Archive for the ‘Film’ Category

Never Assume Anything! Polanski & The Law

September 29, 2009

Vodpod videos no longer available.

(Picture quality is off, but kindly listen.  Great scene from the Paper Chase)

Hello!  You know, with Mackenzie Phillips in the news for her decade long affair with Re-Run (did I say “Re-Run?”  I meant her dad), it seems only fitting we fill yet another void — the misunderstood case of Roman Polanski.

I’ve read and watched all the brilliant punditry in a full symphonic chorus.  The minds of most simply ask that Polanski’s testicles be sliced and Scotch-taped to his forehead.  And the like.  It’s as if they want him to have two noses.

Anyhoo, I can understand that!  I mean, he kind of RAPED a little girl.  And, as we all know, claiming RAPE is wrong is a most difficult argument to espouse.  Tap yourself on the shoulder if you’ve astutely pointed that out.

That said, it’s obvious the sheer visceral and emotional reactions we have to RAPE ought govern our thoughts and lives.  Law be damned.  I mean, we ought ignore the analysis of Jeffery Toobin or attorneys for the Defense.  Why even examine Polanski’s legal contentions?  The public, the brilliant legal experts all who went to Harvard Law, made up their minds.  Good enough for me!  Certainly  judges (or, humans) do not cower to pressures of the masses.  No need to worry about that.

Hell.  Lock this pedophile up and throw away the key and toilet bowl. I mean really, can’t we all assume Polanski’s legal defense is the runoff of hogwash after a bout with a rotten trough of bad apples?  Elementary my dear Watsons!  In the wise words of Sherlock Holmes, “This is a dead end and the Constable solved the entire motherfucking case.”

But, just for shits and giggles, for those who do not want to assume and can admit they don’t know all of the facts, for folks who can follow the law and blind themselves to grotesque admissions, for you heartless high-tech robots who must only be able to analyze law, I offer you this:

A California judge yesterday refused to approve a request filed by director Roman Polanski’s lawyers to have his child sex case dropped as long as he is still a fugitive.

The 75-year-old famed moviemaker, who pleaded guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977, must appear in court personally to have his motion considered.

After watching the HBO documentary on the Roman Polanski case, “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” which aired in June, Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza agreed there was misconduct by the now-deceased judge who arranged a plea bargain but reneged on it.

The judge said he would be willing to reconsider his decision only if Polanski, who fled the United States for France in 1978 after pleading guilty to unlawful sex with an underage girl charges, returned to a Los Angeles courtroom by May 7.

“Having reviewed all the evidence in this case, there was substantial misconduct that occurred in the pendency of this case,” said Espinoza. But he said that if Polanski wants a ruling on that underlying issue, “He just needs to submit to the jurisdiction of this court.”

Uh-oh.  Looks like a judge thinks Polanski got screwed on a plea deal.  Screw him!  Polanski raped someone; time we gang rape the law.  That makes sense to you.  I mean me.

Do I know all of the facts on the Polanski case?  No.  Does the media?  By and large, the media jumped on the pithy Hollywood defenders of the holy (citing Woody Allen as a source.  You know him.  The director/writer who boned and married his wife’s daughter.  It’s like Kramer being a frontman for the NAACP.  Christ).   The media simply ignores, (aside from Anderson Cooper and (drumroll) Lou Dobbs) the legal arguments.

A clipping from AP briefly explains judicial and prosecutorial misconduct and some other facts the media did not examine yesterday.   Anyone even know Polanski already did time for a plea he entered into?


The Poland-born Polanski was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape and sodomy, and faced up to life in prison. He pleaded guilty to one count — unlawful sexual intercourse — and spent 42 days in prison for diagnostic tests. Polanski was expected to be sentenced to time served, but he became aware that Judge Laurence J. Rittenband wouldn’t approve the plea agreement and the director fled to France. The U.S. placed a fugitive warrant on Polanski in 1978.


Polanski’s attorneys have sought to dismiss the case following the release of the HBO documentary “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” which raised questions about judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. The film contends Rittenband, who has since died, was improperly consulted by a prosecutor not assigned to Polanski’s case about what kind of sentence the film director should receive. While Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza earlier this year found there was “substantial misconduct” in the handling of the original case, he dismissed Polanski’s motion to throw out the case because the director did not appear in court. Polanski risked arrest on a fugitive warrant if he returned to Los Angeles. He has appealed Espinoza’s decision, and a California appellate court is reviewing the case.  (Emphasis Added)

Ought the Swiss extradite Mr. Polanski?  I don’t know.  I only wish to examine all sides — something the Media gets an “F” on.   (Hi There Howard Kurtz).  Media and most persons fail to critically analyze the issues.  Most are lost in the despicable admissions made in contemplation of a plea deal.  How could that not blind you.  It ought not.  That’s the problem.  People already have reached conclusion without familiarizing themselves with the facts.

Rather than out those folks (I would need a new internet anyhow), I encourage those to look at everything with an unbiased eye.  A blind one.  Maybe get a… blindfold.  Is that a metaphor for something?  Echo?

