# Switzerland will not extradite Roman Polanski



## rightwinger (Jul 12, 2010)

Switzerland won't send filmmaker Polanski back to U.S. - CNN.com

(CNN) -- Switzerland will not send Oscar-winning filmmaker Roman Polanski to the United States to face child sex charges, the Ministry of Justice announced Monday. 

Polanski pleaded guilty to having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977 but fled to Europe before he was sentenced.

He was arrested in Switzerland last year and has been fighting extradition since then.

Polanski's attorney, Chad Hummel, has been pushing for Polanski to be sentenced without having to return to Los Angeles, California.


----------



## daveman (Jul 12, 2010)

Well, that ought to make the pedos here happy.  Maybe they should all move to Switzerland.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 12, 2010)

I wish I could say I'm shocked or outraged here. But strangely, I'm not either. I just feel really sorry for his victims who have had to suffer because of him.

God grants justice where the laws of man cannot. If he thinks he has escaped it, he's wrong.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 12, 2010)

I am glad that the Swiss recognized that no crime had occurred.

.


----------



## ConHog (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> I am glad that the Swiss recognized that no crime had occurred.
> 
> .



So , we can add you to the list of sick twisted pieces of shit who sometimes show up here.


----------



## Article 15 (Jul 12, 2010)

I had never heard about this controversy until last year but when I did I looked into it ... thesmokinggun had a copy of the girl's testimony from the trial posted ... holy shit that dude is a true scumbag.  He will get his someday.


----------



## Article 15 (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> I am glad that the Swiss recognized that no crime had occurred.
> 
> .



Yeah, it's not a crime at all to drug then sodomize a 13 year old girl, you sick fuck.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 12, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad that the Swiss recognized that no crime had occurred.
> ...




You can add me to the list of those who subscribe to the maxim:

"May justice be done though the heavens fall."


Hallelujah.

.


----------



## topspin (Jul 12, 2010)

God will get him.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 12, 2010)

topspin said:


> God will get him.



Why?

.


----------



## USArmyRetired (Jul 12, 2010)

I've always wondered if Polanski ever showed up at one of the parole hearings of any of the Manson family members including Charles himself unlike Sharon Tates mom and sister Patty did?


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jul 12, 2010)

From my memory of the case, Polansky had a plea deal, and because of misconduct by the judge, it was tossed.  Polansky had good cause to appeal.  

but I also kind of agree with the judge.   The deal the DA cut with him was unconscionable.    Judges aren't bound by plea deals.


Polansky had a pretty hard history.   This happened not to long after his wife and friends were brutally murdered.    Lots of folks try to excuse him because of what happened to him.    Still doesn't change what happened to the girl though.   He drugged and raped a 13 year old.   He belonged in jail.


----------



## ConHog (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...




 You pedo fucks should be shot in the god damned head.


----------



## Kat (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> I am glad that the Swiss recognized that no crime had occurred.
> 
> .





What a freaking lie. Obviously you did not read the article.



> Switzerland was not making a decision about the severity of the charge or whether Polanski was guilty, Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said.


----------



## froggy (Jul 12, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Switzerland won't send filmmaker Polanski back to U.S. - CNN.com
> 
> (CNN) -- Switzerland will not send Oscar-winning filmmaker Roman Polanski to the United States to face child sex charges, the Ministry of Justice announced Monday.
> 
> ...



Leave him alone , women say they mature faster than men anyway.


----------



## Kat (Jul 12, 2010)

froggy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Switzerland won't send filmmaker Polanski back to U.S. - CNN.com
> ...




??


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jul 12, 2010)

In other words, the US Justice department didn't comply with the rules, so the Swiss tossed the case with prejudice


----------



## ConHog (Jul 12, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> In other words, the US Justice department didn't comply with the rules, so the Swiss tossed the case with prejudice



I sure am glad Switzerland is the arbiter of US jurisprudence


----------



## GHook93 (Jul 12, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> I had never heard about this controversy until last year but when I did I looked into it ... thesmokinggun had a copy of the girl's testimony from the trial posted ... holy shit that dude is a true scumbag.  He will get his someday.



Same here! I didn't know anything about the what he did until his recent arrest. What he was RAPE and not just statutory rape of a minor! He drugged the girl and then forcibly raped her.

He deserves universal condemnation and severe punishment!


----------



## froggy (Jul 12, 2010)

GHook93 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > I had never heard about this controversy until last year but when I did I looked into it ... thesmokinggun had a copy of the girl's testimony from the trial posted ... holy shit that dude is a true scumbag.  He will get his someday.
> ...



He already got it Charles Manson bunch cut his unborn out of Sharon Tate's womb.


----------



## daveman (Jul 12, 2010)

froggy said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Ummm...that happened before he raped the girl.  And it certainly doesn't excuse his crime.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 12, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> From my memory of the case, Polansky had a plea deal, and because of misconduct by the judge, it was tossed.  Polansky had good cause to appeal.
> 
> but I also kind of agree with the judge.   The deal the DA cut with him was unconscionable.    Judges aren't bound by plea deals.
> 
> ...



The plea deal required that if the plea was not accepted by the court he would go to trial.

.


----------



## froggy (Jul 12, 2010)

daveman said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Never said it did But to lose your first child that way has to be hard on you.


----------



## daveman (Jul 12, 2010)

froggy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...


Indeed.  But raping someone else's child is not a valid response for losing your own.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 12, 2010)

Kat said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad that the Swiss recognized that no crime had occurred.
> ...



You are kidding me, so the Swiss are soft on crime!?!?!?

Try reading between the lines when you get a chance.

.


----------



## daveman (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...


When are you moving there?


----------



## Kat (Jul 12, 2010)

GMAB! He ALSO had sex (which would be considered rape of a minor) with Natasha Kinski...when she was 15.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jul 12, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, the US Justice department didn't comply with the rules, so the Swiss tossed the case with prejudice
> ...



The Swiss are in charge of Swiss Jurisprudence.   they require documentation from the requesting authority before they proceed.  It can't be that hard,  Extradition happens all the time.  Governments transfer prisoners on a regular basis all over the place.  The US justice department screwed up,so the perp walks   It won't be the first time.    After all the aggravation they went through over this, they should have done a better job.

Same rules apply here.    Someone requests extradition and the paperwork is not right, we won't extradite either.

That said, I don't know what deficiencies the Swiss found.  Maybe a misspelled word, or a comma where there should have been a semi colon.   Early on it was obvious this was not for real on their part.


----------



## Kat (Jul 12, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Baruch Menachem said:
> ...



That and he had a lot of Hollywerd and money on his side.


----------



## Kat (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



We have been down this road before. You believe it is okay to have sex...''forceful or not''
with a female of any age..so I don't need to read between ANY lines. I know what you are.


