WE NOW RESUME OUR REGULARLLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM

I’ve decided to return one post to the blog that I had previous removed due to perosnal reasons, however, it has been heaviliy edited. The post I’m talking about is the one where I recounted my rape in comparrison to what Samantha Geimer classes as ‘rape’. The post is this one: Polanski … No Hard Feelings. What and why I’ve done what I’ve done is includeed in the edited post. I’ve removed all portions dealing with my story and they will not return, so don’t ask to see them because they won’t be provided. I will not have my story used as some sort of purient, juvenile masturbatory pleasure for obvious idiots like Lazy who believe he can twist what I posted without being called up on his idiocy. He seems to think it’s perfectly okay to call into question what happened to me, however, no one can call into question Geimer’s obvious litany of lies. What she has said and when can be found here: Anatomy of Lies. If you can read through her obvious attempts to make herself look better in the media despite the fact she has no veracity and not believe she is a liar, then I don’t know what else can be submitted to make you realize she is lying. Unlike my story where I’ve always called it rape, she always calls it something else. No one wants to read through her lies. Most of the fanboys of hers on the IMDB Polanski board refuse to see her as anything else but this poor, poor, poor victim of this evil profligate dwarf.

So for the reasons I’ve already stated, my rape story will not return, instead, I’ve included Lazy’s attempt to rebut my story with some less than shoddy interpretation. I’ll let the reader judge. Now I know what some have said to me regarding my story, “Well there Samskara, you did make your story public, therefore, you can’t blame anyone for wanting to call your story into question.” Fine response, however, the problem with those who read what I posted is they fail to note the one thing I’ve continued to state throughout. And that thing is that I was RAPED. Not assaulted. Not fondled. Not molested. Certainly no consensual sex. I was RAPED. At no time have I been ambiguous as to what happened, certainly not as ambiguous as Samantha Geimer has been. If someone has decided to re-interpret what I posted for their own stupid aim, than it is the product of a sick pubertal mind. To anyone who would support someone who has done what Lazy did with my copyrighted material, then that says more about you than it should. Meaning, you don’t have the independent mind to read on your own. You need to be a part of a collective to make yourselves seem greater than you are. Ceratinly you have no scruples.

I know there will be someone out there who will say, “Well there Samskara, you did call into question Samantha Geimer’s story and have been very vociferous in regards to her story….” And I say, one should be. There has been a man’s life and freedom at stake here. My rapist’s freedom has never been at stake. And the scrutiny I’ve used in forcing a light onto Samantha Geimer’s story should be duly done. Why? If there is one man who is imprisoned for a false rape alegation, then it’s too many. No woman should use something like rape to get money or fame. This is why reports of false rape hurt those admissions of reap rape victims. It does nothing to the public discourse when real rape victims must fight to be heard above those who believe a Samantha Geimer or a Patricia Bowman. It makes it just that much harder to be heard when ones like Lazy spew their bile in an attempt to ‘discredit’ real stories of rape. That light I and others like Jean Malkovsky and Novalis Lore have shone on Geimer means one less real victim of rape will be denied a hearing. and hopefully one less man will have been accused. The notion that Lazy could chop up my story and add his own brand of stupid means that the inmates have taken over the asylum. There have been far too many who have misreported the Polanski case for reasons that cannot be gleaned. It can only be said this misreporting has been done to muddy the waters regarding real stories the press should be covering. But that turn had begun before Polanski was hauled in by some innocuous Swiss border guard.

What the press does is use the catch phrases. The ones that get them the ratings or readership to boost their profiles. As long as they can discuss Geimer being a ‘child’ despite the fact that the doctor who examined her at the hospital referred to her as an ADULT FEMALE or state that she was anally raped despite the fact that those charges were dropped due to insufficient evidence and the fact no proof of anal rape was found during her rapekit examination makes no nevermind. It’s the titillation factor that matters, not the truth. Obfuscation helps too. The ole bait and switch. Instead of talking about the real issues like the mortgage crisis and the reasons why the banks are getting richer off the backs of the poor, why not talk about a thirty-three-going-on-thirty-four year rape case where no mention is made of the lack of evidence against Polanski, or the fact that according to Roger Gunson the original prosecutor, Polanski served all the time that was required of him. No, let’s discuss ‘child rape’ and the ‘drugging’ and ‘boozing’ up of a poor helpless angel. This all despite the fact that Samantha Geimer appears to have no qualms about calling it what it was: Consensual Sex. Nope, the lies and the omission of key facts raises the indignation and the ire of the public so they can forget about the real issues like the obliteration of personal freedoms. A ‘lazy’ public is a fat one. And that is why I used the term to identify Lazarusryu because he like others are intellectually lazy to find out the facts for themselves. They refuse to use Google for what it’s for and find out the facts for themselves. If there is conflicting information, use your idiot gauge. Do what Novalis, Jean and Richard Brenneman have all done and acctually LOOK at what is being said and extrapolate from there. Seek us out, those of us who know this case back-to-front. Ask US the questions if you’re confused but don’t try to think you can state misinformation without facing our censure. Not only is it intellectually lazy but also cruel to Roman Polanski and real rape victims to continue to state untruths.

To you Lazy I’ll say this, did you think you could use intimidation to stop me from speaking the the truth? Sending me threatening personal messages at the IMDB board telling me to in effect “be good or else I’ll let it out of the bag your real identity” shows just what kind of a person you really are. You don’t play fair, you resort to ugliness and terrorist tactics to silence the facts. Here’s what Lazy sent me after calling me Prometheslut:

These are the kinds of things they say to you when you have the truth on your side. It’s ‘Bush’ league tactics like these they use to silence the truth. This is their kind of debate. Doesn’t matter if they cite truth or not, just so long as they get the last word. So I’ll submit that these people have no validity. But they are the voices heard when the discussion is had. The ones who resort to threats to ‘get their point across’. They are no different than a real rapist who’d use intimidation to silence a rape victim. The same sort of intimidation my rapist used agianst me in those months after his rape of me. But in the words of Marianne Pearl, widow of the late Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl, “I am not terrorized.” I am not threatened. I am empowered by such methods of idocy. Lazy claims I threatened him. At no point during our year plus discourse over the Polanski debacle have I ever threatened him. I did PM him and tell him to remove my real name from a post of his. Then he continued on with some nonsensical jabbering about me having given him the direct link to my Facebook page. He also claims he’s an online acquaintence of mine. I know I have never given anyone the direct URL of my Facebook page. Ever! So in that, he lies. He also claims that he didn’t threaten me. I’ve submitted the evidence. So in that, he lies. He admits he did call me a slut. How nice and grown up-py he is. So do I thank him for saying he stopped calling me a slut?

The problem with people such as Lazy is that he wants to have all the attention without having to read the facts. I’ve supmitted to him at least on a dozen occasions on the Polanski IMDB board the link to Jean’s “Anatomy of Lies” page, but he claims until I’m ready to debate with him without name-calling, he won’t read it. That is petulence pure and simple. If he did read it, he’d have to realize he’d been backing the wrong horse all along. But Lazy can’t do that. He can’t admit he was wrong or else his ground would rock beneath his feet, or at least below the keyboard on which he spews his brand of stupid. He’s proven time and time again he cannot debate without getting nasty. So my decision to pull the portion of that post that I recount my rape story is valid. What I went through that night and in the months, let alone years afterwards is not subject to someone’s fantasy. I am not a public person like Samantha Geimer who it seems, is not adverse to spreading her legs time and time again for the public. So in that she IS subject to scrutiny. So Lazy, instead of trying to get inside Geimer’s pants, why not educate yourself on her lies? Simple answer to that one: Then Lazy and others like him won’t have a boogy man on which to vent. They won’t have someone to focus on day after day after day with their mastubatory fumblings. Like the populace who has grown fat on the misinformation from the media, they just shut off their ears, close their eyes and open their mouths wide to gobble up the lunacy of a press who is not afraid to spread half-truths and the aforementioned misinformation and they are the very same kind of sycophant who would be fodder for a Manson who caused the brutal destruction of Polanski’s family and friends back in 1969. The very same sycophant who drank the Kool Aid at Jonestown. The very same sycophant who believe that 19 hijackers with box cutters brought down three buildings in Lower Manhattan. And the very same sycophants who believe The Patriot Act is necessary to keep ‘us’ safe from terrorism.

Ones like Lazy are dangerous in that they have no qualms about using intimidation to make their voices the last heard. So that is the reason I returned the post to my blog sans the parts Lazy so enjoyed mocking. Some might say that they’ve won with my taking out the portion of that post dealing with my rape and that if my story is valid, what do I care what people do with it? The point is, they have no right to do that. I’ve been totally honest and up-front about what happened to me and my reasons for totally rebuking Samantha Geimer’s torrid tale. These very same types like Lazy who would pick apart my story are the very same ones who think it’s perfectly fine to continue to call Roman Polanski any number of names and accuse him of any number of crimes including that of merely not being there when Hitler’s Nazis came for his mother and unborn sibling. It’s so good to see these people can keep all things in perspective. Not to forget they also blame him for the deaths of his wife, Sharon Tate, their unborn child and friends back in 1969. Accusing him of imaginary crimes is tantamount to an Orwellian future I refuse to bend to. So therefore I dedicate this post to all the clearer heads that prevail in this world. To you I say, “WE will not be terrorized.”

