Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 06/26/2020 10:25 AM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by A. Miro,Deputy Clerk

Harland W. Braun, Esq. [CASBN 41842]

1 BRAUN & BRAUN LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1020
2 Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 277-4777
3 Facsimile: (310) 507-0232
Email: harland@braunlaw.com
4
5 Attorneys for Petitioner
ROMAN POLANSKI
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

8 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

9 ROMAN POLANSKI, an individual, Case No. 19STCP01398

10 Petitioner, [Hon. Mary H. Strobel]

11 v. PETITIONER’S OPENING BRIEF IN

SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT
12 ACADEMY OF MOTION PICTURE ARTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
0250 CONSTELATION BOULEVARD, SUITE 020

13 AND SCIENCES, a California corporation,

OS ANGE ES, CA FORN A 90067

[Concurrently filed with Declaration of

BRAUN & BRAUN LLP

14 Respondent. Harland W. Braun in Support Thereof]

15 Date: August 25, 2020

Time: 9:30 a.m.
16 Dept: 82
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

PETITIONER’S OPENING BRIEF

 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 I. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………….. 4

3 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………………………. 4

4 A. Petitioner’s Expulsion from the Academy …………………………………………4

5 B. Discussions Following Mr. Polanski’s Improper Expulsion ……………………….6

6 C. The Academy’s Disingenuous Attempt to “Reconsider” Petitioner’s Expulsion and

7 Its Empty Promise to Allow Mr. Polanski to Present Evidence After the Fact……7

8 III. ARGUMENT ……...………………………………………………………………….. 9

9 A. The Academy’s Administrative Policies and Proceedings Were Unfair…………...9

10 B. The Academy’s Offer to “Reconsider” Its Decision After the Fact Was Also Biased

11 and Unfair …………………………………………………………………………11

12 C. The Factual Findings Are Unsupported by the Evidence ………………………...12

0250 CONSTELLATION BOULEVARD, SUITE 020

13 D. The Court Must Decide Whether the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine Applies ...13
OS ANGE ES, CA FORN A 90067
BRAUN & BRAUN LLP

14 IV. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………….14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2.
PETITIONER’S OPENING BRIEF
 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2 Cases
3 Armstrong v. Manzo (1965) 380 U.S. 545………………………………………………………...10
4 Bergeron v. Department of Health Services (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 17 ………………………….10
5 Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152 ……………………………………9
6 Conlan v. Bonta (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 745 …...………………………………………………..13
7 Doe v. University of Southern California (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 221…………………………...10
8 Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 965 …………...10
9 Haas v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1017 ……………………………………...10
10 Rosenblit v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1434 …………...…………………………...10
11 Today’s Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Education (2013) 57 Cal.4th 197 …...10
12 Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506 ……....13
0250 CONSTELLATION BOULEVARD, SUITE 020

13
OS ANGE ES, CA FORN A 90067
BRAUN & BRAUN LLP

14 Statutes
15 Cal Corp Code § 7341(b) …………………………………………………………………………10
16 Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5 ………………………………………………………………………9, 12
17 Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5(b) ……………………………………………………………………...12
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3.
PETITIONER’S OPENING BRIEF
 1 I. INTRODUCTION

2 Petitioner Roman Polanski was admitted as a member of the Academy of Motion Picture

3 Arts and Sciences (the “Academy”) on December 31, 1968, with a letter signed by Gregory Peck,
4 as President of the Academy. Mr. Polanski’s motion picture films have been nominated by the
5 Academy twenty-eight (28) times for Academy Awards in various categories and have won eight
6 (8) Oscars. Petitioner himself has been nominated by the Academy for six (6) Academy Awards,
7 including nominations for best director for Chinatown in 1975 and Tess in 1981, and the Academy
8 nominated and awarded Petitioner Polanski the Oscar for best director for The Pianist in 2003.
9 On May 3, 2018, after nearly fifty years of continued membership and without any prior

10 notice, the Academy informed Petitioner Polanski by an unsigned letter that he was summarily
11 expelled from membership. Petitioner Roman Polanski hereby challenges the administrative
12 findings and decisions made by the Academy during its improper administrative action, which
0250 CONSTELLATION BOULEVARD, SUITE 020

13 ultimately resulted in Petitioner’s expulsion. The administrative record (or the lack thereof)
OS ANGE ES, CA FORN A 90067
BRAUN & BRAUN LLP

14 clearly shows that Petitioner, among other things, was not: (1) provided with any notice prior to
15 his expulsion; (2) given the basis for his expulsion from the Academy; (3) provided with a fair
16 hearing or opportunity to present his case; or (4) given the opportunity to question witnesses and
17 present evidence to a neutral fact finder. The record is clear that Petitioner’s expulsion by the
18 Academy was done in violation of California law and in such an arbitrary manner that it deprived
19 Petitioner of his right to due process.
20 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

