thomasfromtacoma
No confusion
The act of Polanski is no different to Ferguson
Polanski is arrested on a US warrant as the crime is a Breach Of US Federal Laws So The US Prosecutors have the right to Prosecute
Sex with Children is a crime
Ferguson Took an underage girl-So did Polanski
Ferguson had sex against that girls wish -So did Polanski
Feguson raped that girl- So did Polanski
Where's the difference- Polanski has money and career
As to my sons case more criminal behaviour than one can put here in 350 words and continued cover ups Why? The person backing the show has money and power
Contact me direct and I am quite happy to send the info
graysond49@yahoo.com
Thanks from Dave

Further to CJMorgan's post of Saturday, 3 October 2009 at 2:55:50 PM, note this wording in a news item:

"By the time Polanski met Geimer, whose mother, Susan Gailey, was dating one of his friends, ....". See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/27/AR2009092700876.html

Does nothing jump out at you?

It could very well be that something like the circumstances summarized in Foxy's post of Thursday, 1 October 2009 at 9:01:32 PM may have actually been what prevailed. If anything like that was occurring, it is also very believable that Samantha Gailey's age may have been misrepresented to Polanski as being more than in truth it was at the time, if indeed he did anything whereby her age was material. All grounds for reasonable doubt. None of it tested under cross-examination.

The only peg upon which the unthinking, or those unable or unwilling to inform themselves as to this case, can hang their hat is the bald wisdom after the event that at the relevant time the subject of the plea admission Samantha Gailey was only 13.

Excused further thought. 'He must be guilty'.

What a perfect 'grandstand' issue for interests, for example, wishing to ramrod acceptance of broader extradition rights of US jurisdictions under the terms of extradition treaties by other countries: what a perfect vehicle for intimidation of politicians across the world; 'if you question extradition, you must be pro-pedophilia'. Heard any Australian politicians utter a word on it, for example?

They should have. A news item from the Canberra Times of 26/06/2007 contained these statements:

"Early one morning in 2002, the Australian Federal Police raided the Griffiths's weatherboard house and arrested Hew for breaking a US law. Hew Griffiths had never even been to the United States. He didn't own a passport."

and;

"In February [2007], two US officials brandishing a one-way travel document bundled Griffiths on to a United Airlines flight to Los Angeles and then to a US jail ahead of his trial in Virginia."

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/hew-who-how-an-unsung-aussie-ended-up-in-us-jail/134134.aspx?storypage=0

But a judge in Rhode Island can vacate a jury verdict against Microsoft in favour of an Australian.

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/legal/20091001-australian-inventor-loses-445-million-microsoft-battle.html

Its all about Microsoft, not pedophilia!

On reflection, I was prepared to believe this statement of mine in an earlier post a bit over-the-top:

"If release, as opposed to remand for sentencing, occurred (which it did), it would seem that the contention that Polanski is a fugitive from US justice may be nothing more than a post-dated, long-running, face-saving fraud on both the US public and the international community. Make the lie big enough .....?"

I may have independently have been more correct than I then knew.

I have just done a Twitter search using the term 'extradition'. This is some of what I found in connection with a current extradition being attempted by the US from the UK of a Mr and Mrs Brian Howes on this site:

http://extradition.org.uk/2009/04/27/couple-faces-extradition-over-chemical-sales/

which says, in part:

"I must explain this in more detail as people will not understand it: when an Arrest Warrant arrives from the US in the UK with an indictment the person or persons are arrested and put in front of a Sheriff in Scotland or a Magistrate in England.

The person or persons arrested are not charged or questioned in any way but put in front of judge and REFERRED TO AS FUGITIVES even if you have never been to the US.

Most people arrested on this warrant from the US are transported to court the day after arrest without any legal representation and given only minutes with a duty solicitor who almost always has no experience in Extradition."

The capitalisation emphasis is mine.

Mr Howes, and his wife, are accused of selling chemicals lawfully able to be sold in the UK, over the internet, to US methamphetamine synthesizers, an offence in the US. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/7328974.stm

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1751520/the_brian_howes_extradition_case.html

If convicted in the US, they face up to 98 years gaol. I mean, they must be guilty, mustn't they? Thats twice what Polanski faced! And they're FUGITIVES!!

Could it be that the timing of the Polanski arrest, and the attendant lynch mob mentality it has elicited, is intended as a smokescreen and damper of outcry in the UK if the Howes' extradition goes ahead?

Are you completely thicker is this a stupidity ploy dwg.
Polanski so called victim went to the producers 3 time s the third time is he rape allegation.
The family was clearly attempting to extort monies from Polanski s in the settlement application which went through for an undisclosed sum
Yet Polanski remains criminal due to the settlement interpretation. Talk about getting screwed by the system.
The defendant consented to t he advances on each occasion if you read the transcript.
Unfortunately its morons like you that insist on their interpretation s to be the be all an end all that creates the hanging judge dogma so prevalent in society.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26160396-2682,00.html
Just in case you don’t think judges are the only persons capable of being morons explain the above link
Gees Louise how stupid can one person get!

No Thomasfromtacoma, it is you who is misguided (to say the least)!

If Polanski was not guilty of this crime, why did he feel the need to hide from US authorities all these years? Why didn't he just explain the 'injustice' of it all to the US judges years ago?

"The defendant consented to t he advances on each occasion if you read the transcript."
THE DEFENDANT WAS 13 YEARS OLD! She cannot legally give consent to a criminal act at all.

Polanski, like everyone else, knows it is illegal to have sex with a 13 year old girl, whether she says yes or not.
Are you condoning paedophilia if the child is ok with it?

thomasinthecoma
The "Alledged" rape occurred
Be it the girl now a woman gets paid which apparently admitted took a little persauding. When paid, also apparently is when the woman that was a girl was blinded to the law by money.(not much different to thousands out there)
FACT the girl is under 14 there cannot be consent by law to said act
RAPE is the taking of sex without your partners consent
As no consent can be given for said act by one partner RAPE
End Story

Thanks Suzeonline

All the Best from Dave