Posted by Samskara Impressions in Commentary, Society

HEY LAZY, IF YOU’RE LURKING, TRY SOME HEAVY READING…IF YOU DARE

Like the title says. You don’t feel like Googling, try this direct link:

Roman Polanski: The Ballad of Contradictions – Anatomy of Lies or Samantha Geimer caught with her panties down….again!

Posted by Samskara Impressions in Commentary

WHEN IS DELUSIONAL … WELL, DELUSIONAL?

A signature from a certain poster on the Polanski IMDB board:

How a Roman Polanski supporter debates:

“I order you to kill yourself, NOW!”

It appears that Lazy has lost it again. With this signature, he/she/it points out the totality of his/her/its stupidity. that is the thinking of someone who wants to control the message because it upsets their version of the ‘truth’…as they see it.

See, the problem with Lazy is that he/she/it seems to think that if you post something, it’s not the truth until he/she/it says it is. NO matter that there is documented proof to the contrary. Lazy seems to think that it’s perfectly okay to make stuff up as it suits and to do whatever it takes to make sure everyone else believes his/her/its word to the letter. See, this is what is called delusional. Lazy seems to think that stating and using direct statements from the participants in the Polanski debacle is tantamount to lying. It makes no never mind to this person that Roger Gunson as well as Samantha Geimer are solidly on Polanski’s side in this. Lazy seems to think that I’ve made up everything I’ve posted both over at the IMDB board for Polanski as well as here, even calling into question the story I posted on my own rape. It seems Lazy has also gone to calling me a slut, prostitute as well as a liar.

I’ve never made any bones about the nature of my sexuality. When I recounted my rape story, and like it or not there Lazy, I was raped, I told the truth. I told the truth about trying to be provocative that night, however, I at no time lured Mick (pseudonym) to me lair to entice him into a night or moment of sexual gratification. If going up to my room to prepare for bed once the guests that night left is considered to be ‘provocative’ in terms of clearing my bed off of the records I’d used that night to discjockey, then fine. I’m guilty. Burn me in oil, stone me or better yet, place me under a board and crush me under rocks. I suppose in Lazy’s eyes, I’m responsible for the witchery that permeated Salem in the 1600s, or The Plague that riddled medieval Europe during the Dark Ages.

See this is the reason Lazy fails to comprehend anything in his/her/its useless life, to state that we Polanski supporters believe in any way that we “Order you to kill yourself….” doesn’t understand the full breadth of the fact we know what happened to Polanski in his young life. We remember the fact he lost his mother when he was six to the Death Camps that took six million of his kind. We remember that Bula was five months pregnant with Polanski’s sibling when she was taken and mainlined straight to Auschwitz where she was put straight into the gas chamber and murdered without pity. We remember Polanski’s father was imprisoned at Bergan Belsen and kept from Polanski until the boy was twelve. We remember that Polanski was kept by gypsies until he was reunited with Rychard after the war ended and the Death Camps were liberated. To say in any way that we support any kind of death or suppression of free speech means he/she/it has no ground to stand on.

Lazy is just a spewer who likes to hear him/her/itself speak. Lazy likes to believe his/her/its own delusional thinking. It means he/she/it doesn’t have to do anything other than listen to the voices in his/her/its own head. When he/she/it refuses to read and understand what Gunson has told them, then it’s time to pack it in. This doesn’t mean copitulate. I will not capitulate on my stance on the Polanski Case. I know in my heart that what happened that afternoon at Jack Nicholson’s Mulholland Drive cul-de-sac was consensual sex. Samantha Geimer has in effect said it was. But for someone like Lazy who will not read and understand no matter how much information one provides, when he/she/it decides that whatever you post back to them it’s not the truth or as Lazy says, “And you’re taking the word of someone else, so what’s your point? Oh yeah, you don’t have one,” when you point out that Roger Gunson gave a sworn depositon to Polanski’s attorneys in Chad Hummel, Douglas and Bart Dalton regarding the matter of Polanski’s sentence which Gunson says he completed, then one has to assume that Lazy is either stubborn or a dolt. I believe the latter.

Now one might ask me, “Samskara, aren’t you just making it worse by calling Lazy ‘he/she/it’”. I say, “No!” Why? Simple. This person has not even shown he/she/it comprehends anything he/she/its been told. Lazy just sits there at his/her/its keyboard typing blindly because he/she/it believes what he/she/its saying. Truly. There’s no rhime or reason in what Lazy posts. There’s no understanding of what he/she/it is being told. When it all comes down to saying that quoting or posting facts about Roger Gunson and what he did to support Polanski in his extradition fight and this is not believed despite the fact that there is Google, Yahoo, and any other number of search engines available to their fingertips, then what else is there to say? So from here on end, I’ll be posting various comments here instead of to IMDB. I’ve allowed Lazy the opportunity to come over here to spread his/her/its own lunacy. I’m suspecting Lazy won’t. I really don’t think he/she/it would allow him/her/itself to be open to the more intelligent mass of the blogosphere. Those who do use the internet for more than a plaything. Those who do know this case efficently and those who support Mr. Polanski know the truth. We know what he has been through and what Samantha Geimer, herself, has said happened that afternoon. If one simply refuses to listen to or understand what has been told to them by the participants involved, then I’d say it’s little chance they’ll change. Lazy certainly has never shown any instance of understanding or wanting to understand what happened. He/she/it has also show little compassion for what I went through the night I was raped. Instead like a petulent child, he/she/it clings to a fantasy that I was some sort of hooker out to get laid. Which I was not. Rape is not something one talks about with the notion of a high five mentality. Which is how Samantha Geimer describes it. Rape is a violation. A violation I sustained and survived. It’s not something that leaves one when it happens. It’s something that stays with one for a lifetime. It colours ones outlook and makes all further decisions about life that much more acute. One doesn’t lie about rape. One doesn’t admit to and related their story like I did for brownie points. It’s a painful regurgitation. It’s like having that penis shoved into your mouth one more time and for Lazy to have done his/her/its revisionist view of what I wrote, should be ashamed.

Now I know what the common thinking is, “Samskara, why did you put your story out there if you didn’t want someone picking it apart?” Simply, I didn’t know there were sick fucks out there who’d take it upon themselves to decided what happened to me that night. Then want proof of it. Now where did I put that DeLorean with the Flux Capacitor? They’re like those passing motorists who like to roll down their windows and gawk at the accident or the seventy car pileup to see the blood and body parts. Lazy wants to see what I went through solely for his/her/its own purient thrills. I can just see Lazy sitting at his/her/its computer mastubating while they’re reading what I posted. And that’s the feeling I get. This person has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I tried to find some, but there is none. So I’ve decided that sooner than try to appeal to Lazy’s sense of right thinking, I’m going to stick solely to the content of his/her/its own posts and dissect them here for my readers to extrapolate and mock.

Fair game there Lazy.

Posted by Samskara Impressions in Commentary

THE MADNESS CONTINUES

Read this:

The 34 year conspiracy that’s keeping Polanski out of the country

by lazarusryu 15 hours ago (Tue Dec 13 2011 10:58:45)
UPDATED Tue Dec 13 2011 11:03:00

Whenever Polanski’s case is brought up or whenever people inquire as to why he would return to America, Polanski apologists tend to refer to a conspiracy revolving around the 1977 case.

Now, I never really get into any conspiracies and generally think they’re bullsh_t since they mostly rely on mass assumptions and the cherry-picking of evidence; especially with the Polanski conspiracy. But today, I’m willing to have an open mind and I have some questions regarding the conspiracy.

Let’s just say every bit of the conspiracy is true. Alright. So why’s Polanski so afraid of Judge that’s been dead for almost eight years and a woman (Who supposedly set up Polanski) who had publicly forgiven him? It seems very much like an irrational fear even if the Judge wasn’t dead. And if he’s worried about a judge wanting to “finish what the other judge began”, that would just make him paranoid and maybe even a little insane.

Sorry, it’s his supporters who make these claims as to why he won’t return, I’m just stating what others general think of these excuses; so please don’t bite my head off or gang-up on me for having questions or thoughts that are not your own. And please, Polanski fans, don’t jump into insults or patronizing replies. Try and be civil, for once, with people who don’t share the same option as you. Thank you.

Now, re-read the boldened portion…..

See, this is my buddy Lazy trying to be funny. It seems as if he still hasn’t quite grasped the smaller points of the Polanski case. And at this point, I’m not sure he ever will. Why don’t I hold out any hope for Lazy? Read my response to him:

by prometheus1816 9 hours ago (Tue Dec 13 2011 17:49:07)
——————————————————————————–
Try and be civil, for once, with people who don’t share the same option as you. Thank you.

