. Jeff – You should look into the FLDS. They’re into teen pooter just like Polanski. Plus a bunch of their adult members are in the process of being sent to the slammer for things like not rape rape.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  379. JD – Try some nice Christmas peeps in the microwave. Very festive for the holidays!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  380. Jeff Norman:

    Because, ostensibly, they understand, better than the general public, what the meaning and consequences of criminal allegations are. And while the situation we’re discussing might not be explicitly addressed, there are Professional Codes of Ethics that require such integrity.

    In general, I think attorneys’ ethical obligations extend to cases they are involved in and clients they represent. However, using your logic, wouldn’t it be a good thing when attorneys express their opinions on cases? After all, they understand “better than the general public” about legal matters.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  381. DRJ – Mr. Norman has had a very difficult time differentiating between fact and opinion this entire thread, viewing a significant portion of what he writes as fact whereas most here, if I may go out on a limb, would view it as opinion.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  382. How can we be sure that Jeff and 5555 are not pimps for Polanski?

    AD:

    What difference would it make if we are? I wish to engage in a discussion about the law. What I say will not be more valuable or less valuable if I were sponsored, would it?

    You may not be interested in such a discussion. So, your comments drift to irrelevancies like this.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  383. Clearly norman/butler do not think that this was a rape-rape. Or even a rape.

    Speaking for myself, JD, Polanski admitted to the unlawful sex charge, the only charge he agreed to plead to.

    The State of California doesn’t call it rape. But you can call it whatever you want, as can the State of California and Jack Butler.

    Are there any legal matters you’d like to discuss?

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  384. DRJ: “In general, I think attorneys’ ethical obligations extend to cases they are involved in and clients they represent. However, using your logic, wouldn’t it be a good thing when attorneys express their opinions on cases? After all, they understand ‘better than the general public’ about legal matters.”

    Yes, but I don’t object to Beldar expressing an opinion; it’s that I think the content of his speech is libelous because he said Polanski molested multiple victims, as if it were an undisputed fact.

    According to the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer’s ethical obligations are broader than you suggest:

    “A lawyer is a…public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice. Lawyers, as guardians of the law, play a vital role in the preservation of society. The fulfillment of this role requires an understanding by the lawyers of their relationship with and function in our legal system. A consequent obligation of lawyers is to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct…As a member of a learned profession, a lawyer should cultivate knowledge of the law beyond its use for clients…The desire for the respect and confidence of the members of the profession and of the society which it serves provides the lawyer the incentive to attain the highest possible degree of ethical conduct. The possible loss of that respect and confidence is the ultimate sanction. So long as its practitioners are guided by these principles, the law will continue to be a noble profession. This is its greatness and its strength, which permit of no compromise.”

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  385. Mr. Norman has had a very difficult time differentiating between fact and opinion this entire thread…

    daleyrocks —

    Now, in order to make that charge credible, you need to include examples of what you mean. Otherwise, your comments are difficult to appreciate.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  386. The norman/butler types proved to be every bit as predictable as I orignally noted. Statutory rape is not really rape-rape, right norman/butler?

    JD (45da85)

  387. I can assure you, jack, that daley was not searching for your appreciation, nor does he need it.

    JD (45da85)

  388. Jeff Norman,

    I think this link goes directly to the Preamble you quote from, and it appears your quotes come from different sections. Some people might like to read the entire Preamble instead of selected quotes.

    I agree attorneys are required to meet high standards of ethical conduct. I don’t think that means they are precluded from reaching conclusions or expressing their opinions about current events.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  389. “Otherwise, your comments are difficult to appreciate.”

    jack – Not if you have a brain in your head.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  390. The norman/butler types proved to be every bit as predictable as I orignally noted. Statutory rape is not really rape-rape, right norman/butler?

    JD:

    I assume you are referring to the Polanski matter and we are discussing the legal issues in the case. Or, are we not?

    If so, Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful sex, as part of a deal with the prosecutor. I don’t see how the terms rape-rape, statutory rape fit into a discussion of the Polanski matter. Could you explain why you think it does fit into a discussion of the legal aspects of the case?

    Are you familiar with the case?

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  391. “I don’t see how the terms rape-rape, statutory rape fit into a discussion of the Polanski matter.”

    jack – The terms flow from the thread, which is where it led because your buddy Jeff evades direct discussion of legal issues. If that is unclear I suggest you reread the thread. Are you familiar with your colleague’s dilatory argument style?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  392. Let’s make it really clear for everyone. Do you believe Polansky raped the 13 year old girl? A simple yes or no will suffice. We do not need a finding by a Court to make our determinations. From the evidence available, and the actions of the accused, I believe he did. So, my answer is yes. What is your answer?

    JD (45da85)

  393. Jeff – Are you attempting to interpret the Texas code of legal ethics for two Texas lawyers on this thread? That is a collosal act of arrogance, sir. I applaud you.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  394. JD – I say yes.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  395. Any predictions on the answers that norman and butler will give to such a simple question?

    JD (45da85)

  396. Let’s make it really clear for everyone. Do you believe Polansky raped the 13 year old girl?

    Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful sex. This is a legal blog. I think it would be beneficial if you were to become better acquainted with the legal aspects of the case.

    I don’t see how the terms rape-rape, statutory rape fit into a discussion of the Polanski matter. Could you explain why you think it does fit into a discussion of the legal aspects of the case?

    Why do you avoid using the legal terms?

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  397. DRJ: “I think this link goes directly to the Preamble you quote from, and it appears your quotes come from different sections. Some people might like to read the entire Preamble instead of selected quotes.”

    You’re right, that’s a better link than the one I provided. I actually meant to link to that page. Thanks.

    “I agree attorneys are required to meet high standards of ethical conduct. I don’t think that means they are precluded from reaching conclusions or expressing their opinions about current events.”

    Please, let’s not be redundant. You’re either willing to discuss how opinions must be distinguished from purported facts (with respect to defamation), or you’re not.

    Nobody said lawyers can’t express opinions or reach conclusions.

    That Beldar’s smear vaguely relates to current events has nothing to do with whether or not it’s defamatory to publicly insist Polanski molested multiple victims.

    “Given that rape, Polanski’s relationship with Kinski, his admission regarding the girls of Gstaad, and his preoccupation with teenage girls, Beldar may be right.”

    Anything’s possible, but where’s the evidence of even a single crime let alone multiple crimes? The New Yorker article Beldar said he’s relying on doesn’t contain any evidence (or accusations), either. Aren’t you at all troubled by the gap between concluding it’s justified to publicly assert there were multiple crimes, and the complete lack of evidence there was even one crime? (Of course, I mean other than when Samantha Geimer was victimized.)

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  398. Non-responsive, counselor.

    I have come to this blog for years, so I am quite familiar with what it is, you pompous arrogant sophist.

    In the legal sense, given the evidence available, do you think he did or did not commit statutory rape? Do you think he committed forcible rape on a minor? Spell out your actual position on the matter in question.

    Were you discussing this in anything remotely approaching good-faith, your prior answer would have been a yes or no. Even us pig-ignert non-lawyers can recognize mendoucheity.

    JD (656d48)

  399. daleyrocks:

    Are you familiar with your colleague’s dilatory argument style?

    How would you characterize your argument style?

    jack – Not if you have a brain in your head.

    As far as whatever direction of the blog is concerned, I still maintain the legal terms are the ones to employ when discussing crime.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  400. OK, so let’s allow the nuance of “unlawful sexual conduct” is not any form of rape just for arguments sake.
    Polanski left the country without fulfilling the *complete* terms of the deal that brought the charges down to “unlawful sexual conduct”.
    So now it seems likely that people will want to explore what exactly was Mr. Polanski’s unlawful sexual conduct?
    Didn’t he bring that down on himself?
    He had a sweet deal and panicked…. not that I blame him for worrying that jail wasn’t going to be all hot tubs, champagne and 13 year old girls

    SteveG (11baba)

  401. It is improper to discuss statutory rape and rape-rape in a discussion of Polansky having committed the aforementioned?

    JD (656d48)

  402. daleyrocks: “Jeff – Are you attempting to interpret the Texas code of legal ethics for two Texas lawyers on this thread? That is a collosal act of arrogance, sir. I applaud you.”

    It seems you’re overly impressed by Texas lawyers, and you imagine the issue I was discussing with DRJ is more complicated than it actually is. I simply supported my contention that lawyers have special ethical responsibilities beyond the cases they’re working on. Not all that arrogant, really. Just a fair and pertinent point in response to her question.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  403. you pompous arrogant sophist…mendoucheity.

    daleyrocks:

    How would you characterize your argument style?

    I suspect some folks are persuaded by your ad hominems. So, why would you change, unless you were trying to persuade me?

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  404. I wrote that, counselor. And it was not “ad hom”, it was a description based on the evidence available.

    JD (656d48)

  405. It is improper to discuss statutory rape and rape-rape in a discussion of Polansky having committed the aforementioned?

    JD: Not at all. I believe you ought to be able to say what you want in any way you want to say it. I would never want to deny you rights that I would exercise for myself.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  406. This is a legal blog.
    Comment by jackbutler5555 — 12/25/2009 @ 10:58 pm

    — It is? Well then, I guess it’s time for this Texas layman to leave!

    Hey, wait a minute. Did you mean that this is a blog about the legal profession? OR, are you simply stating that the blog itself (which I thought was about politics, and the law, and how the L.A. Dog Trainer is a worthless rag) is not violating any criminal statutes?

    See, even the most benign definitions of what something is are subject to a variety of interpretations . . . not all of them correct.

    Icy Texan (a68e3e)

  407. So, we still await your answer, counselor. Yes or no?

    JD (656d48)

  408. SteveG:

    I have no problem with people exploring
    Polanski’s unlawful sex. If they want to do so with substance, they can go to smokinggun and read the girl’s account, the probation officer’s account, and the Polanski plea transcript.

    Even if they just want to respond from the gut, as most here do, I believe they ought to be encouraged to do so.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  409. jackbutler5555,

    I agree we should try to be precise when possible. My understanding is Polanski plead guilty to and was convicted of a “felony sex offense involving a child under the age of 14 years, namely Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in violation of Section 261.5 of the Penal Code.” Polanski admitted having sexual intercourse with a girl he knew was 13 years old who was not his wife, so I think he admitted the elements of statutory rape even though it wasn’t the charge he plead guilty to.

    Jeff Norman,

    People and juries reach conclusions every day based on circumstantial evidence and apparently even Polanski admits he has thing for “young girls.” In addition, sometimes one bad act can raise questions about future conduct. You realize that as a part of his guilty plea, Polanski was referred for a psychiatric screening to determine whether he was a Mentally Disordered Sex Offender?

    [I had to release my own comment from the spam filter. Heh. — DRJ]

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  410. I would assume they’re preparing for client conferences in Detroit with another noted world traveler.
    It will enable them to represent a higher class of criminal.

    AD - RtR/OS! (3759d6)

  411. Icy,

    It’s not a legal blog in the sense it’s only for lawyers. (I think Patterico describes it as a blog about whatever he wants to talk about.) If it were only for lawyers, I’d probably have to leave since I’m retired.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  412. “It seems you’re overly impressed by Texas lawyers”

    Jeff – Wrong again. I am impressed by your arrongance in lecturing lawyers in their ethics responsibilities and find it hard that you could misunderstand such a simple concept. Are you always deliberately obtuse?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  413. I would assume they’re preparing for client conferences in Detroit with another noted world traveler. It will enable them to represent a higher class of criminal.

    Comment by AD

    LOL

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  414. Hell, if everyone had to show their BAR card to log-on, we would lose over half of the commenters, and all of the trolls.
    Or, everyone could just go over to Volokh’s.

    AD - RtR/OS! (3759d6)

  415. “Aren’t you at all troubled by the gap between concluding it’s justified to publicly assert there were multiple crimes, and the complete lack of evidence there was even one crime? (Of course, I mean other than when Samantha Geimer was victimized.)”

    Jeff – Can you explain what you meant by lack of evidence of even one crime and then your cute parenthetical please?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  416. I always marvel at your ability to be kind to people in the midst of their mendoucheous behavior, DRJ.

    To be clear, norman and butler, the moment he stuck his d*ck inside a 13 year old girl, he became a rapist. That you choose to call it unlawful sex is the rhetorical equivalent of calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant.

    Still waiting on your answer, counselor.

    JD (656d48)

  417. Dr. J:

    What are the elements of statutory rape in the State of California? I wasn’t aware the state had such.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  418. “How would you characterize your argument style?”

    jack – I would not call your pullquotes of my comments arguments. I would call them responses to stupid comments such as yours which shouls never have been made. Any arguments I made were in other comments. Are you familiar with the thread? If not, I suggest you become familiar with it rather than reploughing old ground as you are attempting to do.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  419. Comment by jackbutler5555 — 12/25/2009 @ 11:51 pm

    Why ask DRJ about the niceties of CA law?
    I thought you were our new resident expert?

