home

Monday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 12:01:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Roman Polanski is one of my favorite directors. And that's all I am going to say about that.

This is an Open Thread.

< Harry Reid Plays 11 Dimensional Chess | Roman Polanski to Fight Extradition, Seek Bail >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Morning Open Thread | 194 comments (194 topical)
    Re: (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by az on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 12:05:17 PM EST
    He is a criminal and deserves to be in jail for what he did .

    Thats all I am going to say to that...

    The Hawkeyes... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 12:14:19 PM EST
    ...not only beat Penn State, but are now #13 in the nation.  

    That's all I'm going to say about that.

    Obama heading to Copenhagen.... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by vml68 on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 12:17:51 PM EST
    "He did not want to leave any stone unturned. He is very excited about joining the First Lady for both the final presentation and the question and answer session. The Olympic spirit is about giving it your very best down to finish line and not taking anything for granted.
    LINK

    It would be nice if Obama felt the same way about HCR.... and that's all I am going to say about that!!

    "he's working the phones . . . (none / 0) (#189)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:37:50 PM EST
    the VP is working the phones" so says the evening news. {sigh} oh well, at least he's showing some passion for something . . .

    Parent
    John Frankenheimer is one of (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:05:38 PM EST
    my favorite directors, along with Polanski, but I wouldn't have either one of them over for dinner.

    Drinks?  Maybe.

    I can understand (none / 0) (#127)
    by brodie on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:42:17 PM EST
    Polanski perhaps, but Frankenheimer?  

    Besides the fact that a dinner with him at this point would be problematic -- he died a few years ago -- what did I miss knowing about his personal life that would lead you not to extend the dinner invite?  

    Parent

    Drinks? (none / 0) (#141)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:59:15 PM EST
    but not dinner? Sounds backward to me.

    Parent
    hmmmmmm (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:33:03 PM EST
           
    Oklahoma City Bombing Tapes Appear Edited: Attorney (VIDEO)

    "Four cameras in four different locations going blank at basically the same time on the morning of April 19, 1995. There ain't no such thing as a coincidence," Trentadue said.

    That is some weird... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:38:58 PM EST
    sh*t ain't it?

    I happen to believe in coincidence...but that would be one helluva comincidence.  And I put no shadiness past our government.

    Parent

    maybe two (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:40:08 PM EST
    conceivably three.  but four?

    Parent
    Will Kos tolerate discussion of this? (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:27:15 PM EST


    Parent
    So what is (none / 0) (#103)
    by eric on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:26:14 PM EST
    the theory that explains it?  What is being hidden?

    Parent
    One thing is for sure.... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:35:07 PM EST
    judging by the foaming at the mouth this case still generates all these years later...Roman was smart to flee this jurisdiction, cuz we're all freakin' nuts, and thats all I've got to say about that.

    I will say again (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:39:27 PM EST
    see this documentary.

    Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired

    I can almost guarantee you will learn something you did not know about this case.

    Parent

    Recent report from Canada: documentaries (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:00:12 PM EST
    aren't neutral.  What a surprise.

    Parent
    I've heard that sometimes (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:06:02 PM EST
    what documentaries present as facts, aren't. Can you believe it?

    Parent
    the documentary is not (none / 0) (#177)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:38:00 PM EST
    neutral and does not present itself that way.
    on the other hand the facts presented are all a matter of public record.

    Parent
    I dislike rapists (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by cawaltz on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:45:16 PM EST
    and find people who prey on children and destroy their trust particularly reprehensible. There's my two cents worth.

    No one is arguing with that... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:52:02 PM EST
    and not for nothing, the victim is on the record saying the media preying on her, dragging it all back up every few years, has been what has ruined her life, not Roman Polanski.

    If her two cents matter.

    Parent

    If she wanted him to be rotting in a jail cell (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:57:03 PM EST
    would you still be presenting her position?

    Parent
    Probably not... (none / 0) (#87)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:06:06 PM EST
    cuz then it wouldn't jive with my position...I'm anti-rot:)

    I do find it interesting that the one person with a reason for wanting Polanski "brought to justice" wants no part of our brand of justice.

    Parent

    Well, just how much WAS her out-of-court (none / 0) (#89)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:08:23 PM EST
    settlement from Polanski?

    Parent
    Interesting the settlement didn't include (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:12:03 PM EST
    a "no public comment" clause.  Or maybe the settlement sd., you can comment but only in favor of Polanski.

    Parent
    The victim is dysfunctional (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by cawaltz on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:01:35 PM EST
    You don't "get over" being raped. You learn to cope with it but the violation and breach of trust remains with you forever.

    Parent
    I have been surprised and saddened (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:33:32 PM EST
    to learn how many rape victims I know.

    Parent
    I don't know her... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:10:20 PM EST
    so I won't call her dysfunctional.  I don't doubt something as scarring as rape is something you never get over, only cope with.

    The authorities and media and hindering her coping efforts...I don't see who is being served here, at least a "who" of flesh and blood.  The soul-less system is being served, the system must always get its man, but no human being is being served as far as I can see, so whats the freakin' point?

    Parent

    well (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by lilburro on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:30:24 PM EST
    he was supposed to show up to court anyway, right?  It may very well be true that his case should be dismissed by I don't see why he should be applauded for not taking the risk of finding it out.  Endorsing "if you run and hide long enough all is forgiven" as the new rule is not exactly promising for our society methinks.


    Parent
    Like I said... (none / 0) (#116)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:35:30 PM EST
    Roman was smart to flee this jurisdiction, not an endorsement, just as observation...I don't see what is to be applauded about feeding yourself to the lions.

    Nature gave us two choices in times of danger, fight or flight.  The system is strong, the system don't fight fair, which pretty much left flight as the only sane option available to the man.

    Parent

    The system isn't fair ???? (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:00:10 PM EST
    The poor man had a bad what?  lawyer?  judge?

    Life is not fair to children, and often to females.  Men are bigger, stronger, and can force us into stuff.  

    We deal with it all the time.  Sorry if I don't feel the "poor man" needs sympathy.

    Parent

    Life will never be fair... (none / 0) (#148)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:11:50 PM EST
    no reason to make our systems as senselessly cruel and heartless as the natural world.

    Parent
    well if Roman (none / 0) (#142)
    by lilburro on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:00:06 PM EST
    had come back and faced the music (which possibly wouldn't have been much to face), he wouldn't have dragged this victim through a 30+ year publicity nightmare.  

