text:
AFP is reporting that a grand assembly of filmmakers, actors and producers from around the world have signed a petition urging the release of director Roman Polanski, who was arrested Sunday in Switzerland on a warrant for a 1977 underage sex case in the United States. Woody Allen, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Martin Scorcese, David Lynch, Wong Kar Wai, Harmony Korine, Stephen Frears, Alexander Payne, Michael Mann, Wim Wenders, Tilda Swinton, Julian Schnabel, and Pedro Almodovar are among the 100 and counting film industry figures who have signed the petition, coordinated from France by the SACD, an organization which represents performance and visual artists.
"We demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski," urges the petition. "Film-makers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision... It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary film-makers, is used by police to apprehend him."
The following is the SACD petition, followed by a list of names of people who had signed it as of tonight. For a more extensive detailing of Polanski's arrest and potential extradition to the United States, check out indieWIRE's coverage from earlier today.
Petition for Roman Polanski
We have learned the astonishing news of Roman Polanski's arrest by the Swiss police on September 26th, upon arrival in Zurich (Switzerland) while on his way to a film festival where he was due to receive an award for his career in filmmaking.
His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals.
Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision. It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him.
By their extraterritorial nature, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this.
The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects.
Roman Polanski is a French citizen, a renown and international artist now facing extradition. This extradition, if it takes place, will be heavy in consequences and will take away his freedom.
Filmmakers, actors, producers and technicians -- everyone involved in international filmmaking -- want him to know that he has their support and friendship.
On September 16th, 2009, Mr. Charles Rivkin, the US Ambassador to France, received French artists and intellectuals at the embassy. He presented to them the new Minister Counselor for Public Affairs at the embassy, Ms Judith Baroody. In perfect French she lauded the Franco-American friendship and recommended the development of cultural relations between our two countries.
If only in the name of this friendship between our two countries, we demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski.
-For a list of signatories, continue to the next page.-
Polanski petition signatories, as of September 29th:
Fatih Akin
Stephane Allagnon
Woody Allen
Pedro Almodovar
Wes Anderson
Jean-Jacques Annaud
Alexandre Arcady
Fanny Ardant
Asia Argento
Darren Aronofsky
Olivier Assayas
Alexander Astruc
Gabriel Auer
Luc Barnier
Christophe Barratier
Xavier Beauvois
Liria Begeja
Gilles Behat
Jean-Jacques Beineix
Marco Bellochio
Monica Bellucci
Djamel Bennecib
Giuseppe Bertolucci
Patrick Bouchitey
Paul Boujenah
Jacques Bral
Patrick Braoudé
Andre Buytaers
Christian Carion
Henning Carlsen
Jean-Michel Carre
Patrice Chereau
Elie Chouraqui
Souleymane Cisse
Alain Corneau
Jerome Cornuau
Miguel Courtois
Dominique Crevecoeur
Alfonso Cuaron
Luc et Jean-Pierre Dardenne
Jonathan Demme
Alexandre Desplat
Rosalinde et Michel Deville
Georges Dybman
Jacques Fansten
Joël Farges
Gianluca Farinelli
Jacques Fansten
Etienne Faure
Michel Ferry
Scott Foundas
Stephen Frears
Thierry Fremaux
Sam Gabarski
René Gainville
Tony Gatlif
Costa Gavras
Jean-Marc Ghanassia
Terry Gilliam
Christian Gion
Marc Guidoni
Buck Henry
David Heyman
Laurent Heynemann
Robert Hossein
Jean-Loup Hubert
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
Gilles Jacob
Just Jaeckin
Alain Jessua
Pierre Jolivet
Kent Jones
Roger Kahane,
Nelly Kaplan
Wong Kar Waï
Ladislas Kijno
Harmony Korine
Jan Kounen
Diane Kurys
Emir Kusturica
John Landis
Claude Lanzmann
André Larquié
Vinciane Lecocq
Patrice Leconte
Claude Lelouch
Gérard Lenne
David Lynch
Michael Mann
François Margolin
Jean-Pierre Marois
Tonie Marshall
Mario Martone
Nicolas Mauvernay
Radu Mihaileanu
Claude Miller
Mario Monicelli
Jeanne Moreau
Sandra Nicolier
Michel Ocelot
Alexander Payne
Richard Pena
Michele Placido
Philippe Radault
Jean-Paul Rappeneau
Raphael Rebibo
Yasmina Reza
Jacques Richard
Laurence Roulet
Walter Salles
Jean-Paul Salomé
Marc Sandberg
Jerry Schatzberg
Julian Schnabel
Barbet Schroeder
Ettore Scola
Martin Scorcese
Charlotte Silvera
Abderrahmane Sissako
Paolo Sorrentino
Guillaume Stirn
Tilda Swinton
Jean-Charles Tacchella
Radovan Tadic
Danis Tanovic
Bertrand Tavernier
Cécile Telerman
Alain Terzian
Pascal Thomas
Giuseppe Tornatore
Serge Toubiana
Nadine Trintignant
Tom Tykwer
Alexandre Tylski
Betrand Van Effenterre
Wim Wenders
Tammy | February 2, 2014 3:05 PM
How could they defend that creepy monster after what he did to that innocent girl? He and Woody Allen should rot in jail.
Lee | August 23, 2013 4:23 AM
How many on this list are Jewish?
A. | January 1, 2013 5:40 AM
Kristin | May 25, 2012 1:36 AM
This is all very interesting. How is Polanski still celebrated? How did he get away with all of this? I guess the answer is similar to what others have posted here. Polanski is part of the upper class, the wealthy, the corrupt. It doesn't matter what members of this society do, they get away with anything...as exemplified here. You let this be a member of the middle class or the lower middle class, or the lower class and they will arrest them (as they should).. but the point is, society is kinder to the wealthy.
... | March 19, 2011 9:44 AM
So, simply because of his work he shouldn't be punished for committing horrendous crimes?
Zaluski | February 27, 2011 3:18 AM
how can I sign the Polanski Petition?
Chew | May 8, 2010 8:53 AM
Here's my counter-petition: I will never watch any film these jerks have made or will make until they withdraw their name from this petition and apologize in public for their lack of moral judgment.
decora | November 2, 2009 9:05 AM
Some want to ask 'what if it was your kid'...given drugs, forced by some old guy to have sex... most people understand the crime here, but look at some of the Polanski supporters to understand the problem....
John Landis: illegally had children working after dark, lax safety precautions, resulted in the death of two child extras and Vic Morrow. Denied responsibility.
Terry Gilliam: Wrote an incomprehending rebuttal to Sarah Polleys' heart pouring description of the poor treatment of children on action movie sets (IE, Baron Munchausen). Gilliam didn't understand.
Woody Allen: Decided to marry his 19 year old -step daughter- and dump his wife. If he wasn't rich, he'd be on Jerry Springer.
Steven Spielberg : On the set of one of his horror movies there is a rotating inside-a-house set, the young actress comes to him after a take with bloody knees cut on the 'popcorn' ceiling.. instead of sending her to get help he reassures her that it didn't hurt the shot or interrupt filming.
Some movie people seem to care about their 'passion' and their 'vision' and 'art' more than about other people. They also seem to think that if you 'contribute a lot to art' somehow it justifies hurting people.
Please explain it to me, why Polanski can get away with it, while the guy down the street would be in jail for years on end, and be on the sex offender registry? Please explain to your own kids why you think it's OK for this guy to get away with what he did, and if the same thing happened to your kids, why it would be OK not to put the perp in jail?
Maybe someone should make a movie about all this.
kwarive | October 28, 2009 1:12 AM
Comparing 'statutory rape' - ie unlawful sex with a minor, to actual rape - ie forced sexual acts committed with violence or the threat of violence demeans the crime of rape. I beleive this is the point Whoopi Goldberg was making when she said it was not 'rape rape.' So the 'rape' was not actually rape as most people understand it. And the drugging was not actually surreptitiously drugging someone unconcious as is suggested but the use of recreational drugs, including champagne. This is a frame up.
Furthermore, you talk about the correct path for young people? There is no 'correct path' in terms of sexuality except for 'mutual effective consent'. Beyond that anything goes. Multiple partners, same sex, S&M, inter-racial, inter-generational, foot-fetish, handicap-fetish, or even, dare I say it, heterosexual monogamy. Whatever rocks your boat is the correct path as far as I'm concerned, not the enforced channelling of young peoples attitudes into one 'acceptable' form of sexual identity.
gak11405 | October 26, 2009 6:22 AM
Poster #1 points out that it was not rape. In every state in the US for a long time, sex with an underaged kid is Statutory Rape. As for her being "grown up" or "mature" or whatever, it is our responsibility to show them the correct path, not follow them down the wrong one. Your argument holds no water.
What I also find curious is that I only recognize 2 names on the list. Woody Allen, and Martin Scorcese are the only 2 that ring any bells. Mr Allen ins't showing the best judgement in my opinion and i'm truly surprised to find Mr.Scorcese on the list. Why should time, fame, fortune, or art be a reason for letting him go free. He hasn't served any real time in jail and he ran because he didn't want to serve time. Meanwhile the young girl had to grow up recovering from this trash. I just sorry he will only get a max of 2 years at best according to what i've read
kwarive | October 20, 2009 9:43 AM
First off Mr. Polanski did not rape anyone. He admitted to unlawfully having sex as part of a plea bargain the judge tried to renege on. This girl was very sexually mature for her age, even the judge said "the prosecutrix was a well-developed young girl, who looked older than her years, and regrettably not unschooled in sexual matters." She had a 17 year old boyfriend whjo she had sex with previously. She had used both the sedative Quaalude and alchohol before. She knew what she was doing. This was clearly a case of consensual sexual relations.
Those of you who think this is the same as rape should watch Oleanna.
Can any of you remember what you were like at 13? I know I was thinking about sex pretty much 90% of the time. Many 13 year olds – boys and girls- have sex and very often with those older than them. Whether its 5 years or 20 years is irrelevant. The issue is 'effective consent' not whether you like or dislike someones sexual preference or activity.
