Charlotte Lewis Claims Roman Polanski Sexually Abused Her

Jim_ Samantha was willing to be topless with Polanski to advance her career, which she hid from her mother, deliberately to continue her work relationship with Polanski.

Susan Galley’s negligence in not chaperoning her underage daughter while working for Roman Polanski, was thus compounded by her daughter Samantha's cover up of her topless activities with Polanski.

Samantha’s concealment served to block her mother from intervening to stop Samantha’s sexual collision with Polanski before it occurred.

A trap was set for Polanski, with both mother and daughter contributing to the sexual collision, Everyone was tempted in different ways.

Not only Polanski’s action was illegal, but also the mothers since she was negligent, by not supervising her daughter's modeling activities.

Did the mother feed her daughter with false grand jury testimony to increase the blame against Roman Polanski so the mother could deflect her own negligence, in causing the sexual collision.

Also if Samantha lied to her mother, covering up her topless shoot with Polanski prior to the sexual collision, why should we believe Samantha’s grand jury testimony? She lost credibility in deliberately lying to her mother about her prior topless modeling activities with Polanski.

Every young girl and mother should be aware that if girl tempts a man by being topless, and deliberately hides this from her mother, and the young girl goes back for more there may be trouble, much more than she bargained for. After all men are only human.

Link: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20124052,00.html

Wippit - She doesnt say she lied to her mother about it --- she says she didnt tell her Mom cuz she wouldnt like it. Nowhere does it say the Mom asked and she lied in her reply, She states however that although it made her feel strange to do it, since he told her to do it she thouht, it must be ok.

She said in her grand jury testimony that she figured the instruction to take her top off was because that must be how photographers get 'bare shoulder' shots like she'd seen in magazines, so thats why she thought he asked her to do it. She reasoned just like a KID

You say she tempted him with her bare breast. Youre an idiot. HE TOLD HER to do it--she didnt sayshay up to him and suddently drop her shirt to seduce him, moron. And if it tempted him well he should have exercised self control like a adult man. Oh, but you think "men are only human"--meaning men cannot be expected not to drop their pants and force themselves on some girl at the sight of a boob. If that were true it seems we'd have a lot of doctors in in prison right now.

Your arguements are pathetic and your heart twisted, Your selective mention of facts in the artilce are skewed to your twisted need to blame a 13 year old kid for the transgressions of a selfish, mentally screwed up 43 year old ADULT MAN.

Jim- Yes Samantha does say she lied to her mother. She lied purposely through omission! Samantha covering up her Topless Shoot with Roman Polanski, by keeping it from her mother. directly led to her downfall, plus the mother was not chaperoning her. All three PLAYERS acted out of self interest. The mother should have been prosecuted for child neglect, and if not negligence on the mother's part, then mother was after a payout, and Polanski was victimized.

On Feb. 20, 1977, Polanski took me on our first photo shoot in a hillside area just a few blocks from my house. We shot a roll of film; then he asked me to take off my shirt and took topless photos while I changed. I let him do it, but I felt self-conscious. I was thinking, "I shouldn't be doing this," but I was a kid, so I thought if it wasn't okay, he wouldn't tell me to do it. If I'd told my mom, she would never have let me go with him the second time. When he made another appointment a few weeks later, she had no reason to suspect anything. I didn't want to go, but I still thought it would be a good opportunity.

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20124052,00.html

Your argument is not enhanced by your ad hominem attack. Just because Samantha was young does not mean that she did not purposely cover up her topless activities with Polanski which contributed to her downfall.

LIP - I have indicated this to you before, Jim, I'll spell it out to you here.

Your quote fits the GJ testimony of Samantha. But other than that you are projecting. You speculate about what was going on in Samantha's head quite a bit. But also about what was going on in Roman Polanski's head.

Allow me a -- in my experience -- more plausible speculation. All that happened in 1977, and Roman Polanski was a European man. He had been exposed to the 60s and 70s culture, braless babes, transparent blouses, miniskirts, topless beaches all over Europe (except in the rather dictatorial countries like Spain or Portugal), to nudist beaches in some countries. And sex crime rate didn't soar, far as I remember (please, don't ask me for figures).

Do you really think that someone at his age with that kind of experience could be "instigated" by a mere girl taking her top off, at a shoot at which nothing happened anyway?! I think, he would have been much, much cooler regarding "topless activities" of all sorts of girls and women. Because, you see, he had been exposed to that kind of thing a lot, long before.

JIm - If Samantha lied to her mother through omission, why should we believe anything that she said to the grand jury, or that she would not lie at all to the Grand Jury? Samantha has lost credibility by purposely concealing her topless shoot with Polanski from her mother. Since she has admitted to one lie through omission, it is more difficult to know when Samantha is telling the truth.

Samantha who admitted to purposely lying by omission to her mother by not telling her mother the details of the first topless photographic shoot with Polanski is a statement against Samantha's own interests, and shows that her purpose despite what was happening at the photo shoot which she said she did not like, was to continue her working relationship with Roman Polanski and/or her attraction to Roman Polanski. We don't really know.

Also I am not sure what you are trying to argue here, since Polanski was obviously attracted to Samantha in the end and the attraction was consummated. Is there any question that Polanski was not attracted?

JIm_ Samantha says she lied to her mother, purposely through omission!

The Lie of Omission - Definition:
A lie of omission is to remain silent when ethical behavior calls for one to speak up. It is a method of deception and duplicity that uses the technique of simply remaining silent when speaking the truth would significantly alter the other person's capacity (in this case Samantha's mother) to make an informed decision.

And the consequences of Samantha lying by omission? Samantha stole her mother's right to choose the options which were witheld from mother Susan Galley, which would have been to stop any more photography with Polanski. Was her mother free? NO! Samantha's mother was a slave to Samantha's deception and manipulation, which in the end caused Samantha's downfall.

Was Samantha's behavior to her mother ethical or moral? NO!
Was her mother violated and deceived by Samantha? YES!
Did Samantha serve her own self interests at her mother's expense? YES!
Did Samantha engage in lies of omission to her mother? YES!
Was Samantha's intention to deceive her mother? YES!