    So what about her?  In what way has he atoned to her?

    Parent

    Via cash settlement... (none / 0) (#146)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:10:07 PM EST
    You or I might not like it, but the victim seems satisfied and just wants the matter behind her...while the media, the prosecutors, and we the people continue to pile on her misery....and for what?  Because John Law must always get his man?  F&ck John Law.

    Parent
    Whatever (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by lilburro on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:28:22 PM EST
    maybe women aren't ready to forgive him for the extremely scummy thing he did and refuses to take the risk of serving his time for.  If a rapist is on the run I'm not going to say "it's cool, keep running."

    Parent
    Who is asking for forgiveness? (none / 0) (#157)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:41:31 PM EST
    Sh*t I'm skeeved out by what the guy did...but my concern lies with our system of injustice over the actions of one sick old man in a cruel world full of sick old men.

    When an outlaw is one the run from this system, I don't even really care what the charges are, I just want them to keep running...its their only shot, the system sure as hell don't wanna see them redeemed or rehabilitated...only convicted, and onto the next case on the docket.

    Parent

    I find that hard to believe (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by lilburro on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:56:37 PM EST
    civil disobedience is one thing, I agree with you when it comes to drug charges and whatnot.  But when it comes to more fundamental crimes, like rape, murder, and terrorism (yes, what you said certainly applies to OBL, doesn't it?) what is there to say?  We don't improve the system by letting people run from it in its current condition.  That just makes things worse.  To improve the system they have to go through it, IMO.  For your argument to win/improve the system, you've got to make it.  You make it from within the system.

    Parent
    I have no desire.. (none / 0) (#163)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:59:17 PM EST
    to go through it to improve it, so I can't in good conscience ask somebody else to take one for the team.

    Parent
    "somebody else" (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by lilburro on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:07:01 PM EST
    is a guy that raped a 13 year old girl just "somebody else"?  

    You don't get processed in the criminal justice system because you desired to.

    Parent

    Society has a (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by cawaltz on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:36:51 PM EST
    responsibility to ensure that people who break the law get prosecuted and the fact that it would make this difficult for her to cope with the reality of her rape shouldn't hinder his prosecution.

    While I sympathize that this may be difficult for her. I disagree that her opinion needs to prevail. He admitted to raping a child, he deserves to be punished for this whether or not she "forgives" him for it.

    Parent

    The next step (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:04:53 PM EST
    if you decide that the victim will decide what is to be done is that her family -- her father and brothers in some countries -- will decide.

    We have a justice system for a reason.  A screwed-up one sometimes, you bet.  But if ever a defendant had the money for appeals, this was one.

    Parent

    I have a real hard time.. (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:18:10 PM EST
    finding those reasons we have this system of injustice sometimes.  When it fails to serve, we shouldn't just keep blindly going along.  It is out tool, we are not its tools.

    Parent
    It is also a practical issue (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:31:50 PM EST
    Are you willing to force the victim to testify?  That seems to me to be her choice--a choice that should not be taken from her, given that the original offense involved taking away her choice.

    Parent
    She's already testified (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by cawaltz on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:38:17 PM EST
    He pled guilty. He can use the appeals process if he doesn't like the sentence.

    Parent
    I don't think it would work that way (none / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:20:59 PM EST
    I assume that Polanski could have the plea deal set aside because the judge did not honor it.

     Any new trial would still have to call the victim as a witness.  You could use her prior preliminary hearing testimony to impeach her if she tells another story, or gets quite mum or forgetful, at trial.  But what a spectacle--and to put her through that.  And wouldn't her "new" testimony be enough to create reasonable doubt.

    You need a cooperative witness.

    I am glad that everyone is willing to believe her, though.  I wonder if there was any other corroborating evidence.

    Parent

    If he does set that plea deal aside (none / 0) (#190)
    by cawaltz on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:38:44 PM EST
    I hope they tell him that if he goes that route that he could potentially be looking at much more than 2 months. I also hope that they would pursue charges against him for fleeing to avoid sentencing.

    Frankly, I wish him lots of luck with trying to impeach her testimony when the reason for the delay in having it reheard was because he fled the country to avoid incarceration.

    If I were him I'd go ahead and plan on doing time unless this woman plans on perjuring herself for him.

    Parent

    Arguably (none / 0) (#192)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:43:05 PM EST
    you might waive your right to file a motion to set aside the guilty plea if you wait 32 years to file it.  Just saying.

    Parent
    Would you advise a client who (none / 0) (#194)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:45:37 PM EST
    pleaded to violation of PC 261.5 to move to set aside plea with resultant exposure to trial on multiple counts bearing greater penalties?  Doubt it.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:57:53 PM EST
    maybe if he knew the victim would be unwilling to testify, or whatever... but look, of course he's not going to.  And he should have just sucked it up and served the six months in the first place, all those years ago.

    Something that we haven't really discussed is the procedural aspect of the whole thing.  I understand that Polanski, through counsel, asked the California courts in 2008 to dismiss his case on the grounds that it had been a while and no one had made a real effort to come after him.  So he's perfectly willing to invoke the jurisdiction of the California courts when he wants affirmative relief, but when they come after him on the underlying charges, oh no! extradition to face the jurisdiction of the California courts would be unthinkable.  A pretty hypocritical position.

    Parent

    Good point. (none / 0) (#199)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:04:54 PM EST


    Parent
    See, the prosecutor gets away with it (none / 0) (#198)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:01:18 PM EST
    The prosecutor who wanted to renege on the plea deal gets his way.

    So, you can reach a deal, then renege and get more jail time, because of the defendant's fear of even a worse result at trial.   It seems the prosecution should be held to the deal.

    See what I mean by the Prosecution getting cut all kinds of slack?  

    Parent

    Ahem (5.00 / 5) (#201)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:22:41 PM EST
    Are we confusing the role of the prosecution with the role of the court here?

    A court can decline to honor a plea bargain, but it cannot "renege" on an agreement to which it was never a party in the first place.

    Whether someone in the prosecutor's office improperly prevailed upon the judge is beside the point -- and, by the way, the evidence is to the contrary.  The judge always had complete authority to reject the plea deal, in which case Polanski would have had the option to withdraw his guilty plea.  He knew all along there was a possibility the court wouldn't be okay with a sentence carrying no jail time.

