I’m the assistant to Swiss lawmakers who, with parliamentary motions, have politically intervened in the Polanski case and who introduced an amicus curiae (http://www.solami.com/polanskiac.htm). This is going on parallel to Polanski’s legal team in Switzerland and the US, with knowledge of Mr.Polanski but - also in order to retain our independence and preserve our political credibility and effectiveness - without a mandate from him, and on a pro bono basis.

I thus submit to you and your audience the following questions:
1. What were the precise terms of art.261.5 at the time of Polanski’s alleged rape of a minor in March 1977 ?
2. What, if any, statute of limitations applied then to said negotiated charge of “unlawful sexual intercourse” (261.5)?
3. In the event, does this statute of limitations apply in all cases or only as long as formal sentencing has not taken place and formal judgement pronounced?

The requested information is urgently needed because
1. the Swiss government’s extradition decision is imminent (probably in the next 10 days);
2. the US/Swiss extradition treaty of Nov 14, 1990 (SR 0.353.933.6) came in force on September 10, 1997, substituting the treaty of 1900; the latter reserved the national laws of both the requesting and the requested state also with regard to prescription of a crime (art.5), while the former (also art.5) stipulates the law of the requesting state to apply with regard to whether or not a crime is prescribed and thus no longer extradable - an apparent oversight and genuine gap in this treaty;
3. the responsible Swiss authorities have shown what many see as excessive zeal in handling this case, even before Polanski arrived in Zurich where he was arrested on September 26, 2009; the name of the unfolding game thus is likely: seeking to hide or at least not be obliged to admit past political and juridical errors through strict - even if not in the national interest and/or not in line with treaty-reserved Swiss national law - observance of treaty wording; and
4. it may provide new legal arguments - which may also have escaped Mr.Polanski’s lawyers - in favor of exercising Swiss sovereignty rights to the effect of preventing the extradition of Mr.Polanski - without violating the extradition treaty in force, that is.

Thanks in advance for your consideration and prompt assistance. Salve!

Bernard Henri-Levy, Norman’s fellow blogger on the HuffingtonPost, has gone even further by suggesting that what is happening to Polanski is a “lynching”. (see: http://tinyurl.com/yzvbbk8 )

Mobs and lynching occur outside the rule of law. Almost unanimously, the anger on the part of the anti-Polanski crowd that Jeff is condemning manifests as a call for justice to take its course, not through actions taken outside the rule of law, such as those committed by lynchers and, well, pedophiles such as Polanski. To be sure, there are exceptions, such as ABC’s Cokie Roberts who may or may not have been serious when she called for Polanski to be “shot” (see: http://tinyurl.com/ybqdzay ).

To suggest, as Norman and Bernard-Levy do, that calls for the rule of law to take its course — all 32 years of a grindingly slow yet methodical process in this case — is on the side of mobs and lynchers insults the memory of those who, through history, have been the victims of the non-legal approach. And principle amongst the insultees are African-Americans, thousands of whom died at the hands of lynchers.

Roman Polanski, child rapist, must not — even by insinuation — be placed with company he doesn’t deserve to be within a 100 miles of.

Gunson acknowledged the judge’s sentence was unpredictable. “I’m not surprised,” he said, “that [Polanski] left the country under those circumstances.”

Gunson may be surprised but that doesn’t justify Polanski fleeing. A commenter on one of the Polanski blogs on the HuffingtonPost suggests that the suggestion of a possible 50-year sentence constituted “duress” which can, in certain circumstances, be a valid defense for breaking the law (ie fleeing jurisdiction).

Here is what Wiki tells us, in part, about “duress”:

In order for duress to qualify as a defense, four requirements must be met:

- Threat must be of serious bodily harm or death
- Harm threatened must be greater than the harm caused by the crime
- Threat must be immediate and inescapable
- The defendant must have become involved in the situation through no fault of his or her own

Perhaps Jeff can inquire of his legal contacts above whether Polanski’s fleeing constitutes duress.