OK. I was wrong. You arent any better than Contumacious. A vulgar obscenity-spewing ignorant broad who can't defend her own absurd positions and can't write a coherent sentence.
I stand corrected.
Swiss arrest Polanski on US request in sex case
- Thread starter strollingbones
- Start date
OK. I was wrong. You arent any better than Contumacious. A vulgar obscenity-spewing ignorant broad who can't defend her own absurd positions and can't write a coherent sentence.
I stand corrected.
For once you admit you were wrong, too bad it wasn't in a post that was actually worth two cents...might have been impressive if it was.
Ravi
Diamond Member
When wingnuts melt down...
If it were, you mean.
But you are right: any post involving you in any capacity is clearly not worth 2 cents.
Yes, did you. I can explain any portion of it you find confusing.
Read pages 15 and 16th:
IF THE COURT DOES NOT ACCEPT THE PLEA AGREEMENT THE DEFENDANT WILL BE ALLOW TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The scumbag "judge" was not going to allow him to withdraw the plea. Mr. Polanski had no choice but to get the fuck out of Dodge.
.
You are woefully ignorant. That is NOT what the transcript says.
It SAYS that the judge is the one who determines what the defendant's sentence will be. Either probation OR time, and Polanski AGREED to that.
THEN -- after the report comes in -- the judge gets to determine whether or not it will abide by the plea. In other words, if the judge were to conclude that the plea TO THE LESSER COUNT was not consistent with justice, he could void the plea agreement. That's STANDARD. Of course, since it was an AGREEMENT, the judge could not unilaterally both void the agreement and compel the defendant to suffer the consequences (i.e., more time than was initially contemplated). Thus, as required by law, if the judge were to say, "I cannot abide by the terms of the plea agreement, and I intend to give you more time," THEN the defendant would be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea.
And it was only AFTER the judge READ that STANDARD part of California LAW to the defendant that he actually pleaded guilty.
So what? That's standard. HE'd get to go to trial instead. STILL no denial of due process.
Contumacious rests.
.Next case, please.
.
Are you sure your name isn't Orly Taitz?
PLYMCO_PILGRIM
Gold Member
What in blue fucking blazes are you assclowns bitching about?
I'm not the only one thinking that
Liability
Locked Account.
Yes, did you. I can explain any portion of it you find confusing.
Read pages 15 and 16th:
IF THE COURT DOES NOT ACCEPT THE PLEA AGREEMENT THE DEFENDANT WILL BE ALLOW TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The scumbag "judge" was not going to allow him to withdraw the plea. Mr. Polanski had no choice but to get the fuck out of Dodge.
.
You are woefully ignorant. That is NOT what the transcript says.
It SAYS that the judge is the one who determines what the defendant's sentence will be. Either probation OR time, and Polanski AGREED to that.
THEN -- after the report comes in -- the judge gets to determine whether or not it will abide by the plea. In other words, if the judge were to conclude that the plea TO THE LESSER COUNT was not consistent with justice, he could void the plea agreement. That's STANDARD. Of course, since it was an AGREEMENT, the judge could not unilaterally both void the agreement and compel the defendant to suffer the consequences (i.e., more time than was initially contemplated). Thus, as required by law, if the judge were to say, "I cannot abide by the terms of the plea agreement, and I intend to give you more time," THEN the defendant would be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea.
And it was only AFTER the judge READ that STANDARD part of California LAW to the defendant that he actually pleaded guilty.
So what? That's standard. HE'd get to go to trial instead. STILL no denial of due process.
Contumacious rests.
.Next case, please.
.
So you admit you lost soundly then.
Good.
Proceed to sentencing.
Off with your head!
But just in case you still fail to get it: the PLEA AGREEMENT (openly agreed to by the defendant) said that he could get EITHER incarceration OR probation and that the decision would be up to the JUDGE. The ONLY thing you point to is the standard condition that IF, after reading the psychiatric evaluation report, the judge were to conclude that HE could not abide by the terms of the plea, then (and ONLY then) would the defendant be permitted to withdraw the plea. Basic stuff.
Provided that the judge did not void the agreement in order to give the defendant more time (than the level of felony which he pled guilty to would allow), then the agreement would remain intact -- in which case the defendant could get either probation or a period of incarceration.
Thus, despite your faulty claims, there is not even a HINT of any violation of due process.
In short, you lost totally, completely and utterly. You never did have the first clue on the topic. You still don't.
No violation of due process.
Last edited:
Liability
Locked Account.
When wingnuts melt down...
I don't know. What happens when you melt down? Tell us. We'll pretend to give a shit.
mightypeon
Active Member
Well, he should be judged and possible serve time, depending on the verdict.
I dont know a lot about the US system (apart from beeing more happy to lock up people than other western Nations), but I would figure that a lack of a criminal record, beeing unlikely to do such a thing again, hell maybe even the decivly unpleasant stuff he had been through his life (sexual abuse during NS times, his wife beeing murdered by the Manson Gang etc.) may come up as mitigating factors.
On the other hand, running away should come up as something that makes the thing worse.