    The conduct on the part of the state that really outrages me is that anyone was willing to let the guy off with no jail time in the first place for raping a 13-year old.  That's NUTS.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#179)
    by cawaltz on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:39:30 PM EST
    I would be willing to force a witness to testify if it meant keeping a rapist from escaping punishment.

    Parent
    On a considerably brighter note, (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:14:36 PM EST
    KUSC FM is streaming Alicia de Larocha playing a set of Mozart variations--beautifully.  

    Public Option to be introduced in Senate (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:30:18 PM EST
    Tomorrow (Tuesday) is a critical day in the saga of the public option. Democrats Charles Schumer (New York) and Jay Rockefeller (West Virginia) are introducing an amendment to include the public option in the bill to be reported out by the Senate Finance Committee -- the committee anointed by the White House as its favored vehicle for getting healthcare reform.

    From Reich

    USA! USA! USA! (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:55:25 PM EST
    The winner in the International Beard and Moustache Championships, held two weekends ago in Gruendau, Germany, was an American, a Mr. Traver, representing the South Central Alaska Beard and Moustache Club.

    Alaska. ...  Home of the Mr. Fur Face contest.  It's for charity.

    And you thought Palin was out there....

    From the looks of the reports, it would seem there are two organizations - the one for which the Alaska club hosted a competition this spring, and a different one that hosted in Germany the other week.  Despite having announced his retirement, Traver appears to have reconsidered and put down the razor before doing something he would have regretted.
    -

    Interesting trivial historical sidelight:  Gruendau is a small town east of Frankfurt, and is a suburb of the Hessian town of Gelnhausen.  Gelnhausen, in turn, was the hometown of Friedrich Barbarossa and, to this day, calls itself the Barbarossastadt.

    While I won no money at the track Saturday (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:10:53 PM EST
    one of my friends won $335 on a $6 bet! It was an amazing and wonderful thing, as she and her husband have really been down to the financial wire this summer. So... she wasn't sure it was a good idea to go to the track in the first place, but her son said he would spot all her bets for the day. We were literally jumping up and down screaming when she won. I'm sure everyone around us thought we were total novices (and we sort of are) but it was really fun. Plus, it was such a beautiful day, with Mt. Rainier big as life to the south of the track. And the official track bugler stood in front of me and played the Happy Birthday song for me just before the 9th race.

    Then we stuffed ourselves on delicious homemade pizzas. All in all, a great day.

    And that's all I'm gonna say about that...

    I'm the furthest thing... (none / 0) (#152)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:22:29 PM EST
    from a gambling novice, and I still jump and scream like a lunatic when my horses are leading to the wire...its all part of the fun!

    I'm glad the gambling gods smiled on your friends in their time of need...and Happy Birthday!

    Parent

    kdog (3.50 / 2) (#170)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:17:26 PM EST
    you and i both know that a 6 dollar bet that pays $335 usually only has one person screaming in joy at the end of the race.  The rest of us are swearing and relatively certain it got a double dose of lasix.....

    Parent
    Thanks kdog (none / 0) (#167)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:10:39 PM EST
    They are such a generous couple. No one deserved good luck at that particular moment more than they did.

    Parent
    Nifty way to set up an open thread! (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 12:10:35 PM EST


    Robert Towne is one of my favorite writers. (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 12:12:29 PM EST
    And that's all I am going to say about that.

    A truely great film, IMO. (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 12:16:02 PM EST
    Polanski has said there's no way he'd be able to make it with that kind of ending today.

    Parent
    Brett Favre (none / 0) (#6)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 12:16:01 PM EST
    has had 'way too much said about all that.

    But more will be said next Monday . . . because the Pack is not looking good on defense these days, and Minnesota has more than Favre to worry us.  Sigh.

    But Brett has Adrian Peterson (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 12:25:22 PM EST
    What weirdness though

    Parent
    I was watching (none / 0) (#41)
    by eric on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:20:55 PM EST
    yesterday and when the Vikes blew it on fourth down in the fourth quarter, I reached for the remote to turn the game off.  But then it occurred to me, "we have Bret Favre now".  So I kept watching.  Glad I did.

    Parent
    How is Percy doing? (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:24:31 PM EST


    Parent
    He ran (none / 0) (#65)
    by eric on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:43:38 PM EST
    a kickoff all the way back yesterday.

    Parent
    How are they liking Percy (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:46:14 PM EST
    in Minneapolis these days?

    Parent
    He's scored every week so far (none / 0) (#75)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:54:54 PM EST


    Parent
    I second your Polanski comments (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 12:25:11 PM EST


    Per AP: (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 12:33:05 PM EST
    "Taking into account the extraordinary conditions of his arrest, his Swiss lawyer will seek his freedom without delay," Temime said.

    Problem is, the only question at an extradition hrg. is:  Is this Roman Polanski?

    Swiss kissing up (none / 0) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 12:45:57 PM EST
    in light of the Swiss not giving all the names of the Americans with secret accounts, they deliver Polanski.  We asked for 50,000 names, they gave 4500 and Polanski.  Great prisoner exchange ratio.  

    Oh, my.  

    Parent

    I suppose that depends on Swiss law (none / 0) (#14)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 12:52:02 PM EST
    But isn't it true that some coutries refuse extradition in capital murder cases on the grounds they oppose capital punishment?  So, a look at the merits can happen.

    Parent
    Yes. (none / 0) (#15)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 12:55:45 PM EST
    Mexico for one.  We've had several high-profile murder cases where the death penalty had to be taken off the table to gain extradition.

    Parent
    Some countries have refused (none / 0) (#17)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 12:56:58 PM EST
    extradition on the grounds that they consider the U.S prison system barbaric.

    Parent
    The UK for another (none / 0) (#26)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:07:32 PM EST
    on the capital cases.  And, IIRC, the Swiss will not extradite in a case where capital punishment is not removed from the table.

    A few years ago a colleague was representing someone accused of a murder here (which would have been capital-eligible) and the defendant found himself in Switzerland (long story).  The Swiss would not extradite him to the US until the local prosecutor explicilty stated that capital punishment would not be sought.  I think that rule still obtains.

    Parent

    Since Polanski is not facing any poss. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:10:25 PM EST
    of capital punishment, what will his attorney do to fight extradition?  Oh, I know, show the movie which was the basis for the motion to dismiss.