Free Roman Polanski.
julie_m | October 19, 2009 2:23 AM
... cross-check this list for anything I think about watching in the future. We don't need these people.
julie_m | October 19, 2009 2:21 AM
Here's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned:
Renege of plea bargains= 100% legal.
Fleeing charges=100% illegal.
Besides this, Polanski has NEVER offered acknowledgment that what he did was wrong, has only bragged about it while he hid like a coward, and has whined about how this is all unfair to him, like a true sociopath. He is a weak man and I have very little respect for him.
And this farce of a petition takes the absolute bottom-of-the-barrel excuses for him, which tells me that this is only about saving their friend. It is one of the most desperate, unintelligent pieces of argument I have ever read. "Moral issue?" Right, morality is irrelevant to anything. These people have NOTHING to offer me in terms of enlightenment, culture, entertainment, or significant insight. I've combed them out of my Netflix queue and will
VladimirDulud | October 17, 2009 10:55 AM
We are seeing before our eyes, so to speak, the movement of an entire layer of the upper-middle class to the right. There are those in the circles in and around Salon, the Nation and the rest of the liberal media who are merely stupid, to be frank, and easily duped. Remarkably, the anti-Polanski campaign has become yet another opportunity for liberal and ex-left elements to accommodate themselves to the right and return to the respectable fold.No one should forget that the attack on the artistic community in the late 1940s and early 1950s in the name of the "American way of life" and the struggle against "godless communism" had incalculable consequences for intellectual and artistic life in America that have still not been overcome.
When the vast majority is outraged by the bank bailout and the deepening suffering, the Polanski case conveniently diverts energy and attention away from the fundamental economic and political issues. The media coverage has an unstated subtext designed for the politically confused and uneducated: "We know you are angry about the bankers, about the politicians, about jobs, health care, education, the war in Afghanistan, etc. But you can't do anything about those things. Here is something where you can add your voice of outrage, where you can be on the winning side and the side of the majority, and do something positive for the sake of your family, your children."
Again, we will point out, the outraged middle class feminists and liberals demand their pound of flesh from Polanski while the real criminals in America—CIA and military torturers and killers—go free.
PChop | October 13, 2009 12:57 PM
Drugs a 13 year old, has his way, flees justice. A true scumbag.
AB2 | October 6, 2009 10:28 AM
I'm done. I'm signing off TV and movies for a year in protest of Hollywood's support of a child rapist. Woody Allen's support is understandable. If MJ were alive, I'm guess he'd sign the list as well. I'm disgusted. I'm shocked people support Polanski. I don't care how great his films are. I don't care how much money he has. Neither give him, or anyone else, the ok to rape or molest children. He should have been thrown in prision a long time ago for life.
FrankWatson | October 6, 2009 7:59 AM
If Woody Allen, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Martin Scorcese, David Lynch, Wong Kar Wai, Harmony Korine, Stephen Frears, Alexander Payne, Michael Mann, Wim Wenders, Tilda Swinton, Julian Schnabel, and Pedro Almodovar, among others, wish to offer support to a great artist by excusing that artist's rape of a young girl, then they should be asked if they would willingly offer up their *own* daughters to be raped by this artist if that would support this artist's work.
If so, fine -- then they, and their daughters, will know where they stand.
If not, then they should do the right thing -- they should withdraw their names from the list of this artist's supporters.
indyandy | October 5, 2009 11:06 AM
I really love Polanski's films. But I don't get why everybody is so upset about this arrest. If we would talk about any other elderly man everybody would say: "Put him away that perv! Give him what he deserves"
Why should the law be any different for celebrities? Does money and fame make you stand above the law? Any other guy that raped a 13-year old you would not give a second chance.
beacon342 | October 5, 2009 2:55 AM
Thank you for providing the list of people who signed this petition. I have been searching for it. I last attended a movie in a theater in 2003. A recent release has piqued my interest and I plan to go see it. I will make sure that noone on this list is associated with that movie first, however. As far as the law failing, Roman Polanski fled because the judge had decided to have him serve the remaining 42 days of his 90 day sentence. The law failed in that it provided a 90 day sentence for child molestation. In this particular case (I have read a portion of the trial testimony) the sentence should have been life in prison. Children who are molested suffer a lifetime of emotional and mental challenges that hinder our society and cost our society in terms of lost productivity and healthcare. By locking up child molestors like Polanski the society I live in will improve. I have no desire to see Mr. Polanksi suffer, I have the desire for my society to improve. In that way, I have a vested interest in seeing that Polanski is imprisoned for his crime of evading serving his sentence for child molestation (the remaining 42 days). In order for my society to improve he should spend the rest of his life in prison. Then the next time a wealthy director wants to molest children and flee the country they will say, "wait a minute, Polanski is in jail for life, that might happen to me, I better not do this." Then the society I live in will be a better place. One less child with sexual-abuse related mental disordoers, one person more who can live to their fullest potential. The people who have signed this petition are directly attempting to degrade the quality of the society in which I live. I will do what I can to prevent them from harming me in this way. I hope they understand. Well, actually I don't care if they understand or not.
sara33 | October 4, 2009 6:00 AM
The great words of a pedophile:
When I was being driven to the police station from the hotel, the car radio was already talking about it ... I couldn't believe ... I thought, you know, I was going to wake up from it. I realize[d], if I have killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal for the press, you see? But ... f---ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f---young girls. Juries want to f---young girls-- everyone wants to f---young girls!
--Roman Polanski in an interview with Martin Amis, Tatler magazine, 1979
sara33 | October 4, 2009 5:37 AM
Polanski didn't make a mistake, he got caught for what he has done more than once. 15 year old Natasha Kitnski dated Polanski and said he had a thing for little girls. This isn't a man who make an error in judgment, this is a pedophile. I'm sure there are many more females he's abused but were afraid of his fame and power.
sara33 | October 4, 2009 5:28 AM
Protecting a pedophile is just like being one yourself. Those defending him no doubt have a few bones in their closets. Only a pervert identifies with a pervert.
To say that we should just forget what Polanski has done just because his victim has is idiotic an only uneducated self serving individuals would speak such idiocy. The victim isn't the lawmaker and the victim is only 1/2 of the crime. When a man rapes a child this is a crime against the world, against all children. If Polanski's victim wants to forgive him, that is her business. Our laws and our nation have not forgiven him. He needs to face the courts just like everyone else convicted of a crime.
Let America make an example out of Roman Polanski! I wonder if Manson had escaped and lived a life of "good" and was found 30 years later if Polanski would have said "let him go, it was so long ago, it doesn't matter anymore." Maybe we should stop hunting down former Nazi members, afterall, the holocaust was so long ago. Yeah right. All criminals must be punished and Polanski is no exception.
Pat MaGroin | October 4, 2009 5:24 AM
It's good to finally see some support for poor Roman. He's had to suffer a life of luxury, living in a penthouse in Paris. I'm sure he's had a few glasses of champagne to relive some past conquest. Pedophiles of the world unite, redemption is at hand. Join Roman in celebrating child molesting, drugged rape, contributing to the delinquency, child sodomy and kiddie pornography just to mention a few. Maybe he can get a cell with Charles Manson and have dinner. I know where they can get a fork.
gjsfaun | October 4, 2009 2:03 AM
hal masonberg:
Facts of the case:
1. Two sides enter into a plea bargain.
2. Judge is not required by law to honor the plea bargain.
It's a criminal case and, while not common, Judge honoring a plea bargain happens in.. what? 95% of the cases tried in the U.S.? The suggestion (it's not a fact) that this Judge would not honor the plea bargain makes me think that he was doing the right thing (if that's what he was going to do). Maybe there's enough out there to say differently, but does it matter? I'd rather praise a corrupt Judge that is going to do the right thing, then a non-corrupt Judge that goes with the flow, status-quo.
3. Guy ran out before sentencing, and so we can't know if the Judge would have honored the plea bargain or not. Doesn't matter - he was the Judge and didn't have to!
Never saw the documentary that, from what I can tell, was meant to sway the public mind to his way of thinking. It's worked to some degree, but not enough to sway most people. Most people don't care since any plea bargain would not have been acceptable to us.
Since he ran before the plea bargain could be confirmed, it doesn't apply. Since the Judge is dead, we can't get the any answers from him. I'd hope that any Judge - corrupt or not - would not condone a plea bargain for this kind of crime. If this was a corrupt Judge, and was considering not honoring the plea bargain, then it raises my esteem of him as he was willing to buck the system and do what was right (and which, by law, was his right and his duty - that's why he's the Judge and doesn't have to abide by proposed plea agreements).
Bring this guy back, let him face a new Judge, and receive his sentence (for the first time since it hasn't happened yet!). Maybe the Judge will rule time served, maybe the Judge will lock him in solitary confinement for the next 20 years (for his own protection). Maybe the masses will get their way and he'll have to deal with a bunch of other criminals, but I really doubt that. I haven't heard of any celebrity having to live with the general prison population.
Maybe we can send him a chunk of Jade and he can spend the rest of his life carving it into a real piece of art. May the proceeds of it's sale, display, and popularity go to funding the prevention of Child Rape. Or, if he can't carve, maybe he can write a new screen play or movie that will do the same thing.
Has he already done this and nobody is bothering to publish it? Did he donate the majority of the proceeds of his movies to charities working to prevent Child Rape? If so, the public might be swayed. Maybe not a whole lot, but maybe enough.
And I thought I was done posting...
hal masonberg | October 3, 2009 11:50 AM
You need to know the facts behind the case. We can't be a nation that punishes people based on our emotions. Polanski was ready to abide by the law and pay for his crime. It was the law in this instance that failed. It was the law that became the criminal in this case. Now that by no means takes away from the fact that Polanski committed a serious crime, but he ended up with a VERY corrupt judge who took the law into his own hands. And not because of what Polanski did, but for the judge's own personal gain. Polanksi paid for his crime under the original plea bargain. If he is to do more time, it should be within reason and be along the lines of what was agreed to all those years ago. I do not believe, however, that he should be punished for running. The law became the criminal here and Polanski was placed in a horrible situation that had nothing to do with the crime he committed. People must separate Polanski's crime from the law's crime. Just because Polanski was guilty, doesn't mean we have the right to do what we want to him. That's why we have laws. Laws are there to protect both the innocent and the guilty. It must always be seen through the eyes of a humanitarian, not a lynch mob. The law is not a vehicle for vengeance.