Of course Samantha's mother failed Samantha too - in a different way, by not chaperoning Samantha at the photo shoot with Roman Polanski

What do you suppose this Biblical passage means:
"Know the truth and the truth will set you free."

If the truth sets you free, what do lies do?

And whats the difference between speaking a lie, and Samantha intentionally withholding the Truth from her Guardian mother Susan Galley?

LIP- Oh my... a catastrophe of biblical dimensions! A girl committed the severe sin of not lying to her mother, but not telling her the complete truth. So, I guess, she had it coming to her, whatever that was.

Now that we know all about Eve, can we have Adam's story, too, please?! And what about the snake?

JB- In English it is called a lie by omission. See above for definition.

The biblical reference was more for the validity of that statement,

If you know the truth it will set you free.

But I do like what you said since we now know ALL ABOUT EVE, AND HER MOTHER'S NEGLIGENCE towards her, whether inadvertent or intentional. AND WE ALSO KNOW ALL ABOUT STEVE

Polanski's statement of May 2nd 2010 is corroborated by another who has been subjected to violations in the same Santa Monica Courthouse, as Roman Polanski so a judge could be promoted to become a Justice on police brutality day.

ARRESTING ROMAN POLANSKI AFTER 32 YEARS IN SWITZERLAND GIVES STEVE SOME FREE PRESS FOR HIS DESIRE TO BECOME THE NEXT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA

IN ADDITION A LIE BY OMISSION WAS USED BY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO GET THE SWISS JUSTICE TO ARREST POLANSKI AFTER 32 YEARS.

Regarding snakes two participants were snakes, first Samantha's mother by being too free with her daughter which may have been misconstrued to be a green light, then Samantha with the lie of omission which disabled her mother's guardianship towards her daughter even more, and Polanski was tempted and did not have the strength or decency to resist the temptation, if he was aware of Samantha's true age, thus all three were culpable and contributed to the sexual collision.

However only Polanski has been held accountable and for 33 years, which does seem rather unfair, given these particular cir***stances

Wild Child; Interview; Charlotte Lewis
Stuart White in Los Angeles
8 August 1999
The News of the World

I thought I was grown up at 14… but I fell into clutches of older men and almost ruined my life. Movie beauty Charlotte Lewis tells a harrowing tale every girl should heed.

FOR almost 20 years British Hollywood star Charlotte Lewis has been haunted by a secret past. She knew it would catch up with her one day. Now she is getting it off her chest. At 14 she slept with men for money. Quite simply, the girl who found fame and fortune with superstar Eddie Murphy in The Golden Child was once a call girl.

It seems impossible to believe, as we sit in the elegant surroundings of the Los Angeles Mondrian hotel, that this stunning English Rose could have stooped so low.
But she wants to tell all, how she went from hooker to Hollywood. She believes it will be a lesson to others, but more important a release for herself.

Her darkest days came at the ridiculously young age of 14. She was still at Catholic Secondary School in London, when she went through a rebellious phase, playing truant and chasing the night-time glamour of London’s West End.

Even now she finds it hard to face the truth. You suspect she has even lied to herself as a protective measure.

CHARLOTTE, now 31, says LSD and marijuana were at the root of her wild ways. She didn’t know what she was doing. Yet it is clear she went back for more time and again.

“One morning I woke to find a pile of Pounds 50 notes next to the bed,” she says. “I couldn’t remember quite what had happened, but when I saw the money I knew what was going on and felt sick.” The older man who had just left her bed assumed she was an experienced vice girl. Charlotte insists she was drugged and had her drinks spiked by an older woman she thought of as a friend, not realising she was a cunning madam who pandered to perverts to feed her own drug habit.

Yet even AFTER she discovered this, young Charlotte ‘entertained’ a succession of other men through that ‘lost summer’ of 1982.

“I don’t how many men might have had sex with me for money,” she finally admits. “I was in a permanent haze. I was 14 and looking for excitement, yet I was so naive. I’d go out with my so-called friend to a nightclub then everything would become blurry. I’d have a vague notion of talking to some man, and my friend saying, ‘You HAVE to be nice to him’.

“Obviously she was making deals with these people, taking money off them so they could have sex with an underage girl.”

Charlotte rushed to confront her ‘friend’ But, she says, the 22-year-old woman convinced her it was a mistake, just a gift.”

It is hard to believe anyone could be so gullible. But now Charlotte was left open to the most terrifying experience of her life. After a visit to Stringfellows club in London, she and the woman went to a Thames-side apartment. Inside were a number of Arabs.

Thousands of pounds were laid out on a table and Charlotte was told she could have it all if she agreed to go to Saudi Arabia with them. “I kept asking why?” she said. “Why would they give me money to go to Saudi Arabia? They kept promising me a fabulous education, great accommodation.

Then my so-called girl friend said, ‘Of course, if you go there you’ll have to grow up VERY quickly’. And she looked at me in that nudge-nudge, wink-wink way.”

THIS was too much even for a rebellious teenager. “I could see these men eyeing me hungrily, like meat,” she shuddered, “and I thought, ‘My God, I’ve got to get out. They’ll kidnap me, take me out of the country’.

“It was like an Alice in Wonderland house with long corridors and door after door. I made an excuse, then ran.

“The men came chasing me, but I managed to escape. I still believe to this day that if I’d not got out I would have been kidnapped and smuggled out of the country to end up as a sex slave.

“I went home to my mother and told her everything. She was marvellous about it.”
In fact, her mum had been going frantic with worry. Charlotte had been spending such long periods away from home that the social services were on her case.

“Perhaps I should have realised what was going on, but I didn’t,” Charlotte continues to insist. “I craved excitement and I liked men. “And although I knew sex was illegal because I was under-age, I didn’t consider it a crime.

“What happened to me is an object lesson to girls not to play truant and think they’re grown up when clearly they’re not.”

HER rollercoaster life of sex was far from over. “I’ve been at the top of the world, and I’ve also been to the edge and looked over into the abyss,” she said. “It wasn’t pretty.” In a no-holds-barred interview Charlotte also confessed how she seduced kinky director Roman Polanski when she was a nubile 17-year-old then slipped between the sheets with Warren Beatty.