    AD - RtR/OS! (3759d6)

  420. Sorry, DRJ. I was being a bit too clever for my own good. Just trying to make the point that expressing “gut reactions” — discussing legal matters from a moral standpoint — is common practice here, and that maybe Mr. Jack Butler shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss them as irrelevant to the legal minutiae that he chooses to dwell on.

    Icy Texan (a68e3e)

  421. jackbutler5555,

    I’m using the term statutory rape according to its definition in a law dictionary like West’s.

    Also, I’m not “Dr J” (unfortunately). I’m DRJ.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  422. “As far as whatever direction of the blog is concerned, I still maintain the legal terms are the ones to employ when discussing crime.”

    jack – Do you believe that you and Jeff are participating in this discussion in good faith or just wasting the time of everyone involved. If you believe you are here in good faith, why are the two of you reluctant to answer simple questions about whether you believe Polanski raped Samantha? This is a request for your opinion, not a court of law.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  423. They probably have a bet going on how long they can tie everyone up without answering a direct question.
    It’s OJT for a career in goal-post moving.

    AD - RtR/OS! (3759d6)

  424. I wasn’t criticizing you, Icy, but it gave me a good opportunity to mention I’m retired. Unfortunately, that also reminds me how old I am.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  425. “To be clear, norman and butler, the moment he stuck his d*ck inside a 13 year old girl”

    JD – There’s always the old slip and fall excuse. Your honor, I tripped and when I fell my d*ck slipped inside her. I’m not sure that one works to well in this instance given Polanski’s track record.

    It’s also sort of like the permafried dude in court who tests positive for dope on a urine drop and tries to convince the judge that it was because he was eating venison and the deer must have been eating marijuana plants in the forest. I’ve seen that one get shot down.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  426. DRJ: “I think he admitted the elements of statutory rape even though it wasn’t the charge he plead guilty to.”

    Fair enough. I think most people perceive statutory rape the same way they perceive unlawful sexual intercourse.

    “People and juries reach conclusions every day based on circumstantial evidence and apparently even Polanski admits he has thing for ‘young girls’. In addition, sometimes one bad act can raise questions about future conduct.”

    Yes, but the sort of logic you’re presenting here, when it’s employed, is usually attached to evidence and a specific accusation that a particular crime was committed at a particular place and time. Also, you’re now saying Polanski’s reputation justifies raising questions, which is not something I object to. But your buddy Beldar, whom you’re obviously unwilling to criticize even though he deserves it, didn’t merely raise questions. He answered them.

    Furthermore, Polanski has lived in Europe for 32 years, so any accusation of criminal behavior must comport with whatever the applicable laws were/are there. Whatever he did with teenage girls there that would be illegal here, wasn’t necessarily illegal there.

    “You realize that as a part of his guilty plea, Polanski was referred for a psychiatric screening to determine whether he was a Mentally Disordered Sex Offender?”

    I don’t see how that’s relevant or illuminating, and if the psychiatric screening matters at all, it doesn’t matter as much as the results of the screening.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  427. “Unfortunately, that also reminds me how old I am.”

    DRJ – STOP THAT. Then you remind me of how old I am.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  428. Given the testimony of the victim, I would say that subsection 3 in-particular applies to Polanski. But then, I’m no lawyer.

    Cal Pen Code § 261
    (a) Rape is an act of sexual
    intercourse accomplished with a
    person not the spouse of the
    perpetrator, under any of the
    following circumstances:
    (1) Where a person is incapable,
    because of a mental disorder or
    developmental or physical disability,
    of giving legal consent, and this is
    known or reasonably should be
    known to the person committing the
    act.
    (2) Where it is accomplished
    against a person’s will by means of
    force, violence, duress, menace, or
    fear of immediate and unlawful
    bodily injury on the person or
    another.
    (3) Where a person is prevented
    from resisting by any intoxicating or
    anesthetic substance, or any
    controlled substance, and this
    condition was known, or reasonably
    should have been known by the
    accused.

    (4) Where a person is at the time
    unconscious of the nature of the act,
    and this is known to the accused. As
    used in this paragraph, “unconscious
    of the nature of the act” means
    incapable of resisting because the
    victim meets one of the following
    conditions:
    (A) Was unconscious or asleep.
    (B) Was not aware, knowing,
    perceiving, or cognizant that the act
    occurred.
    (C) Was not aware, knowing,
    perceiving, or cognizant of the
    essential characteristics of the act due
    to the perpetrator’s fraud in fact.
    (5) Where a person submits under
    the belief that the person committing
    the act is the victim’s spouse, and this
    belief is induced by any artifice,
    pretense, or concealment practiced by
    the accused, with intent to induce the
    belief.
    (6) Where the act is accomplished
    against the victim’s will by
    threatening to retaliate in the future
    against the victim or any other person,
    and there is a reasonable possibility
    that the perpetrator will execute the
    threat. As used in this paragraph,
    “threatening to retaliate” means a
    threat to kidnap or falsely imprison,
    or to inflict extreme pain, serious
    bodily injury, or death.
    (7) Where the act is accomplished
    against the victim’s will by
    threatening to use the authority of a
    public official to incarcerate, arrest, or
    deport the victim or another, and the
    victim has a reasonable belief that the
    perpetrator is a public official.
    Aggravated rape – punishable for life.

    Icy Texan (a68e3e)

  429. daleyrociks: “Jeff – Wrong again. I am impressed by your arrongance in lecturing lawyers in their ethics responsibilities and find it hard that you could misunderstand such a simple concept.”

    If you weren’t overly impressed by Texas lawyers, you wouldn’t perceive it as arrogant.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  430. Exactly what I suspected. Norman and Butler cannot or will not answer a simple question. They prefer to parse words, argue minutia, and obfuscate and deflect attention away from Polansky being a rapist.

    JD (5b1232)

  431. “…Furthermore, Polanski has lived in Europe for 32 years…”

    …and, since he’s still alive, we can assume that he hasn’t, in the intervening years, had sex with a minor girl who was a Muslim, or he would have been sliced into little bitty bits of Polish sausage.
    Fathers who are Lutherans, Catholics, Jews, etc, may react differently.

    AD - RtR/OS! (3759d6)

  432. daleyrocks: “Jeff – Can you explain what you meant by lack of evidence of even one crime and then your cute parenthetical please?”

    Not to be deliberately obtuse, but I don’t know what you don’t understand. I’ve seen no evidence that Polanski committed any crimes apart from what happened with Samantha Geimer. I wasn’t trying to be cute with the parentheses; I was just trying to be clear about what I was referring to.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  433. “But your buddy Beldar, whom you’re obviously unwilling to criticize even though he deserves it, didn’t merely raise questions. He answered them.”

    Jeff – Let me take a stab at rewording the above to highlight what I see as the difference between your opinion and that of DRJ.

    “But your buddy Beldar, whom you’re obviously unwilling to criticize even though [I believe] he deserves it, didn’t merely raise questions he drew a conclusion.”

    So what. You have a difference of opinion, not a difference of “fact.” No crime there. No ethics problem that I see.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  434. Jeff, just what do you have against those from Texas?
    Was it that girl in junior high-school that kept turning you down?

    AD - RtR/OS! (3759d6)

  435. Thank you, Dr. J 😉

    Icy Texan (a68e3e)

  436. Icy – Subsection 2 would apply as well.

    Given the mendoucheity you have shown in this thread alone, Norman, why would we we give your words greater weight than Beldar’s?

    Stay away from Burger King when Ritter is around.

    JD (5b1232)

  437. “I’ve seen no evidence that Polanski committed any crimes apart from what happened with Samantha Geimer.”

    Jeff – You know that’s not the way you worded it. Let me quote: “Aren’t you at all troubled by the gap between concluding it’s justified to publicly assert there were multiple crimes, and the complete lack of evidence there was even one crime?”

    You clearly say there is no evidence for even one crime in the text, so I do not believe I misunderstood a thing. Then you added a cute little parenthetical referring to the victimization rather than rape of Samantha. Is English your first language Jeff? I usually don’t have a problem understanding it if it is clearly written.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  438. “If you weren’t overly impressed by Texas lawyers, you wouldn’t perceive it as arrogant.”

    Jeff – Wrong again. I would perceive it as arrogant if you were lecturing New York lawyers on New York legal ethics.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  439. Jeff Norman:

    Yes, but the sort of logic you’re presenting here, when it’s employed, is usually attached to evidence and a specific accusation that a particular crime was committed at a particular place and time.

    Much of what we’ve discussed about Polanski comes from his own mouth: He has been quoted saying he fancies sex with young girls. Another report says he admitted in a London court case having liaisons with Swiss teenagers. And in his U.S. guilty plea, he admitted having unlawful sex with an underage girl. For many people, including me, his illegal conduct puts his other statements and actions in a different light.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  440. daleyrocks, you’re trying my patience.

    You ask me to explain something. I tell you I don’t know what it is that you don’t understand, but try my best anyway. And then you tell me you didn’t misunderstand anything.

    I didn’t mean to criticize you. I just meant to let you know I wasn’t sure what you were asking me.

    What is it you want me to explain?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  441. daleyrocks: “Jeff – Wrong again. I would perceive it as arrogant if you were lecturing New York lawyers on New York legal ethics.”

    Well, I guess you’re overly impressed with lawyers.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  442. “What is it you want me to explain?”

    Jeff – I like it when you try to make it the readers’ fault that they don’t understand your words when they say something different than you explain you intended. You are the victim here. I see it now. We are just trying your patience attempting to get simple answers from you and your frind jack for the past 350 comments and it is all our fault. All ist klar.

    Since your friend jack wants to focus on legal issues, in your OPINION, did Polanski rape Samantha back in 1977?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  443. “Well, I guess you’re overly impressed with lawyers.”

    Jeff – Wrong again. Another arrogant assumption on your part. Think about why.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  444. DRJ, re: comment #241, I don’t know why you keep insisting it’s reasonable to believe Polanski was/is sexually attracted to teenage girls as if I disagree. I don’t disagree. But what’s the evidence that his sexual preference resulted in criminal acts while he’s been in Europe? Do you even know what the applicable laws are there?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  445. daleyrocks: “I like it when you try to make it the readers’ fault…”

    I said I didn’t mean to criticize you. I just don’t know what you’re asking. I don’t see why you take that as pinning the blame on you or any reader.

    Again, what is it you want me to explain?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  446. “Do you even know what the applicable laws are there?”

    Jeff – Knock, knock. Try reading for content or being less deliberately obtuse. DRJ has not made an argument about the illegality of Polanski’s conduct in Europe. If you believe she has, please point it out.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  447. “I don’t see why you take that as pinning the blame on you or any reader.”

    REALLY?

    That seems to be the central feature of your style of debate, to blame the other side for not understanding you or to demand that they produce facts while producing nothing yourself and avoiding answering any questions. It’s pretty obvious if you skim down the thread.

    Enough of this for me tonight.

    Have a good evening.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  448. Quick check shows the age of consent in Switzerland to be 16.

    Icy Texan (a68e3e)

  449. Daleyrocks (quoting me): “I don’t see why you take that as pinning the blame on you or any reader.”

    Daleyrocks (his words): “REALLY? That seems to be the central feature of your style of debate, to blame the other side for not understanding you…”

    I don’t think so, but even if it’s my usual style, in this case I twice emphasized that I don’t mean to criticize you.

    “… to demand that they produce facts while producing nothing yourself and avoiding answering any questions.”

    I made no demands in this case. I just politely asked you what you want me to explain, and you didn’t answer.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  450. Jeff Norman,

    Some people may believe Polanski is a serial rapist, others may believe he’s wrongly accused, and still others may fall somewhere in between. I suppose it depends on our life experience and how credible we view the reports about Polanski.

    Let’s try an analogy: Assume I admitted I got a speeding ticket last week for driving 70 in a 40 mph zone. Also assume that I’ve been quoted on more than one occasion saying I love to drive fast and I think every driver wants to exceed the speed limit. Is it reasonable to suggest I have probably exceeded the speed limit on other occasions? I think it would be a reasonable conclusion even though you have no proof that I did.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  451. daleyrocks: “Knock, knock. Try reading for content or being less deliberately obtuse. DRJ has not made an argument about the illegality of Polanski’s conduct in Europe. If you believe she has, please point it out.”

    We were discussing Beldar’s repeated insistence that Polanski committed multiple crimes. DRJ told me he might be right, and she cited his European liaisons.

    Thanks for your valuable advice!

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  452. DRJ: “Let’s try an analogy: Assume I admitted I got a speeding ticket last week for driving 70 in a 40 mph zone. Also assume that I’ve been quoted on more than one occasion saying I love to drive fast and I think every driver wants to exceed the speed limit. Is it reasonable to suggest I have probably exceeded the speed limit on other occasions? I think it would be a reasonable conclusion even though you have no proof that I did.”