The judge decided not to honor his agreement to the plea bargain even though Polanski had already served the time agreed upon and both psychiatrists appointed by the judge himself recommended probation with time already served. The judge then insisted that the attorneys put on a mock trial pretending to not know the outcome. He said that he would sentence Polanski and, if Polanski signed an agreement not to appeal deportation, he would have Polanski deported after he completed his 90 day sentence. He told the attorneys that if they did not agree to pretend in the courtroom that the decision had not already been made and falsely argue, he would not deport Polanski but keep him in jail indefinitely. This is by every definition, illegal. Both attorneys refused to go along with this and eventually got the judge to step down. They also told Polanski that the judge could no longer be trusted and that there was a good chance he could get the max sentence of 50 years, not because of the crime he committed, but because the attorneys refused to break the law for the judge. And even if they had gone along with this, they still felt the judge could not be trusted to keep his word. The judge also spoke of the case outside of court bragging that he was gonna trick the lawyers and put "that little Polock away. "
You can be angry with what Polanski did, most of us are, European attitudes or not. But the law failed us here. And it failed him. There was not going to be justice. For anyone. When the law breaks down and the lawmakers become criminals, one has to act in his or her own best interest. Just like when cops plant drugs or arrest people for crimes they didn't commit. Or beat someone up using excessive force. It's illegal. Everyone has rights. Just because he committed a crime does not mean he has no rights in this country. As a result, both the victim and perpetrator have suffered far beyond the crime itself. Again, I understand the anger, but there are two issues at work here: the crime Polanski committed and the crime that was committed against him.
What I have witnessed here and on other blog sites is people wanting to appease their anger by seeing Polanki suffer. They seem far less interested in the fact that our justice system failed. What happened in this case was that Polanki was denied his right to serve the proper sentence for his crime. It may not be what anyone wants to hear, but the only reason this continues is, not because Polanski refused to serve time, but because we had a corrupt judge who took the law into his own hands. Samantha Geimer continues to live with this and suffer, not as much for what Polanski did, but as a result of what the judge and media did. Had the law not failed here, this would be ancient history and Samantha Geimer would have been free to move on with her life and deal with what happened to her in an appropriate and humanitarian manner. As it stands, she is forced to relive it now for over 30 years and counting. One crime does not excuse another.
umbrellabeach | October 3, 2009 3:06 AM
It's nice to see the justice system work, even when it's been 30 years. There is nothing acceptable with a 40+ year old man having sex with a 13 yr old. It doesn't bother me at all that it has been 30 years since the felony was committed - put him in jail. He obviously has been avoiding the law, while continuing to work in his field and live well, with no real payment to society for his crime. If this person was your 40+ year old neighbor, next door to yourr budding teens, you would think nothing of having him put away for life in jail. This is no different - he just escaped for a long time.
Please keep us all updated on the shmucks who sign this petition - I truly am a person who will avoid supporting those that have such poor judgement and care so little about the effects of allowing a rapist to be free - just because he has a talent. What kind of message are these people sending to the young women of the world and those who have been through this type of experience? Can they really look at themselves in the mirror?
icomeinpeace | October 3, 2009 1:53 AM
I would like to see the list so I can boycott these people's work..be it actor/film producer/director...and rally all my friends to do the same...shame on you for advocating for a pedophile rapist!
MarkIra613 | October 2, 2009 11:20 AM
Taking everything into consideration - Polanski's experience as a Holocaust survivor, the stunning murder of a wife on the cusp of making him a father, the opinion of his victim, the time that has passed, and the deal that was in place because Polanski pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and made a financial settlement with the girl's family, I cannot see how justice is being served by setting all this aside and putting the 76-year-old director in prison.
filmfestivals-com | October 2, 2009 9:23 AM
Hi check my interview with Karl Spoerri Artistic director of Zurich festival.on http://www.fest21.com
and click and sign the twitter petition http://twitition.com/48eei
bruno chatelin
Jdpraise | October 2, 2009 4:56 AM
It appears most people aren't aware of how plea bargins work in the judicial system.
A plea bargin is a deal between the prosocuter and the defense. It does not involve the judge and the judge has the right to strike it down and or reject it as he see's fit.
There is/was nothing unlawful about the judge in this case tossing out the plea deal. If Roman Polanski had shown some discretion and remorse and not out in germany at a dinner with young women looking pleased with himself, perhaps things would have turned out in his favour.
While I admit tha Roman Polanski has made some brilliant films and has suffered tragedy in his life, this does not give him a free pass to take advantage of someone who cannot take care of themselves.
For those people who believe that this was a consentual act, a 13 year old girl is not able to make this decision. This is a child in the 8th grade. Look at your children, and just imagine them in a sexual relationship with one of your friends. I imagine that your attitude changes when looking at it from that direction.
Roman Polanski needs to return to the united states where he can be sentenced.
rabbi | October 2, 2009 2:41 AM
This is the last thing I am posting here, because it's getting personal. "You are obviously an idiot" is no way to conduct any kind of a discussion or debate and both thetruthbetold and MV8 have misrepresented my words. And no, I am NOTY getting my info from blogs and YES, I have seen the court transcripts and NO, I am NOT defending what he did! I have never defended him. In fact, I have repeatedly said that he got off easy. I also have said I think the line about "moral crimes" in the petition is repugnant. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
"Rabbi could it be your defending him because of his generous past donations?"
Ok, last time: I am NOT defending him. What he did was repugnant. And what in the hell are "past donations?" Generous to whom?
Bottom line: I think letting Samantha Geimer and her 4 children live in peace is more emblematic of a caring and compassionate society than extraditing Polanski. Full stop. Just because I have decided to err on the side of compassion for the victim DOES NOT mean I wanna have fucking tea and cookies with her rapist!!! It doesn't mean that I think (and I NEVER said) that he did his time and it doesn't mean I am "taking his side!"
Good night and good luck.
gjsfaun | October 2, 2009 1:56 AM
I disagree with this statement:
"Polanski didn't stalk this girl and pick her up in a white van with the promised of puppies and candy. He wasn't your neighborhood predator. "
He is exactly the neighborhood predator. He used his fame and influence to get to a 13 year old girl (Look at these pictures I took that are in Vogue!), plied her with alcohol and drugs, then abused her in the worst ways. A girl who had previously been abused, based on her actual testimony. That is what sexual predators do - they find those that they can prey on.
Based on the testimonies I've read, it appears that she and her parents thought he was a ticket to what they desired - fame, glamour, etc. Have you watched any of those pageant reality TV shows? I watched part of one and this case reminds me of what I saw - mom trying to get her kid famous, kid wanting to be famous, and lots of inappropriate behavior in the mix. I reserved judgement, said to myself that every family is different and lives their own lives, but this case brings the ugliness of it out. It reminds us that, no matter how innocent Mom might think it to be, there are those that will prey on her kid.
I'm not feeding the paparazzi anymore - I've had my say. I'll be looking for a database / website that tells me what movies to avoid based on this petition. When I saw this petition, and read the part about how it's about a "moral" issue of raping and sodomizing a 13 year old girl (like it's okay in most of the world, just not in the U.S.), it made me sick - read the transcripts - they're on smoking gun. This isn't a moral issue from my point of view - this is about feeling better about myself, our justice system, and society in general by bringing this guy back and having him face a Judge.
If the Judge rules, "Time Served" I'll be upset.
Celina | October 1, 2009 10:01 AM
Fri roman
thetruthbetold | October 1, 2009 9:32 AM
rabbi rabbi rabbi. I do know the facts of the case. and sometimes vengeance is called for. He's is not sorry for what he did. That is what jail is for. To sit and reflect on your crime. Not sit and reflect in France. And the charges he got were through a plea. It's just means "yea I did it but I will only agree to a bit of it" . Also it does not matter if the girl wants to move on. He still committed a CRIME. that's.
and to remind you again. thanks MV8 for posting this...
"If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But … f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!" - Roman Polanksi 1979
Rabbi could it be your defending him because of his generous past donations? Please get your facts right. I know you personally do not agree with what he did but why keep defending him? Like I said before he has had no time to reflect on his crime. Just a long vacation. And i'm not worried about my grammar on here. Just morals.
MV8 | October 1, 2009 9:03 AM
you are obviously an idiot and get your information from reading blogs and not the real court transcripts.
He "ran out of fear," of course he did because he knew he had done something wrong. If you say that he's done "his time" for the rape of a 13 year old girl, how is 42 days serving time? Regardless of his past experiences of being a "survivor" or what not, it does not excuse his actions and therefore we should not pity him.
Have you not read that after Geimer he had sexual relations with another young girl? A 15 year old girl, Nastassja Kinski, he obviously likes to prey on children and who knows what other girls were the victims of this pervert.
It is sickening how people can stand behind this monster. I hope he gets to do his REAL time and perhaps get sodomized in jail.
"If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But … f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!" - Roman Polanksi 1979... a perv in the making.
legabeeg | October 1, 2009 8:24 AM
"If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But … f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!" - Roman Polanksi 1979
This along with Kinski should be enough for you doubters - he's a perv.
legabeeg | October 1, 2009 8:08 AM
If you don't want to be "violated unlawfully" don't violate a 13 year old girl. Why does he have any right to flee being sentenced to a crime he admitted to committing? Did he not know what he was doing, drugging and raping a 13 year old, was wrong? If so he should have uhhh...not raped a 13 year old girl. As for him not being into little girls - Nastassja Kinski? I know she was 15 but that says something about him using his stature to have sex with VERY young girls.
Johnny Ohannah | October 1, 2009 7:22 AM
I'm glad they arrested this piece of garbage and anyone who doesn't think that is an IDIOT. The only "facts" you need to know is that he was a 43-year-old man who drugged, anally raped and sodomized a 13-year-old girl and then fled the country. Whoopi Goldberg said on the View she doesnt think the girl was "raped" raped. OMG How stupid is that woman
For the Hollywood morons who signed the protest list, if Roman did that to YOUR DAUGHTER you would be freaking out. (Except for Woody Allen)
Besides, who cares what people in Holywood protest?? Also, people shouldnt look to Hollywood actors/directors for moral guidance. You are monkeys on the organ grinder, dance for my entertainment and my dollar and keep you mouths shut.