----------



## Kat (Jul 12, 2010)

Here you go Contumacious...now you don't even have to waste your time typing your sleazy posts.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/90005-when-is-rape-not-a-crime.html


----------



## froggy (Jul 12, 2010)

daveman said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



The girl admited to the law she consented.


----------



## Kat (Jul 12, 2010)

froggy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



That is not true. Obviously you didn't read her testimony, right?


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 12, 2010)

Kat said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Kat said:
> ...



Comeon don't be shy produce a Link to that post(s).

You on the other hand , typical femi-nazi, believe that sex between a man and a woman is never consensual.

.


----------



## Kat (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...





Yup, that's me. 

Look above..I posted the link to the entire (other) thread. You find it, I am not about to waste my time.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 12, 2010)

Kat said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Kat said:
> ...



OK so you admit that I never said such a thing.

I did ask you --a gazillion times -- to identify the difference between a 13 y/o having sex  with a 17 and a 45 y/o. You could not identify the difference.

.


----------



## Kat (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...




And another lie. 


.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 12, 2010)

Kat said:


> [...]
> 
> That and he had a lot of Hollywerd and money on his side.


Exactly.

Big money changed hands, the Swiss told Uncle Sam where to go and nothing will come of it because Switzerland is where most corrupt politicians stash their loot in numbered accounts.  

The secrecy of Swiss bank accounts is how that tiny country holds the most powerful nations in the world by the balls and remains "neutral."


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 12, 2010)

MikeK said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...



Really?

Well , I hope that Obama will shock and awe Switzerland into submission.

.


----------



## ConHog (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



The difference you jackass is that depending on the state a 13 y/o can by law consent to sex with a 17 y/o , while in NO state can a 13 y/o consent to sex with a 45 y/o man. It's called statutory rape. SHe can NOT consent. If he has her on video screaming "take me big daddy" he still raped her.


You fucking sick ass pedophile.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 12, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Kat said:
> ...



Mr. Fucktard, sir:

never mind statutes which are adopted by  the religious nuts brotherhood

Explain in anatomical and/or physiological terms the difference between a 17 y/o and a 45 y/o dick..

Careful, don't blow a fuse in the process.

.


----------



## ConHog (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Well, I am certainly not an expert on dick , like yourself; but we are governed by LAWS , not by the fact that you would love to hit some 7th grade pussy and not get in trouble. 

You sick pedo.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jul 12, 2010)

Filling her up with qualuudes sort of eliminates any concept of consent anyway.    YOu can't consent to anything when your mind is mushed out.


And even if she were the slut that the Polansky defenders say she is, sex with a 13 year old is just plain wrong.


----------



## ConHog (Jul 12, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> Filling her up with qualuudes sort of eliminates any concept of consent anyway.    YOu can't consent to anything when your mind is mushed out.
> 
> 
> And even if she were the slut that the Polansky defenders say she is, sex with a 13 year old is just plain wrong.



If that had been my child, they would have found his fat dead carcass somewhere in Europe years ago.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 12, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



The age of consent in Texas used to be 14 , and it was so for over 100 years. Then suddenly it was increased to 17 because the Southern Baptists did not want the FLDS'ers moving down here. 

So, shut the fuck up. 

.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jul 12, 2010)

and that means what, exactly?


----------



## ConHog (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Got any proof of that pedophile?


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 12, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



Here we go , Ayatollah:
*
     Rep. Harvey Hilderbran R- Kerrville,* alarmed by reports from Eldorado, the Utah attorney general and sect members who had fled the group, helped push new legislation into law in 2005 that raised the legal age of consent to marry in Texas from 14 to 16, that made it illegal for stepparents to marry their children and made officiates liable for performing illegal wedding ceremonies.

    "We didn't want to facilitate the things we knew they had been involved in before, including child abuse, sexual abuse, forced marriages, that were clearly detrimental to the safety and welfare of children," Hilderbran tells NEWSWEEK.

    "It's not in the best interest of a 14-year-old girl to be forced to marry her uncle or stepfather or any other man in this cult, because the men are being rewarded for their obedience with these child brides." 

.


----------



## Liability (Jul 12, 2010)

Scumbags pedophile wannabes like confusedatious applaud the lawless behavior of Switzerland in this regard, but then again confusedatious looks at children as sex objects.

Confusedatious sees nothing wrong with scumbags like the "Prophet" Mohammud fucking young girls.  

Confusedatious is a degenerate fuck.  Nothing such filth says surprises anyone.  Diseased filth spews out of the mouth of diseased filth.


----------



## ConHog (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



That's marriage you idiot, not the age of consent for sex. Under 16 can still get married in Texas, you just need a court's consent. Try  going to court to get consent to fuck a 13 y/o, you sick fucker.


----------



## Kat (Jul 12, 2010)

Testimony of 13 year old Samantha Gailey..



The Smoking Gun: Archive


----------



## Richard-H (Jul 12, 2010)

Switzerland wouldn't have extradited Adolf Hitler.

If any of you dim wads would actually wake up and figure out how the world REALLY works, you'd know that Switzerland is the root of all evil (well, about 95% anyway).


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 12, 2010)

Liability said:


> Scumbags pedophile wannabes like confusedatious applaud the lawless behavior of Switzerland in this regard, but then again confusedatious looks at children as sex objects.
> 
> Confusedatious sees nothing wrong with scumbags like the "Prophet" Mohammud fucking young girls.
> 
> Confusedatious is a degenerate fuck.  Nothing such filth says surprises anyone.  Diseased filth spews out of the mouth of diseased filth.



Actually, there is no difference between scumbag extraordinaire Lie_ability and Roman. But Lie_ability is hoping that by exaggerating his claimed disgust he can disguise his true feelings.

.


----------



## ConHog (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Scumbags pedophile wannabes like confusedatious applaud the lawless behavior of Switzerland in this regard, but then again confusedatious looks at children as sex objects.
> ...



Dude, you are disgusting. Fucking pedophile creep.


----------



## blu (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> I am glad that the Swiss recognized that no crime had occurred.
> 
> .



is this sarcasm?


----------



## Kat (Jul 12, 2010)

blu said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad that the Swiss recognized that no crime had occurred.
> ...




Umm....unfortunately .. no


----------



## ConHog (Jul 12, 2010)

blu said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad that the Swiss recognized that no crime had occurred.
> ...



no blu, and I think this is something we can all come together on. That disgusting fucker thinks drugging and fucking 13 y/o girls is just fine and would like to do so himself (if indeed he hasn't) he should be ran off this board, and or shot in the head for his disgusting thoughts


----------



## Liability (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Scumbags pedophile wannabes like confusedatious applaud the lawless behavior of Switzerland in this regard, but then again confusedatious looks at children as sex objects.
> ...



