Roman Polanski Makes Legal History

[MacReady]

(Taken from IMDb)

Director Roman Polanski will make British legal history by suing American magazine Vanity Fair via a video link from France. The Oscar-winning filmmaker won the right not to appear in person because he fears extradition to the US - from where he fled in 1977 after being found guilty of statutory rape with a 13-year-old girl. Polanski is suing Vanity Fair after it accused him of propositioning a woman on the way to the funeral of murdered wife Sharon Tate in 1969. The case starts on November 3 at London's High Court. His spokesman says, "Mr. Polanski has permission to give his evidence via a video link. We cannot comment further."

What the hell!? Now I'll admit: I've never really cared much the statutory incident now he's gone way too far. You're allowed escape from a country so that you don't have to face the law but you can sue a magazine for supossedly making up facts about you and to top it all off he's allowed to do from another country so he dosen't have to go to jail!? Anyway I hope this thread dosen't eventually degenerate into a back-and-fourth argument about the law and ethics of his past crimes, but I know that ain't gonna happen. I just couldn't help posting this up.

[Lynn Minmei]

I say let it go: This is a very personal case for Polanski, as this is the horrible murder of his wife which likely drove him mad. He was going to his dear wife's funeral and Vanity Fair making up an accusation for something like this affects Polanski.

I won't be clicking on this thread again, as it'll likely have to be closed as the usual idiots will be in here arguing about Polanski, not the article.

[RickySlade]

What the fuck, seriously? What positive benefits did Vanity Fair have from writing that? His wife was murdered and they say such an idiotic thing? Give me a break. Go Polanski!

[zeppelin]

Uh...I'm with Roman on this one. That was a terrible thing for Vanity Fair to do. And I will not be coming back to this topic, for the same reasons as Lynn.

[Lynn Minmei]

Originally posted by zeppelin
Uh...I'm with Roman on this one. That was a terrible thing for Vanity Fair to do. And I will not be coming back to this topic, for the same reasons as Lynn.

I'm still waiting for:

A.) People that disagree with me and

B.)People that forget there is a real topic here, but wish simply to argue about Polanski.

Oh well. Anytime now, I suppose.

[Scarface98.9]

Originally posted by Lynn Minmei
I'm still waiting for:

A.) People that disagree with me and

B.)People that forget there is a real topic here, but wish simply to argue about Polanski.

Oh well. Anytime now, I suppose.
The more you mention it, the people disagreeing with you, the faster it'll come, and degenerate out of control. So I recommend not saying much for the sake of the topic

[Lynn Minmei]

Originally posted by Scarface98.9
The more you mention it, the people disagreeing with you, the faster it'll come, and degenerate out of control. So I recommend not saying much for the sake of the topic

Yeah, I won't say anything as soon as the schmoes start to get into the politics. Like I said, as soon as it starts, I'm just ignoring this topic.

[Michael_myers]

Yes.... I agree with the rights of Mr Polanski on this one. A disgusting and poorly written magazine has no right to make up facts about a man doing inappropriate things on his way to his wife's funeral. She was murdered, by the Manson family no less! :(

[outsyder]

I think Polanski's in the right here. I mean, if your were crippled and bedridden in a hospital, unable to appear in court, wouldn't something similar to this be arranged?

[MarkItZero]

Where is QTR when you need him?

Maybe I am misreading the article..

I am not quite sure I understand how this works. How can you sue an American magazine for actions taken on American soil in a British court?

How does the British court have any jurisdiction in this case at all?

And if Polanski does win this case, will he really expect Vanity Fair to pay up? How can a man who obviously has so little respect for laws and the legal process be allowed to bring a suit against someone else?

[MarkItZero]

Originally posted by Lynn Minmei
I won't be clicking on this thread again, as it'll likely have to be closed as the usual idiots will be in here arguing about Polanski, not the article.

Originally posted by Lynn Minmei
I'm still waiting for:
A.) People that disagree with me and
B.)People that forget there is a real topic here, but wish simply to argue about Polanski.
Oh well. Anytime now, I suppose.

Originally posted by Lynn Minmei
Yeah, I won't say anything as soon as the schmoes start to get into the politics. Like I said, as soon as it starts, I'm just ignoring this topic.

:D

You remind me of Steve Buscemi's character from Fargo....

Oh, fuck it, I don't have to talk either, man! See how you like it........ Just total fuckin' silence........... Two can play at that game, smart guy. We'll just see how you like it............. Total silence.