Enchantment | October 1, 2009 6:12 AM
To rabbi!
I agree with you in only one aspect that you highlighted that Samantha Geimer and her family are the innocents who shouldn't suffer from all this history once again!! That's true! But that doesn't mean that Polanski should not go to jail. He should and he should get the most severe punishment!! He was proved guilty in 1978 so there's no need in trial and press. He should just go to jail! And be with other prisoners who will for sure make him "that 13-year old girl" who he raped...
gjsfaun | October 1, 2009 5:24 AM
Long before this hit the news, I had friends who wouldn't put photos of their girls on Facebook due to fear of sexual predators. Parent's worst nightmare (I don't think the girls were afraid - they think it's cool/hip/sexy/etc whatever the terms are today, having no clue that they are not seen as girls/teenagers, but as prey/someone to have power over/whatever it is that sexual predators think). It doesn't stop there, and it's not uncommon. Heck - In the last few weeks, I read in the news how a family lost their girls for a month or so due to having pictures of their girls taking a bath. It disrupted their lives for over a year, caused hugh financial burdens, loss of jobs - all because they had the photos developed at WalMart, and WalMart called the police. Judge ruled it innocent, but massive damage was done. Where's the justice in that? The parents still are hesitant to take photos of their kids! They went through hell!
What kind of society do we live in where pictures of our kids taking a bath results in social services taking them away while we are being investigated for being pedophiles? You're children are taken away, while you have to go to the Sheriff and register as a sex offender? That is the collective fear. You may not see it, agree with it, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We, as a society, are willing to take people's kids away to make sure the kids are safe and not being harmed. We will ruin peoples lives to make sure that the kids are safe, even if nothing bad was going on to begin with. This can't be denied - it's a fact that is documented over and over again.
The raid on the Mormon camp? "For the protection of the children," was the reason given. Result? As ruled by a Judge? No reason for separating so many children from their families. Fear for the children resulted in harm to the families, children, parents. Repercussions? None - better to be safe than sorry.
This isn't about the director. It's about the collective fear - If we don't punish, if we don't protect the children, if we fail in these tasks....
This fear, this desire to protect children, runs so deep in our society that anything that goes against it (like a pedophile that has escaped the legal system due to having wealth, influence and fame), ignites people like few other things can. Did people worry about him prior to his arrest? Of course not. He's not a threat - he's a symbol.
The Swiss didn't bizarrely decide one day to arrest the guy. They did so because they have an extradition treaty with the U.S. and we provided them all the details of the travel plans and no excuses to ignore it. People are in an uproar because the media is reminding us why he was arrested, and we're mad. We're mad at ourselves, we're mad at him, we're mad at the legal system. We're mad because we want to believe that we'd do anything to protect our children and this guy has been free for 30+ years, and we're being reminded that we didn't protect a child. And that the child could be ours next. Or our friends, or neighbors, or sisters, or brothers.
We're listening to the experts tell us that pedophiles don't stop. That he had probably done it before, as well as many times after. That this guy was caught once, and got away with it by fleeing the country. We wonder how many children have been harmed because we didn't stop him to begin with.
We're angry at him, ourselves, and a system that let him escape. We're angry at a system that fails as well, and want a win - a justification for the harm that it's caused.
This is an easy win. Even in your own words, I can tell that you think he deserves worse than 42 days in jail and not being able to come to the States to accept an Oscar.
rabbi | October 1, 2009 4:32 AM
And I quote: "What I've read from your comments is that if someone is rich enough, famous enough, influential enough, then the law does not apply to them."
That sounded to me like you were accusing me of believing that. If I am wrong, I apologize.
As for your comments about the paparazzi already being involved, you're wrong. No one was hounding Samatha Geimer until this week. If he hadn't have been arrested, they would have left her alone until he died.
As for him paying his debt so society can feel better...WTF? Were there really thousands of people all across the US losing sleep over Roman Polanski? I'm willing to bet that 99% of the people incensed about this had never heard of him until Monday morning.
As for his having legal recourse, true. There probably was grounds for appeal, but he was scared. Look, no one is saying fleeing was right. No one is saying that his crime wasn't horrible. That said, I am not surprised he ran. A child of Nazi occupation who grew up in the Warsaw ghetto? Again, not forgiving the crime (I feel like an idiot having to constantly repeat that, but it seems like any time anyone tries to explain certain factors in this case, it's assumed you're a fan of child rape).
Also, as far as I can tell online, there is a 10 year statute of limitations, but those only run the the accused is in the country, but that's irrelevant in this case, because he had pled guilty and a plea bargain had been agreed to.
As for our legal system, it is great precisely because some people get away with it. Any system where EVERYONE gets punished is bound to corral many innocents, as well. As for rich people hiring better lawyers, that's not the legal system you're talking about, that's our society. Outr society always favors the rich and that makes me ill. I'm simply referring to the letter of the law, not jury nullification, bad DA's, poorly run PD's offices, etc., etc.
As for #4., before Monday morning, did your friends with teenaged daughters wake up every am scared of Roman Polanski? Seriously? This guy is not a repeat offender, he's not a serial molester. He was a sick, drug-addled pervert who did a very very bad, disgusting thing and yes, he should have paid for it but again: Why are SO few people even bothering to CARE what the victim in the case wants? Why does no one mention that her mother basically pimped her out? No one's calling for her to be charged with child endangerment.
Why can't we let this go? Until the Swiss bizarrely decided to arrest him, did ANYONE lose sleep over this for the past 30 years? Maybe for a week or two around Oscar time a few years ago, but really.... As for your rape statistic, I believe that's 1 in 4 women, not girls. Still a shocking statistic and again I ask, where's the outcry when the thousands of men go unpunished for raping wives, girlfriends and strangers? "She asked for it" is still a commonly accepted defense all over the country. Dragging Polanski and Samantha Geimer back into the spotlight isn't going to change that. It's a show trial, nothing more.
Like I said before, Polanski isn't a serial rapist. He isn't a repeat offender (unless he's been very, very good at it). He's not an example for anyone else. He was convicted. No other rapist or molester is going to use the "Polanski defense" because there isn't one. He LOST his case!
gjsfaun | October 1, 2009 3:50 AM
I haven't accused you of anything. Not sure how you inferred that.
Addressing various points:
1. Re: Not mentioning his fame - doesn't matter, he is famous. I actually agree with most your points about fame. Doesn't always work that way - Octomom was hounded by paparazzi and didn't want anything to do with them, but it didn't stop them. Why? If a citizen wants to be left alone, why can't they be left alone? That was one of my points, and I don't think we're in disagreement.
2. Re: Going after him because of his fame - my points exactly. Only I don't think there's anything wrong with it. There's no statute of limitations for his crime. Some crimes have limitations, his does not. If he were a bus driver who fled the country, he probably wouldn't have the means or influence to evade the DA for 32 years. This guy does. The mass mentality (that I agree with) is that he should pay. It's not for the victim, for him, but for society as a whole so that we can feel better about ourselves. You can call it hounding him, victimizing the victim, etc, but it's not about those things. Those are symptoms to our desire to feel better about ourselves and society. You call attention to the victim's wishes and family, but I think it's too late - the paparazzi are already involved and aren't going to let it go, for a long time. Do we try to ignore the crime so that the victim and her family can have some peace in a couple years once it dies down again? How do we feel about ourselves, either way? I'm not trying to fund the paparazzi so that they can continue to hound the victim - I'm posting on some website (which indirectly ends up funding the paparazzi). So are you - by posting to this web site, you're causing media to send more paparazzi to hound the victim and her family, just as I am.
3. He was never sentenced. He could have appealed instead of ran away, maybe? I'm not a lawyer, but seems to me that, despite the issues with our legal system, there are avenues. Not like getting a bullet in the head and making your family pay for the cost of the bullet. It was many years later that he attempted to make reparations to the victim. Heck, every President in recent history is constantly lobbied to offer Presidential Pardons, so even if appeals weren't possible... I'd think with the irregularities in the trial that you've pointed out that this could have gone to the next court.
I don't believe that our legal system is great - I think there are a lot of sucky things with it. I think that the rich and powerful get away with a lot as they can hire the best to get them off. Sometimes there's no amount of money that can erase something - I believe this is one of them. I'm not certain you disagree with this - by your comments, I don't think you do.
4. Every couple I know that has an 8 to 15 year old child is scared that this guy will continue to live free. They're not scared that this guy will come after their kid, they're scared that the someone with wealth and power will do something to their kid or some kid they know, and that they can get away with it and rub it in everyone's face because this guy showed how it could be done. I don't think you disagree on this point either. Someone told me 1 in 4 girls are raped in the US. I don't know how accurate that is, but it's outrageous if it's true. This whole thing is outrageous which is why the media is all over it, and the paparazzi are having a field day.
rabbi | October 1, 2009 3:47 AM
1. He was not "found guilty." He agreed to a plea bargain and pled guilty to a lesser offense. Had he not pled guilty, there would have been a trial and we know from past experience (O.J.) that he might have been let go completely.
2. His plea bargain was about to be violated unlawfully, so he ran, out of fear.
This isn't about his original crime. Why does NO ONE research the facts about this case before they comment on it?
The case was OVER. He cannot be re-tried for it. No one thinks he served enough time. But, having taken everything into account, I, personally, believe that Ms. Geimer and her family have suffered enough and that the harm this will do to her and her 4 children out weights our societal call for punishment.
rabbi | October 1, 2009 3:39 AM
first of all, your first paragraph goes to something that's bothered me for a long time. We're over-sexualizing children. The idea that anyone would think family photos of their kids in a bath was pornography....who does that speak worse of? The innocent parent or the Wall Mart employee and authorities who instead of "Awww, look at the kids in the tub" thought "This is pornography!" and took away the kids? Is that a case of better safe that sorry?
But I digress.