    I appreciate your effort, but I think your analogy fails because the presumed speeding is definitely illegal, whereas the presumed sex with teenagers in Europe is not definitely illegal.

    Right?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  453. daleyrocks: “Since your friend jack wants to focus on legal issues, in your OPINION, did Polanski rape Samantha back in 1977?”

    My opinion is there’s not enough evidence to know whose story to believe.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  454. I think the point is I like to drive fast and my speeding ticket (and it wasn’t even close to the speed limit) shows that sometimes I drive much faster than the law allows. Is it possible I drive fast but still stay within the speed limit most of the time? Sure, but my admissions plus that one speeding ticket show I’m willing to stray.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  455. It’s late where I live so I need to turn in. Good night.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  456. DRJ, three things to consider re: the improbability that Polanski molested anyone after his encounter with Samantha Geimer:

    The age of consent in France is 15.
    The age of consent in Switzerland is 16.
    Polanski has been married for 20 years.

    Of course it’s possible he had sex with minors other than Samantha Geimer in the U.S., and it’s even possible he had sex with girls who were under the age of consent in Europe. But does either possibility justify publicly asserting, as if it were an undisputed fact, that Polanski molested multiple victims?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  457. If a Polanski has sex with a 15 year old Swiss girl in the forest, but no one witnesses it, and the victim does not report it, has he committed a crime?

    Icy Texan (a68e3e)

  458. DRJ: “Sure, but my admissions plus that one speeding ticket show I’m willing to stray.”

    But if the speed limit is 120 mph, you don’t even need to stray.

    Likewise, Polanski didn’t need to worry about the law when he had sex with the 15-year-old Kinski girl, or with any other girls that age, when he lived in France.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  459. When a pervert like Polanski admits to having sex with 15-year old girls it’s only to draw away attention from the cows, sheep and squirrels around Gstaad.

    nk (df76d4)

  460. Let’s try this simple question, again, for the serially mendoucheous. Do you believe Polansky raped Samantha in 1977? Yes or no?

    Then let’s try this question – Do you believe Scott Ritter should ever be allowed in a Burger King again?

    JD (d7d467)

  461. JD,

    There is no answer in his mind. Polanski was not found guilty of, or plead guilty to, rape. The girl may have consented, even though her Grand Jury testimony was credible and graphically denied this, so to him that’s not rape. It boils down to the idea that if it’s not illegal, it’s not wrong. That’s why he used the deflection about age of consent in France. For Jeff Norman, if it is legal to have sex with a 15 year old girl, it’s not wrong because the State determines the age of consent. Presumably, the same would go for an 11 year old as Jeff Norman is ready to believe a 13 year old can consent after being given alcohol. The State is the only authority for morality and if the State is okay with it, given his arguments here so is Jeff Norman.

    Likewise, Polanski didn’t need to worry about the law when he had sex with the 15-year-old Kinski girl, or with any other girls that age, when he lived in France.
    Comment by Jeff Norman — 12/26/2009 @ 1:58 am

    In my career, I’ve only had two patients who were being treated for molesting/raping children. Both were similar types and consistent with much of the literature I’ve read. Both used many of the rationales that Jeff Norman has offered here. That’s not saying anything definite about Jeff Norton, it’s just something to consider.

    Hey, ever wonder why you rarely hear about single child-porn arrests? It’s because they tend to find each other and share material. They form rings to pass along anything new they can find or produce. They really stick together and rationalize the most ridiculous defenses for one another. I have no empathy for child molesters, child rapists, or child abusers… and no professional duty to fake empathy when necessary while treating them now that I’m retired. Apologists for same are almost as bad.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  462. Stashiu – You are much kinder than I. This clown is comfortable working with Scott Ritter, and being an apologist/obfuscator for Polansky. You observation about their view of the State is spot on.

    Just so we are clear, norman/butler, whether or not France allowed him to f*ck 15 year olds is quite beside the point, and makes him a sick twist. That you cannot even state that he raped Samantha shows how bereft of anything resembling morals you are.

    JD (c7b4fa)

  463. The very old joke around courthouses is that DA’s can get Grand Juries to indict a ham sandwich.

    And so it wasn’t difficult for the prosecutor at the time to manage the Grand Jury who indicted Polanski. They run their witnesses by the jury. There’s no cross examination, no defense witnesses, etc.

    But I wonder if the Swiss courts are so inclined to be as one-sided. Here’s a description of extradition treaties:

    — Sufficiency of Evidence.

    Extradition treaties, as well as relevant domestic law, require that a certain quality and character of evidence be presented before extradition will be ordered for persons not yet convicted. In extradition proceedings in the United States, sufficient evidence must be presented to satisfy a court that there is “probable cause” to believe that the crime for which extradition is requested has been committed, and that the fugitive committed it. The laws of several of our treaty partners have similar thresholds analogous to “probable cause”; a few require what amounts to a higher “prima facie” standard of enough evidence to sustain a judgment of conviction based on the evidence in the extradition request. Some of our other treaty partners do not require evidence sufficient to establish what we would deem probable cause in order to extradite fugitives to the United States.

    http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AQCDnECARBxiZGRmN25wOV8yNGZqdHRya2dr&hl=en

    Of course we are talking about Switzerland, the country that passed up many, many chances to extradite Polanski over the years, then suddenly — after it got in trouble in the United States for helping tax evaders — they apprehend him.

    So, four questions:

    1. Is the judiciary resistant to the country’s politics?

    2. Is there enough evidence to support their understanding of probable cause?

    3. Do the Swiss require the prima facie standard? In other words, enough evidence to sustain a judgment of conviction?

    4. Or, do they just need some paperwork from the United States?

    I would say they have what they need for probable cause as we define it. I don’t know about Switzerland. They may even have enough to sustain a conviction — but only for the unlawful sex charge.

    Maybe there are folks here who can provide legal answers to these legal legal questions.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  464. Butler – Are you unwilling or unable to answer my simple, and quite direct question posed to you and mr norman? Nice smokescreen of BS you threw up there. The innuendo was especially cute.

    JD (07dbe1)

  465. “We were discussing Beldar’s repeated insistence that Polanski committed multiple crimes. DRJ told me he might be right, and she cited his European liaisons.

    Thanks for your valuable advice!”

    Jeff – Wrong again my serial distorter of comments. You really need to stop attributing things to people they have not said or expressing thoughts for them they have not expressed, such as how impressed I am with lawyers. Those are bad habits to get into especially when the record is there for everyone to see.

    Beldar’s original comment is number 11 above. You and your buddy Jack tried to spin it into things he did not say.

    Beldar Comment #11
    “After reading article, I was left with an even keener hatred of, and heightened disgust for, Roman Polanski, the international scoff-law and serial, compulsive child molester.”

    We have had a number of Polanski posts on this blog and the age of consent difference between European countries as well as the differences in morals are well worn topics. You are not ploughing new ground as I said last night.

    I’ll repeat my request which you have not fulfilled:
    “DRJ has not made an argument about the illegality of Polanski’s conduct in Europe. If you believe she has, please point it out.”

    I think Polanski’s conduct in Europe with teenage speaks to his character and is relevant to his crime in the U.S. I’ll leave it to DYJ to explain her comment, but I imagine she feels somewhat similar.

    Don’t leap to conclusions that are evident.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  466. Until the dynamic duo of mendoucheity answers a simple and direct question, mockery and scorn is the best they deserve.

    JD (07dbe1)

  467. “And so it wasn’t difficult for the prosecutor at the time to manage the Grand Jury who indicted Polanski. They run their witnesses by the jury. There’s no cross examination, no defense witnesses, etc.”

    jack – In your legal experience do Grand Juries typically allow cross examination?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  468. I can’t remember the last time we had not one, but two skeezy pervs defending child rape on this blog. Please run back to your local NAMBLA and recount your thrilling days of talking smack to actual legal minds, no doubt they just love that stuff over there.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  469. Daley – In re that whole “overly impressed” BS from the mendoucheous one – I got the impression that you were more underly impressed with mr norman. Am I correct?

    Stay away from Scot Ritter @ Burger King, or pretty much anywhere else for that matter.

    JD (07dbe1)

  470. Dmac – One of them is in te veterans grouop with Scott Ritter. He seems comfortable with the pervs.

    JD (07dbe1)

  471. Butler – Are you unwilling or unable to answer my simple, and quite direct question posed to you and mr norman? Nice smokescreen of BS you threw up there. The innuendo was especially cute.

    Comment by JD

    1. You must have come to the conclusion by now that I only deal with legal issues and only use legal terms, especially when discussing specific crimes.

    2. Smokescreen? Innuendo? Please explain. Were you able to get through all of it? It was rather long.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  472. “I got the impression that you were more underly impressed with mr norman. Am I correct?”

    JD – I am decidedly underwhelmed by Mr. Norman. Like a lot of ultralefties he confuses quantity of output with quality of output. He has not left much quality on this thread.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  473. daleyrocks:

    I know that, in this case — the case that is the subject of this blog, there was no cross examination. I assume that it is typically the way things happen, but I haven’t conducted a study of all jurisdictions. Are you aware of instances where Grand Jury cross examination, defense witnesses, opening/closing arguments, etc are allowed?

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  474. I bow to your superior intellect, douchebag. Legally, do you think he raped her?

    JD (07dbe1)

  475. Having caught up with the last 200 comments (to 465) and having scrolled past a few long-winded screeds by the trolls, I still feel dirty, like I need to take another shower 70 minutes after I took my last one.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  476. “Are you aware of instances where Grand Jury cross examination, defense witnesses, opening/closing arguments, etc are allowed?”

    jack – This was a point you have raised at least half a dozen times implying that Polanski got a raw deal so I thought you knew the answer to it. Clearly you do not.

    I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on the internet. It is not my understanding, though, that the Grand Jury process in this country is typically an adversarial process. I am more than willing to let the lawyers on the thread more competently address the legal issues, unlike you and your buddy Jeff.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  477. He seems comfortable with the pervs.

    More than just a little comfortable, it would appear. It almost seems like he’s defending this kind of satanic behavior – but then again, he has nothing but the utmost in respect and admiration for the director of Rosemary’s Baby, so there you go.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  478. Comment by Stashiu3 — 12/26/2009 @ 6:18 am

    I wonder how well the hard-drives of the computers of our two Polanski lovers would stand up to a little forensic exam by the Kiddie-Porn Police?

    AD - RtR/OS! (3ace85)

  479. It’s simultaneously heartening and frustrating to see commenters where who I admire, respect, and (in this instance, as often) generally agree with who can’t bring themselves to stop feeding the trolls.

    Neither Jeff Norman nor jackbutler5555 has made a single argument or cited a single source which in any way exonerates Roman Polanski. Instead, they’re engaged in nasty debate — one in which they’ve repeatedly exhibited bad faith with a thin patina of good manners (one that they no longer bother with when discussing me) — with the most of the readers of this cite who share good sense, sound morality, and at least minimal appreciation of the law.

    It’s not worthwhile, people, to argue with those who misquote or selectively quote language from court cases out of context to suggest that there can be libel which is not false. A true statement, even recklessly made, cannot be libelous. When you argue the opposite, you show yourself to be an utter idiot as far as the law goes — and an utter idiot who is aggressive in spreading his nonsensical view of the law.

    The original Canons of Legal Ethics and their various current manifestations in the various states do impose high ethical standards on lawyers. In the state where I practice, I’m thought sufficiently knowledgeable about them that hundreds of other lawyers have paid hard-earned money to hear me lecture on ethical topics, and the State Bar of Texas has concluded that those lectures deserved credit for continuing legal education. Only a moron, however, could misunderstand legal ethics in a way that prohibited a lawyer — any lawyer, in any state of the U.S., at least — from publicly expressing opinions or commenting on publicly reported facts on matters in which he owes no duty of representation.

    In fact, I understand my ethical duties to include trying to help educate the general non-lawyer public (as well as, from time to time, other lawyers) on legal matters, which is why I took the time to link, read, and write several substantive comments on the California Court of Appeals’ decision to begin with.

    Legal ethics don’t require me to whitewash a monster like Polanski. They don’t require me to agree with, or stop calling out, fools and miscreants who seek to minimize Polanski’s evil. They don’t forbid me from, for example, summarizing or (within the bounds of copyright “fair use”) quoting a New Yorker article whose author in turn quoted Polanski’s own autobiography and interviews in which he boasts of repeatedly having sex with so many young girls that he can’t remember their names (if he ever even knew them).

