Steve Cooley Likely To Announce Run For Attorney General In The Next Two Weeks

• Discount sandals like those of Christian Louboutin are trendy, very refined and fashionable to and are bound to raise eyebrows wherever you go. Elegant and beautifully crafted, these sandals are for the temperamental, confident working woman who knows how to carry herself with grace.

• Jolie � What is Steve Cooley willing to do to advance his career? Was he willing to give the Swiss Government a false rendition of the facts and Roman Polanski's sentence 32 years after the fact so as to try to extradite Roman Polanski to California and get some free World press for Cooley's political campaign at Roman Polanski's expense? Just as Samantha Galley was willing to remove some clothing to advance her career, and purposely hid her topless modeling activities with Roman Polanski at the first photo shoot from her mother knowing that her mother would have immediately terminated Samantha�s modeling �opportunity� with Roman Polanski if she had known what was going on. Samantha�s mother Susan Galley was lax in leaving her underage daughter unattended with Roman Polanski for a photo shoot, and the mother�s negligence in regards to her daughter was compounded by her daughter Samantha�s deceit, who by purposely concealing her topless modeling activities with Polanski from her mother, for the sole purpose of advancing Samantha�s modeling career, blocked her Adult mother Susan Galley from intervening sooner to stop Samantha�s sexual collision with Roman Polanski before it occurred. This seems to have been a trap for Roman Polanski, with both mother and daughter contributing to the sexual collision, with everyone involved being tempted by different rewards. A troubling question is this, was only Roman Polanski�s action illegal in California in 1977? Since everyone involved contributed to this problem, I am not sure why was this case not tossed out a long time ago. Every young girl and mother should be aware that if girl tempts a man by being topless, and deliberately hides this from her mother, and the young girl goes back for more there may be trouble, much more than she bargained for. After all men are only human. Samatha said �On Feb. 20, 1977, Polanski took me on our first photo shoot in a hillside area just a few blocks from my house. We shot a roll of film; then he asked me to take off my shirt and took topless photos while I changed. I let him do it, but I felt self-conscious. I was thinking, �I shouldn�t be doing this,� but I was a kid, so I thought if it wasn�t okay, he wouldn�t tell me to do it. If I�d told my mom, she would never have let me go with him the second time. When he made another appointment a few weeks later, she had no reason to suspect anything. I didn�t want to go, but I still thought it would be a good opportunity.� Ormelle � Actually her mother had seen the photos they had shot behind their own house, & she & her mother�s boyfriend were perfectly happy with them. He showed them to them after they had done the shoot at Nicholson�s house & he had returned her. Geimer had seen them before they went there in his car, and �only� after he had left, his friend who had asked him to photograph her in the first place had phoned him to say that they �suddenly� did NOT �like� them. But, when the friend who was her sister�s boyfriend had a look at them, he said they were beautiful & had no clue why they would say that. Now, therefore what Geimer claimed that she felt �uncomfortable� but did it anyway, sounds a bit iffy, & she in fact maintained later in order to keep up the lie that they didn�t like them, to �make� HER the �innocent� party in this, while in fact she had no qualms to pose for any of the topless photos basically twice. Of course, to say it was an �opportunity� is correct, but they later put it as if she was somehow �compelled� into it & just �did it�, while she in fact said even in that documentary that she�d love to be photographed by Polanski as soon as she heard of it to further her career. Which also nullifies her previous claims that he had �fooled� them into posing for him, under a sort of �pretense� to get to know her, since the boyfriend had asked Polanski as soon as HE had heard he did the Vogue assignment with these young girls form all over the world, not Polanski them. Polanski knew her mother since a year already & up to the day he went to see them first at their home, he had never seen Geimer, as so to be in any form �interested�, while Geimer claimed later �he must have seen a photo� of her to be �interested�, clearly a lie. He also said he wasn�t too impressed with her [as a model], & they did three shoots in all, so he wasn�t even �interested� in her sexually in any form up to the point when they both ended up in Nicholson�s TV room on her own free will. What you quoted can be seen as leading him on from her side, trying to �dupe� her mother, which sounds logical for a teen trying to hide things from a mother, but since she was to expect that they all would see them at one point, since the mother needed to sign them off for possible release to Vogue, there�s no way that is correct. Or to say, �I didn�t want to go,� to the second Bisset/Nicholson shoot. She tried to cover up for her mother having allowed the topless photos, not only for herself, since they suddenly said they didn�t like them AFTER Polanski had left. My guess is, since Geimer told her boyfriend of the sex, not �rape�, he didn�t believe either way, then her sister, then her mother, & then they constructed