I dont know a lot about the US system (apart from beeing more happy to lock up people than other western Nations), but I would figure that a lack of a criminal record, beeing unlikely to do such a thing again, hell maybe even the decivly unpleasant stuff he had been through his life (sexual abuse during NS times, his wife beeing murdered by the Manson Gang etc.) may come up as mitigating factors.
On the other hand, running away should come up as something that makes the thing worse.
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
There is not going to be a verdict in "People vs Polanski".
The guilty plea was procured by fraud. The same must be set aside. Further, Lolita has stated that she is not going to testify in a trial.
.
Liability
Locked Account.
Wrong, moron.
Not only have you completely failed to demonstrate any hint of fraud in the plea, the fact is: there was no fraud.
The plea is never going to get "set aside."
The extradition WILL absolutely go through without any hitches. Guaranteed.
When the pedophile Polanski gets brought BACK to Court, what SHOULD happen is the execution of sentence. That probably will not happen now. Instead, some lawyers will proceed to make silly motions to vacate the plea. Good waste of Polanski's fortune and a sad waste of California's taxpayers' dollars. That crap will drag out.
Ultimately, since there is absolutely ZERO valid basis to disturb the plea, Polanski will get whatever sentence the Court determines he should get. And the fact that the scumbag fled and hid for over thirty years SHOULD weigh heavily against any leniency. Consistent with the plea agreement, though, Polanski will get either probation or a period of incarceration. I hope it's a fucking LONG period of incarceration.
And it is still possible that the scumbag sociopathic child molestiing pedophile rapist MIGHT get additionally prosecuted for the crime of fleeing while he was "at liberty" pending his sentence. If my informal reading of the Ca. Penal Code §1320 and 1320.5 is accurate, it looks like failure to appear (when out on bail or on recognizance), on a felony, is itself a felony punishable by up to a year in prison or local jail.
No.
The "reason" to get him BACK here and to incarcerate him is because he pled guilty; and child molesting pieces of shit like him need to get punished -- and the operation of the rule of law should not be set-aside just because a bunch of stupid libs find his case to be the next urgent "social justice" issue du jour.
Most people probably didn't even know (or give any thought to whether or not) Polanski is allegedly a Jew. That notion of yoursis dumber than most of the crap you tend to spew.
.
And you are the "Conservative Role Model"? So what is the difference nowadays between "conservatism" and a theocratic regime.
You fuckers are always looking for pretexts to set aside due process of law in favor of legal lynching, in the name of god, of course..
.
You speak of conservatives, lynching? We want the law followed (or done away with). The libs are the ones that are trying to pass and have passed laws to punish selectively: hate crimes, fair doctrine on media, etc. How is murder suddenly "worse" if it is a "hate crime"? Aren't all murders "hate crimes" on some level? Why does the gov need to control opinions in the media? How can the gov make sure that libs have equal time to the conservatives (any honest person knows this is an excuse to silence opponents to the lib agenda)?
The libs use laws to take "other" people's rights, the conservatives use the law to punish those that have broken the law.
If someone did this to one of Obama's girls, the entire nation would be OUTRAGED (rightly so). Because the person doing the criminal act is famous, is no reason to IGNORE the law. If the victim is famous, it is no reason to make the punishment harsher.
That is the whole idea of laws in this country: they are to be applied equally.
Yes, he ran away and knew that he broke the law. He was aware every day for thirty years that he illegally left the country to avoid sentencing, his punishment should be harsh. He never publicly apologized. He never publicly admitted he did anything wrong leaving the country. He pretended and acted like he was above the law (with Holywood's support). He behavior is in no way acceptable.
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
Mr. Polanski was offered a plea deal wherein the judge was involved from the beginning. The Plea agreement stated that if the judge did not accept the plea that he would be allowed to withdraw the Plea and proceed to trial.
The judge did not accept the plea and wasn't going to allow Mr. Polanski to withdraw the plea nor proceed to trial.
Why are "conservatives" refusing to condemn the judicial corruption?
.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,531
- 2,165
- Banned
- #177
Only Contumacious is "corrupt" in his argument. Polanksi's plea deal is sound, he will be brought back to the States, where a long and vicious legal battle will ensure to vacate the plea deal, which will be upheld by the state. My big hope is that Polanski will not be granted bail, and that when the sentence is finally executed, that Polanski will die in jail.
Wait wait wait, stop the press, Cuntumacious believes in a baseless unplausible conspiracy theory, who would have thought!
Well stated! It seem liberals and conservatives are united in hating child molesters, thank god we can agree on something!
It seems the only ones supporting Polanski are 9/11 truthing, holocaust denying delussional people that can find a conspiracy in everything no matter how baseless if the target of the conspiracy is the US government (or Jews in most cases) and the dimwits in hollywood! I am personally boycotting any movie or TV show of anyone in Hollywood that signed that petition!
JD_2B
Little Vixen
And don't forget the VICTIM (Why not call her a troofer too then, lol) who wants nothing more than to have this thing disappear..
<sigh>
<sigh>
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
"How do you pay for tax cuts?" - Conservatives Need to Destroy this False Premise.
- Started by Mashmont
- Replies: 4
-
-
putin´s servant just admitted to committing genocide IN UKRAINE- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 0