    Nor do legal ethics require me to avoid drawing, or publishing, opinions that are the result of my inference (rather than the result of first-hand knowledge or others’ factual reporting). It’s my opinion, for example — based on Polanski’s guilty plea, plus public reports including (but not limited to) those I’ve referenced here — that in all probability, he’s very likely used his celebrity and fortune and position to take advantage of many, many other young girls. Some of them may have been above the legal age of consent, and may have given sufficient consent so that Polanski didn’t commit any crime under then- and there-applicable local law. I also believe that in all probability, the conduct alleged against him with respect to Samantha Geimer — plying her with alcohol and drugs to reduce her inhibitions and her ability to resist — was part of Polanski’s pattern with other girls. Thus, I suspect and believe — but do not here assert as a matter of fact, either based on first-hand knowledge or second-hand reporting — that Polanski has had sex with many other girls below the age of 18 — children, in other words — whose purported (or, likely, implied-by-Polanski) consent was ineffective. I couldn’t prove that today in a court of law — not, at least, without compromising Polanski’s rights against self-incrimination by demanding truthful answers from him under oath (and I’d be able to get those if he were to sue me, by the way). But nothing in any legal code of ethics prevents me from believing that, holding those opinions regarding the probability of the facts I’ve posited, and sharing those opinions (and the mix of facts, logic, and inference that has led me to them).

    My initial comments here did focus, strictly speaking, on the law — and specifically, on the holdings and discussion in the Court of Appeals’ decision. My later comments, including my reference to the Toobin article, went beyond the law, however, into the realm of morality.

    The Toobin article certainly supports a considered judgment (i.e., an opinion) that Polanski is a “serial, compulsive child molester.” That’s primarily a moral and psychological evaluation. I’m quite comfortable that I have an adequate basis for it, and I think most reasonable and moral people, laymen or lawyers, would agree with it. Jeff Norman or jackbutler555 or anyone else is entitled, of course, to disagree, but I personally have not seen a whit of persuasion in anything they (or anyone else) have asserted about Polanski, here or elsewhere.

    N.B.: The specific reason I chose the term “child molester” in expressing my opinion — rather than saying “rapist,” for example, or “statutory rapist” — was to indicate that I was making a moral rather than legal judgment. Morality is more subjective than law. If Polanski had had sex with 13-year-old Samantha Geimer in Spain (where the age of consent, amazingly, was thirteen) and had as much clear-headed and genuine “consent” as any 13-year-old is capable of forumlating and expressing when it comes to a combination of oral, vaginal, and anal sex with a man old enough to be her grandfather, that might not have been a crime under local law. The local age of consent does not determine my judgment on moral matters, however, and I would still accuse Polanski of being a “child molester” under those circumstances. I feel the same way about the 16-year-olds of Gstaad who he boasts of seducing: Whether Polanski was ever likely to be prosecuted or convicted under local law doesn’t require me to accept that as moral or proper conduct on his part, and regardless of whether they could legally consent to having sex, those 16-year-olds were still children.

    Trolls have dishonestly and disingenuously and repeatedly put words in my mouth — that is, lied about what I’ve said — by recasting my condemnation of Polanski in terms of multiple “crimes” unrelated to his treatment of Geimer. Well, color me unsurprised: That’s just what trolls do.

    And that’s what the trolls will continue to do — dodge, shift, pluck out of conduct, distort, insult, lie outright, and then dance away — with this comment, and with anything any of you may write that is even remotely critical of Roman Polanski.

    There is, however, a quiet satisfaction that will come, in time, to those who deny trolls the grist for their mischief. Stop responding to them, folks. Ignore them. Every time you give them the attention they crave — even if it’s to demonstrate to others’ further and complete satisfaction that they’re foolish trolls — you will also add to your own heartburn. (I’ll pay mightily for this long comment, especially after promising repeatedly to ignore them.)

    So, again: Please don’t feed the trolls. None of you need the validation or approval — or acknowledgment of error — from these trolls that you seek, and that they are incapable of giving anyway. The satisfaction you’ll get from their slow starvation will exceed any you might get from scoring further debating points against them (easy though those points may be to score).

    Beldar (71b366)

  480. Comment by Beldar — 12/26/2009 @ 9:34 am

    Well said, as usual!

    AD - RtR/OS! (3ace85)

  481. This was a point you have raised at least half a dozen times implying that Polanski got a raw deal so I thought you knew the answer to it. Clearly you do not.

    I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on the internet. It is not my understanding, though, that the Grand Jury process in this country is typically an adversarial process.

    The subject of the blog is Polanski.

    So, as far as the Polanski matter is concerned, if you don’t think the GJ process is an adversarial one and I don’t think it’s an adversarial one, we’re in agreement, right?

    You want a reading about the rest of the country and it is my unwillingness to make a generalization without doing some homework that you find fault with. That’s a strange argument. Or, do I misunderstand you?

    How do you know whether anyone who says he’s a lawyer is, in fact, a lawyer? I suspect you can tell which are real lawyers by determining whether they are in a agreement with you. In the internet, it doesn’t matter what occupation one claims to be. It is the cogency of the contribution. And that includes bona fide attorneys. Surely, you must agree with that.

    That being the case, you might want to see what you can find out yourself. Here’s some information:

    How independent is the grand jury?
    The grand jury is independent in theory, and although the instructions given to the grand jurors inform them they are to use their judgment, the practical realities of the situation mitigate against it.
    The grand jury hears only cases brought to it by the prosecutor. The prosecutor decides which witnesses to call. The prosecutor decides which witnesses will receive immunity. The basic questioning is done by the prosecutor on a theory he or she articulates. The grand jury members are generally permitted to ask questions at the end of a witness’s testimony. The prosecutor generally decides if he or she has enough evidence to seek an indictment. Occasionally the grand jurors may be asked whether they would like to hear any additional witnesses, but since their job is only to judge what the prosecutor has produced, they rarely ask to do so.
    The prosecutor drafts the charges and reads them to the grand jury. There is no requirement that the grand jury be read any instructions on the law, and such instructions are rarely given.
    http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  482. Beldar, thank you for taking the time to write your post. There is much truth in what you write. The two trolls in question just have two goals:

    1. Irritate or stir up people.
    2. Play Clintonian word games to continue with #1.

    That’s it. The “jackbutler” character is just a tiresome troll. It’s about “scoring points” and little else.

    But the other one has an axe to grind. His association with Scott Ritter—and Scott Ritter’s, um, interesting personal life involving young girls and law enforcement—make his own fascination with Polanksi understandable, if repugnant.

    I also think this latter troll has mental issues.

    So you are quite correct. Beldar, you might consider asking Patterico to shut down commenting on this thread, in fact. Your choice. And again, I appreciate your taking the time to comment in such an irritating thread.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  483. Eric, I am assuming that Patterico is seeking the greater satisfaction of watching the trolls eventually starve. In the meantime, while other commenters are, in good faith, still responding to their baiting techniques, he’s inclined to leave the thread open — not out of respect for the trolls, but out of respect for those still unable to prevent themselves from responding to them, and out of a general desire to leave communication channels open.

    If so, I approve of his decision and admire his patience.

    And who knows? Perhaps a California criminal defense lawyer — or a prosecutor from another locality who’s not under the same ethical restraints as Patterico — who’s read the whole file and knows California criminal procedure backwards and forwards will wander by to shed some light on my still-pending question about section 1320.5!

    Beldar (71b366)

  484. Jack and Norman, sitting in a tree
    K-i-s-s-i-n-g
    First comes love
    Then comes marriage
    Then comes (pick your take)
    Pushing a baby carriage!

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  485. “Neither Jeff Norman nor jackbutler5555 has made a single argument or cited a single source which in any way exonerates Roman Polanski.”

    beldarc:

    Speaking for myself, at least, I haven’t attempted to exonerate Polanski of the unlawful sex charge. As far as the other charges are concerned, I have pointed out the difficulties a prosecutor would have proving them.

    Of course, you are aware the the burden of proof is on the state.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  486. The butler did it in the drawing room with a candlestick.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  487. At Burger King, John. At Burger King.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  488. “A true statement, even recklessly made, cannot be libelous.”

    beldarc:

    Is that the standard? I thought it was malice or reckless disregard for the truth. Maybe you were trying to say, truth is an absolute defense, which of course, it is.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  489. …with malice of forethought.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  490. There sure seems to be a lot of “static” on the net today – must be interference from all of the credit card transactions.

    AD - RtR/OS! (3ace85)

  491. Comment by Dmac — 12/26/2009 @ 10:25 am

    Some people are incapable of thinking, either fore or after.

    AD - RtR/OS! (3ace85)

  492. It’s not worthwhile, people, to argue with those who misquote or selectively quote language from court cases out of context to suggest that there can be libel which is not false.

    beldarc:

    I couldn’t agree more. It’s an old rhetorical trick. Distort what the other guy is doing, then argue it is not worthwhile to deal with the guy. And, of course, stay away from specifics. Throw in an “out of context” for good measure.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  493. “I suspect you can tell which are real lawyers by determining whether they are in a agreement with you.”

    jack – Wrong again. You have the same problem in making unwarranted assumption as Jeff.

    “So, as far as the Polanski matter is concerned, if you don’t think the GJ process is an adversarial one and I don’t think it’s an adversarial one, we’re in agreement, right?”

    jack – Then why do you keep raising red gerrings about cross examinations and defense witnesses in your comments? It makes no sense other than to obfuscate the legal issues which you claim you are all about and reinforce the clear impression that you are not here in good faith?

    jack – In your OPINION did Polanski rape Samantha?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  494. He’ll get back to you after checking for his opinion with Arianna.

    AD - RtR/OS! (3ace85)

  495. Oops, I made comment 495 before reading Beldar’s excellent summary.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  496. I see that the counselor is still unwilling to answer the simple and direct question asked of him. SHOCKA

    JD (0b20bd)

  497. Now, Arianna, that’s a girl I’d … but she’d better not talk. Gag plus black hood or something.

    If you know what I mean. After all, everybody wants to.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  498. DRJ, you’re retired? I would not have guessed that; I had assumed that you were still practicing.

    I hope you are having a happy retirement. :)

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  499. JD – Did Ritter ever double date with Polanski?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  500. The reason I raise the issue of how a Grand Jury works is that the testimony from that one-sided process is being used to support people’s versions of events.

    My OPINION Is that Polanski had unlawful sex with Samantha.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  501. johnhitchcock: Are you old enough to participate here? Show mom and dad what you’ve been writing.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  502. Damn, that static’s getting bad…eBay and Amazon need better filters on their sites.

    AD - RtR/OS! (3ace85)

  503. Jackbutler5555, that didn’t answer the question. “Unlawful sex” and “rape” are not the same thing.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  504. “My OPINION Is that Polanski had unlawful sex with Samantha.”

    jack – That was not the question asked.

    In your OPINION, did Polanski rape Samantha?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  505. I’m just overwhelmed by the folks here who desire my opinion. This despite beldar’s instructions to refrain from doing so.

    So, I looked up the word, rape, to be sure I would be able to apply a dictionary definition to the term. Here it is:

    . rape1 (r p) KEY

    NOUN:
    1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
    2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
    3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.
    TRANSITIVE VERB:
    raped, rap•ing, rapes
    1. To force (another person) to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse; commit rape on.
    2. To seize and carry off by force.
    3. To plunder or pillage.
    http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/rape

    The answer to your question is NO.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  506. To be fair Dmac, the probation officer (Farr?) wrote a pretty sympathetic report.
    The outpouring of support from the film industry was expected… they’ve been doing this kind of thing for years.
    Angelica Huston was ice cold towards the girl, which also typified the Hollywood response… after all, that is how females get into the industry, you don’t snitch, you play along.
    Huston has seen this a million times saying the victim looked like one of those little chicks that are always around who could be anywhere from 16 to 25 (paraphrase).

    Polanski was a fool to have run.
    Even now I bet he could come in, sit a few hours in a locked room while his lawyers finish up and leave having paid a huge fine; accepting some toothless misdemeanor probation, and then be able show up next year in Hollywood to get another Oscar

    SteveG (11baba)

  507. It is interesting that a noise that was demanding observance of the legal niceties in this matter sidesteps a legal question by providing a definition from a non-legal source.

    Just another goal-post mover is the 20-cent jacka$$.

    AD - RtR/OS! (3ace85)

  508. AD:

    That was what was requested. Do you have sufficient familiarity with the case to discuss it? Your pith is about all I recall seeing here.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  509. beldar:

    There seems to be an effort to sidestep your instructions to the troops. They are responding to me through other posters.

    I don’t want to get anybody in trouble. But you may want to address it in your instructions 2.0.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  510. “..Your pith is about all I recall seeing here..”

    Well, someone is trying to “pith” other people off around here.

    Remember the goals of this particular TLE.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  511. Jackbutler555: I would note that I don’t actually care what your opinion is, or really about this case in general; it strikes me as being a leftover fight from three decades ago that just doesn’t strike my passions the way it does for people who were alive when it happened.

    But I do get snarky when I notice people failing to answer questions they are pretending to answer, even if the question itself bored me. :)

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  512. I never trust butlers. Those wetbacks are always stealing my scotch.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  513. And again, it is always amusing to check out this character’s antics over at PuffHo. Nothing new. Just more trollin’.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  514. #481 Beldar:

    So, again: Please don’t feed the trolls.