Your analogies and horror stories are all valid fears, but really, are not relevant to this case. People seem to ignore that Polanski didn't stalk this girl and pick her up in a white van with the promised of puppies and candy. He wasn't your neighborhood predator. Ms. Geimer's mother instigated this and pushed her daughter to go to the house, alone and to take pictures with Polanski. To use this as a test case for abduction and molestation in general isn't accurate or fair.
There's no evidence to suggestion that he was or will be a repeat offender. What so-called experts are you finding? For every "expert" on CNN, I am sure there are dozens that would refute that. I'll admit to not having read every news report, but so far I have only seen blogs and sensationalist coverage referring to him as a pedophile. Which, BTW, doesn't even enter into this story. A pedophile is someone with sexual attraction to a pre-pubescent child and there is no evidence that Polanski was ever guilty of that. Forcing a 13-year old is bad enough, but when you get into downright pedophilia, you're getting into very deep, dark places in the mind that I for one would rather not enter.
By referring to him thusly, you and others are only serving to fuel the lynch mob mentality of the case.
rabbi | October 1, 2009 2:52 AM
Good lord! How can you infer what you're accusing me of from what I have written? My post was exactly about the law. He agreed to a plea. It was about to be violated. He was scared and ran. Where did I mention that rich people should be above the law? Does anyone know the facts of this case? Does anyone even care what Samanta Geimer wants? Seriously. Do any of you calling for Polanski's head on a plate CARE about her?
Not once have I mentioned that he's a famous director. Not once have I mentioned his Oscar. However, the fact is, if he was an itinerant farm worker who managed to evade the authorities for 31 years, none of us would even hear of this case and it wouldn't be prosecuted. I maintain that it's precisely BECAUSE he's famous that the DA is going forward with this. In almost any other case like this, if the victim felt the way Ms. Geimer feels, the case would be dropped.
And I quote, from the NY Daily News, Monday, 9/28/09:
"In January, Geimer, who publicly forgave Polanski in 1997, filed a formal request that Los Angeles prosecutors drop the charges against him.
"I have survived, indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr. Polanski may have caused me as a child," she said at the time. "I got over it a long time ago."
Geimer said Polanski had paid, and she wanted to move on and stop reliving the details of the assault every time he made headlines.
"True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me, my beloved husband, my three children and my mother," she said.
In 2003, she wrote a generous Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times, saying Polanski should not be barred from receiving a Best Director Oscar for "The Pianist."
"I don't really have any hard feelings toward him, or any sympathy, either. He is a stranger to me," she wrote."
""He did something really gross to me, but it was the media that ruined my life," she told People in 1997."
Over the intervening 31 years Ms. Geimer has clearly moved on with her life and sincerely doesn't want Polanski extradited. My post was EXACTLY about our founding values. Our country was NOT founded on "vengeance is mine."
Polanski WAS convicted and reached a plea bargain. Was it a bullshit plea bargain? Yes. Should he have served more time? Yes. But that's the way these things go. It sucks, but, and I refer you back to what you wrote: That is how our justice system was founded. It doesn't always work, but it's still the best in the world.
But I still maintain: Doesn't the harm that is about to happen to Ms. Geimer and her family count for anything?
rabbi | October 1, 2009 2:34 AM
Kiera, the.priest and thetruthbetold,
Kiera: I think you misunderstood what I meant in those quotes. I never claimed Polanski was the innocent in the equation. He's the guilty one I referred to and his victim was the innocent! I simply think dragging her through the mud of public spotlight again amounts to punishing an innocent.
As for what this indieWIRE post is about, you're right. I probably should have left my comments on their previous piece. I agree, I don't think his being talented should have anything to do with his crime or punishment. As I am sure you've noticed, I never once referred to him by his accomplishments and I have repeatedly condemned his actions.
the.priest: I never said no one who signed the petition supports Polanski's crime. I merely stated that I don't believe ANYONE could.
thetruthbetold: Why get personal? Did I call anyone names? Also, if you're going to call someone an idiot, check your spelling and grammar before you do so, ok?
What makes you think I am accepting? All I am saying is:
Polanski's crime was despicable and disgusting.
He agreed to a plea that was about to be violated.
His victim wants to get on with her life!! Do you even know the facts of the case? Did you read what I wrote? Not ONCE have I even suggested that what he did was OK. I am not suggesting we all forget, but a-The victim's mother basically pimped her out (thanks for pointing that out, whizmd) and b-the VICTIM herself says let it go. She is all grown up and has a family of her own to protect. She doesn't want them exposed to the circus that would result in his extradition. Why does NO ONE seem to care what the original victim wants?
It's like I said: All people want is vengeance. There is no justice, here.
gjsfaun | October 1, 2009 2:27 AM
What I've read from your comments is that if someone is rich enough, famous enough, influential enough, then the law does not apply to them.
US Americans, in general, like to think that the nobody is above the law, even though most of us know differently. The people as a whole will stick it to someone that thinks they are above the law just to feel better about our society - few of us want to believe that our country no longer holds the values our country was founded on.
What is America without our founding values? Truth, justice, the American way... Our heros from comic books to past Presidents teach us that nobody is above the law. Many Americans see the reality, and don't like it. Many more don't want to admit it.
The masses don't want to face the hard questions - what's the only country to drop the atomic bomb on another country? What country won't sign agreements that the majority of people seem to support? The masses have a critical point though - and someone that is rich, influential, and a celebrity that violates the basis of our beliefs is a galvanizing factor.
Is this director above the law? Due to his wealth, influence, celebrity, and connections, is he better than everyone else? Can he do whatever he wants? Rape, next murder? As a nation, a people, can we allow it?
The first thing I thought when the French leader stated that this person had served his time was, "Do the French have laws against sodomizing children?". If so, are they enforced? Are the rich allowed to do whatever they want, while the poor go to jail?
It's no longer about the victim of the crime - she has no doubt learned some way of dealing with it for the last thirty years. The paparazzi aren't going to go away now - if he's let free, or sent to the States, she'll have to deal with it. It sucks - even the owner of the house where she was raped has made statements about how much they suck, and told them where to stick it. Paparazzi exist, even if you're a nobody who ends up on the news for a week. They make it last longer.
Lots of examples of nobodies who get 10 minutes of infamy that they would rather forget, then the paparazzi make their lives hell for years and years.
Most people in the US don't think, "Oh, the paparazzi are making money by selling photos, etc, and are making this a big deal, but this is a normal every-day person just trying to live their life and wants to be left alone." And if they do, most people are still reading the headlines.
What you're telling me is that, if I'm rich enough, influential enough, or a big enough celebrity, that I can call or hire a bunch of paparazzi and get out of doing jail time. Most people don't want to hear that.
whizmd | October 1, 2009 2:05 AM
How many of you parents would leave your 13 year old alone for hours with a man alone to take nude pictures. Alone in a large mansion. Polanski should be punished and so should be the girls parents to allow such a thing to happen. The should be persecuted for child neglect and abuse.
Would you leave your child in a lions den? This would never happen if girls parents were there to watch over her while she was being photoghraphed NUDE!
It is pathetic that none of you or the news media mentions this extreme case of child abuse by her parents.
the.priest | October 1, 2009 2:03 AM
I believe that a lot of the signers of this petition do feel that sex with a minor, or rape is ok. Weinstein, Roman's big defender is just hoping that Roman pays him off by giving him distribution rights so he can pay off the $1 billion or so that he has blown.
I do not have to agree with these people and I do not. I will try to encourage sane citizens to boycott every bit of media that these signers are associated with. We can all do with a little less pollution in our lives. And we can do without rape supporters in Hollywood.
As for the statement from rabbi that no one who signs supports what Polanski did, I have heard from none of these signers holding a press conference explaining what they really meant. Only Wienstein wrote an opinion piece and he greatly minimized the crime.
thetruthbetold | October 1, 2009 1:54 AM
rabbi #1 your and Idiot # revert to number 1. Stop being so accepting of this?? what if this was your daughter and the coward ran away to another country?? you would forget?? maybe?? or do you think what he did was ok?? wake up rabbi. wake up.
Kiera Hardie | October 1, 2009 1:00 AM
Rabbi. All you're doing is running a standard set of exculpatory arguments which are now being spread all over the internet.
You cite Justinian and Blackstone, but Polanski isn't an innocent, he's an admitted sexual predator that drugged and sodomised a wee girl. The US authorities have been after him ever since he fled the jurisdiction and fortunately the Swiss authorities have arrested him with a view to deportation. He can be represented when he goes back to court and I'm sure they'll give him a fair hearing. If the plea bargain holds up in law he can probably stay and pick up his Oscar. If not, he'll no doubt get a different kind of lifetime achievement award.
But this story is not about whether he ought to be punished for the crime he was ready to plead guilty to. It's about the way in which hundreds of well known, rich and powerful artists in the film industry have publicly condoned this well known, rich and powerful man's rape of a child.
It seems to me that there is something badly wrong when the fact that the man is a talented artist is seen as meriting a different standard. If he had been a competent truck driver, would other truck drivers have written to the press and politicians to say he should not be sent back to face the music? Of course not. So why do these artists feel that they are entitled to protect this man from the consequences of his crimes?
rabbi | September 30, 2009 11:37 AM
As j carter points out, Polanski reached a plea bargain in 1978 and there's a lot of evidence that the presiding judge was about to renege on said agreement. Whether you agree with the plea or not (and how could anyone, really?) it was reached. Polanski didn't leave the country simply to avoid a jail sentence. He left to avoid being railroaded into something to which he didn't agree.
Let's be VERY clear here: Neither I, nor anyone else condones what he did, nor do we think his original plea was harsh enough. But that's not for us to decide. This isn't about whether what he did deserves punishment. Of course it does. Rather, it's about how the justice system works (or doesn't work) in this country and the fact that there was very likely prosecutorial and judicial misconduct in the original case.
That said the tone of some of the posts here are quite disturbing. I'm not going to single anyone out or quote anyone because everyone is entitled to an opinion and cases like this are VERY emotional for many of us but there's more than a little bit of "vengeance is mine" tone. We don't live in that country and I for one wake up every day and am thankful that we don't. We have laws contained within a system of checks and balances and sometimes the system works and sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't, we're not allowed to form a lynch mob and ignore the punishment handed down.