Later she bedded Charlie Sheen and Mickey Rourke and in a drunken brawl kicked Kiefer Sutherland in a very tender place! She also made love to British video producer William Annesley, found Liz Hurley’s pyjamas in his bed and mailed them to Hugh Grant.
In a film career littered with failed romances she also romped with rock wildman Michael Hutchence and chatted up superstar Jack Nicholson on his way to the loo then whispered: “Can I come too?”

She was also romanced by Dodi Fayed, Mick Jagger and Jim Carrey, and weaned off drugs with help from Eric Clapton.

Charlotte said wistfully: “Someone once told me, ‘You can always find a friend to party with, but it’s harder to find people to help you afterwards’.”

The daughter of an absentee Iraqi father and a half-Irish half-Welsh mother, Charlotte explained: “I had a taste for acting from drama lessons in school.”

SHE spent every spare moment watching movies. “I remember gazing at Brooke Shields in Blue Lagoon and thinking, ‘I want to be her’,” she sighed.
When Charlotte was 15 she was spotted by a photographer who suggested she try modelling, so she joined an agency called Bookings.

“I remember with my first pay cheque I bought two steaks for me and my mum and she cooked them,” she said. “Money had been short and she’d sacrificed a lot. A model friend asked me if I’d ever thought of going into films. She turned out to be a friend of Roman Polanski, who was living in Paris. “We bought a cheap rail and ferry ticket, went to Paris and met him. I think he was entranced with me because I looked like Nastassja Kinski, who he’d directed in Tess.

“I knew Roman had done something wrong in America (he was wanted by the police for sleeping with an under-age girl) but I wasn’t too sure what. Anyway, I was fascinated by him, and I wanted to be his lover.

“He’d already cast me in his film Pirates, so it wasn’t like it was a casting-couch thing where you HAVE to sleep with someone to get the part. I wanted him probably more than he wanted me.”

She was 17 when they first had sex. They remained lovers for six months. “It ended when we went on location to Tunisia. I was one of the few females there. I was far from home, lonely and a little afraid.” And into her insecurity, Polanski lobbed an off-hand, cruel remark that was to bring lasting unhappiness. Charlotte recalled: “Roman would say, ‘You’re gaining weight’. It was ridiculous-I was a thin teenage girl, but I took it seriously and stopped eating. Then I’d overeat, and for years I suffered from bulimia. I know that was the start.”

CHARLOTTE also discovered how inexperienced starlets are often treated like a sexual version of pass the parcel. At the time, Warren Beatty was visiting Tunisia to scout locations for his movie Ishtar. Polanski bet him that he couldn’t get Charlotte into bed. “Roman didn’t think Warren could do it,” said Charlotte, “but the fact is I seduced Warren, not the other way around, so I don’t feel I was misused. He’s a married man now so I’ll draw a veil over it.”

When filming on Pirates was over, Charlotte had more money than she’d ever seen in her life. She bought clothes, shopped, nightclubbed and treated her mother. The casting director for Pirates recommended her for another upcoming film, The Golden Child, starring Eddie Murphy. At last the girl from Finchley was going to Hollywood, and she was still only 19.
“It was dreamland,” she smiled. “I’d never been to America, and suddenly I was in the first-class compartment of a 747 heading for LA with a limo to pick me up and take me to the Beverly Wilshire Hotel.

“The Golden Child was set in Tibet, and I actually thought I was going there.
“It was my first lesson that so much of Hollywood is illusion-Tibet was to be a set at Paramount, with a little location shooting at a ski resort called Mammoth Mountain five hours from LA.

“They spent so much money re-creating Tibet in California it would have been cheaper to actually fly to the country.”

Suddenly Charlotte had ‘arrived’. Everbody wanted to know her and, apparently, everyone was her best friend. She was still only 19 and about to meet Charlie Sheen, one of Hollywood’s great lovers. “It started with an amazing coincidence,” she said. “On the flight over to LA I’d been reading US magazine, and there was Charlie listed as one of Hollywood’s 20 most eligible bachelors. I said to the flight attendant, ‘I think I’ll go out with him when I get there’.”

Roman Polanski and Charlotte Lewis at Cannes
THREE days later she was at a party and in he walked. She recalled: “I said to him, ‘I’ve never seen the sea. I understand you live near the sea. Will you show me?’ He did and we became lovers.”

Charlie, she said, “was like a child when he made love, sweet and sensitive and very anxious to please. But after a while he began arriving home late. His brother had told me Charlie was an alcoholic, but I didn’t believe it.

“Once Charlie and I got drunk together while he was making Young Guns. We had a storming fight. I was being restrained when I accidentally kicked his co-star Kiefer Sutherland in a very painful place. It hurt! And it took quite a few years before Kiefer forgave me.”One day Charlotte phoned Sheen’s home and a girl answered. “I realised he was cheating on me,” she said simply. “It broke my heart because I truly loved him.”

Charlotte was paid 150,000 dollars for The Golden Child. But taxes and a bit of extravagant living soon ate that up. Soon she found herself virtually broke and down on her luck back in London-until Eddie Murphy came to her rescue.

She explained: “He’d asked me to come and visit his family in New Jersey, and I started to cry on the telephone and said, ‘Eddie, I’m totally broke, I don’t even have enough money to buy food’.

“He told me I HAD to go back to Los Angeles and restart my career. He sent me a one-way first-class plane ticket to LA, had a car meet me and take me to an apartment he’d rented for me.

“I was instructed to go to a local bank where I found an account opened for me with 50,000 dollars. Let me emphasise that he and I have never been lovers. It was just a generous Eddie Murphy gesture.” Charlotte bounced back in the film Dial Help. Since then she has appeared in movies such as Excessive Force, Men Of War, The Glass Cage,
Mutual Needs, Navajo Blues and Legion. She has also appeared in several TV shows, including a small part in hit comedy Seinfeld. With the string of films came a string of lovers.

MICKEY Rourke had a passionate night with her, then rudely didn’t call and she refused to have anything more to do with him.

Although she does say: “Sometimes he’ll come up to me if I’m eating with someone in a restaurant, and say, ‘I slept with Charlotte when she was very young, you know’.”

