Roman Polanski...2nd Appellate court denies appeal! Final chapter of drama on horizon...

Rape occurred in Nicholson's Hollywood Hills Mansion

(Jack starred in Polanski's Chinatown)

Yesterday - with a minimum amount of fuss - the 2nd Appellate Court dismissed Roman Polanski's bid to end his long drawn-out sex case on the grounds of Judicial misconduct and lower-court error.

Polanski's highly-irregular request to be sentenced in absentia was also denied.

The Justices in the Appeals court - located in downtown Los Angeles - issued up their ruling without a formal opinion to back it up (which tends to suggest the bench-warmers found little merit in the arguments submitted by the beleaugered film director's lawyers a scant few weeks ago).

Samantha Geimer, the victim at the center of the controversial criminal proceeding, also filed a motion with the Justices for a dismissal in recent weeks.

Unfortunately for Polanski, her pleadings lacked the bite necessary to sway the minds of the Jurists.

Now that the issue has been resolved on these shores, all eyes are on Swiss authorities, who held back on extradition proceedings pending a decision from the California Judiciary.

Polanski was indicted on six felony counts which included rape by use of drugs, child molestation,  and sodomy.

He later pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.

The District Attorney's response was short and sweet.

"The appellate court read the briefs and made what we feel is the appropriate decision,"  spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said in a prepared statement.

Gibbons noted there would be  no further comment from the DA's office.

Polanski in happier days with Sharon Tate

http://www.thetattler.biz

Roman Polanski...extradition on hold 'til California Courts show hand!

The Roman Polanski fiasco continues along at a snail's pace.

According to a spokesman, the Swiss courts will not rule on the issue of Polanski's extradition to the U.S. to face the music in Los Angeles, until California Appellate Justices rule on the question of the legality of a sentencing in abstentia.

In the event the U.S. Court rules in favor of a hearing in abstentia - and Polanski ends up facing less than six months behind bars, Swiss officials have noted for the record that they will not turn the aging Lothario over to authorities on these shores.

On the other hand, if the ruling does not pan out favorably for the respected film director, his lawyers will undoubtedly exhaust all legal options available ad nauseam (which is his right, of course).

In the final analysis, Polanski is wasting precious judicial resource, and stalling and delaying the inevitable either way.

Shame!

Mia Farrow in Polanski's Rosemary's Baby!

Roman Polanski...dementia about abstentia ends! Rapist must appear in LA LA LAND...

Polanski scouts quick-exit route!

Snow job ends!

The rallying around the globe, in what amounted to a high-profile tennis match between two nasty rivals, is about to land with a giant thud in Superior Court for the final set.

With a deaf ear to the 2nd Appellate Court ruling - "suggesting the case be heard in abstentia" - Judge Espinoza (who has been handling the litigation this time around on the three-decades old case) issued a finding that Roman Polanski is required  to return to the big bad orange to be sentenced.

Is the bench-warmer thumbing his nose at the Justices?

The paparazzi must have been snooping around the Sheen case, 'cause they were slow on the uptake.

The judge made it crystal clear in a directive (no one got a whiff of) that the creative vision behind the soon-to-be released feature - GHOSTS - has to surrender to the U.S. Courts.

Based on the tone of the Judge's ruling, will the Swiss authorities kow-tow, too?

In the event Polanski's attorneys follow through on a threatened appeal, court enthusiasts may be treated to front-row seats in asizzling round of ping-pong that may include a "go" in a higher court where the stakes may be heightened somewhat

In a defiant move to make her voice heard - and likewise embarrass the City Attorney's office - victim Samantha Geimer filed searing affidavits with the Superior Court accusing the prosecutors of Violating victim's rights statutes.

Geimer is lamenting to anyone within earshot that she should have been interviewed to determine her feelings on the issue, before hatching the plot for Law Enforcement to stalk, arrest, and haul the talented director off to the U.S. to face sentencing.

In legal briefs, her attorney cited "Marsy's Law" which was passed by ballot initiative in 2008.

Pursuant to the measure, Lawyers are mandated to reasonably confer with the prosecuting agency, upon request, regarding the determination of the case.

"Didn't happen," accused Geimer's legal eagles.

In a response, the prosecutor's office one-upped them!

They noted for the record that numerous attempts were made, but insisted the communications were ignored.

In addition, the representative in charge pointed an accusing finger at Geimer and argued that the victim was  twisting the statute to benefit Polanski (who made a money-damage agreement with the object of his desire after-the-fact).

If dirty laundry appeals to you, stay tuned, eh?

http://www.julianayrs.com

Roman Polanski...requests trial in abstentia! Appellate Court's suggestion followed...

The dark side of Polanski!

Well, the suspense just about killed all the intrigued onlookers and even cynics who snickered on the sidelines in the shadows.

With the announcement hitting news wires this afternoon - that Roman Polanski has requested a trial by abstentia - it appears there may eventually be closure on the three-decades-old rape case.

Maybe not.

If the outcome requires jail time, will the beleaguered auteur agree to bow his head gracefully, and allow himself to be turned over to the authorities in Los Angeles for incarceration?

First things first, though.

Although Polanski's formal request to the court was dated last month on December 29th, the Judge presiding over the case currently, noted for the record that there would have to be a preliminary hearing first to determine the status of the case.

Not unlike most bench-warmers, Judge Espinoza is probably put-off at being raked over the coals by the Appellate Court Justices.