    Parent
    Well, the motion to dismiss makes (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:44:20 PM EST
    a rather substantial factual record.

    And, for that matter, he could put on a presentation about the barbaric state of the California prison system, starting with the ongoing litigation to compel the state to do things like end overcrowding, and the state's resistance to that idea.  And the brutal nature of the prisons, and the state's embrace of that brutality.  And the defendant's age.  Tell the court that at his age, it would be tantamount to sending the defendant to capital punishment, only maybe not as humane as a state-operated execution, seeing as how people accused of sexual offenses against children tend to wind up not serving out their full sentences before some other inmate gets and takes the opportunity to beat the snot out of them.

    Stuff like that.

    And, to address the legal validity of the warrant.  There's doubtless a lot there.

    Note also, that we can't really comment on the legal issues too precisely.  A search for a translation of the Swiss criminal code will reveal that there is no authoritative version of that code in the English language.

    And then there's the chance he could get it into the EU courts system, and the European Court of Human Rights.  He could, with good lawyering, tie it up for a good long time.

    Parent

    Hey, he's got Manatt, Phelps & (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:54:24 PM EST
    Phillips, LLC.

    Parent
    I kind of like your idea. Polanski creates (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:08:47 PM EST
    a "documentary" re California correctional institutions and what may happen to people convicted of child abuse who are committed to same.

    Makes movie available as a community service to all future criminal defendants who may face incarceration in California correctional institution.  

    Perfect.

    Actually, bad things could happen to him in detention not that I think about it.  No wonder he's screaming.

    Parent

    Is this a wink and nod (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:14:02 PM EST
    to abuse of inmates?  

    We all know it happens, but it is chilling to see how easily accepted that notion is.  

    Parent

    No. What I am saying (none / 0) (#97)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:19:52 PM EST
    is that Polanski's lawyers can present hard facts about the brutality and barbarity that reign in California's prison system, and use that as an argument against extraditing him.

    I in no way believe that, just because someone may have been convicted of a crime, he is now a legitimate target of an open season for brutality.  

    And, a fortiori, that goes for people in custody (say, those who can't make bail or are denied bail) and not convicted of anything - they are, still, in the eyes of the law innocent.

    Parent

    MKS (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by eric on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:22:05 PM EST
    was responding to the comment by Oculus, not yours.

    Parent
    It's hard to tell when the thread gets nested (none / 0) (#114)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:33:02 PM EST
    so far that all the comments' left margins start lining up perfectly.

    Parent
    yeah (none / 0) (#131)
    by eric on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:45:11 PM EST
    I know.  FWIW, I agree with your comment about the CA prison system.

    Parent
    CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation (none / 0) (#140)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:58:53 PM EST
    gets lots of criticism, adverse publicity, and federal court intervention.  Probably doesn't mean others states' correctional institutions are any better--or does it?  I don't know.

    Parent
    Minnesota's (none / 0) (#149)
    by eric on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:11:51 PM EST
    is much better.  I know that.  But we also have nearly the lowest incarceration rate, right behind Maine last time I checked.  Califonia has 484 people in prison for every 100,000.  In Maine, it is only 161 per.  It just seems that with that many people in prison, it would be hard to avoid problems.

    LINK

    Parent

    I know you don't believe that (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:28:53 PM EST
    I hope others don't either.  Most do, however.  It comes out in jokes, etc.

    What people who hold such views often fail to realize, however, is that this "environment" that they are all too happy to exist to house the really "bad" inmates, houses all kinds of other non-violent inmates too.

    You unleash hell--and it spills over onto many others.  But no one cares about criminals.  They get what they deserve.  

    Parent

    No. Realism. (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:36:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Not necessarily (none / 0) (#45)
    by eric on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:23:38 PM EST
    One can also raise issues about the party seeking extradition and the chances that you will be afforded justice.

    In this case, I think it is pretty clear Polanski has no chance at justice here.  I expect that extradition will be denied or they will find some way to invalidate the warrant.

    Parent

    Looking past the idolization (none / 0) (#12)
    by SOS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 12:33:49 PM EST
    of the privileged and celebrity to truly examine this . . being lawyers hang out here and such . . he sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl 30 years ago. . . so what do attorneys think about this thing. Setting aside legal technicalities.

    I'm not quite "getting" the logic behind it's okay for predatory older men to take advantage of young girls that was a long time ago . . etc.

    "Forget it just drop it already"

    If Polanski has truly renounced this and atoned it's one thing. So should he be punished? He did flee the United States to avoid criminal prosecution.

    I don't agree (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:36:47 PM EST
    unless Polanski was not advised that the judge had the authority to accept or reject the recommendation, this is all very standard.  You don't get to plead guilty, find out the sentence, and then decide whether you want to stick with the guilty plea or not.

    Parent
    Do Manatt and Phelps usually do (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:38:19 PM EST
    criminal defense?

    Parent
    Every major firm (none / 0) (#128)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:43:03 PM EST
    has white-collar defense, at a minimum.

    Parent
    The white stocking firms (none / 0) (#130)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:45:10 PM EST
    often take on high profile criminal cases when an injustice has occurred....in their view.

     A lot of falsely convicted death row inmates live because of them--undoing what prosecutors  get away with when their opponents are the overworked, under-resourced public defenders...

    Parent

    That's pro bono. Doubt this was though. (none / 0) (#134)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:48:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Nor should it be (none / 0) (#136)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:51:38 PM EST
    Polansky has the money.  But the idea of Manatt jumping into the middle of a criminal case like this does not fit their usual business profile.

    Parent
    Answer: yes, by a different name: (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:50:41 PM EST
    manatt

    Parent
    No, but you do (none / 0) (#129)
    by eric on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:43:20 PM EST
    get to put conditions on the plea.  I am sure that no jail was one of those conditions.

    Parent
    Of course. If sentencing court doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:45:44 PM EST
    honor the plea bargain, generally defendant gets to set aside plea and is now again exposed to trial on all the counts of the complaint or information.  What I'm not seeing is whether Polanski ever made a motion to withdraw his plea.

    Parent
    Oh, for pete's sake (none / 0) (#16)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 12:55:49 PM EST
    He DID NOT flee to "avoid prosecution."  He entere a plea bargain in which he pleaded guilty to one charge (the prosecutors were apparently entirely happy to drop all the others-- think about that) of having sex with a minor in return for NO JAIL time.  None.  Think about that.