a web of lies to make the mother, A, more �responsible� over her negligence that she had left her with him unattended & to shoot these photos, B, to turn the sex into �unlawful sex� for her age, C, Geimer probably told them some more �elaborate version� of the events the mother first believed, and then, when the case went to court after she foolishly had called the cops the girl in fact never wanted for obvious reasons, she noticed that she had lied about the �rape� & sodomy at no evidence supporting that, & tried to wriggle herself out of it by giving us this that Geimer suddenly was �afraid� of him nonsense & her sudden �reluctance� etc., to make herself the more �concerned� & Geimer the more �innocent� parties in all this mire they had created. So �trap� is sort of correct, since all they needed to say was what really happened, the girl had unlawfully engaged in casual sex with him, wasn�t really drunk or drugged not to know what she was doing at no such proof, he confesses to the casual sex, & the case had been signed off right there as unlawful sex with a minor, he gets a fine and/or probation & can walk like everyone else had then. But, they kept on lying to make themselves out these �innocents� & put all the blame on Polanski, & the corrupt cops & lawmakers made it even more complicated LA style. So yes, why was only Polanski�s action �punished�, while everyone else involved contributed to this problem on several levels, compounding it with lies to get out of it again & got away with it all? Their own drugs & alcohol furnishing to Geimer, the underage sex she engaged in with her boyfriend & others they had condoned? Because Rittenband played his own games once he had Polanski in his clutches, & applied double standards on a grand scale. He should have tossed out the case the moment Geimer was found frolicking around with her mother�s boyfriend long before Polanski even pleaded, but didn�t out of spite. He should have signed off the case within weeks as short probation as soon as they had no case of rape/sodomy & all these inconsistencies/lies, not construct �mock arguments� for the press after Rittenband had reports that Polanski was no MDSO already, let him travel back & forth to Europe for ten months only to call him back fro �another report� no one asked for, but forget the plea deal the mother had pressed for to end the sham they had initiated & close the damned case. No, Rittenband wanted to play him for his own better press image, sent him to Chino no one wanted after he saw that Oktoberfest photo slimy Wells came up with, then had said that was his entire �punishment� (no one wanted either) & to release him, but tell the press instead he�d send him back for a second time (which in also unlawful to give two �sentences� under the guise of this �study�) after he caught too much heat from every direction, since no one got the idea that was no rape/sodomy just underage sex, & then wanted to �unofficially� release him the press wouldn�t know of, rather than do what the book says & not cater for the public sector. BUT, he did so on the threat of self-deportation, which was also unlawful, & Polanski thought, sod you, since I can�t work in the US anymore, what�s the point of staying if I have to go back to Chino still no one wanted, only to be deported, also no one wanted him to face. But Rittenband did it anyway & Polanski took a hike. No wonder Rittenband was removed by both attorneys, but of course, FAR TOO LATE, & that�s why we have this case still sitting in the courts for punks like Cooley to play with it, or rather Polanski, some more. He knows exactly Polanski had done his time long ago NO one in fact had asked for, & now has been detained for over eight months for basically nothing on top, all for Cooley to gain election as AG. Jolie � Thanks for your detailed post. I am trying to find out if some of these facts can be, or are actually proven. Ormelle said �Actually her [Samantha Geimer�s] mother [Susan Galley] had seen the photos they [Samantha & Polanski] had shot behind their own house, & she [Susan Galley?] & her mother�s boyfriend were perfectly happy with them. He [Polanski] showed them to them [Susan Galley, her boyfriend] after they had done the shoot at Nicholson�s house & he had returned her. Geimer had seen them before they went there in his car, and �only� after he had left, his friend who had asked him to photograph her in the first place had phoned him to say that they �suddenly� did NOT �like� them. But, when the friend who was her sister�s boyfriend had a look at them, he said they were beautiful & had no clue why they would say that. Now, therefore what Geimer claimed that she felt �uncomfortable� but did it anyway, sounds a bit iffy, & she in fact maintained later in order to keep up the lie that they didn�t like them, to �make� HER the �innocent� party in this, while in fact she had no qualms to pose for any of the topless photos basically twice.