Polanski scouts quick-exit route!
Snow job ends!
The rallying around the globe, in what amounted to a high-profile tennis match between two nasty rivals, is about to land with a giant thud in Superior Court for the final set.
With a deaf ear to the 2nd Appellate Court ruling - "suggesting the case be heard in abstentia" - Judge Espinoza (who has been handling the litigation this time around on the three-decades old case) issued a finding that Roman Polanski is required to return to the big bad orange to be sentenced.
Is the bench-warmer thumbing his nose at the Justices?
The paparazzi must have been snooping around the Sheen case, 'cause they were slow on the uptake.
The judge made it crystal clear in a directive (no one got a whiff of) that the creative vision behind the soon-to-be released feature - GHOSTS - has to surrender to the U.S. Courts.
Based on the tone of the Judge's ruling, will the Swiss authorities kow-tow, too?
In the event Polanski's attorneys follow through on a threatened appeal, court enthusiasts may be treated to front-row seats in asizzling round of ping-pong that may include a "go" in a higher court where the stakes may be heightened somewhat
In a defiant move to make her voice heard - and likewise embarrass the City Attorney's office - victim Samantha Geimer filed searing affidavits with the Superior Court accusing the prosecutors of Violating victim's rights statutes.
Geimer is lamenting to anyone within earshot that she should have been interviewed to determine her feelings on the issue, before hatching the plot for Law Enforcement to stalk, arrest, and haul the talented director off to the U.S. to face sentencing.
In legal briefs, her attorney cited "Marsy's Law" which was passed by ballot initiative in 2008.
Pursuant to the measure, Lawyers are mandated to reasonably confer with the prosecuting agency, upon request, regarding the determination of the case.
"Didn't happen," accused Geimer's legal eagles.
In a response, the prosecutor's office one-upped them!
They noted for the record that numerous attempts were made, but insisted the communications were ignored.
In addition, the representative in charge pointed an accusing finger at Geimer and argued that the victim was twisting the statute to benefit Polanski (who made a money-damage agreement with the object of his desire after-the-fact).
If dirty laundry appeals to you, stay tuned, eh?
No comments:
Post a Comment