21 A. Petitioner’s Expulsion from the Academy

22 On or about May 1, 2018, at a meeting of the Board of Governors of the Academy of

23 Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a letter was presented to the Board requesting the immediate
24 expulsion of Bill Cosby who had been a member of the Academy since 1996. (AR 36 – 38). The
25 signature on the letter has been redacted by the Academy and therefore the identity of the author is
26 unknown to Petitioner. (AR 38).
27 The letter discussed how Bill Cosby had been convicted of aggravated assault in the

28 Montgomery County courthouse in Norristown, Pennsylvania, on Thursday, April 26, 2018, and

4.
PETITIONER’S OPENING BRIEF
 1 stated that there is little difference between Cosby’s conviction and the behavior that warranted the
2 expulsion of Harvey Weinstein. (AR 38). Based on this letter, the Board of Governors voted to
3 expel Bill Cosby and Roman Polanski as members of the Academy. (AR 36 – 37). The Minutes
4 from the May 1, 2018 meeting read as followed:
5 “[Redacted] read a letter (attached) from the Governors of the Actors Branch requesting
6 the expulsion of Bill Cosby from the Academy. Following discussion, a motion was made,
seconded, and passed with a two-thirds supermajority vote that Bill Cosby and Roman
7 Polanski be removed from membership in the Academy, pursuant to the Board’s authority
stated in Article X, Section 3 of the Academy’s By-Laws.”1 (AR 37).
8
9 Notably, there was no indication as to why the Academy also elected to expel Mr. Polanski
10 given that the underlying letter only proposed the expulsion of Bill Cosby. (AR 36 – 38).
11 Furthermore, the record is vague as to whether the vote to expel Mr. Polanski was inextricably tied
12 to the vote to expel Bill Cosby, or whether the expulsion of Petitioner was a separate and distinct
0250 CONSTELLATION BOULEVARD, SUITE 020

13 vote from the expulsion of Cosby. (AR 36 – 37). Finally, other than stating that there was “a two-
OS ANGE ES, CA FORN A 90067
BRAUN & BRAUN LLP

14 thirds supermajority”, the record is silent as to which Governors cast a vote to expel Petitioner and
15 therefore it is impossible for Mr. Polanski to know whether the Governors deciding his fate were
16 in fact neutral and unbiased.
17 After the May 1st meeting, the Academy sent a letter dated May 3, 2018 to Roman
18 Polanski informing petitioner that the Board of Governors on Tuesday, May 1, 2018, ended his
19 membership in the organization in accordance with the organization’s standards of conduct. (AR
20 39). This brief one page letter was on Academy stationery but unsigned. (AR 39).
21 The Academy’s own “Process for Submitting Claims of Misconduct” states that, “When
22 claims are brought to the Membership and Governance Committee for review, the committee may:
23 (a) Decide to take no action; or (b) Notify the subject of the claim in writing, at the member’s
24 current address on file with the Member Relations and Awards Department, and provide the
25 member with an opportunity to respond in writing within 10 business days.” (AR 34). Mr.
26 Polanski had been given no notice that his membership status was to be debated on May 1, 2018,
27
1
Article X, Section 3 of the Academy’s bylaws states in part that, “Any member of the Academy may be suspended
28 or expelled for cause by the Board of Governors. Expulsion or suspension as herein provided for shall require the
affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of all the Governors.” (AR 29).
5.
PETITIONER’S OPENING BRIEF
 1 nor was he given any notice of the reasons that the Board of Governors of the Academy was
2 considering terminating his membership. (AR 39). Similarly, Mr. Polanski was not informed of
3 what evidence or information was presented to the Board to justify his expulsion or what charges
4 against him were being considered. (AR 39). Finally, not only has Mr. Polanski never received a
5 formal notice from the Board of Directors of why he was expelled, but Petitioner was not afforded
6 the opportunity to respond to the claims brought against him prior to his expulsion in accordance
7 with the Academy’s own procedures. (AR 34 and 39).
8 B. Discussions Following Mr. Polanski’s Improper Expulsion

9 On or about May 8, 2018, Petitioner’s attorney reached out to counsel for the Academy

10 and informed him that Mr. Polanski has not been given notice of the allegations or the evidence
11 reviewed by the Board and that it appeared as if “the Academy has not followed any of its own
12 procedures or even California law” in voting to expel Petitioner. (AR 40 – 43).
0250 CONSTELLATION BOULEVARD, SUITE 020

13 On May 15, 2018, an attorney for the Academy wrote Mr. Polanski’s attorney saying,
OS ANGE ES, CA FORN A 90067
BRAUN & BRAUN LLP

14 “[T]he factual predicate for the expulsion was Mr. Polanski’s criminal conviction and his
15 subsequent fugitive status. Period. These events are widely known, including by the Board of
16 Governors”. (AR 60) [emphasis added]. (See also AR 45 – 46 and 54).2
17 Mr. Polanski and his attorney doubted that the Board of Governors knew the details of Mr.