[Grebdron]

Removing Pedolanski from the topic...

I think this is fucking absurd. If he wants the right to legal action, he should be forced to face those he's accused. Period.

[quoth_the_raven]

Ok, i think he does have a case. it sounds like he is suing for defamation, although this is not specified. as VF is a magazine read in this country ( i think...), . the article will have been read by members of the public. spreading the rumour so to speak. so yes, i guess he does have a case in our law, but in theory he probably could have sued just about anywhere the magazine is published. my guess is that the main office of the publishers is here in the uk, london probably, and hes bringing the case against them. in fact, for a big international company it would make sense, its in the middle of everywhere and the middle of the timezones. means you can communicate with both sides of the world during the same working day. so if the company is based in the uk, then it makes sense to bring the case in england.


incidentally, if he wins, he's probably going to get a crap load of money. by the way, i bet a large sum of cash that the magazine makes an in court apology and agrees to pay him a smaller sum than he would get if he sued successfully. its an option open only to magazines/newspapers, but it gets used a lot. personally, if i was the magazine, i'd get witnesses, including the woman he tried it on with, and try to prove that what they printed was the truth. the defence of truth tends to kill defamation cases stone dead. that or the apology, would, i imagine, be good defence tactics.

on to the video link issue. to my knowledge (and bear in mind i dont know it all- i am still a student), video links are only normally used in a few situations. for example if children are involved, or in cases of rape or abuse. it saves a lot of stress on the part of the witness, or even intimidation by the accused. its happened.

but to use it for this, i think, is bullshit. i've never heard of it being used in this way. i guess its for convenience. but i dont agree with it. he doesnt have any special circumstance...no reason for him to be intimidate, hes not been a victim as such. in a physical sense, which would give me he should be made to face it all. the videolink is a great way to protect a vulnerable witness from cracking up on the stand, and a great way to admit evidence from children. but a grown man in this kind of case? i dont buy it. no further comment on it just makes me more suspect to my mind.

just to end on a far less pertinent point, notice he is still being a chickenshit. ;)





ps- i skipped over a lot of the jargon and cases and stuff. consider this a rough opinion that may or may not be right. i'll do my best to answer any questions on the subject ;)

[sleekproductions]

Polanski definately has a case. Even though he did what he did, oh, almost 30 years ago now, was it? Vanity Fair has no right, and was absolutely disgusting in their act of saying that he propositioned a woman on the way to his wife's funeral! Have some decency! Don't make a fool out of this man! His life has already been hard enough! Goodamn that fucking media!



Unless of course he did do it, in which case, let the motherfucker burn.

[Grebdron]

Maybe...just maybe, mind you, Pedolanski DID proposition a woman (girl?) on his way to Sharon's funeral.

Maybe Vanity Fair is right.

I wouldn't put it past him.

[quoth_the_raven]

Originally posted by Grebdron
Maybe...just maybe, mind you, Pedolanski DID proposition a woman (girl?) on his way to Sharon's funeral.

Maybe Vanity Fair is right.

I wouldn't put it past him.


the potential defence that they printed the truth. he wouldnt be able to touch them if greb was right.

[vtadave]

Shit, if you're up for molesting young children, to proposition a woman at your wife's funeral isn't that big of a leap.

Hopefully the judge has the sense to tell him to fuck off and stay in France.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by vtadave
Shit, if you're up for molesting young children, to proposition a woman at your wife's funeral isn't that big of a leap.

Hopefully the judge has the sense to tell him to fuck off and stay in France.

The man speaks wise words.

This time.;)

[quoth_the_raven]

Originally posted by vtadave

Hopefully the judge has the sense to tell him to fuck off and stay in France.


he is staying in france though. thats kind of the whole point ;)

[James Logan]

Originally posted by quoth_the_raven
he is staying in france though.

So am I. Bwah ha ha ha I'm such an evil mastermind. ;)

On the topic...The whole video thing is ridiculously exaggerated. The case itself...well, I'll let the court decide of what's right and not concerning that particular issue.