    Then the judge in the case apparently decided not to follow the prosecutors' recommendation of no jail time and planned, as I understand it, to sentence him to less than two months jail time.  Think about that, too.

    Polanski had already spend more than a month in jail while this was going on, and apparently was so terrified of having to go back even for a short time, he fled the country before the sentencing hearing.

    Got all that?  It's easily available information, and there's literally no excuse of vehemently opining without having the faintest knowledge of the basic facts of the case.

    That said, he did not "assault" anybody in anything but the "technical legal niceties" sense.  He had apparently consensual sex with a very disturbed girl whom he had no idea was that young.  They're showing her pictures on TV now from that era, and she in no way looks 13.

    He did a wrong thing, no question, and perhaps he should come back and serve his time.  But he's no monster of a habitual child rapist.

    Parent

    He apparently gave her restricted substance (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 12:58:26 PM EST
    before having sex with her.  He FTA'd for his felony sentencing.

    Parent
    The quaaludes may not have been (none / 0) (#37)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:14:34 PM EST
    restricted (as in illegal) at that time - it would take some research.  IIRC, they were horse tranquilizers which were readily available (I remember seeing pictures in Time of manufacturer-filled gallon jars of them) well into the mid-70s.  Someone discovered they gave people a very mellowed out high - so much so that "'luded out" came to define a whole mindset - and as I recall it the only way the government was able to enforce their illegality was to have the manufacturer stop producing them.

    The alcohol, OTOH, was not supposed to be given to kids.

    Parent

    Original charges (none / 0) (#71)
    by Fabian on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:51:01 PM EST
    had two drug based felonies, zero alcohol charges.  The remaining charges were sexual relations charges including two rape charges.

    Parent
    "Technically" (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:08:30 PM EST
    a 13 year old can't consent to sex, sodomy, or whatever. And guess what? Lots of people are afraid to go to jail - that does not give them the right to flee the jurisdiction and expect to suffer no consequences. (And remember - he was in the prison psych ward, and that's where he would have gone back to - he wasn't in a cell with a gang banger, or whatever they were called in those days).

    Parent
    Defendants undergoing statutory (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:12:17 PM EST
    evaluation as to amenability to probation are not housed in "psych" wards.  It is my understanding they are housed in the prison population which is being classified for housing assignment.

    Parent
    You would know better than I (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:50:42 PM EST
    But FWIW, all reports say he was undergoing psychiatric evaluation during his 40-odd day incarceration.

    Parent
    See footnote in brief re motion to (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:55:34 PM EST
    dismiss for the statute pursuant to which trial judge sent him for evaluation.  

    Parent
    So, flouting the authority of a corrupt judge (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:19:46 PM EST
    is the chief complaint?

    Our system locks up way, way too many people.  I am not too interested in supporting the authoritarian streak.

    And, damn straight people are afraid of going to jail in California.  It is a corrupt, super violent system that hopefully will be taken over by the Feds.  The county jails are even worse than the prisons.

    Parent

    Well, I'm not sure what metric your using to (none / 0) (#100)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:23:20 PM EST
    make those statements about "super violent," but I personally know four guys and one woman who've been sent to LA County jail and none of them experienced any kind of violence.

    Parent
    It all depends on which facility in LA (none / 0) (#124)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:41:18 PM EST
    you are talking about.  The infamous twin towers does not fit your description.

    The Orange County jail is under investigation by the DOJ for abuse of inmates.....One case in particular has garnered attention.   A deputy with the Orange County Sheriff's Department told the inmates in his area of the jail that another inmate was a child molester.  He played video games nearby as the alleged molester was stomped to death.

    So what, you might say?  Well, the killed inmate was not a child molester.  The guard fed incorrect information to the other inmates....

    Parent

    No "so whats" from me, (none / 0) (#139)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:57:21 PM EST
    I merely think the phrase "super violent" conjures up an image of the LA County jails, anyway, that's misleading for the vast majority of inmates.

    Parent
    The gangs control the jails (none / 0) (#145)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:07:57 PM EST
    The guards work deals with the gang leaders....

    A lot of violence is avoided by virtue of gang control of certain venues, activities....The reason the gangs have control is because of the violence they can wield....Not really that earth shattering....

    Parent

    Straw man (none / 0) (#121)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:38:24 PM EST
    Nobody said he "had a right" to flee the country.

    Folks here and elsewhere, however, certainly have a "right" to tell falshoods about the case out of sheer stone ignorance and some kind of weird desire to make the guy into a monster, instead of the putz that he is or was.

    Fact remains the prosecutors were willing to settle for no jail time at all -- zero -- and even the suspect judge wasn't going to give him more than six weeks.  Actual monsters aren't let off so easily.

    Parent

    The guy (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by cawaltz on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:48:13 PM EST
    perpetrates an act that potentially changed the trajectory of this young woman's life and I'm supposed to feel bad that he didn't know ahead of time the judge would reject the idea that he be let off virtually scot free? Meh, I feel bad that he got off that lightly to begin with. Abusing children is heinious and it doesn't say much for our society that someone who admits to it could walk away after demolishing someone's trust with a mere slap on the wrist.

    Parent
    He most certainly knew she was not of age. (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:11:20 PM EST
    According to Geimer, Polanski asked Geimer's mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue, which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, "Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him." She added, "It didn't feel right, and I didn't want to go back to the second shoot."

    Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the Mulholland area home of actor Jack Nicholson in Los Angeles. "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there." She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. "I said, `No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!", and then I didn't know what else to do," she stated.[32]

    Geimer testified that Polanski performed various sexual acts on her[33][34][35] after giving her a combination of champagne and quaaludes.[36] Specifically, Geimer's testimony was that Polanski kissed her, performed cunnilingus on her, penetrated her vaginally, and then penetrated her anally, each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop. [37]



    Parent
    Please don't attempt to dilute (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:14:00 PM EST
    the Free Roman movement w/facts.

    Parent
    In what way does this (none / 0) (#125)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:41:52 PM EST
    demonstrate he knew how old she was?

    Let me be clear.  I think he knew perfectly well she was underage, but 13?  Uh-uh.  A technicality that carries no weight under the law, nor should it, but makes a difference when you're passing personal judgment on the degree of someone's scumminess, IMO.