    No worries. 😉

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  515. EB…wouldn’t be caught dead over there, might come down with some infection that scotch couldn’t cure (that’s right JH, I took it!).

    AD - RtR/OS! (3ace85)

  516. Angelica Huston was ice cold towards the girl, which also typified the Hollywood response… after all, that is how females get into the industry, you don’t snitch, you play along.

    Yeah, I always thought her an excellent actress, but her actions on that day were not only disturbing, but heinous in the extreme. We’ve seen what the girl actually looked like at the time, no way does the defense of “she looked older” wash with anyone outside of Hollyweird. Not to mention that when she opened to door to Polanski’s bedroom, she said she could tell the girl was drugged – up and glassy eyed, but of course she would never, never think of ratting out her dear friend the child molester.

    I always wonder what would have happened if Nicholson was home that day – probably exactly as it unfolded. Hell, he might have even joined in, as long as his girlfriend looked the other way.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  517. My thanks to Patterico’s pugnacious poster from Texas for providing the best laugh of the week in the form of Beldar’s Manifesto (BM), a pathetically transparent exercise in backpedaling.

    Beldar is correct when he writes: “A true statement, even recklessly made, cannot be libelous.” But he is in no position to know that Polanski molested multiple victims.

    In most if not all jurisdictions, molestation is the name of a crime. That’s why the following assertion in BM amused me greatly: “The specific reason I chose the term ‘child molester’ in expressing my opinion — rather than saying ‘rapist’, for example, or ‘statutory rapist’ — was to indicate that I was making a moral rather than legal judgment.”

    Question: What kind of a lawyer would use the name of a crime to indicate he’s talking about morality rather than the law?
    Answer: Patterico’s pugnacious poster from Texas, the hysterical author of BM

    Although he won’t admit it, it appears Beldar realizes his previous comments might be libelous, because he falls all over himself in BM emphasizing how it’s really just his opinion that Polanski committed alleged crimes Beldar had referenced as if they were acts that had indisputably occurred. What happened to the cocky Beldar who stood by his words, refusing to give an inch, daring Polanski to sue him?

    Like Cher announcing her retirement for the umpteenth time, Beldar repeatedly insists he will no longer respond to what Jack or I say, yet he keeps doing exactly that. Further demonstrating why he’s not to be taken seriously, he instructs everybody else to refrain from communicating with us. That lack of self-control and self-awareness is one of BM’s comedic highlights.

    Another source of laughs is this non sequitur: “Neither Jeff Norman nor jackbutler5555 has made a single argument or cited a single source which in any way exonerates Roman Polanski.” Of course, non sequiturs are big on this blog, so Beldar’s standing amongst his sycophantic admirers is not likely to be diminished. But those capable of rational thinking, if they were to be exposed to Beldar’s lame attempt to score points via obfuscation, would immediately recognize that neither Jack nor I has sought to exonerate Polanski. So we’ve “failed” to do that in the same way we’ve “failed” to bake a cake.

    Because he is incapable of defeating a logical argument that conflicts with his nasty emotions about the Polanski case, Beldar seeks instead to dismiss his fact-based superiors. Near the end of BM he again offers the advice he himself has so far been unable to follow. Notwithstanding his own contradictory behavior, he presents this enticement to his real or imagined followers: “There is, however, a quiet satisfaction that will come, in time, to those who deny trolls the grist for their mischief. Stop responding to them, folks. Ignore them.”

    We shall now see if Patterico’s readers believe Beldar’s advice is worth following, and if the pugnacious poster from Texas has come fully or only partially unglued over a criminal matter from the 1970’s involving S-E-X.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  518. Jeffy G Norman’s wall-o-text is what I came here to not see? Really, Chubbsy Ubbsy, you should quit trying to pick up the teacher with your bag of candy. You got no chance with her.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  519. In most if not all jurisdictions, molestation is the name of a crime

    When used in a legal context, yes. But many words which are used to mean one thing in a legal context have different meaning in colloquial speech. This type of overloading is not uncommon.

    In colloquial English as I know it, ‘child molestor’ means ‘adult who has sexual relations with children’, even in jurisdictions where the law claims that children are capable of giving consent. That is to say, ‘molestation’ is a term of moral disapprobation, and that disapprobation is based on people’s moral judgment of adult-child sexual relations, not on the legal judgment of adult-child sexual relations.

    I think it’s pretty clear that Beldar is using the term in its colloquial sense, not in its technical legal sense.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  520. You got no chance with her.

    It isn’t interested in an actual adult woman, JH – we both know what it’s really after.

    Limited time offer: Two for One at Burger King!

    Dmac (a964d5)

  521. I dunno that Jeff Norman is a pervert. He is certainly a pervert enabler, but again, I dunno that he has those predilections.

    My estimation of him is a loser. A Kato Kaelin hnger-on type, who needs to attach himself to a meal ticket. Any person or cause, however disputable or disreputable, for a meal and a bed to sleep in for the night.

    nk (df76d4)

  522. aphrael: “I think it’s pretty clear that Beldar is using the term in its colloquial sense, not in its technical legal sense.”

    Really? Apart from his backpedaling manifesto, where did you detect that clarity?

    He initially called Polanski a “serial, compulsive child molester” in comment #11. It was in the context of discussing how Polanski has been treated by the legal system. Beldar also called him a “scoff-law” [sic].

    So why would a reader believe Beldar was making only a moral judgment rather than a legal one?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  523. *hnger-on* was intentional. Hunger makes a hanger-on.

    nk (df76d4)

  524. But, goddammit, Jeff, just how long will it be before Polanski’s PR firm buys you that McDonald’s # 2 meal?

    nk (df76d4)

  525. You can prove me wrong. Tell us how you earn your daily bread.

    nk (df76d4)

  526. Somebody get a new lightbulb for the projector. The last one burned out from overuse.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  527. Tell us how you earn your daily bread.

    It is a low – level functionary for NAMBLA.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  528. …since it’s well – known that the Other Gabor Sister doesn’t pay her “contributors” anything in a monetary sense.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  529. aphrael: “I think it’s pretty clear that Beldar is using the term in its colloquial sense, not in its technical legal sense.”

    Really? Apart from his backpedaling manifesto, where did you detect that clarity?

    He initially called Polanski a “serial, compulsive child molester” in comment #11. It was in the context of discussing how Polanski has been treated by the legal system. Beldar also called him a “scoff-law” [sic].

    So why would a reader think Beldar was making only a moral judgment rather than a legal one?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  530. Ya know, Dmac, yer prolly right. At least my daughter is safe from Chubbsy Ubbsy on at least 5 counts:

    1 She prefers adult men.
    2 She currently calls that lone-star state home.
    3 She is an adult.
    4 She’s already knocked up.
    5 She could choke Chubbsy Ubbsy out with one hand tied behind her back.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  531. Not to mention that when she opened to door to Polanski’s bedroom, she said she could tell the girl was drugged – up and glassy eyed, but of course she would never, never think of ratting out her dear friend the child molester.

    My information differs:

    1. She didn’t open the door to the bedroom.
    2. She did not testify the girl was drugged up and glassy-eyed.
    3. She testified that the girl looked between a certain age and a certain age.
    4. Police found some cocaine in the house and plea-bargained her to testify. But I don’t recall her testimony is as damaging as you said it was.

    Is my memory wrong about this? Or, do you have a different source? What would that source be?

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  532. So why would a reader think Beldar was making only a moral judgment rather than a legal one?

    Comment by Jeff Norman — 12/26/2009 @ 1:50 pm

    So why would a reader think that Jeff Norman’s double-talking, meally-mouthed (actually the way f****ts talk) defense of Polanski, would not make him

    1) A child-molesting pervert protecting his own kind;
    2) A beggar hooking on to child-molesting pervert just to get something to eat;
    3) Both of the above.

    nk (df76d4)

  533. In comment #518, Dmac claims Anjelica Huston “said she could tell the girl was drugged – up and glassy eyed.”

    When did she say that and what’s your source?

    Still waiting for SPQR to cite evidence that Polanski confessed to furnishing a minor with drugs.

    Tick, tock, tick, tock…

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  534. I never trust butlers. Those wetbacks are always stealing my scotch.

    by John Hitchcock — 12/26/2009 @ 12:00 pm

    That Johhny Walker Red your daddy and mommy poured into the Johnny Walker Blue bottle didn’t fool anyone, with the possible exception of you. Just a warning. Your dad and mom are putting pencil marks on the label. The good news is that you can add water. With Red, nobody can tell the difference.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  535. Speaking of clear thinking, guess who signed the 9-11 Truth nutjob petition?

    http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

    For anyone interested, just do a search for one of our favorite new posters committed to clear thinking and politesse.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  536. Eric – Special child assrapist apologist crazy.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  537. Holy crap.

    Jeff Norman, are you a 9/11 Truther?!?!

    Or is that a different Jeff Norman who is the 69th signatory of this petition?!?!

    Patterico (705247)

  538. Oh, it’s the same person. The buddy of Scott Ritter, who goes to Burger King for more than some chicken strips.

    It’s pretty clear what is going on:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  539. So, that’s why we haven’t heard from Ross Perot lately.

    AD - RtR/OS! (3ace85)

  540. Patterico: “Jeff Norman, are you a 9/11 Truther?!?!”

    Your multiple question marks and exclamation points are appropriate. I agree that the “Truthers” have distinguished themselves as wackos. I think their theories are beyond absurd. But I did sign the petition – which I took as only a call for more investigations – to show my support for victims and their families who felt legitimate questions hadn’t been adequately answered. At that point, there was no “Truther” movement as we now know it, and I never had any involvement with those people in any way.

    Are you back now, P, or only for really important stuff like this?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  541. Riiiiiiiggggghhhht. The fact this guy is nuttier than a Payday bar has not a thing to do with it.

    Eric Blair (318caf)

  542. When did she say that and what’s your source?

    The same source you’ve been providing for all of your inane suppositions, sweetheart.

    Hey, what’s next on your Truther hit parade, I wonder:

    1) You’ll tell us that FIRE DOESN’T MELT STEEL!

    2) You’ll claim that the evil neocons were behind it all – you can always count on the evil Jooos, can’t you?

    3) Boosh did it, and of course Darth Vader Cheney was trying to inflate the stock of Halliburton in the bargain. NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

    You’re nuttier than a fruitcake, Nancy, and you’re about one course short of a combo platter. Time for the men in white coats and that big coat hanger, sweetie. Don’t worry, they’re here to help you, really – now just go quietly with them and you’ll feel all better in no time.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  543. I agree that the “Truthers” have distinguished themselves as wackos. I think their theories are beyond absurd.

    Yet Nancy signed the petition – but hey, there’s nothing wrong with HER thought processes, no sir! She’s just asking questions, dammit! Mulder knows that THE TWOOF IS OUT THERE!

    Awesome Fisking there, Eric. You made my day with that one.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  544. SPQR: “Jeff Norman, you again show your ignorance of the facts. Polanski admitted to giving a drug to the victim in his plea. Why is it that you are so ignorant of the real facts…?”

    Actually, genius, the real facts are as follows: Polanski has never confessed that he gave drugs to the victim, contrary to your false assertion. He certainly wouldn’t do it at a plea hearing devoted to a completely different charge. As you can tell by reading pages 17 and 18 of his probation report, he explicitly denied committing the crime you are “sure” he said he committed. Your “certainty” is so great that you cited my opposing contention as an example of my “ignorance.”

    Polanski: “We talked about the use of drugs, and she said she had used Qualuudes which she stole from her mother…I found a little pill box in the bathroom with Quaalude pieces marked Rorer. She took one piece. There was conversation about it but there was no actual offer by me.”

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  545. Jeff: you use the ‘reasonable person’ standard, of course. What would the reasonable person thing?

    My opinion is that anything said in a comment on a blog is presumptively colloquial speech unless it explicitly calls itself out as being technical speech. That’s the way I’d expect most people to read it.

    aphrael (07144e)

  546. Having caught up with the last 200 comments (to 465) and having scrolled past a few long-winded screeds by the trolls, I still feel dirty, like I need to take another shower 70 minutes after I took my last one.

    John Hitchcock — 12/26/2009 @ 8:41 a

    Did you wash behind your ears? How about down there? Front and back? The brown soap? Taking another shower may do it for you, but I wonder: could it be possible you might have OCD? Not ever feeling quite clean can be cured — but not in the shower. Medication, counseling. It’ll work wonders.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  547. So, we have a whack-job twoofer who hangs out with folks like Ritter, and a mendoucheous counselor, both of which are unwilling to answer a simple question, but have fairly certainly shown that they do not think Polansky raped anyone. The dynamic duo of mendoucheity continues their public mooning of anyone that crosses their path. It is like watching a train wreck. Cannot look away.

    JD (cc0748)

  548. aphrael: “My opinion is that anything said in a comment on a blog is presumptively colloquial speech unless it explicitly calls itself out as being technical speech. That’s the way I’d expect most people to read it.”