——————————————————————————–
Yeah there Lazy, like you’ve EVER been civil to anyone on this matter. And let’s not even mention how you mocked my rape and continue to mock it. So trying to be civil with you is like asking me to believe you. Not likely unless an apology is in order.

Now his response back to me:

by lazarusryu 6 hours ago (Tue Dec 13 2011 20:51:43)
UPDATED Tue Dec 13 2011 21:43:03

In other words, you’ve got nothing and have no answer for my question.

Oh and you’re a supposed rape victim who has less evidence that her rape even happened than Geimer, yet you’ve dedicated so much time into bashing her. That’s comedy gold right there, so sorry that you can’t see the funny, honey.

And FYI, I never made a single insult until the one I debate with begins insulting. So yeah, if you or any other Polanski apologist has a problem when I insult them, they can just go ahead and blame themselves, you more especially; you seem to have such a natural condescending tone in everything you write that it’s sickening.

And yet, another response on another thread with my response to someone else included for clarity (the text included in the italics are from a poster on the Polanski IMDB board by the name of :

by lazarusryu 6 hours ago (Tue Dec 13 2011 20:48:11)
UPDATED Tue Dec 13 2011 20:49:15

——————————————————————————–
by – prometheus1816 on Tue Dec 13 2011 17:29:36

by sfmar 1 day ago (Mon Dec 12 2011 16:10:13)
——————————————————————————–

Your revised/expanded bio:

You know my life is really complex. You know how a normal person gets up…rants and raves about Polanski and goes downstairs and…rants and raves about Polanski, eats breakfast…and rants and raves about Polanski, kisses somebody goodbye, and…rants and raves about Polanski, goes to a job, and…rants and raves about Polanski, you know?

You really need to get a better life, you know?

——————————————————————————–
The Wicked: Think like me or I’ll demonize you!
——————————————————————————–
Isn’t that pretty much what you do to anyone who disagrees with you on this issue?

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Lazy seems to think that his and only his opinion matters and refuses to read the proof supplied to him on this case. I’ve tried to be civil, but Lazy is just plain Lazy.
——————————————————————————–

Coming from a person who’s dedicated entire websites, blogs, and online profiles to defending Polanski and thrashing Geimer AND thrashes anyone who doesn’t share your opinions, that’s pretty funny

For anyone who doesn’t believe me, here’s one of her sites. You’ll notice that she’s dedicated some of it to sh_t talk about me too lol:

http://samskara.org/journal/

So now the kicker here. Lazy has in his signature section of his posts this little treasure:

The Insane: Think like me or I’ll kill you!

The Wicked: Think like me or I’ll demonize you!

First of all Lazy, to disabuse you of some FACTS here. That word I know escapes you and your so-called civility.

1) I have only one blog on the Polanski issue and it’s this one. the other blogs are from people, not me, who have done extensive research beyond mine in this case and have put together an exhaustive and dedicated response to all the whacknuts who seem to think that Polanski either “got away with it” or “raped a fragile, delicate little dolly carrying virgin”. Those blogs are listed in my blogroll on either the left or right depending on what theme I’ve created or uploaded. So check them out. All of which you’ll see are from people who were either intimately involved in the case, such as Richard Brenneman who was a reporter at the time the case was active in the LA Courts, to Barry Dank who writes on sexual polices involving consenting adults and policies that are somewhat archaic in today’s world. The other two are from Jean Melkovsky, an incredibly gifted Russian gentleman who managed to do what I could not. And that was sum up the case and Samantha Geimer’s endless and evolving litany of lies. Thanks Jean for that work of art. The last one is Novalis Lore who did the Herculean task of breaking the Polanski case down to its bones and making heads and tails out of the morass the Polanski case became and is still continuing to be. Novalis, I am humbled at your efforts.

2) Lazy pointed out my so-called tendency to insult instead of conducting the aforementioned so-called “civil” discourse. To note, I have always conducted myself in the way I wish to be treated, with civility and respect. However, when someone so blindly puts their hands over their ears and their eyes in a sort of childish< "I'm not listening...nah, nah, nah, nah" then I refuse to be civil when they have denied all FACTS shown them. Lazy and his types are given FACTS then take on this self-entitled snot-nosed punk ass attitude in terms of calling those of us out who have done the extensive research on this case as “nutjobs” or now here it is, wait for it….POLANSKI APOLOGISTS. No Lazy! What we are are a group of people who want it known what the mainstream press won’t report….THE TRUTH. And when we point out those truths, those of you in the peanut gallery of the Johnnie-Come-Latelies sit there with their smug shitfaced stupidity and then call us names. I’m not entirely sure how long both Jean and Novalis have been with this case, but I’ve been with it since it happened back in 1977. And ones like Brenneman and I have little time or care for those who still continue to beat the “Polanski raped a baby” drum when all FACTS point to something else. There’s only so long we who know this case can tolerate when addressing the continued idiocy of such pupertal minds as the Lazyites who refuse to read what we have spent hours upon hours, or in my case, years upon years, researching. It’s just like saying that anyone who has extensively investigated 9/11 are whacknuts when the call into question the 9/11 Commission’s weighty tome on the events of September 11, 2001. Those who refuse to do the groundwork deserve our rebuke and deserve our backhand when they continually sit there behind their computers, typing endlessly on their keyboards about their version of what happened in the Polanski case despite what the evidence refutes and what Samantha Geimer has told them didn’t happen.

3) This is to Lazy himself. He calls into question my rape story. He continually mocks my story as something of a concocted fantasy unsupported by evidence. Fine. Turnabout is a bitch Lazy. What evidence other than her continued revolving statements has she submitted to support the fantasical tale she told the Grand Jury back in 1977? What evidence does she have that supports that she was actually raped, if evidence of mine is expected? Simply, she has none and she knows it. Lazy seems to have made this personal against me. For some reason, this person saw fit to take what I posted here and turn it into some sort of mockery of a real rape victim’s story. I posted my story in hopes of showing anyone willing to seek it out, the difference between what rape is and what it isn’t. And what it is, simply, is a violation…and I’ve called it nothing but that. Samantha Geimer seems to change her story when it suits her and depending on what talk show or aim she has in getting her story out. It’s called THE HORSE’S MOUTH. In this case, Samantha Geimer’s. Lazy also seems to believe that it’s not somehow appropriate or “okay” to call Samantha out on her mistatements and her myriad of conflicting statements. As if she is some sort of sacred cow that we must raise up and sanctify for her plight. Instead of mocking me Lazy, mock her mockery of extending her fifteen minutes to a 33 year plus campaign of self agrandisment. But then one recognizes one’s own kind in a crowd, right Lazy? You’re just like Geimer in a way. The constant need to flail your arms around to say, “Notice me. Notice me. Notice MEEEEEEEEEEE!” So in future, when you’re expecting someone to treat you with respect, then the same should be expected of you and for you to do the one thing you Polanski haters and Geimer appologists seem to not be able to do: LISTEN. That’s all. It’s that simple.

And what “online profiles” have I dedicated to defending Polanski? Talk about making stuff up. If you’re talking about my nicknames on the various message boards or blog postings, I seem to recall I’ve only two that I’ve created to do so. My Prometheus1816 nic on IMDB and other places, and Samskara. So I don’t hide behind anything. I speak my mind on the FACTS I’ve investigated lo these many decades to a case that was flawed to begin with. Don’t like it Lazy, tough! Now onto those precious lines in your IMDB signature. The one about “the insane/the wicked”. Seems you’re talking about yourself again. Sad that. When the FACTS are laid out before you and you ignore them like the petulent child you are, how can anyone take you seriously?

3) Okay, to the ‘trashing’ of Geimer. I don’t have to do that. She does a pretty good job of that everytime she opens her mouth. One cannot take seriously her plight of being this victimized person when she refuses to call herself that and takes to task anyone who puts that on her. She also cannot be taken seriously when she’s campaigned for at least fifteen years now to get the charges against Polanski dropped, his plea deal expunged and any notion of rape erased from the public discourse. In fact, she has about a half a million reasons to want this all to, “Go away.” I’d say that’s incentive enough to change her story.

4) Here is the point of which none of Polanski’s detractors or attackers seem to want to address head on. And that is the fact that they seem to forget that Samantha Geimer admitted in her Grand Jury testimony that she had in fact, had consensual sexual relations with two others prior to her daliance with Polanski in 1977. The first was when she was eight, the other was shortly before the Polanski affair with her then (debated age) boyfriend, Steve Kronblet (identified through the Grand Jury transcript as available online everywhere). Kronblet was either 17 or 18 at the time he had full on sexual intercourse with Samantha Gailey. Now the laws according to the State of California about Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Minor, the charge Polanski pled to, reads as this:

According to the Sexual Assault Glossary of Terms, it defines statutory rape as “sexual intercourse between an adult and a minor. The adult can be found guilty of statutory rape in courts of law even if the minor was a willing partner.”

