France is on the list because the United States will extradite to France. France will extradite non-French citizens to the United States but not French citizens, believe it or not. If you need proof that the United States extradites Americans routinely I suggest you read the news.

Also certainly it is a shame that the United States declined to participate in ICJ, but your over-the-top statement that the United States has threatened to declare war on the Netherlands is ridiculous. You can't have it both ways and say it's fine and dandy for sovereign France to refuse to extradite its citizens but the USA is the devil for declining to participate in ICJ, when it extradites its citizens all over the world.

Anyway, this is not an issue of CIA agents abducting Polanski from the streets of Paris like Mossad agents in Argentina. He went voluntarily to Switzerland to attend a film festival for an appearance that was promoted on the Internet. Switzerland has an extradition treaty with the United States, the United States requested his extradition, and now he is in Swiss detention. What exactly is your problem?

The treaty cited on that is simply the latest treaty in force "according to Wikipedia," it doesn't mean there was no pre-existing treaty, nor does it detail the reciprocal provisions of the treaty; it simply means that the United States agrees to extradite persons there under some circumstances. Extradition treaties certainly can be retroactive. They do not criminalize past behavior, they simply govern the terms of placing fugitives in the requesting nation's custody and jurisdiction.

The point as many people see it is that there was a deal made, then the judge decided to go back on it, at which point Polanski fled the country.

You can argue about whether his time served was adequate punishment, but it was what the prosecutor and judge had agreed to. Polanski served that time.

No, actually, the judge never approved the plea bargain, and plea bargains are always subject to judicial approval. Polanski spent 42 days being evaluated in a prison clinic pending his sentence. He was never sentenced because he fled the country. Polanski did not serve a single day of his sentence because he was never sentenced. If and when he is sentenced he can get 42 days of credit.

Whether or not there was undue influence or judicial misconduct on the part of the original judge's decisions is beside the point.

Serai1: A statute of limitations is the maximum amount of time to initial criminal proceedings against the accused. Proceedings began when Polanski was indicted for rape. At that point he had a right to a speedy trial; he instead pled guilty and then fled the jurisdiction. There is no statute of limitations for being a fugitive from justice. (Incidentally, there is presently no statute of limitations for aggravated rape in CA anyway, but that is irrelevant).

It doesn't have to be rape or murder. If you get a speeding ticket, the statute of limitations requirement is met the instant the officer hands you the ticket with a court date. If you don't show up in court (or plead guilty and pay it by mail), you can and will be arrested and hauled back into Podunk Traffic Court thirty years later if it shows up in a traffic stop.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Polanski has been based in France, which will not extradite him and would not cooperate with any effort to do so. With the Schengen Agreement, there are no checkpoints at most European borders. The Los Angelos justice system has neither the resources, jurisdiction, nor ability to track his everyday movements in and out of France. Polanski has largely avoided those countries where he is liable to be extradited; he has not set foot in the UK, mostly of his foreign adventures have been in Poland where I believe he also has citizenship. The DA found out he was going to Switzerland for a particular public event, sent out a warrant, and Switzerland was consequently able to detain him.

---

@MEW: Nice counterpoint to Kate's article, I guess we'll see how long it takes this to get to 200 comments. Too bad you didn't raise a single substantive point as to what good is served by ignoring the fugitive status of a convicted rapist.

Posters here are either condemning Cindy+BFF as evil implements of bankers or as innocent entrepreneurs doing what they gotta do. Judging from the story, neither is quite honest.

True, someone has to clean foreclosed properties out so they can be put back on the market. On the other hand, there are right and wrong ways to accomplish this.

1. Apparently Joe's little operation consists of himself, Cindy, and a team of hired Latinos who speak no English about whom Cindy pointedly complains. In 2005, South Carolina was a little over 3% Hispanic. Do all these employees have work authorization (citizenship, green card, or otherwise), a fair wage, and legally mandated benefits and protections? In other words, Joe's "get rich" scheme is likely based on exploitation of probably illegal laborers doing work that some of these foreclosed property owners and evicted tenants would be happy to have.

2. Most states, at least in the Northeast, require the party carrying out an eviction to secure the personal property of the occupant, and it is the duty of the crew coming in after an eviction to place personal property left behind in storage. It belongs to the occupant, after all. Apparently South Carolina doesn't have this basic protection even for innocent tenants in foreclosed properties.