Then there was British video producer William Annesley.

“William was the love of my life and is now my closest friend,” she smiled, “though once he got a little kinky, brandishing a whip and suggesting I use it on him. But I’m not into sado-masochism.” Hollywood had toughened Charlotte and she was furious when she discovered Hugh Grant’s girlfriend, Liz Hurley, had been sleeping with William.
She grinned: “I found her silk pyjamas so I sent them by Federal Express parcel to Hugh Grant with a message saying, ‘These are your girlfriend’s. I found them in my boyfriend’s bed”. I wanted Hugh to know Liz was cheating on him.”

It was a little unfair, because Charlotte had a roving eye too. At one party she bumped into Jack Nicholson on his way to the bathroom. She recalled: “Cheekily I said, ‘Can I come with you?’ His eyes lit up and he said, ‘Sure’. I think he imagined I’d have sex with him. When I got in there I said, ‘I’ve always wanted to kiss you’.

“He said, ‘OK’ and we kissed passionately. He was a GREAT kisser, and it went on a long time. We might have gone further but, as it was, my boyfriend William was on the other side of the door.”

Charlotte started an affair with the late INXS singer Michael Hutchence after seeing him in a bar with Patsy Kensit, Titanic star Billy Zane and his wife. “Michael was a beautiful and sensitive lovemaker,” she sighed. “INXS was a good name for his band-he liked excess. He suggested we have group sex. He was happy for there to be me and two other women or maybe even another woman and another man. I couldn’t do that.”

DODI Fayed was the next man to woo Charlotte. He flew her to the Cote d’Azur and took her on his private yacht as he later did with Diana, Princess of Wales.

“I was living in the lap of luxury,” said Charlotte. “But I wouldn’t sleep with Dodi. I didn’t find him sexually attractive. I actually fancied his British SAS bodyguards more than I did him.”
Mick Jagger was another who pursued her, intrigued that she wouldn’t sleep with him because he was famous. And she never did, although she says: “I saw Mick recently. He looked incredibly sexy.”

Then came the drugs. In a city where party hosts put out the cocaine along with the drinks and snacks, it was all too easy. “I was never an addict,” Charlotte said firmly. “I was never in the gutter and it never affected my work.

“Sure cocaine, sure Ecstasy, and of course marijuana. Then one day I simply realised I had to sort myself out, deal with my eating disorder, quit the drugs, stop smoking.

“Eric Clapton, who is a good friend, advised me to go into the Priory clinic in Britain and I did. I haven’t touched any kind of drugs for more than two and a half years.”

She returned to LA in January and immediately began to date movie idol Jim Carrey. “He was kind, charismatic, funny and unbelievably gorgeous,” she laughed. “But I wouldn’t sleep with him.”

Nowadays Charlotte drives an old Volvo and shares a little bungalow with a female costume designer who has a young baby.

“My life is better now,” she said. “Of course, this isn’t living my dream, but I’ll tell you what is.

“It would be to have a husband I loved and who loved me, to have babies, lots of them.”

My cocaine hell, by the beauty [Charlotte Lewis] who partied away her glittering film

Sunday Mirror, Apr 6, 1997 by Henrietta Knight

Looking gaunt and vulnerable, Charlotte Lewis hangs her head and whispers: "I used to have the world in the palm of my hand.

"But I discovered cocaine and just couldn't stop.

"Everywhere I went there were drugs - at parties, at restaurants, on the sets of movies and at my friends' homes. I couldn't get away from it. It took over my whole life and then wrecked it."

It is the first time British-born Charlotte - who shot to fame at 18 after starring with Eddie Murphy in his film The Golden Child - has spoken of her battle against drugs...and the Hollywood party-go- round that drove her to the edge. Now recovering at the pounds 3,000 a week Priory Clinic in Roehampton thanks to her close friend Eric Clapton she says: "It is only now that I am really willing to admit that I had a problem.

"I have tried to stop taking cocaine twice before, but only in a half-hearted way.

"I used to think that it was something I just did at weekends.

"But living in Los Angeles is like being at one long party, and it's difficult to get away from it.

"I got to the stage where I was wondering, 'What is the point of living here? All I have is temptation'."

Charlotte was just 15 when she was thrown out of the exclusive Bishop Douglas School in North London - and went to Paris to pursue a modelling career.

At 5ft 7in she was too short to be a catwalk model, but found plenty of work in fashion magazines.

She also found a ready supply of drink, drugs and late-night parties.

"I was rebelling against everything," she recalls.

"After six months I pulled myself together because I realised I looked about 110 years old.

"I stopped drinking, smoking and taking drugs and didn't really start again until I landed in LA."

Charlotte made her screen debut when she was just 16, starring in Roman Polanski's film Pirates. She was immediately hailed as the new Natassja Kinski. When she co-starred with Eddie Murphy in The Golden Child the following year she was acclaimed as the next great Hollywood leading lady.

But along with the fame came the party invites. Everybody wanted to know her.

She became a well-known figure on Los Angeles' celebrity circuit ... and she was seen on the arm of some of the world's most eligible men.

She had an 18-month affair with Charlie Sheen and romances with Mickey Rourke, dancer Mikhail Baryshnikov and INXS rocker Michael Hutchence.

She lived with wealthy video producer William Annersley and was engaged to millionaire film boss Mario Sotela for a year.

She used to go night-clubbing with Liz Hurley. She was close to Sly Stallone's ex, Janice ****inson - and Emily Lloyd was a good friend.

But while she took small film parts to pay her rent, her friends were landing parts in big budget films made by the major studios.

And drugs were destroying her.

Last summer, after staying up all night with a girlfriend drinking and snorting cocaine she decided to quit.

"We were high as kites doing one line of cocaine after the other," Charlotte recalls.

"When the light started coming up over the Hollywood Hills we decided that enough was enough.

"We had spent hours discussing it and decided rehab was the only solution.

"The two of us staggered into the Cedars Sinai Medical Centre in Beverly Hills and went up to the seventh floor, where they run a drugs treatment programme."

But Charlotte's addiction was so great that she persuaded her friend to give her another gram of the drug which they both took in the hospital bathroom.