According to the laws of California, Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Minor is defined as:

  • an adult can be guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse if he or she has sex with a minor.
  • a minor can be guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse if he or she has sex with another minor.

What are the penalties for Unlawful Sexual Intercourse?

1) If a person is no more than three years older than the minor with whom they have sex, that person is guilty of a misdemeanour and can be imprisoned in the county jail for up to one year or fined up to $1,000.00.

2) If a person is more than three years older than the minor with whom they have sex, that person is guilty of a misdemeanour or a felony. If convicted of a felony, that person can be imprisoned in state prison for up to four years.

So now let’s look at how old Steve Kronblet was, According to several documents, he was either 17 or 18 at the time he had consensual sex with Samantha Geimer. When I read the penal code for Unlawful Sexual intercourse With a Minor, I don’t see any exception made when your name is Steve Kronblet. I don’t see any subsections or any other things giving an exception to Kronblet in terms of having had sex with Samantha Gailey. I don’t see that if Roman Polanski is found to be guilty of the the offense, that Steve Kronblet is suddenly protected of having done the same. So instead of the law being blind and equal, it is being punative due to the exception of the bigger fish to fry and the smaller fish in the bowl who has no value in terms of the amount of press that can be generated by the District Attorney’s office of any given state. The law in this case not only centered Polanski out but it became vendictive. While not asking the same of Joe the Plumber Kronblet, it decided that he wasn’t responsible for what he did. And according to the statute under which Polanski was charged, even Samantha could have been charged with having had sexual intercourse with Kronblet. So again the question Lazy and his ilk refuses to answer: Steve Kronblet had sexual intercourse with minor Samantha Gailey, is he not as culpable as Polanski? The answer to that would be met by Lazy and his type with the standard: Silence.

While they demand quickfire answers when they ask questions, they either refuse to or blatantly ignore any valid questions those of us who have explored this case have of them. And this is even big stripey and bold when it comes to the culpability of Susan Gailey in allowing her little ‘darling’ off with not only Polanski, but photographer Sean Kinney only a scant months before Polanski became the poor schmuck-of-the-month. Kinney was responsible for taking the infamous ‘schoolgirl with the books, shyly looking back over her shoulder’ photo of Geimer. I’d post it here, but then I’d have to hurl. It can be Googled…No, I’ll give the link to one of the images [ HERE ]. There, that way I don’t have to have that demonic look on my blog and have to look at it when I visit my own pages. Anyone caught by her surprising resemblance to an MKULtra project gone bad? It does me.

So here’s the $64,000.00 question to Lazy and the Polanski attackers: Let’s say you sleep with someone underage but it is consensual and you are say 43. You are charged with the crime, but then you find out someone who is 17 or 18 sleeps with the same underage girl and they don’t get charged, even though that is illegal under the statutes of the state in which the both offenses are committed….buuuuuut, that other person isn’t charged. Would you not feel that you are being centered out for being the bigger fish and the other guy who is ordinary citizen isn’t? I’d hope you’d say yes….and I hope you’d be as angry as Polanski was knowing that Steve Kronblet was out there and being protected.

5) Susan Gailey: Same apologists as the Steve Kronblet ones. Samantha says that everyone blames her mother for what happened. Well, hell….yeah! She was the adult and the mother, according to the law. She had the requisite DNA link to protect her youngin’ with all her heart and soul from exploitation and ruthless and soulless directors wanting to double ass fuck their little baby. Correct? See, my standard for this is Roman Polanski’s murdered wife, Sharon Tate who fought for the life of her unborn child to the point that when the knives being weilded by her killers took her life, she did that one single thing to make sure her unborn son was protected: She used her arms and legs to protect her abdomen and to protect that child from being harmed inutero. When that child was taken from her body during the autopsy, there were no slash marks, stab wounds nor any trauma inflicted on that little being. So this shows Sharon Tate did that one thing a mother by virtue of being the birth giver did in order to see her son was protected; she used other parts of her body to protect her stomach. Unlike Susan Gailey who it appears has no qualms about sending her little angel off with men not her father, brother, uncle or grandfather. And further, why wasn’t Susan Gailey charged with being a bad mother? Considering that it was noted that both her daughters seemed to be ‘off the rails’ in terms of not being monitored. Kimberly, Susan’s oldest daughter, had been in and out of rehab facilities for an addiction to Quaaludes. Her qualifications as a mother can also be called into question considering that she also allowed her then boyfriend keep drug paraphernalia around the house in clear veiw of a minor child. Again, another prosecution not carried out. It seems the LA District Attorney’s office may have been understaffed and or underfunded in that regard to carry out multiple investigations of the Gailey family. Is this pertinent to the Polanski matter? Yes, it certainly is.

If Roman Polanski was arrested and charged for an illegal act, than Steve Kronblet, Susan Gailey and Kimberly Gailey should also have been arrested and charged for their illegal crimes. Oh…what was that again? Ohhhhh, I see. U(nited) S(tates) vs THEM meaning them weird looking and weird speaking foreigners and bigger fish. I see there is no double standard when it comes to the law nor its supposed blindness and…equalness.

6) Addressing Lazy’s question about “thrashing those who don’t share the same opinions….” I’m willing to be civil and courteous when discussing aspects of anything with people willing to actually READ what I’ve posted. When it comes to people who gloss over the parts that don’t support their version of their so-called facts, I have little time. Particularly when I’ve stated the same things about a billion times over the past ten years I’ve been posting to IMDB. There is something to be said about ‘sharing opinions’ and actually addressing questions asked without resorting to name calling or mocking a person who has shared something as personal as a rape story, then I have little if no time for those people. Hear that Lazy?

7) Talking about ‘shit talking’: Isn’t that what you did to me there Lazy when you did your so-called analysis of my rape? Didn’t you decide to be judge, jury and executioner of your version of idiocy when you made that aforementioned mockery of my rape? Didn’t you in fact declare war with that one? And then you had the audacity to state that I had no evidence of my rape and demanded me to ‘show’ you proof. Sans Delorean-ing you back to December 21, 1977 and letting you see what was done to me, what ‘proof’ would you like? While you point out I have no proof of what happened to me, I state to you, neither does Samantha Geimer. You’re no different then Judge Laurence Rittenband who made a mockery of the justice system he took an oath to uphold then summarilty trashed it with his illegal exparte communications, ill use of his robes in terms of ordering Polanski’s deportation and then renegging on a plea agreement to which all sides agreed. So don’t go crying on IMDB about your so-called ill-treatment. Believe me, when someone is on top of you taking away any power, voice or security you have, you’ll know what ill-treatment is. Until then, shut your fucking yap you fucking asswipe. I’m tired of you Rittenband/Susan Gailey/Steve Kronblet/Susan Gailey’s Boyfriend xenophobic apologists who when trying to argue facts, have none in your arsenal. Then you go bellyaching about being called a name or two when you refuse to acknowledge the FACTS in this case.

8 ) And further to Lazy: Why do you care so much about Samantha Geimer? Are you related to her? Do you share some sort of shared experience with her in when telling a story of something that happened to you, you weren’t believed? Are you somehow superimposing on her some sort of related victimhood? If that is the case, stop! She does not care what you think, in fact, she’s told you to more or less shut your yap and stop trying to make what happened something else it wasn’t. She’s sick of people like you trying to get some sort of fame whoring off of her. Unlike you and your ilk, I don’t need that kind of whoring. I don’t need that kind of validation. The FACTS speak for themselves. I don’t need to concoct things or try to build myself up to be bigger than I think I am for some sort of validation.

In closing. I know I’ve come down hard on Lazy. I know to some my statement above may seem as if I’m unfeeling, but I’m so sick of having to retype the same FACTS over and over and over again. It’s so damn tiring to have to rehash things that have been ignored due to some ignorance or in Lazy’s case, pure idiocy. People like Lazy make me sick. They make me wonder what type of education is being sold these days. Did they learn nothing about how to research and break apart the mass in order to examine the individual pieces? Are they so totally stupid they don’t know how to Google something they need to know? Are we in such a fast food culture that only the sensationalistic sound bites become their truth? Are they so addicted to the so-called ‘reality’ TV they can’t disseminate between reality and fiction? The thing too that makes me so angry is that most of this is coming from people who were born after the events of March 10 , 1977 and who have no cultural background for what it was like during the time I grew up. They’ve conscripted my generation as theirs and changed the paradigm because they didn’t and don’t want to understand it. It wasn’t like “One Tree Hill” or “90210″. It was more like “The Ice Storm” and all that entailed. It was darker, less formed, more fluid in terms of personal space and what was considered being a minor. Girls back then weren’t walking and talking Zwinkies speaking in that concocted vocal fry trying to be some sort of cloned Kim Kardashian. Back in my day and age, we were the Kim Kardashians who actually talked the talk and walked the walk. And we didn’t go on television to apologize for a marriage failure. We owned our bodies, our minds and our deeds. And Samantha Geimer certainly has owned hers…to a point. So to Lazy, stop trying to control a message you don’t know how to form. Stop trying to make sense out of something you know nothing of. Until you begin to start discussing without mockery, don’t expect to be treated as anything else but the snivelling little brat you are.