    The criteria by which it’s determined whether or not speech is defamatory, was established long before the invention of blogs, and it’s always been more about the content of speech than the forum in which it’s expressed. There’s nothing about blogs that changes the basis for judgment. Everybody knows that both facts and opinions are disseminated in blogs, just as both facts and opinions are and have always been expressed in all sorts of settings. The platform/outlet/location and form of expression are relevant as far as ascertaining (at least roughly) who/how many heard or saw the speech in question (which helps determine the amount of harm caused), but it still comes down to the content as the most significant factor with respect to guilt or innocence.

    Do you really think the following hypothetically false sentence wouldn’t be libelous if it were published in a blog?

    I think Joe Smith is a terrible person because he committed four bank robberies last year, and killed a guy during one of them.

    The speaker’s condemnation of Joe Smith is in the realm of opinion, but that Smith committed serious crimes is presented as purported fact, not opinion. Likewise, Beldar’s disapproval of Polanski is in the realm of opinion, but that the filmmaker molested multiple victims was presented as purported fact. I think the pugnacious poster from Texas belatedly realized his comments could be libelous, and that’s why, even though he had previously announced his withdrawal from this discussion, he took great pains today to emphasize that he had merely expressed an opinion when he repeatedly insisted Polanski is a “serial, compulsive child molester” and dared the target of his wrath to sue him.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  549. It is my most humble opinion that jeff norman is a whack-job twoofer what is quite comfortable associating with molesters and obfuscating for rapists what drugged and assraped 13 year old girls, and who is too cowardly to actually acknowledge that is what he does.

    JD (cc0748)

  550. Polanski is a serial child molester who should also be investigated for molesting cows, sheep and squirrels.

    Jeff Norman may or may not be a pedophile
    but
    Jeff Norman is an exploiter of veterans;
    A suck up to wacko liberals;
    and
    A loser looking to attach him to any person or “cause” that will give him a meal for the day and a flop for the night.

    Ok, Jeffy?

    nk (df76d4)

  551. My opinion of norman/butler is decidedly not legal in nature, but is based on the record provided in this thread and their droppings elsewhere. People that associate with Ritter and are sophists for Child assrapists.

    JD (cc0748)

  552. Jeff Norman:
    1. I have not idea what your point is besides baiting and getting your jollies by hearing people respond in the hopes of dispelling your ignorance.
    2. How about clearly making your point, write it down without interruption of what you think others think of it. Put it out there.

    Some facts.
    A. All 6 charges remain pending. The motion to dismiss them was never filed, it was to be filed at his sentencing, that sentencing never occurred.
    B. Cooley on the record has stated this, I have quoted him above.
    C. The DA wrote a letter to the judge in accepting this plea agreement, and did so because it was out of form. That letter is available, if you don’t take the time to locate your own copy, you should not be opining about it.
    D. There is nothing operative in the 20 vs 50 argument, as no sentencing approached the upper limit he was already aware of. You theoretic concern is demolished by trained lawyers.
    E. Polanski had a relationship with 15 year Kinski before the attack, and after it. It well documented.
    F. Polanski was taking child pornography of the 13 year old. The pictures don’t lie.
    G. The girl was drugged, but she did protest the sex, over and over. He was not convicted of anything besides unlawful sex with a minor, but he still remains a rapist, because he used a date-rape drug, the forceably had sex with a protesting girl, he is not a convicted rapist, per se, but he still raped a child.

    Again, do you have a point, what is it that you thing you have to offer. How about bullet pointing out whatever assertions or remarks you think should be read by others.

    Seems you are just thrilled by your own voice and whatever attention you can get. Don’t pout now.

    Put up or shut up.

    Mark Lobo (a70a69)

  553. “I think”

    Jeff – That is your first mistake. Yopu have demonstrated many fanciful thoughts about the commenters on this blog, virtually all of them demonstrably wrong and your continued conflation of fact with opinion does you no credit. Somebody who masquerades as a journalist should know better or at least purport to have higher standards of professionalism, IMHO.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  554. #549 JD:

    Cannot look away.

    Wanna bet? 😉

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  555. So the choice is simple. Either ignore the troll and the nutcase…or turn the subject around to what ought to be discussed: why Mr. Norman associates with nutball organizations, and make him justify himself repeatedly, changing assertions and definitions as you go.

    Or start talking about his associations with Scott Ritter, and his feelings about that particular pervert’s situation. Repeatedly, and adding insults as you go.

    In other words, do what they are doing. They’ll tire of that quickly, and crawl under their rocks at PuffHo.

    Actually, this jack5555 person is a garden variety troll, just posting to irritate. Mr. Norman, on the other hand, needs some mental health assistance.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  556. No EB, they both are in dire need of professional assistance.
    The 20-cent jack@$$ has severe delusions of grandeur – he seems to actually believe that he is an attorney-at-law.

    AD - RtR/OS! (3ace85)

  557. Eric – Mr. Norman’s current crop of people he has chosen to defend, Polanski, Burris, Blago, and Spitzer, major asshats one and all, show he is indeed in need of a mental health tuneup.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  558. Oh, there is much more. Mr. Norman has quite a history, he does. Much becomes clear.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  559. Do tell!

    Patterico (424a94)

  560. Jeff Norman rationalizing Spitzer’s conduct on Huffington Post 12/30/08, much the same way he has Polanski’s on this thread:

    “….evidence against Spitzer is extremely scarce. All we know is he paid a lot of money to an escort agency, Ashley Dupre once consorted with him in Washington and an appointment booker said he likes “to do things” that aren’t “safe.” But Spitzer could have engaged in perfectly legal sadomasochism (which might explain the reference to dangerous behavior), or had consensual, unrecompensed sex (apart from paid companionship) with his hirelings. After all, he is an attorney who made elaborate arrangements concerning payment, transportation and hotel accommodations, so there’s nothing far-fetched about the notion that Spitzer also took the trouble to make sure the intimate stage of any extramarital encounter he had was conducted lawfully.”

    Jeff Norman apparently believes the moon is made out of cheese.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  561. Ooh, look how gleeful Patterico is at the prospect of gossiping with the genius Eric Blair! If it’s juicy enough, it might even make everybody forget how I taught Beldar the bombastic barrister a lesson in defamation law, as evidenced by his humiliating backpedaling today after previously standing by his every word, refusing to give an inch, and daring Polanski to sue him. Beldar dispossessed himself of that false bravado once he realized he was vulnerable to a libel suit for recklessly insisting in a public forum that Polanski had committed multiple crimes. What a bush leaguer. And you all admire him, don’t you?

    Be nice to me, and I might teach you a few other things…

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  562. daleyrocks: “Jeff Norman apparently believes the moon is made out of cheese.”

    It’s just that I think evidentiary standards should be applied consistently, and a person’s guilt or innocence shouldn’t be determined by how much he’s hated or liked.

    I’m glad you highlighted my Spitzer post. I’m very proud of it. Also, it demonstrates how ridiculous it is to suggest my interest in the Polanski case is based on how I feel about the defendant or his alleged crimes. It’s not about that at all.

    I also defended Don Imus’s right to make offensive jokes, OJ Simpson’s right to publish a book, and Rod Blagojevich’s right to appoint Roland Burris to Congress. I’m not a fan of any of these people. Nor am I a fan of Roman Polanski.

    But you guys aren’t interested in reality when it conflicts with your cheap emotions, are you?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  563. Yawn!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  564. “I’m glad you highlighted my Spitzer post. I’m very proud of it.”

    Jeff – It was a real piece of garbage at least with respect to the Spitzer portion. Where did the comments go? Where they deleted or never open? I loved it that you “question the timing” and hint at a conspiracy. It’s that old 9/11 Truther in you coming back out, isn’t it?

    “Although most observers have been too busy indulging in schadenfreude to notice, it’s probably no coincidence that Spitzer’s perceived comeuppance occurred three weeks after the Washington Post published his editorial about predatory loans in which he wrote: “Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.” The headline – “Predator Lenders’ Partner in Crime” – refers to the Decider-in-Chief himself.”

    Oooooh, scary coincidences that are actually complete bullshit given the Democrat reluctance to rein in the activities of Fannie and Freddie, but let’s not go there, shall we?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  565. “I taught Beldar the bombastic barrister a lesson in defamation law, as evidenced by his humiliating backpedaling today”

    Jeff – I missed this. All I saw was Beldar reasserting his position and you repeating what you said for probably the tenth time. You have strange definitions of backpedaling and lesson teaching. Hurry for that mental health tuneup before you convince yourself you are OK.

    “recklessly insisting in a public forum that Polanski had committed multiple crimes”

    Jeff – You really need to stop lying about what people say here. The word “crimes” is your word, not what Beldar said. You have already been corrected about it. Lying about it repeatedly gets you closer to the drain in your circles around it.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  566. daleyrocks (quoting me): “I taught Beldar the bombastic barrister a lesson in defamation law, as evidenced by his humiliating backpedaling today”

    daleyrocks (his words): “Jeff – I missed this.”

    Indeed.

    “All I saw was Beldar reasserting his position…”

    Look harder.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  567. DMAC? DMAC?

    Not to mention that when she opened to door to Polanski’s bedroom, she said she could tell the girl was drugged – up and glassy eyed, but of course she would never, never think of ratting out her dear friend the child molester.

    My information differs:

    1. She didn’t open the door to the bedroom.
    2. She did not testify the girl was drugged up and glassy-eyed.
    3. She testified that the girl looked between a certain age and a certain age.
    4. Police found some cocaine in the house and plea-bargained her to testify. But I don’t recall her testimony is as damaging as you said it was.

    Is my memory wrong about this? Or, do you have a different source? What would that source be?

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  568. Jack, that ignorant poster isn’t interested in reality. And don’t expect Patterico to weigh in so as to upgrade the dialogue and affirm the importance of accuracy. He’s in a gossip mode right now. If you know who I dated in high school, you can probably get his attention. Great priorities, P.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  569. “I taught Beldar the bombastic barrister a lesson in defamation law, as evidenced by his humiliating backpedaling today”

    I get annoyed when people claim I am backpedaling when I am not. Care to substantiate this claim?

    Patterico (424a94)

  570. Is this all part of some giant prank?

    Patterico (424a94)

  571. “Look harder.”

    Heh!

    Right away, Jeff. I’m on it!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  572. “Is this all part of some giant prank?”

    Patterico – I QUESTION THE TIMING!!!!!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  573. Patterico (quoting me): “I taught Beldar the bombastic barrister a lesson in defamation law, as evidenced by his humiliating backpedaling today”

    Patterico (his words): “I get annoyed when people claim I am backpedaling when I am not. Care to substantiate this claim?”

    It’s sweet that you feel protective of Beldar.

    I already substantiated my claim. I don’t know which posts you saw and which you didn’t. But the four key points are:

    1. I told Beldar his repeated claim, asserted as if he were stating an undisputed fact, that Polanski is a “serial, compulsive child molester,” strikes me as libelous.
    2. Beldar insisted his assertion is not libelous, said he stands by his words, won’t give an inch, challenged Polanski to sue him, and announced he’s done responding to me.
    3. I continued to argue why I believe Beldar is vulnerable to a libel suit.
    4. Despite his pledge to ignore me, and despite having previously asserted that he’d stand by his supposedly non-libelous words, today Beldar issued a lengthy statement that conspicuously and very explicitly emphasized that his allegation concerning Polanski was only an opinion.

    I think Beldar belatedly realized he’s vulnerable to a libel suit, and that’s why he broke his vow to remain silent and felt it necessary to explicitly emphasize his accusation is just an opinion. In other words, his reversal was two-fold: 1) He responded after he said he wouldn’t, and 2) he gave an extensive explanation that he had merely opined after he had dismissively told me no such explanation is needed.

    backpedal
    to retreat from or reverse one’s previous stand on any matter; shift ground: to back-pedal after severe criticism.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  574. Patterico: “Is this all part of some giant prank?”

    Not on my end. Maybe yours.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  575. HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!!!!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  576. It is my opinion that Norman is comfortable in the company of people that like to bugger children.

    Daley – That comment about Spitzer was hysterical. Great find.

    JD (5acd54)

  577. #573 daleyrocks:

    Heh!

    Right away, Jeff. I’m on it!

    I’m not holding my breath.

    For all of Beldar’s eloquence, he makes his points as softly as a 12 pound sledge wrapped in burlap. For the trolls du jour to have missed that bespeaks an obtusity so rare as to define a taxonomy all its own: Moonbatticus pervertii.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  578. EW(1) – Right, Beldar sees that Jeff is still pestering the board and harrassing people like DRJ with Beldar’s words for some reason, comes back and absolutely demolishes Jeff’s position. Bloes it to smithereens. Yet Jeff has the arrogance and stupidity to call it backtracking? I’m sure a whole lot of people are buying what he’s selling!

    That Spitzer and Burris clumn he’s so proud of? There no comments. Jeff did not address why. I’m pretty sure I know.