Actually you dishonest pedophile loving piece of crap, you and Polanski are the two peas in the pod.  He rapes young girls and you "defend" such depraved behavior as though it is not even worthy of being criminal.  He and you are fuck-buddies.  Scumbags like you deserve to be locked in a cell together forever.

Just because you are open about your depravity doesn't mean others share your criminal and immoral inclinations.   Most of the rest of the world finds scumbags like you worthy of only hostile contempt.  I really hope you end up under a prison someday.


----------



## daveman (Jul 12, 2010)

froggy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



No, she didn't.  Furthermore, since she was below the age of consent, she is incapable of giving legal consent.  

You really should stop stealing my oxygen now.


----------



## daveman (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...


I'll tell you the difference.

If a 17-year-old had sex with my 13-year-old daughter, I'd put him in the hospital.

If a 45-year-old had sex with my 13-year-old daughter, I'd put him in the morgue.

Have a nice day, pedo.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 12, 2010)

Sharron Angle would have that girl deliver his child, had she become pregnant.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> I am glad that the Swiss recognized that no crime had occurred.
> 
> .



No crime was committed? How on Earth do you reach that conclusion? He was actually pled guilty to a crime, and then jumped bail because the judge didn't like the plea bargain. That is two crimes at least.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 12, 2010)

froggy said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



How does that excuse what he did? Does that give me a free pass to rape too, or does it only work for celebrities?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



I am not a doctor so I am not 100% sure about this, but I would guess it is about 28 years of brain development.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



You just successfully demonstrated your ignorance of the law.

The legal age to get married with parental consent used to be 14, and it was raised to 17 for the reasons you posted. However, the age of consent for sex is, and has always been, 17.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 12, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...


I believe it varies by state.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 12, 2010)

He may be a pedophile, but "Chinatown" was brilliant.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 12, 2010)

Political Junky said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



We are specifically talking about Texas, and I was exposing his lie that the age of consent changed in 2005. It was 17 when I was in high school, and it is 17 now.


----------



## ConHog (Jul 12, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



He's too stupid to realize that in Texas, as in every state, once married you gain the ability to consent because you become emancipated.


----------



## froggy (Jul 12, 2010)

According to court testimony the girl admits she was sexually active, did drugs and she acted like she was trying to give accounts as if they had been rehearsed, they reached a plea bargain and Polanski served 42 days of the 90 given, but upon his release the DA thought this would make him some clout so he attempted to get more jail time for Polanski, but he fled.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 12, 2010)

froggy said:


> According to court testimony the girl admits she was sexually active, did drugs and she acted like she was trying to give accounts as if they had been rehearsed, they reached a plea bargain and Polanski served 42 days of the 90 given, but upon his release the DA thought this would make him some clout so he attempted to get more jail time for Polanski, but he fled.



Most of your post is irrelevant, and the rest is wrong.

Reminder: Roman Polanski fled sentencing - Roman Polanski - Salon.com

He had not been sentenced yet, so he could not have served any of his sentence. The judge thought the plea bargain was unconscionable, and he made it known he was not going to follow it. Polanski skipped bail to avoid going to prison.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 12, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> He had not been sentenced yet, so he could not have served any of his sentence. The judge thought the plea bargain was unconscionable, and he made it known he was not going to follow it. Polanski skipped bail to avoid going to prison.



Mr. Dumb Ass Sir:

The Plea agreement stated that the would plea guilty in exchange for a probated sentence. The Plea agreement stated that if the same was not accepted by the court that the matter would go to trial.

The scumbag judge decided to use Mr Polanski's case in order to get re-elected. Bullshit. Mr. Polanski had no choice but to get out of Dodge.

Thye Swiss agreed. Case over and out.

.


----------



## Kat (Jul 12, 2010)

froggy said:


> According to court testimony the girl admits she was sexually active, did drugs and she acted like she was trying to give accounts as if they had been rehearsed, they reached a plea bargain and Polanski served 42 days of the 90 given, but upon his release the DA thought this would make him some clout so he attempted to get more jail time for Polanski, but he fled.




She had had sex 2 times according to her testimony...had drank and taken drugs ''when I was little'' (whatever that means..since she was only 13 when she gave her testimony.

I don't care if she was drunk and stoned, and had sex every day of her 13 years...it has NOTHING to do with Polanski the 40 something year old forcing sex upon her. She said *NO*. *NO* means *NO*. What do you not get about that? Are you one of those that thinks if you are told no it really means yes, or is a turn on for you?


----------



## Kat (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > He had not been sentenced yet, so he could not have served any of his sentence. The judge thought the plea bargain was unconscionable, and he made it known he was not going to follow it. Polanski skipped bail to avoid going to prison.
> ...



You are so full of it.  Why would you think it is okay for Polanski to force himself upon her? Seriously. Why would you possibly think that. SHE SAID NO. I just read it in her testimony (which I had read before).
Why is is okay for you?


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 12, 2010)

Kat said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Anjelica Houston was sitting in front of the bedroom. Jack Nicholson's maid was also there. None heard any screaming or pleas for help.

So the "he forced himself upon her" assertion is a figment of your imagination.

,


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > He had not been sentenced yet, so he could not have served any of his sentence. The judge thought the plea bargain was unconscionable, and he made it known he was not going to follow it. Polanski skipped bail to avoid going to prison.
> ...



Of course he had no choice but to skip out, if he had gone to trial he would have spent the rest of his life in jail. It is also interesting that you claim to be a telepath, and able to read Swiss minds.


----------



## Kat (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



That absolutely proves NOTHING. Especially with a scared stoned/drunk 13 yr old, against an old man (in comparison).

But, you are trying to dodge. Why is it okay with you for a 13 yr old that said no to be forced upon?
Do you believe someone has to scream, otherwise they aren't being raped?
And she did plea with him...read it..I linked her testimony.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 12, 2010)

Kat said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Kat said:
> ...



That point is moot:

"*Guido Balmer, a spokesman for the Swiss justice ministry,* said Switzerland deals with about 200 extradition cases a year. About 95% of extradition requests are granted; among the 5% that are denied, the most common reasons are that the alleged crime in the defendant's home country is not a crime in Switzerland or, as in Polanski's case, the extradition request is considered flawed."

.


----------



## Kat (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



  What does that have to do with the price of eggs?

Answer my question!


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 12, 2010)

Kat said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Kat said:
> ...



Look , the powers-that-be had a chance to show the Swiss authorities that Mr. Polanski should have been extradited. They failed or refused to do so. 

So you can argue that the Swiss authorities are pedophiles. But menahwhile Roman Polanski is a free man, as he should be.

.