She says: "We thought we should finish it off before we committed ourselves.

"We sat in the waiting room and tried to fill in the forms, barely able to read or hold our pens. I was cold and clammy and unable to think straight.

"Then when we saw the doctors coming towards us my friend said to me, 'Do we really need to be here?' We got cold feet and left."

A few weeks later she again tried to give up drugs ... and thought that she had found a boyfriend - a film producer - who would help her.

She was already attending Alcoholic Anonymous because she thought she had a drinking problem when her lover-to-be saw her at her agent's office and followed her to an AA meeting.

"He knew I was taking cocaine so he pretended that he was anti- drugs," she recalls.

"We even went to AA meetings together. He told me that he spent one week of every month working in New York.

"After a few months of living together in an apartment near the beach in Santa Monica he started acting strangely like he was having an affair.

"We had a huge row and I threw him out of the house."

Charlotte discovered that his "affair" was really with cocaine.

And while he was supposed to be working in New York he was really on a massive drinks and drugs binge. "The next night he appeared on the doorstep saying he was sorry," she recalls.

"He had a bottle of champagne and a big packet of cocaine. I just couldn't resist.

"We sat up all night doing line after line until it was all gone.

"I became a nervous wreck and lost so much weight I was just skin and bone.

"He was a very confused puppy. I knew I had to call time on the relationship."

Sad and depressed, Charlotte left him to resume her wild partying with a vengeance.

She often stayed up all night as one day rolled into the next.

Four months ago she realised she had hit rock-bottom when she stayed at an all-night party in the Hollywood Hills snorting cocaine and popping Ecstasy pills.

"I passed out on a sofa and when I woke up I realised that someone had stolen my Rolex watch and some of my jewellery," she recalls.

"The man whose party it was was actually a friend of mine, but he had a strange girlfriend and she had strange friends running around.

"I told the guy that unless it was returned I would call the police and bust everyone.

"I went into the kitchen to pour myself a cup of coffee and sure enough the watch appeared on the coffee table."

By now even the smaller roles had begun drying up and Charlotte was beginning to run out of money.

"One movie I did just paid for a new lamp. It was a nice lamp, but that was it," she admits.

"I wasn't spending all my money on drugs because it always seems to be around in Hollywood.

"Someone always seemed to have some to give me.

Now Charlotte says she is determined to fight her way back to the top - for the sake of her mum.

"I never knew my father, who was a half-Iranian half-Chilean doctor," she says.

"We didn't have any money when I was growing up and my mother raised me by herself.

"Now it's my turn. Even when I was doing really well I still couldn't afford to buy her a house or a car.

"All I did was to try to make sure she was always warm in the winter.

"Now I really want to be a successful Hollywood movie star and really spoil her.

"But I was never very good at calling it quits."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_19970406/ai_n14462559/

I believe there was a kind of backlash in California’s Justice stemming from the Manson murders that included Polanski’s beautiful American wife Sharon Tate and unborn child, and his friends.

As far as California Justice and the press were concerned, Polanski was guilty because he was married to Sharon Tate who had been brutally murdered, and because he had made films (not his own original written material) that had gone so far as to show a devil having sex with a woman.

I believe the World’s press and Californian law enforcement were confused by Roman Polanski’s excellent visual portrayal of the devil having sex with a woman in Rosemary’s Baby, the horrifying Manson murders and 10 years later confused the devil with Roman Polanski himself.

Los Angeles Prosecutors and other human beings are not very bright sometimes and seem unable to distinguish between the character of a person who is telling a story and the subject matter of that story.

Los Angeles prosecutors are looking for modus operandi and may try to equate dark subject matter of a movie such as Rosemary’s Baby, with the person who is telling and directing the story in a magnificent way.

But this correlation between storyteller and story is not an absolute and is not a definite indication of the storyteller’s character.

10 years after Rosemary’s Baby and Sharon Tate’s horrific death certain Los Angeles prosecutors confused Polanski's wife's brutal murder, plus the devil shown in the movie Rosemary’s Baby, with the story teller Roman Polanski.

So then Polanski was made out to be the devil for having sex with an underage girl in California, with the devil’s attributes assigned to Polanski through using Samantha, her mother, and Charlotte Lewis’s help, even though all of this dehumanization of Roman Polanski and transforming him into a devil is not justified at all.

Throughout time it has always been that before others do brutal harm to someone, the person is dehumanized. And this should be stopped now in Roman Polanski’s case – whether this dehumanization is unconscious or not!!!!

“This reminds me of an earlier crime against Roman Polanski, another bait and switch incident that Polanski had faced in Poland after the Second World war where Roman Polanski nearly lost his life to a serial murderer who lured Polanski under the ground to steal his bicycle and who nearly killed Polanski in the process.

It seems that Samantha and her mother Susan Galley, the California Judge Laurence J. Rittenband, Los Angeles prosecutor David Wells, 9th Circuit Judge Trott, Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and his office 33 years later plus actress Charlotte Lewis have wanted to steal Polanski’s fame, good name and his money, and his freedom all for a casual sexual encounter for which Roman Polanski was not entirely responsible.