Throughout history there have been various versions of this quote:
"Rather let the crime of the guilty go unpunished than condemn the innocent." -Justinian I, Law Code, A.D. 535
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." -- William Blackstone
This is a philosophy in which I firmly believe and one which I think applies to this topic. In this equation, Samantha Geimer and her family are the innocents who stand to be punished if this is continued. The accounts of Polanski's foul crime will be read in open court and Ms. Geimer and her family will be hounded by the media, endlessly. Her life will once again be a living hell. How is that justice? Yes, I realize it's legally not her call (it never was, btw) and yes, I understand that it's the State of California v. Polanski, but I ask again: doesn't the mental and emotional safety of the original victim in this case outweigh our societal lust for vengeance? Or to put it in a less biased way:
What does a truly just and compassionate society value more: Seeing that the 76 year-old Polanski goes to jail or allowing his victim to live her life in peace?
From what I can see, the possible outcomes are:
Polanski is extradited, his original plea is voided and he goes to jail, after a long legal battle during which Ms. Geimer and her family are constantly harassed and tortured by the harsh light of publicity.
Polanski is extradited and his original plea is upheld after months of courtroom theatrics, during which Ms. Geimer and her family are constantly harassed and tortured by the harsh light of publicity.
We leave well enough alone. Polanski is still barred from entering the US and we allow Ms. Geimer to go on about her life.
I reject the notion that not extraditing Polanski "sends a message" that we're soft on rapists and child abusers. (And I am already on record saying that this country is already disgustingly soft on rapists.) To whom does it send said message? Sexual predators? Does anyone think that if Polanski doesn't do any more jail time, that criminals will get some sort of an emotional boost and go on a child raping spree? What does sending said "message" do? Encourage nascent molesters to come out of hiding? That argument makes no sense. Are we in the business of judicial public relations, now? Does anyone think that bringing Polanski "to justice" will cause a serious pedophile, molester or rapist to rethink things? "Ooooh. They got that rich, famous pervert after 31 years. Maybe I should not commit this crime?"
Get real. This is about vengeance, nothing more, nothing less. If it were about justice, you'd care about the life of the victim and not only about punishing Polanski. Our society has a sickening habit of equating punishment and vengeance, with justice.
I find it interesting and more than a little off-putting that the same people who are shouting from on high about how horrible Polanski's crime is are more than willing to force his victim to relive it.
Smilecat | September 30, 2009 8:51 AM
Rabbi, yes, prosecuting Polansky matters. *Not* prosecuting him sends the message that law evasion is okay, that celebrity will get you out of anything, and that if you just wait long enough, you can avoid having to pay for your crimes. These ideas are already so prevalent in our society that to allow those messages to be sent out again, in such a high-profile case, would be the equivalent of blasting on a megahorn that the rights and safety of girls and women don't matter. Prosecuting him may not advance the rights of women much in many people's minds, but not prosecuting him does irreparable damage.
The girl, now woman, in question may want this dropped, but it's not her call anymore. It's the State of California versus Roman Polansky. He's being extradited for fleeing the country and failing to appear for his sentence.
The man is despicable. It's not about what his life was like or what "artistic genius" he might have brought the world. It's about a man, a child, a horrendous act, and said man's inflated ego in thinking he is above the law. No art is worth doing that to children.
Kiera Hardie | September 30, 2009 8:33 AM
I hugely admire many of the names in that list, as people ho have produced films that I love. But their shockingly poor judgement is plain to see.
Polanski went to the United States to work and become rich. While there, he committed a terrible crime, and he admitted as much. He plied a child of thirteen with drugs and raped her. Then, to avoid the possibility of what he feared would be a severe sentence, he fled the country and sought to defy extradition. At last, he has been arrested with a view to being sent back to the United States to face punishment for the crime to which he made admission.
And these film makers and actors are trying to throw their weight about and exert their influence to get Polanski off. Tilda Swinton wants him not to face punishment. woody Allen wants him set free. Fanny Ardant thinks it is a shame he was arrested.
Polanski is rich and famous and has powerful friends. That to me indicates that he should not escape the fate he deserves. Quite the opposite. a truck driver who raped a minor would expect to be sent home to face the music. Why should a famous artist not face the same? He should not be able to buy his freedom with money and influence and his famous and powerful friends should know better than to try this on.
I have a great deal less respect for many of the artists named in that list of shame than I used to have.
j carter | September 30, 2009 8:29 AM
This is obviously a very emotional issue for people and I think it is safe to say that if Polanski is returned to LA he will never see the outside of a jail cell again in his lifetime. There is no way the prosecutor could go against the overwhelming public opinion and not throw the book at him. But high emotion does not fit well with issues of justice, for good reason, and so more dispassionate voices have pointed out some arguments why no social good will ultimately be done by pursuing this case. They should not be slandered as "rape apologists" for making their points.
Personally, I feel that Polanski's act was reprehensible and that he received very light punishment. But I also note that a plea bargain was arranged in 1978, apparently with the support of the presiding judge, and that Polanski lived up to his side of it. His flight from the US was based on his either being tipped off or his own suspicion that the judge in the case was going to renege on the deal, which seems to be the case. So, approve or not, the justice system in 1978 established a punishment and Polanski lived up to it.
There was a later civil restitution between Polanski and the girl involved. While this may not seem an appropriate punishment, it should be noted that there are other long-standing systems of justice in the world whereby restitution or agreement between the parties resolves the situation and closes the case. That may not be the American system, but note the American system is not absolute or universal.
Most important, the girl herself has repeatedly stated that she does not wish to see Polanski pursued and, critically, that the process of the initial trial and the long-standing warrant has brought her more grief and trouble than the incident itself. In her own words then, far more harm is being done to her by pursuing this then by putting it away.
If people wish to see justice done in the name of the children, note that there is an important Declaration of the Rights Of Children at the UN. This would codify international standards protecting children from all forms of exploitation. The US has refused to sign this declaration, and if some of the people on this board , who are understandably upset, would take a moment to urge their appropriate representative to support this Declaration, then some good could be done from this.
rascus | September 30, 2009 8:15 AM
o different than when his family wanted the Manson crew to pay for their crimes....they are paying for the crimes they committed ......he is a low life child rapist....lock his sorry butt up and let him pay the price for his crimes!!
danadd | September 30, 2009 8:05 AM
damn. until just now I admired & respected a lot of the directors and actors on the petition. everything is okay now because he 'did time' by not being allowed in the US, yet living the lush life of a successful filmmaker in EUROPE? nope. come to the US, do the time, and THEN I'll be happy to let it be.
littleslappy | September 30, 2009 6:58 AM
There's precedent for the petition. See this one here:
areyoukidding | September 30, 2009 6:35 AM
This article is saying Polanski is being returned becaus of a conviction for "bad morals"?? Are you kidding!! Instead of this soft-pedal piece, at least mention the crime he pleae guitly to. He broke the law, he committed a despicable violation of a child. Gave her drugs then sexually abused her. He admitted guilt.
He deserves no better than any other convicted rapist and child molester.
Patriot Act | September 30, 2009 4:48 AM
Interesting that at least 95% of the people signing the petition are men. I wonder how many of the signers are rapists, too. How else could you so blithely run to his defense?
danaflores | September 30, 2009 4:44 AM
first of all it is unbelievable how many of the signatures are men...Men who obviously don't have a daughter or son who has the potential of being abused. It is incredibly sad that just because of "art" you can get away with something like this. If it was any of the people who signed this's neighbor that they didn't know they would be repulsed & want that person to do their time. It does not matter that the women who once was the child has found in her heart to forgive this man. what matters is these thing dont go on with out a reprcussion to there actions.
jerry gould | September 30, 2009 4:06 AM
As Woody Allen said about his Incest,
"The heart wants what the heart wants."
I say:
"Let the heart want, the ass should be in jail."
Hazel8500 | September 30, 2009 3:52 AM
Hey anyone sending around a petition to boycott the 'art' of morally bankrupt Hollywood bigwigs? I Boycotted Woody Allen years ago. I refuse to watch any more of his trash movies glorifying sex between old geezers and young girls. I'm saddened that I may need to add Sigorney Weaver and Debra Winger to that list. But if I must, I must. Children are way more important to me than taking in some blockbuster.
Rabbi asks, Seriously: will prosecuting Roman Polanski advance women's rights one iota? Will ANYONE benefit from this?
Women's rights? How about CHILDREN'S rights! he drugged, rapped and sodomized a CHILD! He had a fair trial, he pled guilty, he ran off to France and lived a high life for 30 years. Moreover, dude isn't being 'prosecuted" he's already faced trial, his prosecution is over, and he skipped.
I for one will benefit from Polanski doing his time and so will every one who wishes to live in a world where children are protected not f@#ked. If Polanski wants to put this behind him, if the now adult victim wants to put this behind her, they can now do so. He did the crime, NOW he needs to do the time. Then and only then will it be over.
And yeah to those of you who've noticed the number of men vs women signing this petition... does say a whole lotta about our culture. Woody Allen? Pffft come on, he married his teen aged step daughter!!!!
jls | September 30, 2009 2:20 AM
So it would have been OK if Manson skipped out and never served time for Sharon Tate's murder? After all, he was a songwriter? Doesn't that make him an artist?
billieboy | September 29, 2009 11:27 AM
give him 99 years in the electric chair
billieboy | September 29, 2009 11:27 AM
Type your comment here
michelesaintthomas | September 29, 2009 10:52 AM
Release Roman Polanski NOW!!!
cygnet74 | September 29, 2009 9:03 AM
I've lost a good deal of respect for every one of my heroes that signed that petition.
UKbased | September 29, 2009 8:45 AM
so drugging the scared teenager and committing sodomy on her and people can think he should be freed? So if the courts did say they will plea bargain and release him for time served .... he should be a man and go back and face the courts. Not be a wimp and a coward. I have no respect for people like him.