----------



## Kat (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



You. Need. Help. 
Oh and no..trust me Polanski is not a free man. He has his demons to deal with. He won't get away from that EVER.

I take your non - answer to my question as being that in reality you know it is wrong.


----------



## Moon (Jul 12, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



No, he should be sitting in prison, waiting for the day when he takes his last breath on this earth.


----------



## Kat (Jul 12, 2010)

Moon said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Kat said:
> ...



So true, but I think he may be in his own prison..all by his lonesome. He knows what he did. He knows is did it with 2 very young teens. No telling what else he has done...and I feel for his daughter. No telling what her life was like.


----------



## froggy (Jul 13, 2010)

US vows continued pursuit of Roman Polanski, but resolution on misconduct allegations unlikely
By: ANTHONY McCARTNEY 
Associated Press
07/13/10 4:00 AM EDT LOS ANGELES &#8212; The pursuit of Roman Polanski will continue, but only to the extent the director allows it.

Authorities in the United States roundly denounced the decision by the Swiss government to set Polanski free, dealing another twist in a sex case that has spanned three decades and two continents.

From prosecutors in Los Angeles to justice officials in Washington, D.C., the Swiss decision was described as a disappointment and to some, an injustice.

Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley called it a "disservice to justice and other victims as a whole."

The Swiss, for their part, described Polanski as "a free man."

That largely depends on the director's movements. A warrant for his arrest remains active, effectively barring the 76-year-old from returning to the U.S., which he fled in 1978 on the eve of sentencing for a charge of having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.

The ruling cannot be appealed, and within hours of the ruling Polanksi appeared to have left the multimillion dollar chalet where he had been confined on house arrest since last year. He is free to return to his native France, which does not extradite its citizens.

Prosecutors have tried to arrest Polanski during his travels before, and vowed to continue the effort after Monday's ruling.

"The United States believes that the rape of a 13-year-old child by an adult is a crime, and we continue to pursue justice in this case," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said.

Cooley, who is running for California attorney general, said his office will work with federal officials to have Polanski returned for sentencing if he's arrested in a country with a favorable extradition treaty. Cooley's office said last September after Polanski's arrest that it had previously sought his arrest in England, Thailand and Israel.

The Oscar-winning director of "Rosemary's Baby," "Chinatown" and "The Pianist" was accused of plying his victim with champagne and part of a Quaalude during a 1977 modeling shoot and raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy, but pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.

The Swiss government said its decision to reject extradition for Polanski was based in part on U.S. authorities failing to turn over transcripts of secret testimony given by the attorney who originally handled the director's case. The testimony remains sealed, and can only be used if the former prosecutor was unavailable for an evidentiary hearing, a Los Angeles court spokesman said.

The testimony "should prove" that Polanski actually served his sentence while undergoing a court-ordered diagnostic study after charges were filed, the Swiss Justice Ministry said.

"If this were the case, Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the U.S. extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation," the ministry said. They also noted that Polanski's victim, Samantha Geimer, has repeatedly asked that the case be dropped.

Cooley, who is the fifth district attorney to handle Polanski's case, accused the Swiss of exploiting a quirk of California law to set the director free and the decision was a "rejection of the competency of the California courts.

"The Swiss could not have found a smaller hook on which to hang their hat," Cooley said in a statement.

In addition to setting Polanski free, the Swiss decision Monday added to the chorus of courts that have expressed doubts about the director's case and his treatment.

Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said extradition had to be rejected "considering the persisting doubts concerning the presentation of the facts of the case."

It now appears unlikely that the misconduct allegations raised by Polanski's legal team will ever be addressed.

The attorneys have said the original judge handling Polanski's case acted improperly by consulting with a prosecutor who was not assigned to the matter on sentencing issues. The judge also reneged on a sentencing deal, the attorneys have repeatedly contended.

Los Angeles prosecutors have consistently argued that the director must return to Los Angeles to argue that his case was mishandled by a now-deceased judge and a former prosecutor. Polanski has been equally unwilling to return and press his case in person.

Other courts have cited the strong likelihood that Polanski's case, filed in 1977, was mishandled.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza, who has recently presided over the case, said during a hearing last year that he believed there was evidence of "substantial misconduct."

Months later, a three justice panel of a California appeals court also cited the likelihood that there had been misconduct by the judge who originally handled Polanski's case and a prosecutor assigned to his courtroom.

In their written ruling, the justices made their case that Polanski's treatment by the Los Angeles judicial system had to be taken into serious consideration.

"Fundamental fairness and justice in our criminal justice system are far more important than the conviction and sentence of any one individual," the court wrote last year.

Despite misgivings about Polanski's treatment, none of the courts have ordered a hearing to determine whether the director's case was mishandled. Such a ruling could lead to an outright dismissal of the charges against the director.

"Polanski got away with a lot, but it's not all black and white," said Loyola Law School professor Stan Goldman. "I don't see the D.A. rushing to investigate the very palpable evidence of misconduct in the original case. And the victim said they were hurting her every time they brought this up. So there are many shades of gray."

Jean Rosenbluth, a former federal prosecutor who has handled extradition cases, said Cooley's attorneys risked harming themselves in future extradition cases if they agreed to a hearing on the misconduct issues without Polanski's presence. "The D.A. was in a tough spot," said Rosenbluth, now a professor at the University of Southern California's Gould School of Law. "They don't want to set a precedent.

"The allegations are very serious," she said. "On the other hand, they were 30 years ago. It's a really, really difficult case &#8212; just a jumble of competing principles and different circumstances."


----------



## daveman (Jul 13, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Mr. Dumb Ass Sir:
> 
> The Plea agreement stated that the would plea guilty in exchange for a probated sentence. The Plea agreement stated that if the same was not accepted by the court that the matter would go to trial.
> 
> ...



Are you still stealing my oxygen?  Please stop.  Immediately.


----------



## froggy (Jul 13, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Where was the rape the girl testified the during sex the woman came to the door an ask are you in there roman and said he got up and opened the door a little and told her he was dressing then closed the door and came back and they continued with sex. why didn't she scream while the woman was at the door. she also said that after he finished she went to the bathroom and got dressed then went out to get her stuff and go to the car at that time she was in the room with the woman talking with her and then went out and got into the car and waited for Polanski.


----------



## editec (Jul 13, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> I wish I could say I'm shocked or outraged here. But strangely, I'm not either. I just feel really sorry for his victims who have had to suffer because of him.
> 
> God grants justice where the laws of man cannot. If he thinks he has escaped it, he's wrong.


 
Yet the victim herself just wants the whole issue to go away.

I think this issue is basically now a non-issue.


----------



## Moon (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



Regardless, she was 13 years old.  Please try to keep that in mind in your attempts to excuse what he did.


----------



## Article 15 (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



She was a scared, drugged 13 year old girl.