This is an example of the double standard in the Santa Monica Courthouse near Los Angeles, where European born people like Roman Polanski and myself have suffered an abuse of power by Santa Monica Courthouse Judges and officials.
The corruption and abuse of power is rampant like the Rampart Scandal. Below is a letter to the County of Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca who is the same Sheriff today in July 2010, that was written several months after I had been beaten up in the Santa Monica Courthouse in 1998, the same courthouse that did not treat Roman Polanski fairly.
The letter below addresses the corrupt way that the County of Los Angeles Sheriffs department were conducting my complaint of excessive force that occurred in the same Courthouse as Roman Polanski’s victimization in the process through an abuse of Official power.
It was after I sent this letter (and the day after 4th Feb 1999 when Amadou Diallo from Guinea was shot 41 times and killed in New York) that County of Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca sent me a letter which denied my complaint of excessive force that occurred in a courtroom at the Santa Monica Courthouse, and Sheriff Lee Baca and other County of Los Angeles Officials Officially condoned the changing of the identities of the White County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputies that assaulted and battered me in the Santa Monica Courthouse in a staged hearing to that of an African American Sheriff Deputy who was not involved. The African American County of Los Angeles Sheriff who did work in the County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Courthouse is Terry January and he was convicted in Federal Court in a different matter in 2008 which puts a big dent in the County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s and the Santa Monica Judge who is now a California Justice’s version of events.
As there was a staged hearing in Roman Polanski’s case as well as my own there seems to be many staged hearing in the Santa Monica Courthouse. The letter is below the stars.
*********************************************************************
“Sheriff Lee Baca
Sheriff’s Headquarters Building
4700 Ramona Blvd Monterey Park 91754
RE: 69159 LA COUNTY SHERIFF’S WCSC REPORT 29th January, 1999
Dear Sheriff Lee Baca
I am writing to you to inform you that I am concerned because my complaint against Judge Laurence Rubin’s Sheriff’s deputies bailiffs and defendant Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable has not been recorded completely or accurately by your department, and so it follows that a complete investigation into the police brutality against me cannot happen because of this.
When we spoke over the telephone in mid December 1998, you told me that you wanted to investigate the Santa Monica College police department’s corruption that caused police brutality against me, which has caused me much pain and grief in the last four months and that involved 2-3 of Judge Laurence Rubin’s Sheriffs Deputies Baliffs and one of the defendant’s – Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable – on 6th October, 1998, in Judge Laurence Rubin’s courtroom.
Sheriff Steve Mclean at the Sheriff Headquarters – last week speaking on your behalf – said you are unable to investigate Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable for his obstruction of justice, denial of obstruction of justice, and his part in the police brutality against me in Judge Laurence Rubin’s courtroom on October 6th, 1998. And I am sorry to hear this – if it is true!
When I initially made the police brutality/unlawful detainment complaint on 7th December 1998, in the Santa Monica Courthouse Sheriff’s department against 2-3 of Judge Laurence D. Rubin’s Santa Monica Courthouse Sheriff’s deputy bailiffs, Sheriff Sherman Moten employee no 064827,of Santa Monica Courthouse sheriff’s department refused to write down on the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Watch Commander’s service complaint report form No 69159 that the defendant Santa Monica College policeman Ron Marable had also joined in with the Sheriffs deputies bailiffs in beating me up.
However Sheriff Moten did write this down on a separate scrap of paper, when I insisted, and gave me a photocopy which I still have.
This is what Sheriff Sherman Moten wrote on that scrap of paper.
“Jane Doe said that one of the deputies embedded his fingernails into her left hand. She also received a bruise on her right leg at the knee, and suffered internal injuries from the punches, and was falsely arrested, and her glasses were torn from her face. Jane Doe does not recall the deputies names, however she can identify the deputies involved. Jane Doe also stated that defendant Ron Marable (Santa Monica College Police) also assisted.”
I would like the above statement incorporated into my original complaint on the main Sheriff’s claim form, so that the Sheriff’s department’s investigation into this matter will be obliged to investigate defendant Santa Monica College policeman Ron Marable who was allowed to join in – in beating me up in Judge Laurence Rubin’s courtroom. Also because he was allowed to join in – and did join in with the Sheriff’s deputies bailiffs by holding his hand on my back in a war like gesture of winning while I was being held on the ground by the Sheriff’s deputies bailiffs – and after I had just been punched twenty times by the Sheriff’s deputies bailiffs, this shows an allegiance and conspiracy between the two departments!
Please record and reflect that my complaint also includes defendant Santa Monica College policeman Ron Marable’s involvement with the Sheriffs deputies bailiffs in beating me up on the main Sheriff’s claim form 69159!
The diminishing and misrepresentation of my complaint by the Sheriff’s Department to exclude defendant Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable’s involvement in the police brutality against me on October 6th, 1998, is the same kind of diminishment that occurred at the Santa Monica College Police department when Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable refused to record my complaint about Santa Monica College Instructor Larry Jones sexual assault of me at all, in November , because he said the sexual assault was too old to record! And then later he denied that we ever had that conversation.
Once my complaint is completely and accurately recorded by your office, and I receive a copy that reflects my full complaint, I will be happy to contact whoever needs to be contacted so the investigation can move forward.
Sincerely
Jane Doe
********************************************************************

Here is an example of the double standard in the Santa Monica Courthouse of County of Los Angeles California, where European born people such as Roman Polanski and myself have been treated poorly and suffered abuse of power, no due process of law, no equal protection of the laws, and discrimination by Santa Monica Courthouse Judges and other officials whether prosecutors in Polanski’s case or police in my case.

This informs everyone that in Santa Monica California it does not matter if you are accused of a sex crime, or whether you are a victim of a sex crime and related crimes. In either case you are treated poorly, especially if you were born elsewhere and are not working for the California Government.

Below is a letter to the County of Los Angeles Presiding Judge of the Santa Monica Courthouse Candace C. Cooper dated 19th March 1999 that was written several months after I had been beaten up in the Santa Monica Courthouse in 1998, the same courthouse that used obscure California statutes to send Roman Polanski to prison with no right of appeal.

In the letter below to the presiding Judge of the Santa Monica Courthouse Candace D. Cooper there are details of the corruption I experienced at the Santa Monica Courthouse where it was planned in advance to assault and batter me, since the White perpetrators are being hidden by a front – County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputy Terry January who is African American.

I had reported to the Santa Monica College police that I had been sexually molested at Santa Monica College by a white Santa Monica photography Instructor. I also later reported to Santa Monica College Officials Piedad Robertson that African American Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable had covered up my sexual assault complaint against a White Santa Monica College instructor Larry R. Jones who had sexually molested me from behind in his class.

County of Los Angeles Santa Monica African American Sheriff Deputy Terry January was used by County of Los Angeles as a front for, and to cover up the corruption that continued from Santa Monica College and African American Police Officer Ron Marable into Judge Laurence D. Rubin’s Santa Monica Courtroom and to cover up the assault and battery that I encountered there by a number of white Sheriff’s Deputies.