You want to get mad?   If Judge Espinoza is right, get mad at the prosecutor who made the time served deal. If Judge Espinoza is to be believed, your anger ought be directed at the judge who initially approved the deal it seems. After all, what do you think precipitated the original judge and prosecutors to engage in “misconduct?”  Public outcry?  Maybe.  Probably.  Why do you think the deal was nixed?  Pressure.   You don’t cast aside rules in exchange for emotion.

No additional charges exist simply because Polanski fled.   Simply, a warrant was served and only one charge of the original six remain.  The bargain called for a credit for time served sentence (meaning, the time he already did in prison is given credit for and that’s the only stint of jail he would do).  His flight can not act as some fallacious and baseless pretext to amp the original deal up given the circumstances under Judge Espinoza’s logic.  Certainly, he is not looking at the five other charges already dropped as that would violate settled principles of due process and double jeopardy.  No one has argued such insanity.   In a nutshell, that is the gravamen of Polanski’s position.  At a maximum, the most he could get would be some sort of county sentence for a contempt charge and that hasn’t even been brought up yet.  If contempt becomes an issue, there is little bite to state contempt charges.  Simple as that.   As Polanski sits in custody now, his credit for time served accumulating as we speak will vitiate any real jail time he would have to do.   Alternatively,  rarely are contempt proceedings brought for someone skipping a sentencing date, and even if brought, it’s a wash in terms of actual time he will spend in jail relative to the original singular charge plead to.  [Additional note: The proper attack of the defense lies in the validity of the plea deal; to ignore the legal defense and duck the issue raised is willful ignorance]

The prosecutors already dropped five charges where he was looking at life.  That’s not on the table.  He may have to do a few months from now at most (mostly waiting for a disposition).  On the other hand, the Swiss can release Polanski and not extradite him.   Let’s find out truth rather than scream “RAPE” until a reader or viewer gets into a shower and scrubs oneself all bloody like.  The truth is, people who are upset should talk to the L.A. prosecutor.

This is not some tripe Hollywood argument or some nonsense you’d see on the tubes.  It is a legal contention.  One not minimizing the nature of the underlying offense, but one that need not get into that issue to evaluate what is just and fair.  Further, the terrible problem is the media ignores this issue almost entirely.  You didn’t hear about the California judge yesterday by and large. One, unless they were looking for it, didn’t see that Polanski did 46 days in contemplation of a bargain he pleaded to.  The horror is people refuse to acknowledge claims with legal merit in favor of emotion (rightly there by the way) for rape.  The law is the law.  A deal is a deal.  At least examine all sides of the issue — a simple task most do not do.  That’s all I ask.  Look at all of the arguments.

On the one hand, I have a great mistrust that public outrage will bias a result (whatever the truth may be).  Alternatively, America should be brave and tackle this issue in the name of justice — IF all can be objectively honest.  That’s a big “if” though isn’t it?

Never assume anything.  Follow the law.

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

Stormtroopers Remember Destruction Of The Death Star

September 14, 2009

Vodpod videos no longer available.

(Via Indecision and “Stormtroopers’ 9/11 – CollegeHumor Video“)

No one thinks of the poor Stormtroopers on the Death Star.  Never our minds on where they were?  What they were doing?  Hmph?

Come to think of it, how did Darth Vader get away?  Maybe he was working for the other side?  Maybe it was all planned out?  By one dark ruler.  Like a conspiracy even.

Stormtroopers!  TRUTH NOW!  StormtroopersTRUTH NOW!

Share! Never Forget! And, Click on the links because… they’re really not too shitty.

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

The Glorious Basterd

August 20, 2009


(H/T Diana via Luke Pattan)

I can imagine the pitch:  “It’s like Kill Bill.  But for Jews.  Starring Barney Frank.”

Children’s Choir Holds Prayer Service For Bob Novak

August 18, 2009

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Au Revoir Satani

Revelation 13:17  And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Revelation 13:18  Here is wisdom.  Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six Hundred threescore and six.

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak, one of the nation’s most influential journalists, who relished his “Prince of Darkness” public persona, died at home here early Tuesday morning after a battle with brain cancer.

Nazarene!  You have won… Nothing!”  — Bob Novak.

Share (and if you’re Jewish, don’t convert like Novak!)

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

“Real” Mob To Sue “Cafone” Mob For Copyright Infringement

August 9, 2009


(Miami, Florida)  Nothing unites America like a good Mob story — the”real” Mob that is.  On the upscale shuffleboard and bacce ball courts at a retirement community in Miami, I caught up with a few “reformed” old-timers who are fed up with what they consider to be theft of their intellectual property — the word, “Mob.”  As a condition of the interviews, I promised to only use first names, conceal the location of their outdoor activity center, and bring them black and white cookies from the The Rascal House.  I didn’t have the heart to tell the fellas that The Rascal House had closed.  Sage Deli would have to do.