Jeez there are some sick ppl here.


----------



## Liability (Jul 13, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Mr. Dumb Ass Sir:
> 
> The Plea agreement stated that the would plea guilty in exchange for a probated sentence. The Plea agreement stated that if the same was not accepted by the court that the matter would go to trial.
> 
> ...



That is an outright and deliberate lie.  The plea agreement did not say what you dishonestly claim it said.  You have had your dishonest claim refuted in the past.  But, being the filthy liar you always are, you refuse to admit that you are wrong and blithely just go on repeating your lie.  You are a diseased maggot-fucking lowlife scumbag.

Switzerland should get a full court press of overt diplomatic sanctions for it's bogus decision.  Of course, President Obama and our State department will do nothing of any consequence.

And the filthy pedophile will get away with his crime.  A complete travesty and a miscarriage of justice.  This explains why a lowlife like you, confusedatious, endorses the Swiss action.  You truly are a vile, disgusting, depraved piece of filth.


----------



## froggy (Jul 13, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I don't think you find anyone who says they're drunk or drugged say they were scared, Quayled are not that strong especially a third hit


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> The Swiss government said its decision to reject extradition for Polanski was based in part on U.S. authorities failing to turn over transcripts of secret testimony given by the attorney who originally handled the director's case. The testimony remains sealed, and can only be used if the former prosecutor was unavailable for an evidentiary hearing, a Los Angeles court spokesman said.
> 
> *The testimony "should prove" that Polanski actually served his sentence while undergoing a court-ordered diagnostic study after charges were filed, the Swiss Justice Ministry said*.
> 
> ...



Luckily the  Swiss were not influenced by the American Taliban's decision to continue to persecute Mr. Polanski in the name of god.

.


----------



## Liability (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



Your babbling incoherence is difficult to translate.  It looks like you are somehow trying to suggest that a small dose of a quaalude wouldn't have much of an effect on a 13 year  old girl.  Given that you are functionally illiterate, it seems apparent that you are not a pharmocologist, so there's no reason to credit your amateur opinion on the subject.

Meanwhile, back here in the real world, it is immoral and criminal to force sex on any person of any age; it is even worse to do so to a child; and it is worse yet to do so to a drugged child.

WTF is wrong with you?  The hideous scumbag, Roman Pedophile Polanski admitted doing all those things to the victim in this case.  So you are offering support to a degenerate confessed pedophile.  There is no excuse for what Polanski did and there is no justification for ANYBODY offering any "support" for what that diseased bastard did.   Froggy, you sick shit, you are completely wrong here.  You ought to feel deep shame.


----------



## froggy (Jul 13, 2010)

Liability said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Did you do drugs in your teens, In her teenage years(the 70s) drugs and sex were everywhere.


----------



## Liability (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



It was a crime in the 70's and it remains one to this day.  So the fact that drugs were supposedly "everywhere" is totally irrelevant.  Giving drugs to a child was criminal.  Having sexual intercourse or oral sex with a child was criminal.  Forcing sex upon anybody regardless of age was criminal.  

In short, you do a lot of babbling but you have managed to say nothing intelligent or intelligible on this topic.

Let's simplify this for you.  

WHEN (in the 1970's up to the present moment) may a fully grown man have sexual intercourse or receive oral sex from a 13 year old child?  Don't strain yourself.  This is not a trick question.  It is elementally simple.  The sole valid answer is "never."  To do so is criminal today and was criminal then.  Roman Polanski did it.  Therefore his action was criminal.

WHEN (in the 1970's up to the present moment) may a fully grown man (not a physician) provide controlled substances to a 13 year old child?  Don't strain yourself.  This, too, is not a trick question.  It is elementally simple.  The sole valid answer is "never."  To do so in the 1970's was criminal and it is still criminal.  Roman Polanski did it.  Therefore his action was criminal.

So what are you attempting to justify, frog?

Support of a pedophile, child abusing, criminal scumbag like Roman Polanski (even if you are consistently incoherent in your attempt to be supportive of him) is sick.  You attempt to provide support for Polanski.  Therefore, you are sick.  Seriously.  You are morally degenerate.


----------



## froggy (Jul 13, 2010)

Liability said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



As I've said all through this post i am not condoning Polanski I'm just looking at the facts as told by the victim, and it was not rape.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 13, 2010)

It is amazing and disgusting, the amount of pedo defenders in this place


----------



## Kat (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



You are? Then if you read her testimony you know she was raped. By her own testimony she said NO.
Then you have a *44* year old man, and a *13* year old girl that he gave drugs and alcohol to. Gee, wonder why he did that? Surely it wouldn't be because he knew if she was drunk and stoned it would be easier for him.

It is rape either way. Even if she said yes..she was 13..he was 44.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 13, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> She was a scared, drugged 13 year old girl.



Bullshit. By her own admission she was a Lolita.

Secondly , during a Grand Jury presentation accusers are not subjected to cross examination. Thirdly, DA's add bullshit accusations in order to enhance the indictment and force defendants to enter a plea.



> Jeez there are some sick ppl here.



Yes, indeed there are. Stupid fucks who want to set aside Constitutional constraints in order to legally lynch Mr. Polanski.

.


----------



## Kat (Jul 13, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > She was a scared, drugged 13 year old girl.
> ...



Such a lie. Such a lie. Have you no shame?

If you read her testimony you know she was raped. By her own testimony she said NO.
Then you have a *44* year old man, and a *13* year old girl that he gave drugs and alcohol to. Gee, wonder why he did that? Surely it wouldn't be because he knew if she was drunk and stoned it would be easier for him.

It is rape either way. Even if she said yes..she was 13..he was 44.


----------



## Moon (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



Actually, you're finding every way possible to rationalize what Polanski did, so you are indeed condoning what he did.


----------



## Article 15 (Jul 13, 2010)

Here's the transcript of her testimony part one.

And part two.

These fucks who are trying to justify Polanski's actions are despicable human beings.


----------



## Kat (Jul 13, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Here's the transcript of her testimony part one.
> 
> And part two.
> 
> These fucks who are trying to justify Polanski's actions are despicable human beings.



So right. And I have posted her testimony..in this thread. I wonder if it was even looked at. Have my doubts.


----------



## Moon (Jul 13, 2010)

Kat said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the transcript of her testimony part one.
> ...



I seriously doubt that it was looked at by those that condone raping 13 year old girls.  Disgusting animals like that don't want the harsh light of reality to expose their sick desires.


----------



## froggy (Jul 13, 2010)

Moon said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




No, I've said his having sex with her was wrong all along.


----------



## froggy (Jul 13, 2010)

Moon said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Apparently you didn't read it.


----------



## editec (Jul 13, 2010)

Was what he did immoral?