County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputy Terry January was convicted in Federal Court in a different matter in 2008, which visible conviction puts a huge dent in Terry January and the County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Judge Laurence D. Rubin’s credibility their version of events, where they both deny that there were any white sheriff deputies in the courtroom that assaulted and battered me. [Note that Santa Monica Judge Laurence D. Rubin is now a California Appeal Court Justice]

As there was a staged hearing in Roman Polanski’s case and in my own case in the same County of Los Angeles Santa Monica courthouse, one wonders how many other cases of staged hearings there are there, with a pattern and practice of corruption, by the County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Judges with judicial affairs not being conducted honestly.

My letter to the Santa Monica presiding Judge Candace D. Cooper below the stars – details the events of the Santa Monica Courthouse staged hearing I encountered where I was assaulted and battered in response to reporting Santa Monica College police cover up of my sexual assault complaint against Instructor Larry R. Jones at Santa Monica College.

The prior California Governor Gray Davis promoted the Santa Monica Judge involved, Judge Laurence D. Rubin on police brutality day in 2001 to become a California Appeal Justice possibly for his service to Santa Monica College, California in assisting their police cover up of my sexual assault complaint against the Santa Monica Instructor.

Judge Laurence D. Rubin aided and abetted the police brutality by allowing the Santa Monica College Police defendant to control his courtroom through abusive process, and by suppressing the identities of the Caucasian Sheriff Deputies in his courtroom who were responsible for assaulting and battering me, and he was also involved in the conspiracy to deprive me of my civil rights since he corroborated County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputy Terry January’s false declaration.

California Governor Gray Davis was recalled and replaced as the Governor in California, but the two judges from the Santa Monica Courthouse that the Californian Governor Gray Davis promoted to the California Appeal Court — Candace D. Cooper and Laurence D. Rubin were not recalled from their positions of Justice at the California Appeal Court.
***********************************************************************

To County of Los Angeles Judge Candace D Cooper ,
Director of Santa Monica Judicial District (19484)
1725 Main St,
Santa Monica, Ca 90401

Case No: 98A01437 19th, March, 1999

Dear Candace D Cooper

….
ESTABLISHING CAUCASIAN IDENTITIES

Today I am writing to you because I would like you to ask Judge Laurence D Rubin to identify the 2/3 Caucasian Sheriff Deputies who were in his Courtroom R, on the morning of 6th October 1998, who perpetrated the Police Brutality against me. I would also like to know the names of all the other Sheriff’s deputies and bailiffs involved in the unlawful search/false arrest and unlawful detainment, and thought that you might have access to the correct information as Presiding Judge.

1. In Judge Laurence D Rubin’s courtroom there was a Caucasian Sheriff Deputy who went into an attacking expression and posture before he kicked me to the ground. He started the police brutality by this action, and one or two other Caucasian Sheriff’s deputies joined in to punch me twenty times in my soft tissue near my rib cage, even though I was not attacking them, and had already been restrained by the first one. One of them dug his fingernails way into my left hand. I would like to know their names, and identities.
2. Judge Laurence D Rubin knows the identities of the Sheriff’s Deputies in his courtroom and he was there when this police brutality began, so I would ask you to ask him who the 2/3 Caucasian sheriff deputy bailiffs were, who beat me up in his courtroom on October 6th, 1998.
3. Sheriff Deputy Terry January, who I believe is Judge Laurence D Rubin’s regular daily Sheriff Deputy – I have never had any dealings with. And I have already informed the NCAAP that the County Of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department is involving African American Sheriff’s Deputy Terry January in a police brutality incident against me that he was not involved in. (And nor did he stop my approach to the Judge, which is another fictitious story I heard)
4. There was also a female Sheriff’s deputy who took the character references out of my hand which I was still clutching, after I was picked up off the floor after being punched twenty times. I would like to know her name also. She also took my black bag away with her at that time along with the three character references.

[Coincidentally one of those character references for me, was written by a relation of Ruth Gordon the academy award winner for Rosemary’s Baby, directed by Roman Polanski.

Coincidentally the County of Los Angeles et al suppression of the identities of the White Sheriff’s Deputies of Judge Laurence D. Rubin’s Santa Monica Courtroom who assaulted and battered me, has a similar quality to the devil shown in Rosemary’s Baby who lay there hidden in the next room]
…

NO DUE PROCESS +POLICE CORRUPTION=POLICE BRUTALITY

In your letter received in February 1999, you stated, I quote, “I am aware that there was some disturbance in the courtroom on the date of your trial, but those events occurred after the hearing conducted by Judge Laurence Rubin, and obviously could not have affected his evaluations of your claims.”

In answer to your statement the disturbance you mentioned – was police brutality – and it erupted because I exposed obstruction of justice by the defendants Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable, and Santa Monica College et al,. to the Court and to Marable’s peers the Sheriff’s Deputies, who were in the Courtroom during a process that was already contaminated with No Due Process of law. The police brutality broke out and was part of an Abuse of Process in that the beating I was subjected to was calculated to traumatize me into silence about the earlier violations I had experienced i.e. sexual assault by a Santa Monica college instructor, and then obstruction of justice by a Santa Monica college policeman and validated by Santa Monica College et al.

The disturbance/police brutality was instigated by 1 Caucasian Sheriff Deputy who I can recognize, kicking me to the floor and 1-2 others joining him and punching me twenty times in soft tissue around my stomach and ribcage area and digging their fingernails into my hands even though I had not attacked them, and was not resisting their attack on me, and these three Caucasian Sheriff Deputies allowed the defendant Santa Monica College Police officer Ron Marable to join in their ceremonial activities by putting his hand on my back as I lay on the floor after they had punched me for two minutes.

The whole trauma reminded me of a Ku Klux Klan activity. The only difference now was it is 3/4 men of different skin color who were peers against a single 5ft 5in non muscular woman, nearly half a century old.