I met Gus and his crew sometime in the late ’70s at The Rascal House as a kid with my Jewish grandpa.  One thing Jews and Italians could always agree on was good food with heaping piles of guilt sauce.  At the time, I didn’t know they were, um, businessmen.  They’re “retired” now, but want to preserve their heritage.  I was up for a game of bacce, but they just wanted to eat in the shade and talk “politics.”

Rawls:  It’s good to see ya Gus.  Boys…

Gus: Thanks for bringin’ the cookies kid.

Rawls: So, this whole Mob lawsuit.  What’s that about?

Gus: Heyyyy.  Are you fucking kidding me?  These cafones think they can just take our name?

Frankie: Yeah.  It’s ours.

Gus: That’s right.  We’re taking them to court.

Rawls: So let me get this straight, you’re suing protesters at the Town Hall Meetings for stealing the word “Mob?”

Nunzio:  We’re reformed.

Frankie: Yeah.  Reformed.

Gus: These people on T.V.  They’re not “The Mob.”

Nunzio: Scemos.

Gus:  An insult.

Rawls: Why a lawsuit?


Giving Up Electronic Cigs, Moving To Foam

July 1, 2009

Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop inhaling nicotine vapor.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Lessons On Autoerotic Asphyxiation (Not Mentioning Names)

June 15, 2009

Grasshopper!  Grasshopper!  Grasshopper!

😦 grasshopper.

Too Soon?

What Happens During Open Thread Ejaculation?

June 11, 2009

Louisiana Court Recognizes Marriage Of Cousins: Gays and Goats To Follow?

June 9, 2009

Finally!  A legitimate chance at wedded bliss for kissin’ cousins that are in lovin’:

In a very interesting decision (with implications for same-sex marriage), a Louisiana court has held that the state must recognize a foreign marriage between cousins despite the fact that such a marriage would be null and void in the statem The 1st Circuit Appeals court ruled that there is no strong public policy that would bar such a recognition. The case involved a divorce case where the East Baton Rouge Parish Family Court judge declined jurisdiction.

The unhappy couple were married in Iran. Like most nations, cousins can marry in Iran. Since it is a valid marriage in Iran, the court ruled that it should be treated as valid in Louisiana. For the opinion, click here

Professor Turley goes on to explain how we can draw an inference from the opinion — states will give “full faith and credit” to other states where gay marriage has been deemed legal by the gay state legislatures.   The argument goes that if Louisiana recognizes Deliverance Gone Wild type marriage in Iran, then under the Constitution states will could easily have use this as “persuasive authority” to recognize gay marriage laws of other states.  Gag.

Do you not see your own fallacious post-hoc logic?  Welcome to class sir!

Professor Turley, a brilliant yet empathetic (which is now tantamount to being evil while on Viagra) constitutional law expert at George Washington, would have you believe all states must accept the progressive views of Iran.  Oh Prof!  Your hamartia is exposed for the world to see.


The Right Goes Back To The Future And Targets Unnamed Obama Nominations

May 23, 2009

When the Right hits 88 miles per hour, you’re gonna see some serious shit.

Watch this!  Watch this!


While right-wing groups attempt to wrinkle time and foil this triple-dimension alternative universe of communist justices from Hades, Marty and Doc are all over it at The ABA Journal: Law News Now:

Some conservative groups aren’t waiting for President Obama to announce his choice to fill the seat of retiring Justice David H. Souter. They are taking aim at three potential Supreme Court nominees in attack ads posted on YouTube. …

Supreme Court practitioner Thomas Goldstein, who created SCOTUSblog, told the Tribune that the Internet and blogs have helped distribute information about the possible nominees. “The downside is that there is an equal leveling effect in which totally idiotic wing nuts can go off—that’s true on both the far left and far right.”  (emphasis added)

Wait a second!  That lazy block quote is from “Law News Now.”  How about, law news later?  Such is the tripe of blowhard lawyers easily debunked when the right has attorney-bots designed by Stephen Hawking.

Information procured by time traveling conservatives explicitly state in the above video Judge “Wood ruled that peaceful abortion demonstrators should be punished under the same law that applies to mob bosses.”

What?  Some really activist judge is a covert mob boss who wantonly throws abortions and fetal tissue at unsuspecting litigants?  I sure do hope Doc or Marty can answer this question!  I care not to hear some alta kaka rant about certain consequences the likes of which the Earth has never seen.  I mean, what do we become?  Assholes?

SCOTUSblog reports that Wood’s RICO ruling “was a judgment primarily about injunctive relief and the breadth of the racketeering statute, not on the right to provide an abortion or to protest.”

Well  I never!  Such is far too sober analysis from Marty and Doc over at the American Bar Association for me to take seriously.   Simply, this “objective” legal punditry (the ABA is known for outrageous claims and sharp wit) has not yet proven to have set things in their proper order in the Cosmos.  A hole exists in the space-time continuum.

Clearly, the Right has done their homework and has brought us the future.  Now, if only they could go back in time to a moonlit manger in Kenya.