Seems fairly obvious that it was.

Money talks and criminals walk.

I find it odd that generally people applaude the fact that money speaks with such a powerful voice, but in this case they're so disgusted by that fact.

If, as so many of you apparently want, we neuter government, money will be the only voice any of us ever hear.

Am I going to fast for you?

Remember, apologists for corporate AmeriKKKa, greed is good, right?

Polanski has money, ergo he must be good, too.

Get used to it, folks.

You're getting exactly what you want...money TRUMPED government.


----------



## Moon (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> Moon said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



You're working overtime to rationalize what he did.  The only logical conclusion is that you condone the rape of a 13 year old girl by an adult male.  There is no way on this earth that anything she did could justify being drugged and raped.


----------



## Moon (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> Moon said:
> 
> 
> > Kat said:
> ...



I've read it before.  She was raped.


----------



## Middleman (Jul 13, 2010)

Kat said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Kat said:
> ...



Hopefully, there is a law requiring sites such as this to report these types of posters, along with IP numbers, to the FBI. The guy no doubt a pedophile and has illegal child porn on his computer. I hope his name goes into a database and his ass lands in a prison cell with Big Bubba.


----------



## editec (Jul 13, 2010)

Middleman said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...


 

Let me guess...normally you hate BIG GOVERNMENT, right?

Except when you don't, of course.

Hey, you're not alone in that respect.

I ALSO hate big government, until, of course, I approve of it.

Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.


----------



## Kat (Jul 13, 2010)

editec said:


> Middleman said:
> 
> 
> > Kat said:
> ...



umm why are you trolling this thread?

Big or small government has nothing to do with this topic. It has to do with a rape that took place over 30 years ago.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 13, 2010)

Kat said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...




He picked me up again on March 10 at around 4 p.m. In the car he asked me if I'd ever had sex. I had,

That's when he takes out the Quaaludes and asks me if I've ever had one. ....and say yes.


Then Anjelica Huston [who was Jack Nicholson's girlfriend at the time] knocked on the door. I assume she asked him, "What are you doing in my room?" I started to get dressed, but Polanski came back and said, "Lay back down," and he took off my underwear. He had been interrupted, so he finishedbrieflythen went back to talk to her




> If you read her testimony you know she was raped. By her own testimony she said NO..




That was grand jury testimony which was not subjected to cross examination and where she was coached by the prosecutor.




> It is rape either way. Even if she said yes..she was 13..he was 44.



He was never charged with rape.


----------



## Kat (Jul 13, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...





Her saying she had had sex meant it was okay to rape her? LOL!!! WOW
I don't care if she had sex a million times...if she said no..it was rape...and her being 13 and him 44, it was rape. Double rape.

What's your point about cross examination? She gave her testimony.


No..he was not charged with rape. Being the worm he is..he KNEW what he did..so he did a plea for a lesser charge. But. He DID rape her.


----------



## daveman (Jul 13, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> He was never charged with rape.


Then you wouldn't object to the same treatment she received, would you?


----------



## froggy (Jul 13, 2010)

Why aren't they charging the mother with child neglect, how much money did she received in the plea bargain.  At the time of Polanski's plea, a lawyer for the family of the victim wrote Rittenband and urged him to accept the deal, thereby sparing the child from testifying before a media horde and having her identity publicly disclosed. "Whatever harm has come to her as a victim would be exacerbated in the extreme if this case went to trial," wrote attorney Lawrence Silver. "This is not the place for a recovering young girl. Was it because they new she'd break under cross examination.

What a railroad job getting him to give up his rights knowing good and well (that is the DA and judge) they had no intention of keeping their word. By this he gave up the right to face his accuser, have her cross examined.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 13, 2010)

Kat said:


> What's your point about cross examination? She gave her testimony.



The Sixth Amendment - confrontation clause - does not permit the prosecution to prove its case via ex parte out-of-court affidavits, and the admission of such evidence against a defendant.

The main purposes of cross-examination are to elicit favorable facts from the witness, or to impeach the credibility of the testifying witness to lessen the weight of unfavorable testimony. Cross-examination frequently produces critical evidence in trials, especially if a witness contradicts previous testimony. 

.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> *What a railroad job getting him to give up his rights knowing good and well (that is the DA and judge) they had no intention of keeping their word. By this he gave up the right to face his accuser, have her cross examined.*




Exactly.

Our judicial system is corrupt to its core.

.


----------



## Liability (Jul 13, 2010)

editec said:


> Was what he did immoral?
> 
> Seems fairly obvious that it was.
> 
> ...



Wrong, stupid.

I'd suggest that you should stop being such a fucking retard, but that would be like telling you not to breathe.

Polanski had money and a good lawyer.  He took his plea and faced the consequences until he turned into the sniveling pussy and acted every bit as cowardly as you'd expect a pedophile to be.  He ran away.

It is the so-called liberal intelligentsia who advocate to 'just let it go."  You know the drill.  Assholes like Whoopi Goldberg arguing that it was rape but it wasn't "rape rape." Fucking morons.  Fuck you scumbags.

Switzerland may be acting on the impetus of money, but their insidious official action is completely unrelated to justice.

And just because you are an asshole doesn't mean that anybody else buys the shit you peddle, douche-y.  You are a lost little retard in a world far beyond your ability to comprehend.  So keep your dim-wit philosophy to yourself.  

What's needed at this point is a little self-help.  

Have some of our best agents go ad kidnap that dick-less little pedophile and spirit him out of Switzerland and into American custody.  It won't happen, sadly.  But that would at least qualify as justice.  Fuck Switzerland.  Those fuckers need to get sanctioned.


----------



## Liability (Jul 13, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Yes he most certainly WAS charged with rape you scumbag  lying sack of shit.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/arts/polanski/1977polanski_findlaw.pdf

Try looking at Count IV, you dishonest pin dick.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 13, 2010)

Liability said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Kat said:
> ...


*
RAPE BY USE OF DRUGS*

Gee, that is an impressive indictment. Why didn't the prosecutor demand hard time? Why did he settle for probation?

Was it because he knew that Samantha Gailey was a Lolita, a little slut who was going to be destroyed during cross examination?

She admitted to willingly drinking the champagne and the Methaqualones.

.


----------



## Moon (Jul 13, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Oh, so she was asking for it, is that your rationalization now?


----------



## froggy (Jul 13, 2010)

Moon said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Why didn't she just leave, she got up and left on her on account after she finished.


----------



## Kat (Jul 13, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



You have gotten your attention you seek. Maybe it is time to walk? A bit of advice though...SEEK HELP. You are doing great harm to the children you molest. I know you don't care, but decent human beings do care.


----------



## Kat (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> Moon said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



She also said she was scared...afraid of Polanski. As I would be if I were ANY age, much less 13. He was 44.