[quoth_the_raven]

Originally posted by James Logan


On the topic...The whole video thing is ridiculously exaggerated. The case itself...well, I'll let the court decide of what's right and not concerning that particular issue.




hold on there james. do you mean the schmoes are exaggerating the issue of the link? or that the fact that they are using the link is in itself an exaggeration?


if i were you, i'd go for the second one. because if you think i am exaggerating on the point i might have to lecture you ;)



btw- over here, defamation can either be decided by the judge, or by a jury. it varies depending on the case. so it might not be the court who decides ;)

[MarkItZero]

Originally posted by quoth_the_raven
btw- over here, defamation can either be decided by the judge, or by a jury. it varies depending on the case. so it might not be the court who decides ;)

In fact, I have heard rumors that they are planning on picking me, Grebdron and VTADave as jurors.

All in favor of castration say 'aye'!

:D

[quoth_the_raven]

Originally posted by MarkItZero
In fact, I have heard rumors that they are planning on picking me, Grebdron and VTADave as jurors.

All in favor of castration say 'aye'!

:D


i'd be the fourth for you there, but my knowledge of the law would disqualify me. i am sure the three of you can carry on my work in spirit ;)

[Grebdron]

Aye.

[Lynn Minmei]

Originally posted by MarkItZero
:D

You remind me of Steve Buscemi's character from Fargo....

Oh, fuck it, I don't have to talk either, man! See how you like it........ Just total fuckin' silence........... Two can play at that game, smart guy. We'll just see how you like it............. Total silence.

A little off-topic, but I've been told that I look and act a lot like Steve Buscemi in real life by several people in the movie business. I guess, to quote Fargo, I am "Kinda Funny-lookin'".

[BadCoverVersion]

Originally posted by Lynn Minmei
as it'll likely have to be closed as the usual idiots will be in here arguing about Polanski, not the article.

Gee, thanks mate.

Anyway, HORSE SHIT...it's pure speculation, titillation, menstruation...well, maybe not the last 'ation'...but, hmmm...I can understand why the man is fucked off.

Tsk tsk Vanity Fair.

He's an ARSE of the highest order, but I'm extremely dubious about this one.

[Lynn Minmei]

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
Gee, thanks mate.

Anyway, HORSE SHIT...it's pure speculation, titillation, menstruation...well, maybe not the last 'ation'...but, hmmm...I can understand why the man is fucked off.

Tsk tsk Vanity Fair.

He's an ARSE of the highest order, but I'm extremely dubious about this one.

I didn't mean you BCV, I meant the people that ignore the topic at hand and debate the man himself-and surprisingly none of that has happened yet.

[Annie Hall]

If this is true (which I doubt), then I can't really respond.

But, assuming that it didn't happen, I would pissed off and suing too. That's a terrible thing to accuse ANYONE of doing. I know a lot of people don't like Polanski, which I respect, but this not only shows badly on him but it compromises the very memory of Sharon Tate. What happened to her was despicable, and making up ANYTHING about a murdered pregnant actress, her death, or the surrounding proceedings is about as low as a publication or human being can get.

[quoth_the_raven]

Originally posted by Lynn Minmei
I didn't mean you BCV, I meant the people that ignore the topic at hand and debate the man himself-and surprisingly none of that has happened yet.



i forgot to do that in detail. got lost in the legalities of the situation for a bit ;)

i can chuck some anti-polanski material in now if you want ;)

:D

[jake]

Originally posted by Lynn Minmei
I didn't mean you BCV, I meant the people that ignore the topic at hand and debate the man himself-and surprisingly none of that has happened yet. Maybe all the other idiots are waiting for you to actually leave the thread so they can get down to their Polanski-bashing.

If, as the article alleges, he's staying in France and using a video link so he doesn't have to risk getting extradited to face charges for that thing he did when he raped that child, it's kind of hard to discuss his actions now without discussing his actions then.

Plus the fact that your very first post assumes that VF 'made up' their accusation makes me wonder what you think the real topic is.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by jake
Maybe all the other idiots are waiting for you to actually leave the thread so they can get down to their Polanski-bashing.

If, as the article alleges, he's staying in France and using a video link so he doesn't have to risk getting extradited to face charges for that thing he did when he raped that child, it's kind of hard to discuss his actions now without discussing his actions then.

Plus the fact that your very first post assumes that VF 'made up' their accusation makes me wonder what you think the real topic is.

Who's this jake guy?

Wanna join the Pink Team?;)

I like the way you think.

[Reigh Kaufman]

Is he gone yet? Can we talk about Polanski being a paedo now?

;)

[someguy]

Roman Polanski sucks!