For obvious reasons, Espinoza is going to take his own sweet time to get it right this round!

If you read between the lines, the response from the Superior Court's Criminal Division, may be a tip-off.

A spokesperson succinctly noted to the defense lawyers that the proposal offered up by the Justices in the 2nd Appellate Court was just "a suggestion" and "certainly wasn't a directive."

Ouch!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Roman Polanski....mum on trial in abstentia! Thanks supporters amidst clanging ankle chain...

For the first time since his arrest several weeks ago, Roman Polanski has broken his silence, and reached out to his supporters.

The director, currently under house-arrest in Switzerland awaiting possible extradition to the U.S. to face sentencing for rape charges, facilitated the web site of a friend and confidante (Bernard-Henri Levy) yesterday to thank a posse of friends, fans, and business associates for sticking by him during a traumatic rough patch in his life (triggered by his recent arrest in Switzerland).

Polanski, however, was mum about the recent court proceedings in the 2nd Appellate Court.

For good reason!

Neither he nor his lawyers - the prosecutors even - appeared to be too thrilled with the decision handed down by the Justices in the Court of Appeal.

If you recall, the celebrated film director sought to overturn a lower-court ruling in recent days which denied his motion to dismiss the rape case outright on grounds of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct when the case was first tried about three decades ago.

I reported on that earlier court matter, if you recall.

Post:  12/11/09

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2009/12/roman-polanskijustices-review-age-old.html

In sum, the prosecutor's office vigorously argued that binding legal precedents dictated that Polanski was barred from the relief he sought because he fled the court's jurisdiction rather than face sentencing a handful of years ago.

Surprisingly - the Justices seized on another argument that was even more compelling - which won out  in the end.

The court acknowledged there was some credence to Polanski's claims of unfair treatment and judicial misconduct - and recommended therefore - that the incarcerated director urge the court to hear the matter in abstentia (without the necessity of his presence at the U.S. Court hearing) to resolve the dangling dilemmas plaguing the final resolution of the case issues.

In the event Polanski opts to go the route recommended by the Justices, he is required to pen a letter to the court of jurisdiction, and request that the case go foward in his absence.

In view of the director's failure to respond to date, it would appear he is either reluctant to seek that option, or just weighing his options before taking action.

News at 11!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Medical Marijuana...Court Victory!

Yesterday, a California Appeals Court ruled that "it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws."

Ending years of dispute, the court ruled in favor of Felix Kha, a medical marijuana patient seeking the return of medical marijuana that was seized by police.

In a ruling that rejects law enforcement’s claim that federal law preempts the state’s medical marijuana law, the court asserted "we do not believe the federal drug laws supersede or preempt Kha’s right to the return of his property."

The court’s ruling also affirms a policy change by the California Highway Patrol (CHP)which until 2005 held the record for the worst violator of Proposition 215. The CHP’s policy of mandatory seizure of medical marijuana was challenged in court by the ASA, after which the state’s top law enforcement agency amply modified its policy.

"It should now be abundantly clear to law enforcement across the state that it is not acceptable to seize the medicine of seriously ill patients," said Joe Elford, who represented Kha as Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access.

As of yesterday, California law enforcement will be "fulfilling their more traditional duty to administer the laws of this state," according to the court’s ruling, an ASA rep noted.

Yesterday’s victory marks the culmination of two years of litigation led by ASA.

"The ruling can help someone else that is in really bad need of access to their medicine." Felix Kha said after hearing of the victory.

Felix is not alone, apparently.

Americans for Safe Access documented nearly eight hundred patient encounters with local or state police during a period of more than two years.

During this time frame, their reports indicated a glaring trend...more than ninety percent of all police stops resulted in seizure of medicinal marijuana by police regardless of any probable cause.

And, according to records maintained by Americans for Safe Access, rampant seizure of medical marijuana from qualified patients and primary caregivers has taken place in 53 of California's 58 counties.

This precedent-setting victory was achieved through years of meticulous planning by the Legal Affairs Department of Americans For Safe Access.

Of course, the fruits of their labor would not have been achieved, but were it for the generous donations of the members of Americans for Safe Access and other enthusiastic supporters...

Will the DEA raids of local suppliers continue?

In spite of the fact California voters approved a measure (Bill 215) seven years ago, allowing for compassionate use of Marijuana for medicinal purposes, the DEA has been cracking down on the local suppliers, alleging that their outlets are engaging in conduct which amounts to the, "...illegal sale of an illicit drug which is outlawed by the Federal Government."

According to Timothy L. Landrum, Special Agent in charge of the DEA in Los Angeles,

"...these dispensary operators are no different than any other drug trafficker; they prey on people in our communities to make a profit. The DEA and our Law Enforcement counterparts will not turn a blind eye to flagrant disregard of our Nation's essential drug Laws".

However, the fact remains: there is a definite conflict between State & Federal laws which needs addressing.

For example, while it is illegal to possess, sell, or distribute Marijuana in the United States on a Federal level, in California a resident is legally entitled to use the substance for medicinal purposes.

The issues have yet to be resolved.

I trust California Residents will concur that the DEA pot busts, and abusive and illegal conduct of the agents - who are clearly blinded by a kind-of reefer madness - should cease and desist, too.

Or is a costly waste of Judicial Resource, at taxpayer's expense, beckoning to accomplish this end?