----------



## Moon (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> Moon said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



I dunno, maybe because he'd given her alcohol and drugged her?

Tell me again how you don't condone what Polanski did.


----------



## Liability (Jul 13, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



You degenerate dead maggot fucker, the indictment charged the appropriate crimes and like many cases, shithead, it proceeded by way of plea negotiations.  Your desperately stupid attempt to deflect is consigned to the burning pits of hell as just another in your endless list of failures.

Let's recap:  you falsely claimed that the indictment did not charge rape.  You stupid twat.  It did charge rape so your dishonest claim has been crammed  down your dishonest throat.

And your stupid ass question of "why" it got plea bargained is a failure since most cases go by way of plea, you imbecile.

The girl was a child.  By simple and morally correct legal definition, assbreath, she was incapable of consenting and that remains true regardless of how often she had engaged in sex or sodomy in the past.  Plus, the scumbag pedophile drugged her, too, which is criminal in its own right and another crime as regards lack of consent for his rape and sodomy.

As is ALWAYS the case with a diseased anus like you, your "defense" of the pedophile is totally lacking in merit.  The law REQUIRES that adults not perform sexual intercourse or engage in oral sex with minors.  Period.  It *doesn't* say, "but look, if the little girl is experienced or a whore, go right ahead and have your way with her."   That's just a filthy bastard like you expressing wishful thinking.  Well that's just your perversion, ass-muncher.  It's not a legally recognized defense.  

Are you this defensive over Polanski's behavior because you've violated such laws yourself, sicko?

,


----------



## daveman (Jul 13, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > *What a railroad job getting him to give up his rights knowing good and well (that is the DA and judge) they had no intention of keeping their word. By this he gave up the right to face his accuser, have her cross examined.*
> ...


In case you pedos didn't get the word, having sex with children is both illegal and immoral.  I'm curious what exactly is so fucked up in your heads that you can condone it.


----------



## froggy (Jul 13, 2010)

Kat said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Moon said:
> ...



I don't believe that, teens in the seventies weren't a product being sheltered as they are now.


----------



## froggy (Jul 13, 2010)

Moon said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Moon said:
> ...



So the drugs lasted just a few minutes.


----------



## Kat (Jul 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...




Well, for sure the first thing would be that Cont hates women. That is way obvious.


----------



## Kat (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...





That doesn't even make sense.


----------



## Liability (Jul 13, 2010)

editec said:


> Middleman said:
> 
> 
> > Kat said:
> ...



Your typical lack of comprehension is on display.  You tools tend to rely far too much on headnotes.

Conservatives are largely opposed to "big"  government in most regards preferring that government be constrained and chained and limited.  But there is no reason to over-generalize.  That kind of slovenly "thinking" is the hallmark of liberoidals.

There are, you see, SOME things we NEED governments for.  As to those things, it would be pretty foolish to "limit" government so drastically that it became unable to do the very things we ask for it to do.

I want police forces to be well manned and well armed and well trained enough to effectively deal with criminals.  I want the legislature to pass laws protecting our children from pedophile fucks like Polanski.  I want our armed forces  to be be big and powerful enough to protect us and our vital interests.

I also want our elected officials and appointed bureaucrats to feel fully obliged to do their jobs within whatever constraints we have imposed on them via the Constitution.  I see no rational argument AGAINST a limited government, but that doesn't mean I want them so constrained tht they are disabled from doing the very things we ask of them.

Your world of false dichotomies is tiresome.  Grow up.


----------



## Kat (Jul 13, 2010)

Liability said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...





I am starting to believe Cont gets off on your replies to him.  That is why he pushes it with his stupidity..


----------



## froggy (Jul 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



We agree with you on that having sex with a minon is wrong,(is there someone in the room with you who can make you understand that), we're saying she wasn't raped.


----------



## Moon (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> Moon said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



What does that have to do with anything?  

I'm glad we're past the fantasy that you don't condone what Polanski did, when it's obvious that you not only condone it, but are actively supporting it in this thread.  Maybe this is a reflection of your own activities?


----------



## froggy (Jul 13, 2010)

Kat said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Kat said:
> ...



I meant "weren't"


----------



## Kat (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...





froggy, do you really believe the things you are saying? Do you really believe that giving drugs and alcohol to a 13 year old..and then doing all the sexual things to her that he did...WITH HER SAYING NO..was not rape?
I want to think you are pulling our chain. I saw in another thread where you said you will celebrate 33 years of marriage this year, so I know you are not a kid. I am truly stunned at what you are spewing here.


----------



## froggy (Jul 13, 2010)

Moon said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Moon said:
> ...



You said she couldn't leave because she was drugged, be she said right after they finished she put her clothes on went out to the other room and gathered up her stuff and talked briefly with the woman sitting there and then went out and got in the car and waited on Polanski, does that sound like she was unable to leave.


----------



## froggy (Jul 13, 2010)

Kat said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Kat said:
> ...



Why do you believe she said "no"


----------



## daveman (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> We agree with you on that having sex with a minon is wrong,(is there someone in the room with you who can make you understand that), we're saying she wasn't raped.


Sex with a minor IS rape, you pedo.


----------



## daveman (Jul 13, 2010)

There are two people in this thread who need to be raped with hedge trimmers.


----------



## Moon (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> Moon said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



It sounds like she wasn't in complete control of her faculties because an adult gave her alcohol and drugs, and then raped her.  Why are you working so hard to justify raping a child?


----------



## Moon (Jul 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> There are two people in this thread who need to be raped with hedge trimmers.



I just really hope that neither one of them has children, or is around children.


----------



## Kat (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



Because she gave in depth testimony...step by step, and she said she said no many times.
Why would you choose to believe that not to be true?


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 13, 2010)

Liability said:


> And your stupid ass question of "why" it got plea bargained is a failure since most cases go by way of plea, you imbecile.



Mr. Fucktard, sir:

If the crime was , as you claim, such a heinous offense ***WHY*** did the prosecutor accept a 90 days probation deal.

Actually the scumbag Judge - who no doubt is related to you - left it  up to the Department of Prisons to adjust the sentence - The Department LOWERED the sentence to 42 days --- bwahahahahahahahah - 

You ignorant , miserable pieces of shit.....................

.


----------



## froggy (Jul 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > We agree with you on that having sex with a minon is wrong,(is there someone in the room with you who can make you understand that), we're saying she wasn't raped.
> ...



So why don't you join me in supporting groups in getting these teens out of prostitution rings.


----------



## froggy (Jul 13, 2010)

Kat said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Kat said:
> ...



How does someone who being drugged as bad as y'all are saying, remember step by step detail, unless she was rehearsed i don't buy it.