    COMPLETE FAIL

    daleyrocks (718861)

  579. Be nice to me, and I might teach you a few other things…

    Such as how to bugger children and get off (regarding the prosecution, that is);

    Making up sh-t as I go along;

    Being a card – carrying twoofer, but covering my hindquarters with my tail between my legs when called on it;

    Not on my end.

    Nice double entendre, you sick perv;

    Or, do you have a different source? What would that source be?

    The same source as your mouth drippings – the back end of your best friend in the whole world, the buttbuddy of Scotty in the BK.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  580. Hey, if this Pat Paulsen wannabe (see the reality TV link Patterico gave; very interesting quotes) wants comments, maybe his comments about the 9-11 petition he signed could be forwarded to a Truther site? Speaking in a purely hypothetical fashion.

    Or the guy could go back to mud wrestling. Seriously, read the link. This character is *about* trying to irritate others.

    Eric Blair (e051c0)

  581. JD: “That comment about Spitzer was hysterical.”

    It’s not that I don’t think Spitzer had sex with women he hired; it’s that there’s no known evidence he paid for sex rather than companionship. That’s what would be needed to convict him. He resigned because he was embarrassed, not because there was a strong case against him.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  582. What is is; what was was; what will be will be. Unless you’re a spineless quivering mound of jell-o like Chubbsy Ubbsy where the truth is an amorphous object. And a bare barely teen is a worthwhile conquest.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  583. I’m pretty sure Spitzer could have made a strong case against someone else caught up in the exact circumstance… and he’d have gladly ruined a chosen adversaries life over less…

    I enjoyed seeing the inquisitor/prosecutor Spitzer brought down by his hypocrisy. It’s Christmas, let me have my present

    SteveG (11baba)

  584. SteveG: “I’m pretty sure Spitzer could have made a strong case against someone else caught up in the exact circumstance…”

    I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t be able to, for the same reason it would not be easy to convict him. Whatever you think about Spitzer has nothing to do with what evidence the court would require.

    As I recall, he went after prostitution rings, not customers/clients.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  585. Does any of this sound, well, familiar? This is all from the “prank” link above:

    A less heralded event, meanwhile, involved Norman himself, who was arrested in Boise, Idaho, on charges of disturbing the peace while perpetrating an elaborate hoax for a never-broadcast Fox special, “World’s Nastiest Neighbors.”

    The 1998 stunt occurred when Norman and a crew leased a house on a quiet cul-de-sac and proceeded to stage mud-wrestling matches in a frontyard filled with 52 plastic pink flamingos, tiki torches and a large trampoline.

    They invited perplexed neighbors over using a bullhorn and taped their aghast reactions with, among other things, a miniature camera inside a pair of oversized sunglasses.

    The charade lasted several days before concerned residents called the police, who hauled Norman in and confiscated more than 30 videotapes.

    “I don’t see anything in there that’s all that frightening, but these people are very intolerant and uptight,” Norman said recently, adding, “I’ve never had handcuffs on before, and it hurt.”

    Far from being humiliated, though, Norman considers Boise the apex of his hidden-camera career.

    And of course straight from the horse’s…mouth:

    “I’m definitely not an actor,” Norman said. “I never really knew what to call myself. A provocateur, I guess…. I’ve always enjoyed interacting with the unsuspecting public.”

    Again, are his antics here a bit clearer now?

    Norman’s former producer had the last word on the man:

    …kind of a cross between Gavin MacLeod and Chris Elliott…

    Now, there is an image to stay with us while this guy raves on.

    It’s bad performance art, but at least he didn’t use a trampoline this time. Trolls are tricky that way.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  586. “It’s not that I don’t think Spitzer had sex with women he hired; it’s that there’s no known evidence he paid for sex rather than companionship.”

    Heh!

    Money changed hands, but it wasn’t for the sex part of the evening? Splain that, Lucy!

    Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  587. Oh, and this line?

    Norman said. “I never really knew what to call myself.”

    Um. Lots of folks here will have some suggestions.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  588. She gave away the sex for free, but she charged for her companionship?

    Seriously?

    That’s the theory?

    Hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  589. She gave away the sex for free, but she charged for her companionship?

    True, it makes no sense.

    Then again, it doesn’t make much sense for anyone to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars for just a few orgasms. Sure, he definitely did it, but it really doesn’t make any sense that he did… even though we know it’s true.

    Alan (07ccb5)

  590. daleyrocks, contrary to how you’re characterizing it, my reasoning isn’t even unique let alone ridiculous. I don’t disagree that escort agencies and massage parlors are often fronts for prostitution. But that has nothing to do with what it takes to convict a john.

    If you remember that escort agencies and massage parlors advertise in newspapers and the Yellow Pages, and that customers pay with credit cards, you might find it easier to admit that evidence of a payment is not evidence of a crime.

    Again, I’m not at all saying that Spitzer didn’t have sex with the women he hired.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  591. But what does the flamingo say, Gavin?

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  592. Then again, it doesn’t make much sense for anyone to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars for just a few orgasms. Sure, he definitely did it, but it really doesn’t make any sense that he did… even though we know it’s true.

    Comment by Alan — 12/27/2009 @ 10:20 am

    Doesn’t make any sense to us, but to Spitzer it obviously did. In my opinion, not to put too fine a point on it, it was for the same reason that (in my opinion) Jeff Norman’s pulling his antics around here – the self-satisfaction of spending what to others would be an enormous waste of resources (time/money/whatever) to make some personally satisfying conquest. The pleasure of “getting over,” in both cases, if you will.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  593. I think that every post by this person should be preceded by:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzpc1o0Y5-U

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  594. NOYK, I was referring to our Andy Kaufman wannabe, not you, of course.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  595. Eric, that’s funny but personally I liked the Battle of Wits one bettah.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  596. I still haven’t made up my mind if the Mud Wrestling Artiste is nuttier than a Payday Bar or is trying some kind of overly twee performance art.

    The more I learn about him, the more hilarious he becomes. Particularly when he is serious.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  597. Every appearance by Spitzer should be preceded by:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLm5oSJRxIU

    It should be mandated by law.

    Alan (07ccb5)

  598. the Mud Wrestling Artiste

    LOL
    That link up above is pretty darn funny. I suggest everyone who hasn’t read it already, do so.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  599. Whoa. Alan, that link roasts Spitzer but good, but could we pls do the NSFW warning next time; some other posters might be on their lunch breaks @ work… thx

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  600. Oops. Sorry. I’m stupid.

    Alan (07ccb5)

  601. I feel like I can learn a lot from Jeff and his nuanced commentary. I’m not sure what, but I’m sure there’s a lot. I think he’s departed the blog, though.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  602. Daley, I am sure he will be back. After waxing his flamingo.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  603. Actually, each time the Tag Team of Child Molester Apologists appeared (and they supported each other at PuffHo,as well), I kept thinking of this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdZ4JgGm2p4

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  604. daleyrocks: “I feel like I can learn a lot from Jeff and his nuanced commentary.”

    Maybe Patterico will invite me to be a guest blogger. I could even come up with a pseudonym in keeping with the spirit of the blog. How about King of Accuracy?

    Do you think Beldar could handle it?

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  605. How about this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzpc1o0Y5-U

    It’s much more accurate.

    I guess you finished polishing your flamingo!

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  606. Maybe Patterico will invite me to be a guest blogger. I could even come up with a pseudonym in keeping with the spirit of the blog. How about King of Accuracy?

    Comment by Jeff Norman — 12/27/2009 @ 2:33 pm

    Great; we could call it “Normanico’s Nuances.” Am thinking “King of Accuracy” just sounds a tad too, well…self aggrandizing. Nothing at all like your tone so far. Oh my no.

    Do you think Beldar could handle it?

    *chuckles gently* Well…I’m thinking yes.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  607. “How about King of Accuracy?”

    How about Turd Fondler, 3rd Class?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  608. How about The Flamingo’s Flatulence?

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  609. What about that turd-colored and shaped object on a stick that grows in the shallows of the wetlands? I think they call it a kitty-willow or something. Chubbsy Ubbsy could be the Exploding Kitty Willow. But anything with “accuracy” in its name, associated with Chubbsy Ubbsy would have to be deemed of National Lampoon quality and wholly inappropriate for serious discussion anywhere.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  610. But he has his own website, and used to have others. Check out “The Norman Report” though it is defunct on the web. There are some unsavory YouTube videos that give you some flavor of the Polisher of Flamingos.

    This is all weird theater, friends. Or he is,um, nuts.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  611. He’s just mad because Miss Crabtree turned him down.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  612. Or that chicken did.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  613. Or that chicken did.

    Comment by Eric Blair — 12/27/2009 @ 3:26 pm

    Yeah, thanks for that educational suggestion a couple posts above. This is a man who, it’s quite apparent, likes any excuse to say “F***” very loudly in public. (Won’t give the satisfaction of linking the pathetically-low-viewed video in question.) Or maybe he just enjoys trying to shock people.

    Yeah, that’s it. Even if it makes a woman or two react to him as if he were a molester. Which, verbally, of course, proved by the video, he is. If a man talked like that to me on the street he wouldn’t enjoy the reply he’d get in return.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  614. Norman: I noticed that you avoided to reply to 554 above.

    So lets focus on the only thing you seem to have left in your craw still.
    1. Child pornography is a form of molestation, there is no one at all who disputes that Polanski was taking pornographic images of a 13 year old.
    2. No one disputes the Polanski had sex with a 13 year old which is statory rape, you can call it by different terms, but calling it rape would be truthful. Don’t expect a jury to side that its not rape.
    3. The victim to this day maintains he told Polanksi to stop repeatedly, but he continued. Sex by force against ones will, is rape.
    4. Polanski had sex with underage girls more than once. http://www.eamonn.com/2009/10/roman_polanskis_threesome_in_m.htm Considering a 15 year old in the USA can not consent to sex with an adult, it may be considered molestation.
    5. Polanski exploited the 15 year old Kinski by returning to her the promise of becoming a star.
    6. Beyond Kinski lets look at what make truth the defense to serial. How about reading http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bighollywood/2009/10/01/the-polanski-archives-pattern-of-underage-girls/
    Is having sex with an underage girl over and over and over, a reasonable definition of “serial” Easily

    So Jeff Norman, Polanski by force climaxed in a 13 year old’s rectum, after giving her alcohol, while she protested. His sexual relationship with underage girls is well documented.

    What on earth is your point? That a rapist can not be called a rapist? Polanski can ask to withdraw his plea, given the history and allegations, the odds a current judge would not accept the plea withdrawal is tiny. The odds that Polanski would be convicted based on current evidence and Polanski’s freely stated statements in his autobiography are high.

    What is most likely is that Polanski will be returned to the USA, and the court will go soft, because they think that Daltons tactics to bait Rittenband by use of Polanski’s celebrity, to somehow take 6 counts down to 1, and then say 42 days in Pysch eval, is total punishment is amazing.

    The child pornography charge by itself today would be enough.

    Best of all the lower court seems ready to reward fleeing from jurisdiction.

    But I digress, Jeff Norman beyond trying to make this about you, and how people react to you, and how you feel you ar so right. AGAIN. What is your point? What are you offering?

    You read like a child ” I said this, and you did not say this, so that means I am right, so now you say I am not, let me quote what I said, that means you are worried, since you are worried, I must be right, thus showing how wrong of you to challenge me…..so there.

    Mark Lobo (a70a69)

  615. You know, most performance art is bad enough…but pathetic performance art is the bottom of the barrel. “Look at me and how hideous I am!” is the sum total of his awesome originality. Probably fancies himself some Warholian 15 minutes of fame, but instead gets 15 hours of beclowning.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  616. NOYK, I hope that my posting of JN’s bizarre “humor” was not too offensive to you. You have always been most civil and polite; I very much enjoy your posts.

    What I wanted to demonstrate is what a poseur this person actually is, by showing everyone his usual…well, oeuvre.

    Bad performance art:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Live_TV_show_sketches_of_the_1970s#Leonard_Pinth-Garnell

    Or someone in need of psychiatric assistance.

    But does it really matter?

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  617. What I wanted to demonstrate is what a poseur this person actually is, by showing everyone his usual…well, oeuvre.

    Comment by Eric Blair — 12/27/2009 @ 3:52 pm

    Yes, and glad you did. (And the title of that vid gave enough warning for those not inclined to watch, so no worries.) Very educational, like I said.

    The onionskin-thin intellectual veneer’s pretty easy to peel off given his online record. Heh. Poseur is right, methinks.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  618. Yeah, King of Accuracy is probably too much. Other possibilities:

    America’s Sweetheart
    Blitzer for Spitzer
    dailymocks
    Sergeant of Sarcasm
    Better than Beldar
    The Lawyer Destroyer
    Mr. Succulence
    Polanski’s Pleader
    King of Zing

    The polls are open until 8 PM PST.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  619. Ya know, I like that Mister Suck-a-lance one pretty good.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  620. I vote for Mr Suck.