� 1. Did Samantha�s mother know that Polanski was photographing her daughter semi-nude � topless in the backyard of their home, which occurred at the beginning of their photo sessions, and if so what source(s)? If the photography was for French Vogue Magazine it would seem that the mother would have known in advance of the semi-nude photography but this is not absolute for the mother�s knowledge of the semi-nude shoots, unless there is a source to back this up, such as the semi-nude photos and the fact that the mother was shown these semi � nude photos prior to Polanski leaving the mother, Susan Galley�s house, but after her daughter had already had got involved in unlawful sex with Roman Polanski. It would make sense that if Samantha�s mother Susan Galley had initially agreed to the semi-nude shoot of her underage daughter Samantha that she would continue to approve the semi-nude photos of her underage daughter, prior to discovering her underage daughter�s sexual encounter with Roman Polanski. But upon discovery of her underage daughter�s sexual encounter with Polanski, then Susan Galley would understand for the first time that her negligence had contributed to her daughter�s unlawful sex with Roman Polanski who had also contributed by not thinking and forgetting that he was in California. But of course Roman Polanski as well as others who have been treated similarly or those that just don�t know, could not possibly have foreseen the family�s dishonesty in covering up so as to blame him entirely, or the Californian bait and switch and legal trap that was being set for him. 2. You said Samantha saw photos of herself topless (from an earlier photo shoot with Polanski) before Samantha went on the second (or third?) photo shoot to Jack Nicholson�s house. If these topless photos were shot behind Samantha�s own house, with her mother�s Susan Galleys consent? What�s the source for this earlier topless shoot and mother�s consent � information? 3. You said �Judge Rittenband should have tossed out the case the moment Geimer was found frolicking around with her mother�s boyfriend long before Polanski even pleaded, but didn�t out of spite.� Question � What is the source(s)? How bad was the frolicking and is it true that Judge Rittenband actually knew of Samantha�s the underage girl, frolicking with mother�s boyfriend? To conclude in essence what you are saying is that the 13 year old Samantha Galley lied to the Grand Jury, lied to People magazine when she was in her 40�s, and lied in the documentary Polanski: Wanted and Desired, to cover up for her mother, Susan Galley who had approved the topless shoot from the get go, & which semi -nude photography started in Samantha�s mother�s own back yard? If this is true then Samantha did not contribute to her own downfall by lying through omission to her mother in not telling her mother that she had been photographed topless in February 1977. Instead it was her mother Susan Galley that contributed entirely to Samantha�s downfall, Samantha�s unlawful sex with Roman Polanski, through gross negligence and by not supervising the semi-nude photo shoots. In addition and after the fact Samantha then aided and abetted to cover up her mother�s gross negligence towards Samantha, by lying to the Press and in the documentary Polanski Wanted and Desired, to cover up her mother�s culpability that her own mother knew and agreed to her daughter�s semi-nude and topless shoots with Polanski yet failed to chaperone her daughter at these semi-nude photographic shoots, which lack of supervision of her underage and sexy daughter Samantha Galley courted & invited the underage sex disaster. In the worse case scenario which I state, but which is not necessarily true, it is possible that the mother Susan Galley hoped for a sexual liaison between her daughter and Polanski and used her own daughter as bait � for a payout. If that is the case then Polanski was set up, but even if the worst possible case scenario is not true, Polanski was still set up first through the mother�s gross negligence towards her underage but sexually active daughter, and then by her daughter Samantha covering up her mother�s gross negligence towards her. This reminds me of an earlier dangerous trap that Polanski had faced in Poland after the Second World war where Polanski nearly lost his life to a serial murderer who lured Polanski under the ground to steal his bicycle and who nearly killed Polanski in the process by beating his head until he was unconscious and leaving him for dead. It seems that Samantha and her mother Susan Galley, the California Judge Laurence J. Rittenband, Los Angeles prosecutor David Wells, 9th Circuit Judge Trott, Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and his office 32 years later have wanted to steal Polanski�s fame, good name and his money, and his freedom all for a casual sexual encounter for which Polanski was NOT entirely responsible, and ALL for Steve Cooley's political campaign in the press to be the next California Attorney General. So �trap� is correct, because if the mother knew of the semi-nude modeling, then the mother and the daughter have been dishonest in covering up the mother, Susan Galley�s agreement to allow her sexually active underage daughter Samantha�s topless modeling activities with a man 30 years her senior, without adult supervision, which quite logically in Hollywood in the 1970�s progressed into casual sex. Even the Hollywood police were sleeping with underage girls scouts at the time. If the family had been honest about their contribution to the sexual collision, then the payout would not have been as big for them, nor would they have had as much sympathy from the world�s press and other people, and Samantha may not have got to star in the documentary Polanski: Wanted And Desired, for which she received a little fame and fortune. To conclude What is Steve Cooley willing to do to advance his career? Was he willing to give the Swiss Government a false rendition of the facts and the sentence so as to try to extradite Roman Polanski to California 32 years after the fact, when Roman Polanski has already served his sentence.

