This is the thread where the fringster comes back with teeth

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I agree with much of this. He seems to be a talented, accomplished fellow to whom some very bad things have happened, none of which should be relevant to his sentence or extradition. However, I would note that (IIRC) (1) he did six weeks in a psychiatric facility, (2) he did that time as part of a plea bargain with prosecutors under which that time served would be the extent of his jail time, (3) he fled the country when it became apparent that the judge was going to reject the plea bargain, leaving him at risk of serving a much longer sentence than the one he thought he was going to get when he pled, and (4) there were well-based allegations of judicial misconduct involved.

(1) 6 whole weeks!? It was part of an observation of him, right? Do you know the results of that observation?

(2) What was the final plea bargain agreement? When did it take effect? What conditions was it subject to?

(3) Your (3) is another crime - what's your point?

(4) They came up almost thirty years later. Let him have his day in court and make the argument - when he shows up in court.

He's a recidivist offender who shows no remorse after preying on a child. Maybe we dems should advocate a bit of sharia law here.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Yes.

My question is, after he pleaded guilty, how did he get out of the country? I assume he was released pending sentencing or something, but don't you have to surrender your passport and do other various things?

Yes, they don't have a treaty? Or yes, I'm wrong?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I agree with much of this. He seems to be a talented, accomplished fellow to whom some very bad things have happened, none of which should be relevant to his sentence or extradition. However, I would note that (IIRC) (1) he did six weeks in a psychiatric facility, (2) he did that time as part of a plea bargain with prosecutors under which that time served would be the extent of his jail time, (3) he fled the country when it became apparent that the judge was going to reject the plea bargain, leaving him at risk of serving a much longer sentence than the one he thought he was going to get when he pled, and (4) there were well-based allegations of judicial misconduct involved.

If his plea bargain were rejected by the court, he could have withdrawn his plea and gone to trial. The remedy for judicial misconduct is appeal and referral to the CJP, not flight. There is zero honor in what he did.

You stay in the U.S. to have the trial, or you die abroad staying out of all countries with extradition treaties for the rest of your life. There is no third option. There are no judicial remedies available to a person who continues to defy an order to appear in court. There is no "King's X" in the American legal system. Even if he's innocent of the charges, he's a shitbag for breaking a promise. Unilateral shit like that makes the system worse for everybody, particular poor defendants who would never have been allowed to travel abroad pending sentencing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

(1) 6 whole weeks!? It was part of an observation of him, right? Do you know the results of that observation?

(2) What was the final plea bargain agreement? When did it take effect? What conditions was it subject to?

(3) Your (3) is another crime - what's your point?

(4) They came up almost thirty years later. Let him have his day in court and make the argument - when he shows up in court.

He's a recidivist offender who shows no remorse after preying on a child. Maybe we dems should advocate a bit of sharia law here.

I don't like Polanski, I don't like what he did, and I don't like the fact that he skipped the country. I don't know enough about the circumstances surrounding his plea bargain to know how strong his position there is. I'm really not interested in playing the part of Polanski's defender on this board, since -- as I mentioned, I don't like him or what he did, and can't even think of a movie of his that I liked apart from Chinatown -- of the irony. That said, I think the status quo ante a few days ago -- Polanski unable to visit certain countries, AUSAs and press spending their efforts on other things -- maybe better served the public and his victim.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by atticus grinch

if his plea bargain were rejected by the court, he could have withdrawn his plea and gone to trial. The remedy for judicial misconduct is appeal and referral to the cjp, not flight. There is zero honor in what he did.

You stay in the u.s. To have the trial, or you die abroad staying out of all countries with extradition treaties for the rest of your life. There is no third option. There are no judicial remedies available to a person who continues to defy an order to appear in court. There is no "king's x" in the american legal system. Even if he's innocent of the charges, he's a shitbag for breaking a promise. Unilateral shit like that makes the system worse for everybody, particular poor defendants who would never have been allowed to travel abroad pending sentencing.

2

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't like Polanski, I don't like what he did, and I don't like the fact that he skipped the country. I don't know enough about the circumstances surrounding his plea bargain to know how strong his position there is. I'm really not interested in playing the part of Polanski's defender on this board, since -- as I mentioned, I don't like him or what he did, and can't even think of a movie of his that I liked apart from Chinatown -- of the irony. That said, I think the status quo ante a few days ago -- Polanski unable to visit certain countries, AUSAs and press spending their efforts on other things -- maybe better served the public and his victim.

Having a high visibility child rapist on the lam for three decades is not a good thing for the rule of law.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Having a high visibility child rapist on the lam for three decades is not a good thing for the rule of law.

Why the sudden interest? I have not followed this story at all, and am taking no position on how big a scumbag he is (though he appears to be an exceedingly large scumbag), but he has been waving to cameras for 30 years now without, as far as I can recall, any sort of peep being heard.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

If his plea bargain were rejected by the court, he could have withdrawn his plea and gone to trial. The remedy for judicial misconduct is appeal and referral to the CJP, not flight. There is zero honor in what he did.

You stay in the U.S. to have the trial, or you die abroad staying out of all countries with extradition treaties for the rest of your life. There is no third option. There are no judicial remedies available to a person who continues to defy an order to appear in court. There is no "King's X" in the American legal system. Even if he's innocent of the charges, he's a shitbag for breaking a promise. Unilateral shit like that makes the system worse for everybody, particular poor defendants who would never have been allowed to travel abroad pending sentencing.

There is a documentary about this and I recall thinking after watching it that I would have fled the country if I were facing a judge doing what this judge did. The prosecutor said the same thing.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by ironweed

Why the sudden interest? I have not followed this story at all, and am taking no position on how big a scumbag he is (though he appears to be an exceedingly large scumbag), but he has been waving to cameras for 30 years now without, as far as I can recall, any sort of peep being heard.

Generally an arrest is more newsworthy than just waving to cameras.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Having a high visibility child rapist on the lam for three decades is not a good thing for the rule of law.

No shit, Sherlock.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No shit, Sherlock.

I was disagreeing with this statement by you:

Originally Posted by The Fleeing Dinosaur

That said, I think the status quo ante a few days ago -- Polanski unable to visit certain countries, AUSAs and press spending their efforts on other things -- maybe better served the public and his victim.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ironweed

Why the sudden interest? I have not followed this story at all, and am taking no position on how big a scumbag he is (though he appears to be an exceedingly large scumbag), but he has been waving to cameras for 30 years now without, as far as I can recall, any sort of peep being heard.

It's been a long game of cat and mouse. He negotiated a deal to come back and face (somewhat limited) music a decade ago, and then backed out, and they've been ready to nab him on several occassions when he's not shown up to get an award or take a bow, apparently because he ran the idea past his lawyers.

But in Obama's America, we don't put up with this stuff any more. Bush may have let the French push him around, but not Barack.

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Generally an arrest is more newsworthy than just waving to cameras.

I can tell that I am going to have to start doing "long form" posts for the crowd here. Lest. I. Be. Mis. Under. Stood.

[dtb]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I can see it on my browser. It's a picture of a farm girl pulling down her farm shorts to reveal her farm thong. She has pigtails and is wearing a bandanna for a shirt. There is some straw (not hay) in the background on the bed of a pick-up truck.

She looks like she's trying to pull up her pants after taking a leak.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I was disagreeing with this statement by you:

And yet I agreed with you, which suggests you haven't figured out what we disagree about.