    Parent

    OK, from NPR: (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:52:46 PM EST
    (Soundbite of newscast)

    Unidentified Newscaster: Starting with his lawyer Douglas Dalton Polanski was asked by deputy district attorney Roger Gunson to what count he pleaded guilty.

    Polanski: "I had intercourse with a female person, not my wife, who was under 18 years of age."

    Gunson: "How old did you think the girl was?"

    Polanski: "I understood she was 13."

    Second, what part of her saying "No" several times makes the sex, as you said, "apparently consensual?"

    Parent

    I assume that Polanski would (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:14:05 PM EST
    have said the Moon is made of cream cheese if it meant no more jail time.   Not exactly a free admission....That is the reality of much plea bargaining, I'm afraid....

    Parent
    Sad, really. (none / 0) (#158)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:43:03 PM EST
    Anything he said that supports your position is was truthful, anything he said that doesn't is a lie.

    Parent
    I do not trust the judge or prosecutors (none / 0) (#159)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:51:09 PM EST
    who have been shown to be corrupt in this case.  In general, I strongly believe the prosecution has way too many advantages.....

    I do not know the facts of the underlying offense.  He did plead guilty to sex with a minor. But the whole plea bargaining process I believe can ensnare many, many people who could otherwise obtain acquittals....

    My view of this case has nothing to do with Polanski and everything to do with the overbearing power of the state in criminal justice matters.  The misconduct of the judge and prosecutor should not be condoned....

    Parent

    How about (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:04:38 PM EST
    the miscondict of Polanski should not be condoned...?

    Parent
    Fair point given the charges (none / 0) (#180)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:47:44 PM EST
    Here, the victim is not in favor of prosecution.

    Thus, the balance tilts towards addressing the abuse by the judge and prosecutor.

    Parent

    As I understand it, the charge (none / 0) (#182)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:53:02 PM EST
    he faces is not rape, since he plead to it already.  So I don't know why this victim would testify or factor into it.

    The charge is fleeing prosection, correct?

    Parent

    I think that is literally true at present (none / 0) (#184)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:03:25 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, the law is literal (none / 0) (#187)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:15:46 PM EST
    as I understand it, too.

    You must be thinking that he would ask to have the trial reopened?  I think the statute of limitations might have some impact on that -- plus, it would be madness, as that could reopen all the other charges that he plead away by agreeing to the one charge.  That's the best that I can figure out from the documents.

    Parent

    Yes, the case could apparently be (none / 0) (#191)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:42:11 PM EST
    re-opened.  As to the statute of limitations, I imagine (but do not know) that the statute would be tolled while Polanski was out of the jurisdiction.  The clock stopped ticking once he fled.

    As to the failure to appear, or the fleeing of the jurisdiction, clearly an offense of which he is guilty.  The one thing judges hate more than anything is a challenge to their authority.   Like being late to a hearing.  Or late with documents, etc.  Not showing up to the big show.  Unforgivable.

    But from a broader perspective, I think the prosecution side of things needs to be taken down a notch or two.  Their peremptory arrogance and political popularity are overbearing.  The old saying was that you could indict a ham sandwich.  I think in many instances you can convict a ham sandwich.  The judges and public reflexively believe the police--very bad assumption--and convictions come easy.....Some heroic defenders put in good work keeping liberty alive...

     

    Parent

    I really don't think (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:44:49 PM EST
    that it is comparable to compare a criminal defendant fleeing the jurisdiction with examples of "challenging a judge's authority" like being late with documents.  I'm sure prison guards hate people who escape prison, too, but framing it in those terms suggests we punish escapees for no other reason than to vindicate the personal feelings of the jailors.

    Parent
    Justifying the system (none / 0) (#195)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:55:09 PM EST
    Your position is of course the accepted one.

    After seeing some horrible abuse in the criminal justice system, I am no fan of supporting that system.

    The victim does not want Polanski in jail.  That is good enough for me.  

    Parent

    If the victim wanted Polanski in jail (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:59:04 PM EST
    would that also be good enough for you?

    Parent
    It would be a significant factor (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:16:38 PM EST
    at least for me.  It may not be technically relevant.  But it matters.

    Parent
    The fact he (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by cawaltz on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:15:00 PM EST
    needed parental consent to photograph the young lady didn't appear to escape him. I'd figure the first clue that you might be dealing with someone not of age is the fact that you needed parental consent to begin with.

    Parent
    Did Polanski move to w/d his plea? (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:28:31 PM EST
    Jeralyn posted motion to dismiss entire case.  

    Parent
    The Bronx Bombers busted some Red Sox (none / 0) (#18)
    by vicndabx on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 12:57:19 PM EST
    a$$ this weekend.  The Sox need to let go of the hate.....

    When the Yankees did not make the postseason last year, Red Sox Manager Terry Francona lamented how they would probably get agitated and "spend a billion dollars." On Sunday, Francona said, "I was half right."

    and dat's all ima say about dat

    "Hate", or realistic assessment (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    of the situation?

    Parent
    Next they'll be putting (none / 0) (#23)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:04:02 PM EST
    genetic scientists on the payroll fulltime to research the possibility of cloning Mantle, Ruth and Dimaggio.

    Parent
    your feeble skills are no match (none / 0) (#34)
    by vicndabx on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:12:52 PM EST
    for the power of the dark side....

    to continue the Evil Empire analogy you sox fans love so much

    Parent

    Red Sox payroll is how much exactly? (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    Puhleeeze.

    Parent
    not even (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CST on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:08:00 PM EST
    the 2nd highest in baseball anymore.

    And not even close to the yankees.  About 40% less.

    Parent

    Not if they had won their bids for Tex and A-Rod (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:22:40 PM EST
    Please come back to reality.

    Parent
    zactly (none / 0) (#29)
    by vicndabx on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:09:36 PM EST


    Parent
    you can make the case (none / 0) (#33)
    by CST on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:12:33 PM EST
    that they have plenty of money to throw around, which they do.  That being said, lets not pretend any team is in the same league as the yankees when it comes to money they throw around.

    Not that it's mattered much in recent years.

    Parent

    Yessssss (none / 0) (#38)
    by vicndabx on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:14:37 PM EST
    let the hate flow thru you

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#40)
    by CST on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:20:45 PM EST
    if by hate you mean logic, then sure.