Next discussion…….

Posted by Samskara Impressions in Commentary, Television

ASTOUNSING

Some people’s children should never, ever, be allowed on a computer!

Over on the infamous IMDB page for Roman Polanski, someone it appears, has much too much time on their hands. This person whose name is Lazarusryu, has undertaken this extraordinary task of analyzing my rape as I reported in this post: POLANSKI: NO HARD FEELINGS PT 2. Apparently, according to this analysis, I was not a rape victim, merely a confused, nymphet wanting to have sex with an older man who I apparently, led to do this to me with my feminine wyles. If only I had that kind of power, I’d have had every single man I’d ever dreamed of having. According to this poor unfortunate Lazarusryu, I dressed provocatively and lured ‘Mick’ (a psuedonym) into my lair and forced him to have sex with me to satiate my lusts and perversions. Problem with that kind of thinking: It’s not true and I have never ever called what happened to me anything else but what it was: RAPE! Samantha Geimer, however, believes she was never harmed, never hurt, and doesn’t call what happened to her as rape. She acts as if it were just a mere walk in the park rather than what should have been one of the most traumatic moments of her then, very young life. For me, my experience was traumatic and left me with sense of violation that lasted for years after that pre-Christmas party of 1977. And my relationship with my family is not as ‘chumy chumy’ as apparently Samantha Geimer’s is with her mother. Apparently also according to Lazy, as I’ve come to call him, does not know the difference between truth and fiction…so I will now attempt to correct his method of thinking.

According to the aforementioned Polanski IMDB message board, the lynchpin in the ‘rape’ argument has something to do with Dr. Larson’s Grand Jury testimony (see page Polanski Pages Larson 107) that there can be no damage from a penis inserting into a rectum considering Geimer testified to having been raped twice by Polanski ‘from behind’. I’ll submit this as proof that it is impossible to enter an anus, one that had not previously been penetrated, without at least some injury. There is a reason why homosexual sex is done with copious lubrication because without it, there is a greater chance of injury in the form of tears, fistulas, and bleeding from those expanding tissues. Now time for a little Biology 101: The muscle contractions that are used to push out feces is there for a reason. These muscles are not supposed to be used to insert, rather to push out. Without a libricated condom or lubrication more than spit on a hand or vaginal secretions, it is impossible to any kind of anal sex without allowing for some distension in the oraface, however, when Larson conducted his examination of Geimer he found no tearing, bruising, tissue distension, hematomas or anything consistent with a double penetration. This was exactly the problem faced by the prosecutor in the McMartin Preschool case in which William Buckey, his mother Peggy McMartin Buckey and others faced over 500 charges in total for crimes stemming from what was called Satanic Sexual Abuse. The children in this case had told tales of Satanic rituals involving the killing of small animals and burials on the property, and any number of invasions. Most of what was told by these children were fanciful of knives and scissors being inserted into their ‘heinies’ and ‘peepees’. What was wrong with that picture was that if such instruments were inserted, there would have certainly been damage of some kind found. None was found and none would be found since the events never happened. It was also found that in preparing these children for testimony the Los Angeles Prosecutor’s Office as well as the Los Angeles Police Department relied on the Children’s Institute International to coax testimony from the children using prodding and persuasion in order to up the ante in terms of the level of abuse alleged. What resulted were techniques used to get the children to make false allegations against the McMartin defendants. Why is this pertinent to the Polanski case? In one of her interviews, Samantha Geimer has admitted to having been coached in terms of her Grand Jury Testimony. Like McMartin, what level of prodding could be associated with her testimony. How much of it was she told to embellish? This coaching she admitted to in the Marina Zenovich documentary ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED & DESIRED. So how much can we rely on in terms of her veracity?

Simply, if a jury were to be charged by the judge, he would have to advise them that if they found any part of a witness’s testimony to be in any way lacking or bad, then they are admonished to render all of it bad or tainted, therefore, dismissive in terms of the veracity of the witness. In Geimer’s case, not only one or two portions of her testimony are problematic, but all of it is. What is also troubling is that in Geimer’s account of having had sexual intercourse twice with two other people, that the Grand Jury wasn’t asking why at least one of the others weren’t indicted as well. Certianly the articles of indicment were against Polanski himself, but the Grand Jury is also impanelled to make suggestions for further investigation on behalf of the prosecutor’s office. That the Grand Jury did not implore Roger Gunson to further his investigation into two more avenues including Geimer’s boyfriend Steve Kronblet as well as the motivations of Susan Gailey in allowing Samantha to go off with not only Polanski, but photographer Sean Kinney in December 1976 is indeed problematic. I’ve been told by at least three to four other people on the IMDB Message Board for Sharon Tate that Roman Polanski committed a crime. If Polanski committed a crime, then didn’t Kronblet? If their standard is to indict Polanski completely for his alleged crimes, then why isn’t Kronblet similarly guilty? My guess is it has something do with a little sniggly thing Americans are known for, and that is their “US against THEM” mentality. No one of them can commit a crime, it’s only those disgusting Europeans and others we think are weird. And to them Polanski is weird and they find it weird that Polanski would want to have sex with a young woman said by Larson to be an “adult female”, yet Kronblet is not guilty and is even dismissed altogether due to the all too real aspect of “US against THEM”. They’d protect their own sooner than admit that there is one standard for others not THEM and another totally for US. That translates into something called xenophobia. Should this be anything new? Not really. Just disappointing. Disappointing in the way that they seem to think that Polanski is some sort of gnarled ogre under a bridge who unless stopped, will come out from under that bridge and assault their young children in the night a la Rumplestilskin.

I’ve been told by Lazy that I cannot converse with anyone in a discussion wihtout ‘trashing’ Geimer. No, I don’t have to ‘trash’ her, she’s done that all by herself with her consistent inconsistencies. You can read all of them here, Anatomy of Lies. The proclivity is to excuse her since she is, after all, the victim. It would be nice if she considered herself a victim. She doesn’t. She doesn’t even call or class what happened to her as rape. Depending on her interview or the day of the week she changes details. Those friends I have trusted to tell my story to, all of them can attest to the fact I have never altered one moment or detail of what happened to me. Yet Geimer seems to leave out things or add things depending on the need for attention. This makes me skeptical of her since as noted above, if I don’t believe one part of her story, I cannot and will not accept any portion of her story or ‘tale’. While I do believe that sex did take place, it wasn’t of the sort that recommended al this handwriging on behalf of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s offiice nor all the abuse hurled at Polanski on these many message boards and comments in blogs. And the other thing ones like Lazy and others cannot even accept is that perhaps there was another motive to Geimer and her mother’s penchant to want this case to “Go Away.” And that is ….

Perjury is essentially telling a lie while under oath. In the court of law, the statute of limitations is ten years from the date of the perjury. Techinically, Geimer is out of the woods as far as being charged so she has no jeopardy to her or her mother if they come out and tell the truth. In fact in this Oprahized world, she’d be lauded as a heroine for having the guts to come forward and tell her story of why she did what she did. However, there is a caveat to that perjury charge. If there is a conspiracy attached to that perjury, then there is a continuation of the perjury and the person can be charged on that aspect. So for those like Lazy who cannot grasp higher concepts. If Geimer lied and it is proven she and her mother conspired to ‘get’ Polanski, then both of them can be charged under conspiracy to lie. Ergo, she gets her arse finally screwed in a way that there would be proof Larson would finally be able to testify to.

So just for you Lazy, I wrote this blog to tell you in short words, hopefully, what the issues in this case are and the ones you like to ignore. And I also love the repeated times I asked you to refute you sent me emails or commented on my blog here to unhide my rape experience to “allow everyone to see what you went through….” Yeah, like I was born yesterday. All comments here are now moderated. For anyone who comments on this post I will allow it through only IF it pertains to discussing this in a rational manner. I will no longer accept abuse and certainly as a rape victim, I will not allow my experience to be used as some sort of ponographic fantasy to concoct things from your own pubertal mind to think you have superiority. I lost one element of my life that night that I swore I’d never lose again. And that thing was power. I have called what happened to me that night rape. I’ve not couched it with anything else due to the necessity to keep up appearances to the contrary. Lazy also uses my admission about my having had an affair with a 51 year-old married man when I was 14 as another ‘notch’ in his demented post that I am somehow not a rape victim due to my aforementioned feminine mystique. Well Lazy fails to grasp the reasons I admitted that, and that was that there seems to be this notion that underaged young women do not have the legal ability to consent to sex with older men. I submit, they can and do. Rape at thirteen has nothing whatsoever to do with reclaiming that part of myself with a man of my choice to what was taken from me the year before. At least I do not hide behind tales of promiscuity and pregnancy to amp up my claims of being ‘hurt’ or ‘wounded’. I own my reclamation. And that’s what I did. I reclaimed my life after the incident six months after my rape. I had to. Unlike Geimer who constantly changes her story and her victimhood depending on her level of publicity.