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGE LAURENCE RUBIN’S JUDGMENT OF OCTOBER 6TH, 1998, BECAUSE OF NO DUE PROCESS OF LAW

1) The process was continued on October 6th, 1998 in bad faith, because of the defendants, and the Santa Monica Courthouse

a) Defendant Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable, Santa Monica College et al concealed from the Plaintiff and the Court, that the Plaintiff had not met the California Government Claim 910 requirement at the beginning of the hearing on October 6th, 1998
b) If Defendant Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable had revealed that there was no government claim filed, at the beginning of the hearing, then there would have been no hearing and no police brutality that day!
c) The other defendants of this case Santa Monica College, Santa Monica College District and Santa Monica College Police department did not appear for the hearing even though they had been served by the Sheriff’s department, and defendant Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable appeared so the other defendants would not lose by default. By being absent the other three defendants may have hoped to win the case through a strategy of a hearing being held where the Plaintiff never stood a chance of prevailing, i.e. No Due Process Of Law -which was then combined with police brutality against the Plaintiff.

2) Essential procedure needed by Plaintiff in order to prevail in the case, was not disclosed by the Santa Monica Small Claims Court or Defendants to the Plaintiff, prior to the hearing

a) … information should have been available and disclosed to me by the Santa Monica Courthouse Small Claims advisors/clerk and Judge Laurence D Rubin’s Court on 2nd September 1998, or 6th, October 1998! The Small Claims Court of Santa Monica Courthouse were very aware that I was suing a Santa Monica College et al, which included Government officials.

b) When I filed the case in September 2nd, 1998, the Court did not ask me for a copy of the Government Claim form that I submitted to the School District, and did not ask me for a copy of the rejection letter.
…
3. Elements Of No Due Process Of Law

1. If the Court or the Defendants had informed me of this requirement prior to the hearing, or at the beginning of the hearing, then there would not have been a hearing, or a judgment entered on October 6th, 1998.
2. Judge Laurence Rubin restricted me from cross-examining Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable, the defendant, and vice-versa at the beginning of the hearing.
3. Judge Laurence Rubin did not, and could not properly cross-examine the defendant Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable as Judge Rubin does not know the details of the case. Therefore even though cross-examination is at the heart of a fair hearing no true cross- examination took place at this hearing!
4. I had a tape cassette of a witness, Offune Obiamiwe, who was present at this hearing, and this evidence, the tape of witness Offune Obiamiwe further substantiated my claim of the inappropriate and sexual/intrusive behavior on the part of Santa Monica College Instructor Larry Jones towards female students, but Judge Laurence Rubin refused to listen to my tape of Offune Obiamiwe’s evidence where she also complained of the instructor Larry Jones’s inappropriate behavior towards her at Santa Monica College.
5. I have the court copy of the subpoena for Offune Obiamiwe as neither the court clerk or Judge Laurence Rubin wanted to file it in the court record.
6 Judge Laurence Rubin never returned my evidence to me, a police report that I initiated in November 1996 in the Santa Monica College Police Department through Santa Monica College police officer Ron Marable.
7 I had wanted to show three character references from instructors at Santa Monica College, … which at the beginning of the hearing Judge Laurence Rubin said he might look at if he needed to after hearing my testimony and the police officer’s testimony. Later on because I still wanted to show these three character references to Judge Laurence Rubin, these three sheets of paper became the catalyst and pretext for police brutality…
8. Judge Laurence D Rubin’s judgment, …does not reveal that the Court and the defendant failed to notify Plaintiff about the procedural requirement of filing the California Government Code 910 et seq with them, as the Court and defendants never wanted to give the Plaintiff any chance to litigate in a climate where she had the chance to prevail. Instead the Court and the defendants set the Plaintiff up to litigate in a climate which contained Caucasian Sheriff’s deputies with records of excessive force…

4. AN ABUSE OF PROCESS.
The defendants of this case Santa Monica College, Santa Monica College Community District, Santa Monica College Police Department( and Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable (only defendant Police Officer Ron Marable appeared even though all the defendants had been served by the sheriff’s department!) used the legitimate process of the court hearing for an illegitimate ulterior purpose to coerce Plaintiff to stop proceedings against them for obstruction of justice and the other causes of action. This hearing on October 6th, 1998, was used as a threat and a club on the Plaintiff literally..

The defendants [and the Santa Monica Court], in bad faith, concealed the California Government Claim requirement at the beginning of the hearing on October 6th, 1998, for the illegitimate purpose of continuing and controlling the process, using it to surprise and disrupt the hearing, at an opportune moment, and as a device to terminate any further litigation against the defendants, by making it seem that a legitimate and fair hearing had taken place, when it had not.

It was at least half an hour into the hearing before defendant Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable revealed obscurely that the Government Claim requirement had not been met to Judge Laurence D Rubin by saying, “And There’s No Claim.”

Judge Laurence D Rubin understood immediately and closed the hearing because of it. And when defendant Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable said, “And There’s no claim,” Judge Laurence D. Rubin was not at all curious to ask me if a (Government) Claim had been filed, and didn’t stop to explain to me what a (Government) Claim was! He just quickly closed the case, as opposed to just continuing the case to another date- which is what he would have done if he were trying to conduct a fair hearing!

5. I was never given an opportunity at any time to appear for this case in this Court – when I had a possibility of prevailing i.e. after I had met the California Government Claim requirements.

The California Government claim requirement 910 et seq, was not designed to be used as a device, to permit the defendant Santa Monica College Police Officer Ron Marable, Santa Monica College, Santa Monica College Police Department and Santa Monica College District, to secure an advantage over me, the Plaintiff, by allowing a process to continue, one that I could never prevail in …

The California Government Claim requirement was hidden in bad faith, at the beginning of the hearing, by the defendant (s), and was used later to close the hearing, and with which Judge Laurence D Rubin complied with.. The defendants, concealed the California Government Claim requirement at the beginning of the hearing on October 6th, 1998, for the illegitimate purpose of continuing and controlling the process, using it to surprise and disrupt the hearing, at an opportune moment, and as a device to terminate any further litigation against the defendants, by making it seem that a legitimate and fair hearing had taken place, when in fact – it had not.

The California Government Claim requirement was not designed to be used as a device by the defendant or the court to nullify, neutralize or disguise the right for Plaintiff to have Due Process of Law, an opportunity to litigate in a process that Plaintiff has the possibility to prevail in, after Government Claims requirements have been met, in either that court or another court. And on October 6th, 1998, I had no such possibility, and thus did not receive Due Process Of Law in that Court.

Thank you for your help in establishing the identities of the Sheriff’s deputies who were involved in beating me up…

Sincerely Jane Doe