----------



## Kat (Jul 13, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > And your stupid ass question of "why" it got plea bargained is a failure since most cases go by way of plea, you imbecile.
> ...





Go away you dishonest pin dick.


----------



## Kat (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



She said a lot was fuzzy to her. And that she was kind of dizzy. She gave step x step as best as she remembered.


----------



## daveman (Jul 13, 2010)

Moon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > There are two people in this thread who need to be raped with hedge trimmers.
> ...


I know.


----------



## Moon (Jul 13, 2010)

Kat said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


----------



## daveman (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...


Yeah, about that...given your passionate defense of Roman Pedolanski, I don't really believe your commitment to anything except getting teens into your house.


----------



## froggy (Jul 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



So lying is not beneath you.


----------



## Kat (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...




At least children aren't beneath him...unlike others..


----------



## froggy (Jul 13, 2010)

Kat said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



How do you know that?


----------



## daveman (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...


I'm not lying.  And you're a pedo.  Please stop stealing my oxygen.


----------



## Kat (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



Because I KNOW him.


----------



## Liability (Jul 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> There are two people in this thread who need to be raped with hedge trimmers.



It would satisfy my desire for justice if there were some police officers or F.B.I. agents looking at this thread who got motivated to find out if either of those two (and maybe a third) had ever done anything along the lines of the diseased shit they seem to support.

Sadly,  if that evolved into an arrest, the rest of us would be unlikely to ever find out.

Still, it's pretty cool as wishful thinking goes.


----------



## froggy (Jul 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You been caught lying, you words are useless now.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Yep, I get your drift.....blacks, Hispanics, "weirdos" and political minorities do not deserve a defense.

.


----------



## Kat (Jul 13, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...









 that has to be the stupidest thing you have said so far...


----------



## Moon (Jul 13, 2010)

Kat said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



One wouldn't have thought it possible...


----------



## Liability (Jul 13, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > And your stupid ass question of "why" it got plea bargained is a failure since most cases go by way of plea, you imbecile.
> ...



Good God; are you always this retarded or are you just trying to set up your defense of diminished mental capacity?

Your recall of the terms of the plea agreement is exactly as reliable as your previously refuted lie that the indictment had not charged the pedophile fuck with rape.  

Let's review that one:

You just lied again you diseased rat twat.


----------



## daveman (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...


Very few people share your perversion, pedo.  

What are you still wasting my oxygen?  Stop it.


----------



## daveman (Jul 13, 2010)

Liability said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > There are two people in this thread who need to be raped with hedge trimmers.
> ...


Indeed.


----------



## daveman (Jul 13, 2010)

froggy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...


  About what did I lie, pedo?


----------



## daveman (Jul 13, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...


Wrong.  But given how insanely fucked up your perception is, pedo, it's not surprising.  

Stop breathing.  Now, please.


----------



## daveman (Jul 13, 2010)

Kat said:


> that has to be the stupidest thing you have said so far...





Moon said:


> One wouldn't have thought it possible...


Interesting strategy he has:  Hit bottom, dig.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 13, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> I am glad that the Swiss recognized that no crime had occurred.
> 
> .



So drugging an under age girl and fucking her in the ass is not a crime in your book?

Say do you have a daughter and if you do how old is she?


----------



## daveman (Jul 13, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad that the Swiss recognized that no crime had occurred.
> ...


Dear God, I hope he doesn't.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Well retardo, when you get off from your soap box you will realize that there are constitutional issues involved which you can not merely dismiss simply because you do not like the defendant.

.

.


----------



## daveman (Jul 14, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...


It's not that I don't like the defendant in specific; I don't like pedos.  

That includes you, scum.  

He broke the law.  That's undeniable.  You support him, you support what he did.  That, too, is undeniable.  

Stop breathing.  Now.  Before you hurt any more children.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 14, 2010)

daveman said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Bullshit.

"pedophilia" is not what is bothering you. The fact that he has done something that you wish you could do is the crux.

*Samantha Geimer, was 13 y/o hence with she was at the time a young woman , an adolescent.*


*Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children.[*

So at 13 she was not prepubescent.


So stop being an ignorant fuck.

Please stop breeding now.
.


----------



## Kat (Jul 14, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Shaddup jealous pin dick.


----------



## Jos (Jul 14, 2010)

No Jewish Judge could ever find a fellow Jew (Roman Polanski) Guilty under commen law when jews are held to another, higher law that of the Talmud


> To a person unaccustomed with the Talmud culture, it may seem that discussion of sexual intercourse between grown men and very young girls is merely theoretical. But as we shall see, cases are cited, judgments are weighed and debated, and the Sages discuss the wounds suffered by the young girls as a result of the intercourse.


Sex with Children by Talmud Rules


----------



## Kat (Jul 14, 2010)

Jos said:


> No Jewish Judge could ever find a fellow Jew (Roman Polanski) Guilty under commen law when jews are held to another, higher law that of the Talmud
> 
> 
> > To a person unaccustomed with the Talmud culture, it may seem that discussion of sexual intercourse between grown men and very young girls is merely theoretical. But as we shall see, cases are cited, judgments are weighed and debated, and the Sages discuss the wounds suffered by the young girls as a result of the intercourse.
> ...



Before I jump to any conclusions, please tell me exactly what it is you are trying to say.


----------



## Liability (Jul 14, 2010)

Jos said:


> No Jewish Judge could ever find a fellow Jew (Roman Polanski) Guilty under commen law when jews are held to another, higher law that of the Talmud
> 
> 
> > To a person unaccustomed with the Talmud culture, it may seem that discussion of sexual intercourse between grown men and very young girls is merely theoretical. But as we shall see, cases are cited, judgments are weighed and debated, and the Sages discuss the wounds suffered by the young girls as a result of the intercourse.
> ...



What a ridiculous thing to say.  Simply foolish.  If your mission here is to come across as moronic as your avatar suggests, then give yourself an "A."

But just to burst your bubble, there would be no reason for a Jewish judge not to find a Jew or anybody  else guilty if the criminal law (NOT common law) properly defined the conduct as criminal.  You have no possibility of backing up that mindless claim you just made, so you would be better served (for future reference) in refraining from saying such idiotic  things.


----------



## daveman (Jul 14, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> "pedophilia" is not what is bothering you. The fact that he has done something that you wish you could do is the crux.


No, shit licker.  I'm the one saying pedos should stop wasting my oxygen.  YOU'RE the one defending a pedo.  

You should be castrated.  Chemically or mechanically.  I don't much care.  You can't be trusted with genitals, because you're going to hurt children, if you haven't already.  The fact that you call a 13-year-old a "young woman" is proof.

Lose the balls, then stop breathing.  Now.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 14, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



You have some type of evidence that she was pubescent already, or are you simply assuming that all females have their period by 12?


----------