She is not a person to warrant sympathy or empathy. And what is particularly bothersome is Polanski’s current statement of saying Geimer is a victim of his as well as that of the press. Why it bothers me is that I feel he’s capitulated to the political correctness of the age. The Hugh Grant moment of going on The Leno Show to admit he had sex in a car with a prostitute to seek some sort of cathartic forgiveness. I don’t get that and if I have any anger toward Polanski it’s that he is giving into that notion he needs to seek some absolution in this manner. To me he got it when the extradiction warrant was denied. I had hoped that irreverence he showed when he finally accepted his LIfteime Achivement award from teh Zurich film festival in 2010 would be the final statement on that ‘unfortunate’ period of his life. I had hoped that was the Roman Polanski that would be with us until the end of his days. I don’t want a contrite or begging Roman Polanski. I want the one who has that “Fuck you” attitude toward those who want to continue to clamour for his death at the hands of Hitler’s war machine. I want the Roman Polanski who has survived at all costs just to piss those rabid Sharon Tate fans off who think he’s beneath their contempt. And who are those rabid Sharon Tate fans? The ones who think that Roman abused Sharon in such a fashion that it rendered her completely incapable to chose him as her worthy consort. Ah the dashing Jay Sebring, her Knight errant of that night in August 1969. The one who took himself out of the fight early on all because he had to act the part of a hero. Now that statement should by no means intimate I don’t care for Jay or what happened to him that night. On the contrary. I have deep empathy for Sebring and for what happened that night, I just don’t have any consideration for all those rabid Sharon fans who think that it’s perfectly okay to shit on Polanski and his sufferings in a dismissive fashion. Hero worship is a a bitch. Do I hero worshp Polanski? Certainly not.

My level of who I chose to spend my time with in terms of watching their films or listening to their music is based on whether I like their politics, mode of thought and who they are. I am a fellow Leo like Polanski and to a certain degree, I see a lot of myself in him…in his struggle for perfection in his art. Am I so enamoured of him I fail to see his flaws? No. Not at all. i know he’s a fuck up. But I like that about a person. I don’t like ‘perfect’ people. I like people who are always struggling to find that better person, and I find that in Polanski. For anyone who cannot find any level of compassion in their hearts for him or his tragedies just shows how limited they are as human beings. And that they cannot see the obvious flaws in Geimer’s assertions and not have any questions about her or her mother’s roles in this 33 year travesty is just as the title says, Astonunsing!

Posted by Samskara Impressions in Commentary

A NEW DIRECTION

I’ve been receiving emails from my readers who’ve asked many questions about the direction SAMSKARA IMPRESSIONS will go in now that the Roman Polanski issue has been done away with. I can honestly say, I’m not quite sure. I’ve thought long and hard about this and I can state without hesitation that I’ve tried to figure out where I can go with this blog, and I’m still trying to sort out the direction. See the rambling-ness of this overly long thought? This blog was started in order to bring awareness to the Polanski case and my unflagging support of him, but now, I’m not sure what I can offer that the blogosphere hasn’t already without oversaturating the market, so to speak. I have a few ideas I’m sorting through with regards to social issues and or current events. More or less offering my voice to the many out there, but I’ll have to wait and see what issues need my attention. I have a couple of things I’m thinking of. Things that are how shall we say it, itching my ass, but I’ll have to see how bad the hemorroids are to effect my brand of Preparation H on them. Stay tuned…..

Posted by Samskara Impressions in Commentary

ROMAN POLANSKI: A FREE MAN

Polanski free, Swiss reject US extradition request
Mon Jul 12, 9:03 AM

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100712/world/roman_polanski_6?printer=1

By Bradley S. Klapper,Frank Jordans, The Associated Press

BERN, Switzerland – The Swiss government declared renowned film director Roman Polanski a free man on Monday after rejecting a U.S. request to extradite him on a charge of having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl.

The Swiss mostly blamed U.S. authorities for failing to provide confidential testimony about Polanski’s sentencing procedure in 1977-1978.

The stunning decision could end the United States’ three-decade pursuit of Polanski, unless he travels to another country that would be willing to apprehend him and weigh sending him to Los Angeles. France, where he has spent much of his time, does not extradite its own citizens, and the public scrutiny over Switzerland’s deliberations may dissuade other nations from making such a spectacular arrest.

The Swiss government said it had sought confidential testimony given on Jan. 26 by Roger Gunson, the Los Angeles attorney in charge of the original prosecution against Polanski. Washington rejected the request.

“Mr. Polanski can now move freely. Since 12:30 today he’s a free man,” Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf declared.

The Oscar-winning director of “Rosemary’s Baby,” ”Chinatown” and “The Pianist” was accused of plying his victim with champagne and part of a Quaalude during a 1977 modeling shoot and raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy, but pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.

In exchange, the judge agreed to drop the remaining charges and sentence him to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. However, he was released after 42 days by an evaluator who deemed him mentally sound and unlikely to offend again. The judge responded by saying he was going to send Polanski back to jail for the remainder of the 90 days and that afterward he would ask Polanski to agree to a “voluntary deportation.” Polanski then fled the country on the eve of his Feb. 1, 1978, sentencing.

Based on references to Gunson’s testimony in U.S. courts, the Swiss said it “should prove” that Polanski served his sentence after undergoing 42 days of diagnostic study, the statement said.

“If this were the case, Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the U.S. extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation,” the ministry said.

The Justice Ministry also said that national interests were taken into consideration in the decision.

“The 76-year-old French-Polish film director Roman Polanski will not be extradited to the USA,” the ministry said in a statement. “The freedom-restricting measures against him have been revoked.”

Polanski’s lawyer Herve Temime said the director was still at his Swiss chalet in the resort of Gstaad, where he has been held under house arrest since December.

Switzerland’s top justice official said he could now leave.

Temime told The Associated Press by telephone from his office in Paris that his client was ready to enjoy his freedom.

“This decision was certainly not expected,” Temime said.

He praised Swiss authorities for making the responsible decision.

Approving extradition had seemed the likeliest scenario after Polanski was arrested on Sept. 26 as he arrived in Zurich to receive a lifetime achievement award from a film festival. Polanski had also suffered a series of legal setbacks this year in California courts.

Switzerland handles about 200 extradition requests a year and only about 5 per cent are rejected, Widmer-Schlumpf said.

Widmer-Schlumpf said this decision was not meant to excuse Polanski’s crime, saying the issue was “not about deciding whether he is guilty or not guilty.”

The government said extradition had to be rejected “considering the persisting doubts concerning the presentation of the facts of the case.”

Beyond the legal confusion, Polanski’s extradition is a complicated and diplomatically sensitive because of Polanski’s status as a cultural icon in France and Poland, where he holds dual citizenship, and his history as a Holocaust survivor whose first wife was murdered by crazed followers of cult leader Charles Manson in California.

Widmer-Schlumpf said she informed authorities in the United States, France and Poland, in addition to Polanski’s lawyer.

___

Klapper reported from Geneva. AP correspondent Angela Charlton contributed from Paris.

**********************************************************************

Switzerland won’t extradite Polanski to the U.S.
Swiss release director, claim U.S. failed to share confidential testimonyVideo Switzerland won’t extradite Polanski to U.S. .Photos Roman Polanski’s life, career .Timeline Roman Polanski: Tragedy, scandal and success .
.
updated 2 hours 34 minutes ago
BERN, Switzerland — The Swiss government declared renowned film director Roman Polanski a free man on Monday after rejecting a U.S. request to extradite him on a charge of having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl.

The Swiss mostly blamed U.S. authorities for failing to provide confidential testimony about Polanski’s sentencing procedure in 1977-1978.

The stunning decision could end the United States’ three-decade pursuit of Polanski, unless he travels to another country that would be willing to apprehend him and weigh sending him to Los Angeles. France, where he has spent much of his time, does not extradite its own citizens, and the public scrutiny over Switzerland’s deliberations may dissuade other nations from making such a spectacular arrest.

The Swiss government said it had sought confidential testimony given on Jan. 26 by Roger Gunson, the Los Angeles attorney in charge of the original prosecution against Polanski. Washington rejected the request.

“Mr. Polanski can now move freely. Since 12:30 today he’s a free man,” Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf declared.

Authorities in Los Angeles and Washington cannot appeal the Swiss decision. Sandy Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, declined to comment.

Case dates to 1977
The Oscar-winning director of “Rosemary’s Baby,” “Chinatown” and “The Pianist” was accused of plying his victim with champagne and part of a Quaalude during a 1977 modeling shoot and raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy, but pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/38201135/ns/today-entertainment/?GT1=43001

Today is indeed a good day for Samskara Impressions. After months of legal wrangling and secretive shennanigans on behalf of California District Attorney Steve Cooley and his henchman Dave Walgren along with the complicity of Supreme Court Judge Peter Espinoza, the Swiss under Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, refused the request by the United States to hand Roman Polanski over to the US. In what may have come as a shock, Justice Minister Widmer-Schlumpf denied the extradition application due to the petitioner’s failure to provide full disclosure on the case at hand. What in particular Justice Widmer-Schlumpf wanted was a deposition given by former District Attorney Roger Gunson on Rittenband’s conduct, which has been held under seal by Judge Espinoza.