:D

Actually I am on the side with Roman here. How would you feel if someone said that on the way to a loved one's funeral you propositioned a woman? Not very nice is it?

[Lynn Minmei]

Originally posted by Reigh Kaufman
Is he gone yet? Can we talk about Polanski being a paedo now?

;)

Yeah, he's gone. Good riddance, thought that bloody prick would never leave!

[James Logan]

Originally posted by quoth_the_raven
hold on there james. do you mean the schmoes are exaggerating the issue of the link? or that the fact that they are using the link is in itself an exaggeration?


Using a video link. The Schmoes are always right. ;) I just think that if the man thinks he has the right to sue someone in a given country, then he should have the stones to bring his ass over there and show up like a man.

[quoth_the_raven]

Originally posted by James Logan
Using a video link. I just think that if the man thinks he has the right to sue someone in a given country, then he should have the stones to bring his ass over there and show up like a man.


just checking ;) i agree. i have a firm belief it should be used for vulnerable witnesses only. i dont feel he falls into that class.

[ERIN_LoJ]

Wow - people (overall) are having an intelligent discussion here :) Like Lynn I keep waiting for the shoe to drop further.

Ah well, sickening the way media preys on the pitfalls and tortures of others in their weakest moments. Good for Polanski.

[MacReady]

Update I got from IMDb

Polanski's Video-Link Ruled Out in Libel Case
Oscar-winning director Roman Polanski's libel action against Vanity Fair has been dealt a blow - he will not be able to give evidence via video link. The Polish film-maker, who lives in France after fleeing a conviction for the statutory rape of a 13-year-old in America in the mid-seventies, had been previously been told by London's High Court - where the suit is taking place - he could give evidence via a video link. However, the Court of Appeal's Lord Justice Simon Brown has overturned the ruling, telling Polanski he must appear in person at the trial, which is due to start on Monday. Polanski is suing Vanity Fair's publishers Conde Nast Publications Ltd over an article published in the magazine last year.

[Grebdron]

Poetic fucking justice.

[quoth_the_raven]

Lord Justice Simon Brown is a pretty reliable judge on the whole. always seems to make a good call (in my mind anyway).

nice to see he's keeping the good work up :)

nice to see polanski isn't being given the special privilege of a vulnerable witness as well. he never fit the bill, so why bend the rules for him?




there a whole post and i didnt even mention that he's a molesting son of a dog...


ooops. sorry. ;)

[Lynn7]

I think if he's on the run from the law, then he shouldn't be allowed to sue. Why does he get his day in court when it's convenient for him? There are always cnsequences for the actions you take.

Reminds me of the stories of criminals who rob a house, trip and break their leg on something belonging to the homeowner and then sue the owner of the house and WIN! Maybe there aren't always consequences, after all.

[MacReady]

Here's some more news I got from IMDb:

Polanski Puts Libel Action on Hold
Oscar winning director Roman Polanski has been forced to temporarily halt his legal action against American magazine Vanity Fair, following London's High Court decision to reject his request to deliver evidence via videolink. The Pianist film-maker is unable to attend the libel action hearing at the Court of Appeal as he could be extradited to the US, from where he fled in 1977 after being convicted of statutory rape. A judge ruled on Wednesday that he would not be permitted to speak via video from his French home. The Polish director, 69, has now been granted more time by Mr Justice Roy Eady, who ruled yesterday that he could have until late December to lodge an appeal against the decision in Britain's House of Lords. Polanski is suing Conde Nast Publications Ltd after they ran an article that said he propositioned a women while en route to murdered wife Sharon Tate's funeral.

[yomamma!]

Originally posted by Lynn Minmei
I say let it go: This is a very personal case for Polanski, as this is the horrible murder of his wife which likely drove him mad. He was going to his dear wife's funeral and Vanity Fair making up an accusation for something like this affects Polanski.


The dude is one sick twisted fucker i'll tell you, he should be extradited, tried and processed for the crime of rape, and then be cornholed by a large inmate at San Quentin Prison in California.

Why is he such a pussy man? Why doesn't he face the music if he wants to rid himself of the charges? Why did he flee the US?

That for me was his admittance to guilt in the first place...

[ThePJN]

I agree.
That's my main issue with Roman.
Not the man's talent weighted over what he's done, it's the fact that he doesn't have the intestines to own up to what he's done...

Like another moral wrong-doer/filmmaker.

Viva la Salva!!!

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0114168/1-14.jpg