Maryland Clay | September 29, 2009 7:46 AM
He gave the girl champagne, part of a Quaalude and then jumper her. What a guy: Couldn't he find someone his own age?
indiewoodramedy | September 29, 2009 6:43 AM
Of course this case alone isn't as 'important' as the Iraq invasion. But the argument of 'putting it in the past' for the victim's sake is the same as 'supporting the president' once a war has been declared. Bullshit, basically... The reason the woman doesn't want this to come up again is because the courts failed her as a child (try reading the victim statement by the way - its public record). Christ, I hate to think about what the signatories on this letter have permitted themselves, drawn against the account of their artistic 'genius'.
pegu | September 29, 2009 6:29 AM
The victim settled out of court, but Polanski fled the country. He's still a criminal, albeit a "famous" one, but that shouldn't get him (though it did, will, does) special treatment. Look at TI and Plaxico ... both got prison sentences ... Polanski deserves the same serious treatment until the prosecutors or courts dismiss, or he's pardoned, etc.
mwblock | September 29, 2009 6:20 AM
Polanski is a genius, a great filmmaker..but he also plead "guilty" to rape.
He's a pedophile. It's ironic that Woody Allen is one of the signers of the
petition. Why should he be treated differently than any other pedophile?
He was 44 at the time. Let's allow the courts to sort this mess out and
allow his talent make him above the law...
Enchantment | September 29, 2009 5:30 AM
His "Pianist" is one of the best films I ever seen!! But if did this to that little girl he should pay for it!!! Doesn't matter how famous he is now!! Just imagine what will you say if the same crime was madde by someone else!!!
That's a killing news! Very dissapointed!!
rvaunois | September 29, 2009 5:00 AM
rabbi | September 29, 2009 4:25 AM
I find this disturbing on both sides of the argument.
On the one hand, referring to the crime in question, the drugged rape of a 13 year-old girl as a "case of morals" is a disturbingly blasé way of describing what happened. Can any of the undersigned show me an enlightened society that thinks this was NOT an immoral and criminal act?
On the other hand, the (now) woman involved in the case, Samantha Geimer, has repeatedly said she doesn't want this case pursued and that doing so would cause her family harm. If there's ANYONE who should be listened to, it's her. SHE's the original injured party here and if she has been able to put this behind her and go on to raise a family and she has repeatedly said that to re-open this case would cause her family harm.
Wouldn't it be nice if the zeal with which Roman Polanski has been pursued could be applied to the Union Carbide executives responsible for Bhopal, the Bush administration officials responsible for getting us into this almost 8 year-old war and countless other murderers and thieves who have directly or indirectly been the cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths?
I think we can all agree that the drugged rape of a 13-year-old girl is repugnant, but I would hope we can also have some sympathy for the original victim in the crime and heed her wishes that this be put behind us forever. What purpose does it serve to continue to prosecute Mr. Polanski besides our own sense of vengeance?
Will doing so suddenly make courts and police officers all over the world respect the rights of women and prosecute the hundreds of thousands of husbands and boyfriends and strangers who continue to rape and murder women all over the world? Seriously: will prosecuting Roman Polanski advance women's rights one iota? Will ANYONE benefit from this?
Coming from a society that has a SHAMEFUL record on women's rights and prosecuting crimes against women, I find this outcry rather hypocritical. Or maybe it's consistent. Just one more case of the rape victim being ignored.
indiewoodramedy | September 29, 2009 2:58 AM
Jesus, people- "warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals."? So did he not really f**k a 13-year-old girl when he was aged 44? Those pesky morals bothering 'great' artistes. I wipe my crack with this list of names. Pathetic.
jambajim | September 29, 2009 2:20 AM
It's been well-known that Switzerland is in cahoots with the United States for extradition. That's why this part of it is laughable.
"The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects."
If this were anyone other than Roman Polanksi, no one would bat an eye. I'm as leftist as they come, so it's even more disconcerting when feminists and leftist try to excuse his behaviors--time should not either nor should his evasion--by his celebrity and accomplishments in art.


text:
Photography and Art
Nature Sketching and Journaling
Now - May 11, 2013
General $112
Member $90
Member $90
Wednesdays | May 1 & 8 | 6 - 9 p.m.
Saturday | May 11 | 10 a.m. - 2 p.m.
- Elaine Hultgren
Nature journaling is an effective and artistic way to record observations on everything from world expeditions to backyard gardens. Learn sketching techniques using graphite, watercolor pencils and ink markers, as well as quick and easy ways to capture trees, clouds, grasses and water. Sketchbook and field kit provided; please click here for additional materials list. A Saturday guided field trip is included and the optimal location will be determined and communicated to attendees. Transportation is not included.
- Class enrollment limit: 15

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Welcome to Hollyhill Quilt Shoppe & Mercantile!
Hours are 10am until 5pm PST, Tues. thru Sat.
The Bunny got caught in some
April Showers
this month.
Shop our
On-Line Blow Out Sale
and save on hundreds of fabric bolts from 30% to 50% off! Save even more on our
$3.99 fabrics!
Pre-cuts & kits
Want to know everything that happens at Hollyhill Quilt Shoppe & Mercantile? Check out our blog
Boughs of Holly
to make sure you don't miss a thing!
Hollyhill Quilt Shoppe & Mercantile, LLC
1914 Willamette Falls Drive #160
West Linn, OR 97068
Web Site Design & Programming by
Key to the Web, LLC


text:
Phone: 503-823-7700
Fax: 503-823-7800
1900 SW 4th Ave, Suite 7100, Portland, OR 97201
Phone: 503-823-7700
Fax: 503-823-7800
1900 SW 4th Ave, Suite 7100, Portland, OR 97201
The Bureau of Planning and Sustainability's historic resources program works with citizens, businesses, property owners, public agencies and other community partners to bridge policy with action to protect and interpret our history and built heritage. This website shares information about the legal processes that govern historic resources in Portland, incentives for property owners, current preservation-related projects and links to other sources of information and support.
Regulations and benefits, including historic preservation incentives
Proposes amendments to the Zoning Code to make it easier for property owners to make minor home improvements in the City's historic and conservation districts
How historic landmarks are designated, and information on landmarks listed in the National Register of Historic Places and Portland's Historic Resource Inventory
Various historic maps
How Portland's historic and conservation districts are designated, maps of each district and lists of properties within each district
Organizations and websites that focus on preservation, architecture and history
Historic resource publications
Using a whole systems approach for rehabilitating old structures
A serious security vulnerability known as "Heartbleed" was recently discovered in OpenSSL, a popular software library commonly used by many websites on the internet to encrypt communication between a user's computer and a web server.
PortlandOregon.gov is NOT affected by this vulnerability as it does not use the OpenSSL software library. Please rest assured we are dedicated to protecting your security on this website.


text:
Overhead Power Lines
Rules for Specific Activities or Workplaces
- Agriculture (WAC 296-307-150)
- Blasting Safety Fuse (WAC 296-52-67095)
- Construction (WAC 296-155-428(17))
- Electrical Workers, Overhead Lines (WAC 296-45-385)
- Elevated Platforms (WAC 296-869-60035)
- General Safety (WAC 296-24-960)
- Initiation Systems, General (WAC 296-52-67090)
- Logging (WAC 296-54-529)
- Telecommunications, Overhead Lines (WAC 296-32-330)
- Window Cleaning (WAC 296-878-170)
- High Voltage Night Patrol Requirements (WRD 18.45)
Hazard Alerts, Bulletins & Notices
How can I get help from L&I?
- To request a confidential workplace safety or health consultation, call or visit http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Basics/Assistance/Consultation/about.asp for no charge technical assistance.
- For help with controlling your claims costs, call or visit http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Basics/Assistance/Consultation/riskmanagement.asp for a no charge risk management consultation.
- Find information about filing a workplace safety & health complaint you may call or visit a local L&I office to file a complaint.
- Follow guidance in Steps To a Safe Workplace to create your safety program from scratch.
- For general information, call 1-800-423-7233.


text:
Bible Gateway Recommendations
Retail: $22.99
Our Price: $16.49
Save: $6.50 (28%)
Retail: $14.99
Our Price: $9.99
Save: $5.00 (33%)
View more titles
Retail: $15.99
Our Price: $10.99
Save: $5.00 (31%)
As Jesus dies broken, his Father vindicates him with signs in nature--signs that only Jesus' pagan executioners are shown to understand.
The narrative again bristles with irony: far from being able to help Jesus, Elijah was his forerunner in martyrdom (17:10-13; Kingsbury 1983:130). The wine vinegar (27:48) was probably an attempt to revive him (Reicke 1974:187), perhaps to prolong the torment in mocking pretense that Elijah had come to relieve him. But Jesus had come to drink the cup of suffering (26:39), the cup of God's wrath (Jer 25:15-29). Our Lord is both our model, obedient and uncomplaining as he serves the Father no matter what the cost, and our Savior, who offers himself for the sins of the world.
The rending of the veil (probably the inner veil--compare Heb 6:19-20; 9:3; 10:19-20) around the time of the evening sacrifice (Mt 27:45-46) could symbolize the departure of God's presence that preceded his judgment against the temple (Ezek 9:3; 10:4-18; compare Mt 23:35-38; 24:1-2).
The Gospel has come full circle: again the religious leaders of Israel have missed the significance of Jesus, whereas the pagans one would expect to be most hostile to Christ have understood and embraced his true identity (2:1-12). Matthew's message to his Jewish Christian audience is clear: regardless of the response of the Jewish religious leaders, you must evangelize the Gentiles. His message to us today is no less clear: although church people often live in disobedience to the gospel and take Christ for granted, we must take him beyond the walls of our churches to a waiting world.
Previous commentary:
The World Ridicules God's Son
Next commentary:
Guardians of Jesus' Body
About this commentary:
IVP New Testament Commentaries are made available by the generosity of InterVarsity Press.
Help and Contact
Contact us/Feedback
Why We Advertise
Use Bible Gateway On Your Site
Advertise with Us
How to Support Bible Gateway
Bible Gateway Store
Mobile Bible Gateway
HarperCollins Christian Publishing
Reverend Fun
Thomas Nelson
Westbow Press
Women of Faith
About and Legal
Statement of Faith
About Bible Gateway
Press Releases
Site map
Privacy policy
Your Ad Choices
Site: Terms of use
Widget: Terms of use


text:
Talented artists, designers, crafters, and art lovers brought together for this fabulous annual block party-style art sale!