    SteveG (909b57)

  621. Ah

    You beat me to it.

    SteveG (909b57)

  622. Only 8 PM? Not too secure in our ability to take input on our puffed up screen names, are we?

    Still, I like Polanski’s Pleader. Works for me.

    Mr. Succulence

    You need spell check, I think. But don’t be so hard on yourself – you’re not that terrible.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  623. Oh, I think that “Pink Flamingoes” is a fine choice for Mr. Norman, for all kinds of reasons.

    But as you can see, his whole schtick has been, well, exposed (if I dare use that term around a Friend of Ritter).

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  624. Ludicrous Lobo asks: “Is having sex with an underage girl over and over and over, a reasonable definition of “serial”?”

    Obvious answer: Yes, but lawful sex isn’t a reasonable definition of molest.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  625. But is that what a flamingo would say, or Jeff Norman?

    Or a chicken?

    Or Scott Ritter?

    Or Chris Elliott?

    And is there a difference?

    Honestly, this guy is just a prat. Make fun of him until he goes off and makes another “funny” video.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  626. Eric Blair: “But as you can see, his whole schtick has been, well, exposed…”

    Considering I use my real name and link to that prank article from my website, you geniuses might be making a little too much out of your “discovery.”

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  627. I agree the chicken video isn’t funny.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  628. Hey, you are the guy who looks like Sesame Street’s “Beaker” after a week long bender. If Beaker was into porno, that is.

    And that was after make up.

    So call people all the names you like. Your mirror does worse to you each morning.

    Nope, you have been shown to be a silly little troll. Your serious intellectual act is about as funny as watching you try to shock people on the street by using that coarse Saxon word for “coitus.” Instead, you looked like the ineffectual little perve that you are.

    Shoo.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  629. you geniuses might be making a little too much out of your “discovery.”

    Comment by Jeff Norman — 12/27/2009 @ 4:35 pm

    So it does bother him. Heh heh heh.

    How about the video, Mr. Norman? (You certainly racked up a lot of views on that one; my, my.) Did you insert the, shall we say, intellectually-creative visual aids yourself, or were you too busy reading law books and had to delegate that artistic, yet time consuming, task to an assistant? LOL

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  630. Oh, yeah, no doubt you’re right – your series of pretending (?) to be a complete and total jackass has no relation whatsoever to your complete and total jackassery on this blog. No doubt, there is no correlation to that behavior and this behavior – none whatsover.

    What a pathetic loser of a poseur – he gives actual prats a bad name. A ginormous git of epic proportions.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  631. Okay. A thief of crows. A crash of rhinos. A lucas of nerds.

    What do you call a group of Normans?

    A nothing of Normans.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  632. Yes, NOYK….I think that our auteur had some bombshell to drop upon the legal profession. Or so he claimed a couple of days ago.

    Maybe he was getting his chicken costume cleaned.

    Again.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  633. no one you know: “So it does bother him.”

    I assure you it doesn’t bother me you saw an article I link to on my website. That’s sorta the idea, genius. I was simply pointing out how silly it is to congratulate yourselves for “discovering” it.

    Jeff Norman (7f6dbc)

  634. Just keep *plucking* that chicken, Jeff.

    nk (df76d4)

  635. Comment by Jeff Norman — 12/27/2009 @ 5:03 pm

    Thanks but I assure you I’m no genius. But (to repeat one of my questions to you) what about the video? If you link that from your website I apologize for having missed it.

    And since we’re on the subject, who inserted the lovely red-and-yellow costumed footage? Am sure whoever did must have thought it -and the rest of the video – hilarious at the time. Including the “um, get away from me, perv” looks/responses from a couple of the women you verbally molested on a public street.

    Yes, you’re quite the intellectual, it’s clear.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  636. “…I was simply pointing out how silly it is to congratulate yourselves for “discovering” it…”

    Of course, most people would have been embarrassed to post that kind of thing. Not this champion of liberty!

    Say, speaking of that, when is that world shaking new view of the legal profession appearing, Mr. Norman?

    Or, as I suggest, you might be a little busy cleaning that chicken suit and acting like one of the perves you so readily seem to defend.

    You see, what is so funny about you is how serious and intellectual you tried to appear here. I don’t think it is “bad theatre” anymore with you.

    I suspect you are full on delusional.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  637. I think Chicken Man needs some kind of intervention – from Scott Ritter.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  638. …and you what kind of intervention, I trust.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  639. The media probably won’t report that intervention either.

    If Bill Kristol had been caught doing what Ritter did, it would’ve made the front page of the Dog Trainer and the NYT. But Scott Ritter? If the mainstream media covered that, I must’ve slept through it.

    Alan (07ccb5)

  640. I think Chicken Man needs some kind of intervention – from Scott Ritter.

    Comment by Dmac — 12/27/2009 @ 5:36 pm

    Yep – instead of Burger King they could meet at KFC (and Jeff knows what that stands for).

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  641. NOYK, I hope that my posting of JN’s bizarre “humor” was not too offensive to you. You have always been most civil and polite….

    Comment by Eric Blair — 12/27/2009 @ 3:52 pm

    Thanks, Eric, but at this point am almost sorry you posted that since am wayyyy too much enjoying needling this (video-proven) pervy jerk repeatedly. Heh heh heh.

    Now that his mask is off, hope people keep mocking him so he won’t (a) keep wasting other posters’ time or (b) fool others here w/ his faux-intellectual act again.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  642. I agree, NOYK. And on that subject:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onY_Fhw1IrE

    Tell me that he doesn’t look like a pervish, debauched version of Beaker.

    That’s the image that comes to mind every time he posts, from no on!

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  643. And besides, NOYK, the Chicken Man has certainly been trying to needle people for several days. “Hoist by his own petard” has a certain ring to it.

    Except I am guessing he likes that sort of thing.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  644. Tell me that he doesn’t look like a pervish, debauched version of Beaker.

    That’s the image that comes to mind every time he posts, from no on!

    Comment by Eric Blair — 12/27/2009 @ 6:11 pm

    LOL I think Mr. Norman has more hair but it certainly captures the apparently feckless interior – however I like this Beaker one even bettah, since Mr. Norman did such a good job of unwittingly ChickRolling himself – w/ his own video, no less…

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  645. I must have clicked the wrong link. Does anybody know where the Polanski blog is?

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  646. El otro chingado otra vez.

    nk (df76d4)

  647. El otro chingado otra vez.

    Comment by nk — 12/27/2009 @ 7:17 pm

    Tell us how you really feel, though. Heh.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  648. C’è ne di voi amici del asshole hanno qualche cosa dire circa l’argomento di questo blog? Esso doesn’ la t compare voi fa. Ma, blather sopra.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  649. Le c’est beaucoup plus amusant cette façon, je crois.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  650. Faccio preferire l’impressione voi la gente un’oscillazione del gruppo. Nessuno è in disaccordo con a vicenda. You’ con riferimento a tutta la tenuta ‘ pene di s e segnare nell’unisono.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  651. Re: jackbuttler5555…

    Wonder Twin powers….activate!

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  652. Tio estas la punkto pri troloj. Ili pensas ilin estas for, for pli inteligenta ol ĉiuj aliaj. Verdire, ili malŝpar ĉies tempo, inter kiuj estanta sia propra.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  653. Der kleine Mann versucht, mit uns zu sprechen! Wie reizend!

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  654. Un certo chump che dice he’ l’avvocato distinto A. dello S. farà appena una dichiarazione ed ognuno pompare la puntura del loro vicino. Per varietà, cambiate le mani e segnate lo scatto vicino voi. Ciò è armonia. Voi realmente don’ la t ha molti pensieri profondi. Infatti, in profondità pensare è per la gente voi don’ la t gradice.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  655. “…I must have clicked the wrong link. Does anybody know where the Polanski blog is?…”

    Anyone have a good recommendation for the learned and most polite gentleman? I mean, after he is done stroking Mr. Norman’s fevered brow, as we have seen at PuffHo.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  656. Pienso que es muy interesante que el minuto exacto Sr. Norman desaparece, el Sr. Butler parece. ¿Una coincidencia interesante, no?

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  657. I like the:
    Pecker Checker
    Corruption Crusader

    I could even go with Underdog, but it’s been done. jackbutler should go as Mini Me.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  658. Ne vi amas ĝin kiam malgranda viro prov sono saĝa, en la modo de troloj? Ĉi tiu estas ankoraŭ plia ekzemplo de codependent trolldom. Eble tiu ĉi sin vestos per koko konvenig (al) por Sro. Norman. Kaj tamen, estus nenio nova.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  659. So NOYK, schlagen Sie den verschwitzten Geruch der Strümpfe vor?

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  660. Eric,
    Ich liebe den Geruch von Strümpfe morgens. Es riecht wie Sieg.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  661. Che cosa è il guy’ nome di s — Beldarc? Qualunque. Lo dice necessità di smettere di comunicare con me. Penso that’ buon consiglio di s. Perché persistete? Gli ha fissato l’esempio per. Lui doesn’ colloquio di t a me. Il problema è he’ s non sul blog affatto. Quello significa che la gente non avete niente possiate ripeterti. Così, siete da gas che. Così, blather sopra nella speranza I’ il ll accende ancora e potete avere significato nella vostra vita.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  662. Αν η μαλακια ηταν εργοχειρον, θα ειχες φτιαχει τη προικα σου.

    nk (df76d4)

  663. NOYK:

    Traurig aber richten Sie aus. Sie spotten und erklären Sieg.

    Viel Gespräch, mehr Posieren, weniger Richtung. Geschäft wie üblich für Besuchsschleppangeln. Früher oder später wachsen sie von gelacht werden an müde und verlassen für grünere Weiden.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  664. Ich hoffe, dass sie früher statt später verlassen werden. Aber wenn sie nicht verlassen, ist es GUT. Wir können über sie länger lachen.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  665. Ich denke, dass der Pervert fertiges Kommentieren ist. Ich hoffe. Sein Wunder-Zwilling fährt während einer Zeit, traurig fort. Da er Beldar’ fehlbuchstabiert; s nennen absichtlich, empfehle ich uns addiere ein zusätzliches ” t” zu seinem Namen, jedes Mal wenn er erscheint. Zufällig selbstverständlich.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  666. Eric,
    Ich verstehe nicht. Bedeuten Sie hinzufügt einen „t“ in der Mitte des „Butler“? LOL

    Das ist lustig. Aber ich glaube nicht, dass Sie so grobe sind.. LOL erlauben Lassen uns den perversen Menschen, ihre groben Buchstabenspiele zu haben.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  667. Ja mein elektronischer Freund. Ich tat ihn bereits einmal, und es würde einfach sein, damit der Rowdy übersetzt, was ich geschrieben habe. So kein Geheimnis. Aber diese Schleppangeln geben nur bekannt, um Mühe zu verursachen, also scheint das Verspotten sie notwendig. I’ m sure dort ist viele irritierenden Pfosten, zum von den Wunder-Zwillingen zu folgen. Für mich muss ich eine Geschichte zu meinen Kindern lesen. Haben Sie einen guten Abend.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  668. Ich wünsche das gleiche für Sie, Eric. Gute Nacht.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  669. Senor jackass muy douchebag.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  670. Trolls don’t like to be laughed at, it seems. Fair enough.

    Eric Blair (2830cd)

  671. Jeff Norman, is now saying:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-norman/polanski-lawyer-says-clie_b_405766.html

    1.Where is says Judical Misconduct is a virtual fact.
    2.Suggests the public is not privy to information to think anything, even though the contents of the Grand Jury and probation reports are public record.
    3.Says that Polanski is not a danger any more. As if a murderer who is now old is no longer going to do it again, so let him go.
    4. He also thinks Polanski can only be charged with the rape charge he admitted to. (Yes Jeffrey statatory rape is still rape).

    Unless I am mistaken the extradition is based on the crime and the fleeing of jurisdiction, so the extradition is based on both crimes.

    Why is Norman so “okay” with Polanski having sex with a little girl of 13?

    He falsely claims this would not be a crime in Europe, which it most certainly would be then and now.

    Mark Lobo (c405ff)

  672. Mark – Patterico has a newer post up on this regarding Polanski’s comfort and Jeffy made a cameo appearance last night touting the post you linked.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  673. Since I departed on the 27th, there have been four posts. Four. And one of them is derived from a visit to Huffington Post so that Mark Lobo could report back to the group. Another is a report on a Jeff sighting.

    Face it. You guys just hang around and play with each other’s putzes when we’re not around. You have become dependent on us.

    I’m coming back in another few days. I expect to see you to show some progress as far as withdrawal is concerned. Come up with some new ideas and let go of the putzes. It’ll make you blind.

    jackbutler5555 (53519a)

  674. Ah, butt-boy Butler gracing us with his chlamydia-infected presence again.

    nk (df76d4)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 2.1653 secs.