By her order, Justice Widmer-Schlumpf has stated for the public record that Roman Polanski had not only served his time for his offense, but also denied the United States from issuing any further extradition warrants for Polanski.

Posted by Samskara Impressions in Commentary

LAW ABIDING CITIZEN

LAW AIDING CITZEN STARRING GERARD BUTLER AND JAMIE FOXXI recently watched a film on my local cable company’s on demand service that is interesting in that it posits the aspect of what is a ‘law abiding citizen’?

The film stars Gerard Butler (“Lara Croft: Cradle of Life”, “Reign of Fire”, “Gamer” and “300″) as Clyde Shelton, a fringe worker for the CIA and whose wife and daughter are brutally murdered by two men. Enter Jamie Foxx (“The Kingdom”, “Miami Vice”, “Collateral” and “Ray”) as Nick Rice, at the beginning of the film and assistant district attorney for Philadelphia assigned to prosecute the killers of Shelton’s family. In the end, Nick is forced to take a plea on the case in which the actual killer walks on a lighter sentence as the other man involved in the Shelton case, is sent to Death Row. As the other man leaves for a five year prison sentence, Clyde watches as Rice is approached and it looks as if he’s in league with the real killer. Some years later Clyde puts together a plan to make all those who allowed the killer of his wife and daughter to get away with it. That plan Clyde puts into motion is as a law abiding citizen to make those pay who allowed the ‘deal’ with the devil as it were. The twist on this story is that Clyde only puts those in those positions of power in his line of fire. Everyone from Rice to the mayor (Viola Davis) are targets as far as Clyde Shelton is concerned due to their complicity in the system. Thus lays out the basic plot of the film. Shelton begins to get revenge on those he holds responsible for the miscarriage of justice that allowed the killer of his wife and child walk.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in the Polanski case? Plenty.

It seems as though it’s perfectly fine for those condemning Polanski and his decision to run back in 1978 to deride his decision, then to condemn the one responsible for that decision Polanski made. Polanski played by the rules as far as his case was concerned. As the Marina Zenovich documentary ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED & DESIRES succinctly summed up, there were gross incidents of judicial misconduct on behalf of the presiding judge, Laurence J. Rittenband. Most of which the film documented, however, there is a greater picture here. While Roman Polanski submitted himself to every hoop Rittenband presented to Polanski to jump through, Rittenband himself remained above that law he swore to uphold.

Going back to that epiotme of uprightness, some of the posters on the many boards I’ve posted, perused or lurked on, have stated that the issue here isn’t what Rittenband did, but what Polanski did. Granted, had Polanski ‘kept it in his pants’, a valid argument at any time if indeed there was a rape for Polanski to have been guilty of, the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ was allowed to propigate by Rittenband’s actions, but Vannatter’s actions and by the system itself. One cannot expect to have the air of propriety without a system that cannot be used by those chosen to uphold that law, to then turn around and crap on it. What am I talking about? Simply this. Polanski complied with all that was asked of him. Now what was asked of him? Here is what he did:

  • When ordered to return from Germany after the Oktoberfest photo that was shown Rittenband by David Welles, Roman Polanski returned as he was required to do by law.
  • When ordered to Chino for the psychiatric report, a thing that was not required under the law at the time, Polanski reported.
  • When the psychiatric and probation reports were completed, there was no need to hold him any further and it was the probation officer who ordered him released as per the fact that no psyche report takes the full 90 days to complete.
  • When ordered into court, Polanski presented himself. On those off days when it was only pro forma details for the lawyers, he did not have to report…as per the law.
  • Even when he was ordered to report to read from Rittenband’s prepared script, Roman Polanski still reported.

Those are the facts. Now whether it was required of Polanski to submit himself to harm other than what was required under the statute and Rittenband’s continued illegal conduct, it wasn’t up to Polanski to do so. Rittenband was the one who was conducting his court in an illegal fashion. Now the next statement I’ll likely get is: “OKay, if Polanski was feeling he was being ill-treated, why didn’t he stay and fight it?” Legitimate question, certainly, but not the reality Polanski was living with. He’d submitted himself to all that Rittenband demanded, but Rittenband was still renegging on the plea deal. And for those who’d say that it doesn’t matter, a judge is allowed to reneg all he wants. I say, no a judge is not. If the deal hammered out by both sides and in this case, on behalf of the so-called ‘victim’ and her lawyer and her father, also a lawyer who was the one who came up with the deal to begin with, all Rittenband had to do was to sign off on it…unless he felt that there was some pressure put on the ‘victim’. In that case and only that case, is the judge allowed to question the deal. In this case, and this case alone, no one wanted jail or prison time for Polanski. No one. Not even Geimer or her mother or father. What did Rittenband consider this as well as the court ordered reports from the probation office as well as the psychiatric reports? He considered it a whitewash. A whitewash only because it didn’t comport with his belief of who he thought Polanski was. And that is not his right by law. He can think whatever he wants about Polanski’s conduct or his life, the point here is that it means nothing in terms of applying the law. And what Rittenband did was illegal.

Going back to that assumption that Polanski had to lay himself at the feet of the corrupt judge to accept his ‘punishment’, no noe has to submit themselves to something that is over and above what the statute itself states. Polanski took the only out he felt he could to escape Rittenband’s machinations, and that was to flee to France. And if Rittenband wanted to make sure Polanski didn’t have that ability to run, he should have confiscated Polanski’s passport, which Rittenband didn’t do. So is it Polanski’s fault that Ritteband failed to do so? No. Should Polanski have given that up when he returned from Germany? No. It wasn’t required by law for him to do so. So this returns me again to what Polanski did do in order to comply with what the court ordered. And what he did do was comply at all turns. The only time he didn’t was when he felt he was being treated unfairly. If he hadn’t run, which Rittenband wanted Polanski to self-deport himself anyway…something Rittenband had no legal right to demand, Polanski did what Rittenband wanted. He left the United States.

So now where onto the law abiding citizen part. LIke Clyde in the film, he did what was required of him by law to do. He believed that the law would do what it was designed to do and to punish those responsible for the deaths of his wife and child. Even if it meant that Nick would loose his case for whatever reason, at least according to Clyde, Nick would have tried. Which would have been all Clyde would have asked of Nick. To try. What does this have to do with Polanski? Simple. It could try to address this fairly and swiftly for all involved. But somehow like Judge Laurence Rittenband before him, Steve Cooley and Peter Espinoza feel that they don’t have to follow the law. They feel that it is their word and nothing more. I asked in a previous post, what is Steve Cooley afraid of. I’ll ask again, if there is nothing to hide, why continue to keep Roger Gunson’s deposition under seal? What is to be gained by it? Gunson gave this deposition to the Polanski side to help him nad them in understanding what actually happened with Rittenband, and this comported precisely with what Douglas Dalton has always contended. There’s no mystery here. And for Polanski to quit his fight from Switzerland with so much still in question as per the original procedings, then Swiss law would be in breach of its own Geneva Convention about turning prisoners over to a system that will not comport with that law.

Like Clyde Shelton, Roman Polanski expected to be treated like any other citzen of the United States. Be given equal treatment and not centred out for his celebrity, which despite what those anti-Polanskites seem to think, worked against him. It didn’t help him. It didn’t protect him. Rittenband on the other hand gained off of Polanski’s fame and then continued to treat him above and beyond what the law required. That is not prosecution, it is persecution. The fact that Rittenband didn’t pay for his treatment of Polanski is a shame. He should have been pulled from the bench and taken to task for his misconduct that went over the line of justice. And yeah, yeah, yeah…I’ve heard that one again about Polanski keeping it his pants. But he didn’t. In the end, he expected to be treated fairly and without prejudice. Despite what Polanski did or didn’t do, whether the said double anal rape occurred according to the evidence collected and tested…oh wait, failed to be tested, the facts still remain the Californai legal system still refuses to play by the rules. Not surprising since Steve Cooley hasn’t seen fit to prosecute those involved in decades old abuses by the California Archdiocese of the Catholic Church given they’re contributing to his run for Attorney General of the State of Californai. Not surprising at all.

Oh, I should also mention that just recently, The Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger has reduced civil servant’s paychecks to minimum wage. Considering California is facing a budget shortfall by winter, the fact that Cooley is wasting funds on this case to ‘get Polanski back’ is ridiculous. Espinoza, have the guts to sentence Polanski in absentia and have this over and done with. You’ll look like the bigger man for it. Instead, you just continue to look like the Rittenband abstructionist you are. Some legacy.