Drink City Live! At The Victoria Freehouse
Posted 4/11/14
The Brewer's Plate
Posted 3/19/14
The Scene at The Arden
Posted 2/26/14
InLiquid benefit v.12
Posted 2/12/14
Carnaval at Vanity
Posted 12/11/13
The Scene at The Arden
Posted 11/20/13


text:
April 25 2014 Latest news:
max temp: 14°C
min temp: 10°C
Prince William with wife Kate PIC: John Stillwell/PA Wire
Thursday, June 21, 2012
The Duke of Cambridge Prince William celebrates turning 30 today with private party at St James's Palace in London.
A royal spokesman said it would be a "low-key" and "private" function.
No more details about how the Duke will celebrate leaving behind his 20s were revealed.
Wife Kate (nee Middleton), who turned 30 in January, is thought to be behind any plans.
She must also find a present for her husband, no small task when he is second in line to the throne of England.
William's 30th birthday is an important milestone for the royal who could one day be King.
The Duke is a happily married man who wed Kate, his university sweetheart, during a glittering ceremony last year watched by an estimated television audience of billions.
He is also forging ahead with his RAF career, and earlier this month it was announced the royal had qualified as an operational Captain and can now command RAF Sea King helicopters during rescue missions.
0 comments


text:
Today, the local dealer demo'd the Lash system. I thought the base of the clip (being arched) would screw with the thickness of the mortar. He showed how it pulls up tight to the wedges and leaves only the thickness of the clip base under the tile (about 1/8"). I don't know how that translates into the actual install though by these hands
What blew me away was that he attached 4 tiles together using the Lash and lifted the whole works. This showed how locked in everything became. I'm just not strong enough to do that with a bunch of 12x24's though
But I ain't the Expert ..just a novice who's just trying to gather all the facts and opinions ahead of job
..hey, this is a great discussion, it's really helpful!
The depth of the thinset all depends on how flat things are, as I said, both the tile and the floor. With a bigger tile, your first one can set the whole scheme for the entire floor - you want it flat, and a bubble level is useful for that. Then, depending on the floor, you use whatever depth of thinset you need to keep things all in one nice, flat plane with good coverage. There's a limit on how thick you can make thinset, and may need a medium bed mortar if things aren't too flat or there's variations in the floor, or the tile, like bows or cups, etc. Again, the goal is full coverage with the tiles all in one nice plane. One of the leveling systems can help get them in plane, but make sure the first one is level first!
Jim DeBruycker
Important note - I'm not a pro
Retired Defense Industry Engineer; Schluter 2.5-day Workshop Completed 2013, 2014
Post(s) removed by John Whipple
Last edited by johnfrwhipple; 03-18-2014 at 07:21 AM.
firstname.lastname@example.com - www-no-curb.com - 604 506 6792
Always get construction advice double checked by your local city hall. Flood Test Every Shower - Every Time.
Well, with that x32 price you talked me out of it
I assume the bags of x5 I have around here will be ok for the Hardi fill, burn-in, and pebbles, but not good enough for the large format tiles? The supplier also has x77 on hand. What's your experience with it ..the Ardex site also yaks about that being the thinset of choice for LF tiles. Cheaper at ~$35 too.
And so the suggested size of trowel to go this job is...??
Your mixer experiment: no push at this end. I won't be attempting any Hardi filling and taping (let alone tiling) until we finish with drywalling ..and have settled in of our new family member. So probably in another week or so. As this is not a commercial job I gave up on any sort of strict timeline ..the beds are comfortable in the spare room
Last edited by Daler; 01-12-2013 at 12:56 PM.


text:
But first we have some good news on the heels of last Friday's column calling for more cameras in cop cars: Orlando police Chief Paul Rooney says he agrees.
It's a good start. And some on the City Council, including Commissioner Daisy Lynum, want to take the plan even further.
Good for them. Cameras protect both cops and citizens from false claims. They help make cases. They are unblinking witnesses to the truth.
Let's get to work
•Did you see that Gov. Rick Scott showed up in Jacksonville this week for the groundbreaking … of a 7-Eleven? Hey, I respect a politician who ain't too proud to beg. Still, some states have governors landing thousands of high-wage, high-tech jobs. Ours poses for pictures with giant, inflatable Slurpees.
•On the flip side … courting high-wage jobs doesn't always work out either. As the News Service of Florida just reported, Bay County and the state are suing to get back $750,000 in incentives money given to a health-care company that doesn't have quite as many jobs as it originally promised … because it's now closed. Once again: If you invest in your state's quality of life, you don't have to try to bribe companies to come here — or risk their taking off with the bribe.
•Put your money where your mouth is. A few weeks ago, I suggested that the folks screaming the loudest about Citrus Bowl renovations should back up all that big talk with serious cash. After all, that's what we required of backers of both the arena and arts center. Well, it appears a growing number of people may agree — including Orange County Mayor Teresa Jacobs. Jacobs was among those nodding at a recent forum where candidates for Orlando mayor were also calling for private contributions before any renovation starts. In fact, if hoteliers ever send Jacobs another resolution demanding "prompt action" on the Citrus Bowl, they should include a check. If this deal is such a money-in-the-bank proposition, those who will reap the biggest benefits should be the biggest investors.
•And one other thing … Some hoteliers act as if they're already contributing to the Citrus Bowl through hotel taxes. Hogwash. When I pay an extra 6 percent tax at the Hilton, that's my contribution to the public coffers — not Hilton's.
•Regular old 'parents.' Wondering why it's so hard for Average Joes to be heard? Check out Florida's new task force on school grades. The group had three spots for regular ol' "parents" — yet filled two of those spots with political insiders (the executive director of Jeb Bush's education foundation and daughter of state Sen. John Thrasher). Regular ol' parents indeed. I swear, nothing terrifies these people more than interacting with the commoners they supposedly represent. (More on this one at OrlandoSentinel.com/takingnames.)
•What they're 'worth.' Finally, Orange County commissioners decided their visitors bureau leader should make as much as $474,000 a year, saying he must be paid his "worth." I have no problem paying people what they're worth. I just find it interesting that folks usually trot out the pay-people-what-they're-worth line only when they're talking about CEOs. I've yet to see a politician with the guts to tell a social worker or pre-K teacher that they're only "worth" subpoverty wages.
firstname.lastname@example.com or 407-420-6141


text:
E-mail a friend
About FDNY
FDNY Home
FDNY Mission Statement
Bureaus and Units
General Resources
Important Numbers
FDNY Foundation
Interagency MOUs
Notice of Privacy Practices
Residents & Businesses
Certificate of Fitness
Contracting Opportunities
Fire Code / FDNY Rules
Fire Prevention
Fire Statistics
Fire Records
Hurricane Sandy Fee Waivers
Public Meetings
Safety & Education
Fire Safety Program
Fire Safety Brochures
Learn CPR
What to do After a Fire
Media & Press Resources
FDNY Close-Up
Photo Galleries
Press Releases
2012 Annual Report
Memorials & Honor
Events & Ceremonies
History & Heritage
In the Line of Duty
9/11 Memorial Pages
9/11 Tribute
Current Opportunities
Additional Resources
Vital Statistics
Language Access Plan
Smart CPR Trial
Customer Satisfaction
Fire Operations Survey
Fire Prevention Survey
EMS Satisfaction Survey
New York City Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta tomorrow will preside over a promotional ceremony for 38 members of the Fire Department. Four members will be elevated to the rank of Deputy Chief, nine to the rank of Battalion Chief, 10 to the rank of Captain and 15 to the rank of Lieutenant.
The newly promoted officers will be assigned to various units citywide. The ceremony will be held at the Fire Department's Training Academy on Randall's Island .
Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta; Chief of Department Peter Hayden; Members of the FDNY being promoted; their fire companies, families and friends
Promotional ceremony for 38 members of the Fire Department
Fire Department Training Academy, Randall�s Island, New York
Friday, September 30, 2005 at 11:00 AM
Contact: Francis X. Gribbon and David Billig (FDNY) (718) 999-2056


text:
Paul D. Mayse10:10 am | February 20, 2013
Paul Daniel Mayse, 66, of Elizabethton, passed away on Monday, February 18, 2013, at his residence.
Mr. Mayse was a native of Carter County and the son of the late Hubert Lester and Mary Wagner Mayse. In addition to his parents, he was preceded in death by two sisters, Ethel Hill and Flora Thorsteinsson, and three brothers, David Mayse, Robert Mayse and Charles Mayse.
Mr. Mayse was retired from Tennessee Chair Company and attended Prayer Tabernacle. He loved to fish, talk about the Bible and play horseshoes.
Survivors include his wife, Judy Mayse; five sisters, Margaret Calderon and husband Jose, Carolyn Martinez and husband Ricardo, Phyllis O'Grady and daughter, Mary Ann, Rebecca Mayse and Crystal Lingerfelt; one brother, Michael Mayse and wife Julie; three daughters, Kayla Mayse, Madison Mayse and Susie Danner; one step-son, Freddie Hill; a special friend, Mark Penny; a special nephew, Lester Reece; and a special niece, Maranda Thorsteinsson. Several other nieces and nephews also survive.
The celebration of life for Mr. Mayse will be conducted at 2 p.m. Thursday, February 21, at Tetrick Funeral Home, Elizabethton, with Rev. Kim Casey officiating. The family will receive friends in the funeral home chapel from 12:30 until 2 p.m., prior to the service on Thursday, or at the residence of his sister, Margaret, at 151 Jackson Avenue, or the home residence at 152 Jackson Avenue in Elizabethton at anytime. Music will be under the direction of Cleada and Everet Garland. The graveside service will follow in the Highland Cemetery. Active pallbearers will be Jose Lopez, Mark Penny, Ricky DeLoach, Michael Danner, Jose Mayse, Allen Reece, Robbie Reece and William Reece. Online condolences may be sent to the family by visiting www.tetrickfuneralhome.com and signing the guest book or by fax to (423) 542-9499.
Tetrick Funeral Home, Elizabethton, is serving the Mayse family. Office: (423) 542-2232. Obituary Line: (423) 543-4917.