    To be honest, yes, I still hate the yankees, the way I hate mushrooms or bugbites.  I mean, what's to like?  But I no longer despise them quite the same way since we got that chip off and won.  It's no longer hating the girl who stole your boyfriend.  It's more like pity-hating the girl who stole your a$$ of an ex now that you are happily married to the man of your dreams.

    Parent

    No logic (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:22:07 PM EST
    the Red Sox made a huge bid for A-Rod and for Texeira.

    The Yanks outbidded them.

    If there one team that should shut up about this it is the Red Sox.

    Parent

    Hasn't it been more than those 2? (none / 0) (#50)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:27:31 PM EST


    Parent
    101 million for Dice K (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:28:35 PM EST


    Parent
    The guy we beat on Sat? :) (none / 0) (#53)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:30:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Well we beat the bullpen actually (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:32:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Raher the Yanks did (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:32:24 PM EST
    neither of us played.

    Parent
    Hey! I actively participated (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:37:41 PM EST
    from my couch!!  ;)

    Parent
    you assume (none / 0) (#57)
    by CST on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:35:04 PM EST
    that they would have kept the rest of their payroll up the whole time had they won those bids.

    Neither one of them would've closed the hole on their own.

    The yankees have been doing this forever though, no news here.  It remains to be seen whether this year will pay off.

    Parent

    Excuse me? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:43:29 PM EST
    Which big contract (guaranteed in baseball) did you imagine them dumping? Dice K? Beckett? Big Papi?

    You assume the Red Sox were not prepared to carry a 150 million dollar payroll.

    History tells us that is not true.

    As I said, if you were a Rays fan, I could see the complaint. A Red Sox fan has absolutely nothing to talk about. Nothing.

    Now, if you want to argue for revenue sharing, something I have supported forever (I know a little bit about the baseball business), then let's do it. But if you think that the Red Sox are not among the "rich" in baseball, well, then you are just writing nonsense.

    Parent

    Of course they are rich (none / 0) (#69)
    by CST on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:49:59 PM EST
    never said they weren't.  But the yankees don't carry a 150 million payroll, it's over 200.

    I am not saying the sox aren't in better shape than almost every other team, of course they are, they are routinely the 2nd highest payroll in baseball.  I am just saying that when it comes to teams with high payrolls, there are the yankees, and then there is everybody else.  That's just the way it is, and the way it's always been.  To pretend like there is a minimal difference between 150 and 200 million is a joke.  The difference is 2 A-Rod contracts.

    I don't care if the yankees blow all their money.  I am just saying, let's not pretend it's something it isn't.

    Parent

    Actually, MLB already has revenue sharing. (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:58:51 PM EST
    But no restriction on owners pocketing the revenue.

    Parent
    Qctually they don't (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:05:21 PM EST
    they have a "luxury tax." Revenue sharing is what the NFL does.

    Parent
    Um , the revenue which gets shared (none / 0) (#101)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:25:27 PM EST
    is from the national TV contract and the merchandising.  I think web-based stuff is also shared.  The teams than have their own local sources of revenue - tickets, stadium deals, whatever.

    The luxury tax is a different matter, as that is money which is redistributed by MLB from the higher-payroll teams to the lower-revenue teams.

    It's a convoluted, hybrid system.  But all you really need to know is that the Pittsburgh Pirates, who would be the worst team in the National League but for the abysmal Washington Nationals, and who traded away every good player they had in return for "prospects", made a profit for the year before they sold a single ticket.

    Seriously.

    Parent

    to refresh your memory (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:25:40 PM EST
    "The Boston Herald reported in its Tuesday editions that the Red Sox have extended an offer for Teixeira, believed to be the longest and richest in the seven-year history of the ownership group led by John W. Henry."

    Parent
    To further refresh your memory (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:28:14 PM EST
    "According to a report by ESPN.com, Peter Gammons has finally pulled the trigger on a deal sending Alex Rodriguez to the Boston Red Sox in exchange for left fielder Manny Ramirez. Gammons, reportedly fed up with the indecisiveness from both camps, decided late last night to close the deal himself. Sources from both teams say they're a bit surprised, yet relieved that the deal is done and they can finally focus on spring training.

    "Peter called me and told me that Hicks had agreed to the deal," said Sox owner John Henry, who would not budge from his original proposal. "He said that Hicks was willing to trade A-Rod for Manny straight up, with no additional cash considerations or future prospects. That was what we were looking for all along. I jumped at it."

    Sanctimony from the Red Sox on spending is simply ridiculous.

    Parent

    So what's your excuse for the Celtics then? (none / 0) (#63)
    by vicndabx on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:41:03 PM EST
    Seems to me they paid a lot to win there.  No doubt they took a cue from the Sox's (unsuccessful) prior attempts.  C'mon everyone does it - if they have the money to do it.  

    Parent
    excuse? (none / 0) (#73)
    by CST on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:52:41 PM EST
    who's making excuses?

    You wanna complain about the Celtics payroll be my guest.  At least for them it worked.  They won a championship.  Money well spent IMO.  Can you say the same for the yanks?

    Parent

    No complaints here. You're right it worked for (none / 0) (#83)
    by vicndabx on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:03:53 PM EST
    them.  Spend the money if you have it is my point.  As you say

    money well spent IMO

    Can't get mad though when other teams do the same thing...and yeah, I think it's been overall, a wise investment.  Every year we are a contender, need I remind you of the post-season results?

    Parent

    you call it (none / 0) (#88)
    by CST on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:08:00 PM EST
    getting mad.  I call it stating the facts, and not pretending like it's something other than what it is.  Glad you think it's well spent.  We'll see what happens in the playoffs.

    Parent
    indeed...... (none / 0) (#117)
    by vicndabx on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:36:01 PM EST


    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#48)
    by vicndabx on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:25:58 PM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    I forgot that the Sox took a pass on Tex (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:21:03 PM EST
    and A-Rod

    oh wait . . .

    Parent

    They didn't take a pass on A-Rod (none / 0) (#107)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:29:36 PM EST
    They made a deal with Texas for him, but the deal would have required A-Rod to restructure his contract and, as a result of the restructuring, net less money.

    A-Rod was willing to go with that but the player's union, which has a veto on restructuring (to prevent owner abuses - long memories on both sides), exercised that veto.