Posted by Samskara Impressions in Commentary

A DEPARTURE

I’m going to depart from my Roman Polanski posts to address something I feel needs to be looked at:

The above trailer is to the film OUT OF THE BLUE starring LORD OF THE RINGS and STAR TREK star, Karl Urban as a police officer in a small town on New Zealand’s South Island where a gunman by the name of David Malcolm Gray, an unemployed man with mental disorders, went on a shooting spree that left 13 dead and three injured and a community asking why it was allowed to happen.

The full details of what exactly happened that day on 13 November 1990 can be found here at Wikipedia: [ ARAMOANA MASSACRE ]. It would be a far better read than me trying to fall all over myself trying to give you a blow-by-blow description of what happened and who was involved. So go have a read, then hit your back button and come on back to read my post….That is if you want to. Suffice to say, after I watched the film directed by New Zealander Robert Sarkies, I was left with the feeling of total shock. Why shock?

I really do not understand the feeling from anyone that they need to own a gun or have one in their possession, let alone allowing someone who is mentally disordered like Gray to own not only one, but many and many that by all right no private citizen should be able to possess. The type of gun Gray used was tantamount to a Russian AK-47, the kind used by the Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War. This type of weapon can be adjusted to be either a semi-automatic or automatic. Which only means one thing: It is a capable of killing and killing many. In Gray’s case, he was a collector, someone who had a fascination for guns and knew how to use them, also stockpiling amunition. I ask this: Why does anyone need to stockpile guns or amunition? If you’re not law enforcement or someone in the Armed Forces, why are you allowed to own a gun?

Living in Canada as I do, I’m struck by all that my government has done to make sure these types of weapons do not fall into the hands of someone able to carry out a mass shooting as was done at the Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal in 1989 where 14 women were killed by a man angry that men’s jobs were being taken by women. Again like Gray, Marc Lupine carried out his mission with absolute efficency as he walked from class to class shooting indescriminately. This episode forced the Canadian Government to re-examine the issue of gun control in Canada and who actually should have the right own them. There is a gun registry where one must sign onto in order to own a simple handgun, but the one thing that is clear is that no one has the right to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon here in Canada. However, in other so-called advanced countries like the gun happy United States of America, it’s not so simple to force a gun registry due to certain aspects of America’s Constitution allowing such ownership under their Second Amendment.

With events such as Waco and the Branch Davidians, Columbine and the D.C. Sniper behind them, the nation that prides itself on its ability to shoot from the hip then ask questions later, still allows gun shows to continue where men like Gray and Lupine are allowed to go and peruse to their heart’s content and buy whatever strikes their fancy. Ever since the shooting of Ronald Reagan and the injuring of Reagan’s press secretary James Brady, the question of gun ownership has been a hot button issue. Sarah Brady, wife of Brady, has tried since the 1981 shooting of her husband and the former president to get Congress to make some kind of law about guns and gun ownership when John Hinckley Jr. was allowed to buy a gun and use it injuring two others in the process of shooting Reagan and Brady. Hinckley like Lupine and Gray, suffered from a mental disorder. He’d tried several times to get in touch with actress Jodie Foster to no avail. With not being able to do so, he decided to ‘do the big thing’ so she’d notice him. Much in the same way Mark David Chapman did with his obsession with John Lennon, Hinckley took it upon himself to make a statement. So why are these types of people allowed to even buy a gun, let alone own one? Sarah Brady has tried to enact some kind of identity check in order to make sure these types of offenders do not have access to the kind of weapons one would consider only used for wartime or by law enforcement.

The NRA in the United States would have us believe that it is a person’s right to own a gun. In another time it would have been, when the nearest law enforcement was the next valley over or there wasn’t another person within acres of your land and the possibility of bandits were an issue. But this is not the Old West or DEADWOOD. This isn’t Al Swearengen having to defend his business against those like George Hearst who’d dare to come in and take it over. This is 2010 where the nearest neighbour is in the apartment or the house next door. We’re stacked too close together to have to have weapons to protect us and with law enforcement a telephone call away. And certainly not the weapons favourited by the likes of Gray and Dylan Kleibold and Eric Harris. Within weeks of the Columbine shooting, the NRA held a convention in Colorado where then NRA leader and actor Charleton Heston entoned, “Not from my cold, dead hands,” like he was re-enacting some scene from one of his movies. This isn’t PLANET OF THE APES or SOLENT GREEN, this is America in the 1990s where we don’t need to be ‘locked and loaded’ as Sarah Palin would say.

One should be asking why the NRA and other such gun lobbiests need to continue to tout the Second Amendment in such times as these. The simple answer should be that no one should have to own a gun. The more complicated issue is deep set in the fabric of the society that continues to allow these kinds of guns to be sold in gun shows and other venues where there are no checks to find out if the potential owner has a prison record, or a record of mental issues. These types of venues don’t care. They only care for the ability to own, but not be responsible. Kleibold and Harris weren’t even old enough to be able to obtain the weapons they had including bomb making materials, so they asked someone to get the guns for them. The issue here is who should be responsible? Kleibold and Harris’ parents should have been held accountable for what their sons did, and they were sued by family members of the victims killed. The NRA would have us believe they care for responsible gun ownership, but they do nothing to make sure their venues are closed to such things as a mentally disordered person who might be able to buy a gun and use it for just such a killing spree, because let’s face it, the only thing one can do with one of these kinds of weapons is to use them for killing many.

So we go back to David Malcolm Gray, a loner with a mental disorder and the ability to own guns he should not legally been allowed to own. New Zealand enacted gun control measures as a result of Gray’s killing spree. I say, the horse already escaped, why close the barn door now. Why does it take these kinds of incidents to get the ball rolling to restrict these kinds of weapons? Why not keep these kinds of weapons out of the hands of the general public who have no right to own them? With ads for gun sales in the backs of magazines and other periodicles, it is so very easy to order them via the mail or on Ebay. There are no laws to prevent such weapons from passing through postal stations or Fed-Exing them as there should be. How about just not at all? Why not just say, “These kinds of guns are not allowed to be owned by a private citizen”? Well because gun owners and lobbiests cry and stamp their feet their rights are being trampled. Well how about those who are killed or wounded by such guns every time someone goes postal and shoots up an office building or a school or a small town? Where do they get their rights or lives back?

OUT OF THE BLUE is gutwrenching to watch. it is unflinching in the events as they happened and when Gray is finally taken out by New Zealand special forces operatives sent from Wellington to find Gray, we are left with the feeling of satisfaction. Satisfaction that the man responsible for the deaths of five children and six adults in the rampage, is finally dead. Does that make us monsters for wanting men like this ‘taken out’? I don’t think so. I think it means we are for justice and for the rights of citizens to be paramount to out elected law makers. We want to know they have our best interests at heart and are not part and party to these NRA types who decry it’s their right to own them.

Posted by Samskara Impressions in Commentary, Society, VIDEO

MAKING THE GRADE

After some time away from this issue, I came back to find that I had a boatload of comments awaiting approval, trashing and commenting on. What I found was a wide range of things from links to porn sites, free Viagra, seeing photos of Rachel Bilson (never heard of her) naked, and several sites for free downloads of movies. While I trashed about 200 of these like posts, I approved of some that were to say the least, condemning of what I’ve had to say on the topic of Samantha Geimer and her supposed ‘ordeal’ with Roman Polanski some 33 years ago. I’ve responded to many approved comments from people who stopped by simply to accuse me of being a hypocrite, to others who believe I had what was coming to me from this IMDB poster who annotated my story of my rape. I also had a wide range of comments that I did trash who were outright stupid, and still others who I believe should never see the light of day considering they were just plainly, bad.

I have one thing to say though on those who wish to comment on the Polanski case without providing their facts in the form of links or a page of testimony or even something that can back up what they’re saying. I’m going to state this with clarity: If you are going to try to argue this case with me without providing proof in the form of an actual page of testimony or something that is in the public record of the case, I’m saying don’t bother posting. It won’t be accepted nor approved. I have very little time and patience for those who refuse to aquit themselves with the facts and claim such things as, “her boyfriend never came to her place….” Etc. You clearly show a lack of intelligence when you refuse to make yourself even aware of the issues in this case. Further, like it or not, Roman Polanski’s rights were abused. Samantha Geimer, it appears, received her payment in the form of a half a million dollar payout given to her by Polanski and confirmed by her lawyers. She received her ju$tice. Roman Polanski has as yet, to receive his in the form of fair treatment at the hands of the California Justice System. Until he does, this blog will continue to raise the pertinent issues regarding that injustice. This blog will also point out the errors made by stupid people who refuse to even believe that Polanski was treated unfairly. And for those who believe that it’s perfeclty okay for the current DA of Los Angeles, one Steve Cooley currently running for California Attorney General, who still refuses to try any one of his buddies in the Catholic Arch Diocese for molesting and raping children going back decades. He is a joke and a disgrace.

To finish, I’m tired of having to continue to post and repost stuff on message boards and other blogs about this case. It’s tiresome and frankly, getting to the point of ridiculousness. In this day and age where Google is available and readily handy with any facts you care to avail yourself of, there is no excuse for the lack of research not done.

Posted by Samskara Impressions in Commentary