• Ah! I'm so glad this was poste| There are tons of different information posted, this dispells, puts to rest much of what I've heard.

• Sehr cool! Ich hab mir den Blog direkt mal gebookmarkt.

• Cooley is the coolest. His tireless anti-weed crusade puts him clearly in the conservative vanguard, regardless of what the voters want. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnpk74O0_e0

• Happy New Year to the honest, hard working citizens in the State of California What a fabulous way it could be to begin the second decade of the 21st Century. For the first time in over 100 years, we could have total "non-political" truth and honesty in all levels of the Criminal and Civil Justice System in the State of California....instead of political hacks, we could have the top "super lawyers" with proven winning track records in the legal system, both public and private. Just imagine - Steve Cooley as Attorney General, Andre Barate as the United States Attorney for the Central District, Carmen Trutanich as City Attorney, and William Carter as the appointed District Attorney to fill the shoes of Attorney General Steve Cooley. All working together as the Peoples Lawyers. This cannot be a dream, it must be reality. The law is the law and must be enforced equally for ALL the people, not just the special interests, like Clear Channel Digital Billboards, who care more about greed than people.

• Cooley can certainly count on the support of medical marijuana patients!!! I promise that whomever runs against Cooley will have hundreds of people willing to work to expose this special-interests whore for what he is.

• Dear Dumbass from the LA Weekly, Here is civics lesson. The Los Angeles County District Attorney works for the County of LA, The Los Angeles City Attorney works for the City of LA. Two separate offices. Rocky Delgadillo was LA City Attorney. He has never worked for the DA's office, which is the office Cooley holds. The former LA County DA was Gil Garcetti. Are you sure you are qualified to be reporting on this subject?

• Does not matter to me if Cooley enters the AG race or not, my vote is for Pedro Nava. Check out his record at www.pedronava.com .

TotalComments: 9