    That was when the Yankees swooped in to Texas and offered them Alfonso Soriano (who was then still thought to be capable of becoming the first 50-50 player, though he'd been totally lost in the 2003 Series) for A-Rod, pretty much even up.  Texas said yes, and the rest is history.  

    Parent

    Ever notice how defensive the Yankees (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:46:31 PM EST
    are about their status in the world of MLB?

    Parent
    We'll see you in the playoffs (none / 0) (#20)
    by CST on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 12:59:33 PM EST
    And that's all I'm gonna say about that

    Parent
    pack light (none / 0) (#110)
    by NYShooter on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:30:54 PM EST
    you won't be staying long

    Parent
    Yo! (none / 0) (#161)
    by NYShooter on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:56:23 PM EST
    Foist of all, I was answering what sounded like a challenge.

    And # 2, I was living at 176'st & Jerome Ave in 1955 when Johnnie Padres, back from Korea, led Da'Bums to a 7th game win over us in the World Series. Cocky then, cocky now; can't be any other way.

    And, magnanimous as us Yankee fans are, I didn't mind the Marlins' and Angels' wins. So they got something to talk about the rest of their lives, and pass on to their grandchildren. Nice. But the Boston wannabees? no way. You must have noticed, after taking a hundred years to beat the Bombers, they could hardly get a smile on their faces. You know why? Cause they knew it would be another years before they got another shot.

    lol


    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#175)
    by CST on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:34:19 PM EST
    "they knew it would be another years before they got another shot."

    you do realize we already won again, right?

    You must have not been looking in any bostonian faces.  The smile was there for about a year.

    "Magnanimous yankee fan"  HAH!  Oxy-moron.

    Parent

    Tough times (none / 0) (#25)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:06:58 PM EST
    And my Dodger's are on the verge of losing 3 out of 4 to of all teams...Pittsburgh!

    Yet I was rejoicing the Dodgers clinched (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:26:51 PM EST
    so won't need to spill champagne at Petco.

    Parent
    Since they've only clinched... (none / 0) (#81)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:01:47 PM EST
    ...a post-season birth and not a Division title, you may well see a celebration complete with bubbly at Petco.  

    The only sure way to avoid that is to sweep them!  Go Pads.

    Parent

    Pads usually play their very best (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:25:54 PM EST
    v. Dodgers.  

    Parent
    They are always interesting games. (none / 0) (#153)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:24:26 PM EST
    I'm going Tues. night.  Uniformed SDPD keep very busy.

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#155)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:29:17 PM EST
    ...I would imagine keeping an eye on you would keep them quite busy!  :)

    Parent
    A few years I saw San Diego's finest (none / 0) (#156)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:32:48 PM EST
    at a Dodgers/Padres game slam a young Latino into the wall after he gave 'em lip.  Not sure what the underlying situation was.  Anyhow, he started hollering:  did you see that?  I walked into Padres customer service office nearby and suggested they give these kids some free passes for future games.

    Parent
    my favorite Polanski film (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 01:18:52 PM EST
    is still The Tenant

    Trelkovsky, (Roman Polanski, who also directed), a timid file clerk, moves into a rundown apartment with a history: The prior occupant jumped to her death from the dismal room's window. In the psychotic environment of a dark Parisian building that's filled with odd characters, Trelkovsky feels himself overcome by a kind of madness. His slow mental deterioration compels him to contemplate emulating the woman's final, tragic hours.

    The three Polanski movies (none / 0) (#82)
    by lilburro on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:01:59 PM EST
    I've seen: Knife in the Water, The Ninth Gate, The Pianist.  Why did Polanski bother with the Ninth Gate anyway.

    Yes, Chinatown is a great classic. (none / 0) (#183)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:58:30 PM EST
    Knife in the Water is a little weird, but also great.

    Parent
    Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, RIP (none / 0) (#111)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:31:09 PM EST
    The woman who'd been the inspiration for Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, a schoolmate of Julian Lennon, has died of lupus aged 46.

    May she rest in peace.

    Here's my prediction re Polanski: (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:32:32 PM EST
    If he is returned to Los Angeles County, the entire LA County Superior Court will remove itself from the case, which then will be reassigned by CA Supreme Court to another county, where Polanski's attorneys and DA will work out a plea bargain.  Plead nolo to FTA as a felony.  Get credit for timed served on the PC 261.5 conviction and probation with communithy service on the FTA.  OK to do the community service in France, but not around children.  

    Spoken like an expert. (none / 0) (#122)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:40:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Ha. We'll see. (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:42:04 PM EST


    Parent
    If it come to that, Polanski would be smart (none / 0) (#185)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:03:30 PM EST
    to engage Cardinal Mahoney's legal team.

    Parent
    For some strange reason this weekend (none / 0) (#165)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:06:47 PM EST
    I couldn't help noticing that some Tebow dude got bonked on the noodle and then his team proceeded to lose :)

    I thought the Gators won again. (none / 0) (#168)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:12:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Ha ha, I googled (none / 0) (#169)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:16:59 PM EST
    I swear to God, I was on the road and I thought I heard on the radio they lost. Perhaps it was because I was driving through Georgia at the time.  Perhaps I misunderstood what part of Florida's game sucked.  So they won even after Tebow went down?  So much for reality based.

    Parent
    And fer cripes sake (none / 0) (#171)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:21:13 PM EST
    I got mail....from someone who thinks about as much as I do of Booman.  Apparently he cannot allow BTD's making fun of his 11th dimensional chess go and a new post is up.  I haven't read it yet.  Should I?  Can you just email it to me so I don't have to click there?

    Parent
    I am reserving all my emotional outlay (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:23:45 PM EST
    today for Polanski case.  Can't get that excited about bloggers dissing bloggers.  Isn't that what they do?

    Parent
    I read your calling off of all (none / 0) (#174)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:29:40 PM EST
    the likely Polanski plays.  I detect no emotion.

    Parent
    He references some media write ups (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:28:08 PM EST
    to prove that 11th Dimensional Chess is being played.  I would read them but a few write ups under that one Booman has a different write up about how Obama is not going to escalate in Afghanistan with different media references to prove that as well.  Since the Not Escalating piece is essentially bull$h*t because Booman has no idea how it is being pulled off right this very minute....why am I supposed to believe his piece on "The Careful Dance"?  Sheesh what an idiot.

    Parent
    Monday Morning Open Thread | 194 comments (194 topical)