Polanski's Lawyers Try To Get Him Sentenced From Afar ... Again

• The Los Angeles Times front page dated February 1st 1978 link below http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/02/la-authorities-trying-to-clarify-swiss-position-on-polanski-extradition.html and http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/files/1978_0201_polanski.jpg states in the second paragraph that: the Santa Monica Judge, Judge Rittenband in Feb 1978 said he would sentence Polanski in absentia if Roman Polanski did not return to his courtroom in 10 days. That's the law of Roman Polanski's case. The 10 days are up. If the original Santa Monica Judge was quite willing to sentence Polanski in absentia, then why isn't the new Judge Espinoza able to give Polanski his sentence in absentia ? What's the big problem after 32 years? Or do they want to prolong it another 32 years...

• It seems that People magazine was onto a Judicial problem in Polanski�s case back in 1977. The People magazine article misspelled the Judge�s last name calling the Judge Rittenbrand instead of Rittenband See the article at http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20068014,00.html No matter, Rittenbrand is a better name for the Santa Monica Judge since he unfairly branded Roman Polanski a rapist to People magazine in 1977, before Polanski�s trial by saying �and this doesn�t look like anything other than a routine rape case to me.� So here�s the Santa Monica Judge blabbing off his mouth to the press branding Polanski a rapist, in advance of Polanski�s trial, which trial never happened, and the only conviction that Polanski ever received in the Santa Monica Courthouse was for consensual sex with a minor! Roman Polanski like everyone else in America is innocent until proven guilty. So the Judge on Polanski�s case acted with prejudice against Polanski by giving his decision to the press before the trial ever took place, and a trial in Polanski's case never did take place, because of the plea bargain agreement. ?Even today the press keep using the word rape, which is inflammatory and is a defamation of Roman Polanski�s character, since that charge was thrown out by the District Attorney's Office. ?Also Polanski was prejudged, unfairly & publicly branded by this Santa Monica Judge Rittenband, ?just as another victim from same Santa Monica Courthouse has been unfairly publicly stigmatized for reporting official abuse of power that included being sexually molested by a teacher at a California College with the College Police covering up the complaint, who was then assaulted and battered in a Santa Monica Courtroom in front of the Judge by undocumented white County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputies (the Judge has since been promoted to the California Court of Appeals 2nd District), which stigmatization the 9th Circuit U.S. Federal Court of Appeals affirmed in their unpublished decision of 25th June, 2001. ? Two people unfairly branded by Judges, which Judicial abuse first emanated out of the very same Courthouse equals abuse of Official power, discrimination, a double standard in sexual assault cases where the scales of justice are predetermined to swing your way by Santa Monica�s Judges & Justices if you happened to be employed by California, but not if you were born in Europe.

TotalComments: 2