18 Polanski’s conviction or his failure to appear in a case which spanned from 1978 to the present in
19 Los Angeles Superior Court. Nor did Mr. Polanski and his attorney believe that the Board read
20 the decisions of the California Court of Appeals, the Swiss Confederation Court, the Polish
21 Regional Court in Krakow, and the Polish Supreme Court in Warsaw – all of which discussed the
22 complexity of the Polanski case, including the judicial misconduct that occurred thereby
23 compromising the integrity of proceeding – and therefore the Governors were not privy to the fact
24 that there were secret e-mails from the Los Angeles Presiding Judge to various Judges
25 authenticated under oath by Court Official Allen Parachini directing the trial judge to impose the
26 equitable doctrine of fugitive disentitlement as to Mr. Polanski. (AR 62 – 71, AR 101 – 112). The
27
2
Although the Academy’s attorneys have stated, in numerous letters and emails to Mr. Polanski’s attorney, that the
28 basis for Petitioner’s expulsion was Mr. Polanski’s 1977 criminal conviction and fugitive status, the Academy has
never officially taken that position or otherwise informed Mr. Polanski that those are the reasons why he was expelled.
6.
PETITIONER’S OPENING BRIEF
 1 only reasonable inference from the Academy’s lawyer’s letter is that the Board received no
2 evidence about Mr. Polanski’s criminal case and purported fugitive status because they all
3 supposedly “knew” about the case from the media and word of mouth. (AR 60). The fact of the
4 matter is that there is nothing in the administrative record to suggest that the Board
5 reviewed, or were provided with, any documents related to Mr. Polanski’s criminal
6 conviction or fugitive status prior to their vote to expel him from the Academy on May 1,
7 2018.
8 C. The Academy’s Disingenuous Attempt to “Reconsider” Petitioner’s Expulsion and Its
Empty Promise to Allow Mr. Polanski to Present Evidence After the Fact3
9
10 Knowing that its decision to expel Mr. Polanski was arbitrary, not supported by any

11 reliable evidence, and based on an improper and illegal administrative proceeding, the Academy
12 then tried to manufacture an administrative record after the fact by disingenuously allowing
0250 CONSTELLATION BOULEVARD, SUITE 020

13 Petitioner to present evidence to the Board of Governors so the Academy could “reconsider” its
OS ANGE ES, CA FORN A 90067
BRAUN & BRAUN LLP

14 decision to expel Mr. Polanski. (AR 45 – 46 and 50). Rather than reinstate Mr. Polanski as a
15 member and have a fair and comprehensive administrative proceeding about Mr. Polanski’s
16 expulsion, the Academy allowed Petitioner’s unlawful expulsion to stand and merely allowed Mr.
17 Polanski to present evidence after the fact. This meant that rather than placing the burden on the
18 Academy to argue why Petitioner should be expelled, Mr. Polanski was unfairly placed in a
19 position where he was required to convince the Academy as to why it should reconsider its prior
20 decision and readmit him as a member. Right off the bat, the reconsideration process, like the
21 underlying expulsion, was unfair and biased against Petitioner.
22 Because Mr. Polanski was never officially informed by the Board as to why he was

23 expelled from the Academy or what evidence was offered against him, Mr. Polanski was at a
24 distinct disadvantage in that he did not have the luxury of putting forth succinct rebuttal evidence
25 that was targeted and concise. (AR 60). Instead, Petitioner had only the speculation of an attorney
26 that the Board “knew” about his conviction and fugitive status, and as a result, had to guess what
27
28 3
Mr. Polanski’s Petition for a Writ of Mandamus is directed at the Expulsion of May 1, 2018, although the subsequent
attempt by the Academy to remedy its bogus expulsion does highlight the unfairness of the Academy’s procedures.
7.
PETITIONER’S OPENING BRIEF
 1 items would be helpful to the Board in their “reconsideration”. Therefore, without any notice of
2 the charges against him and without any knowledge of the evidence to be presented against him, at
3 the invitation of the Board, Roman Polanski submitted various documents pertaining to his
4 criminal case to the Academy, including an 11-page explanation about the circumstances
5 surrounding his conviction and purported fugitive status and 450+ pages of exhibits which are
6 contained in the administrative record. (AR 62 – 535) [also marked internally as Exhibits 1-23].
7 Mr. Polanski also submitted to the Academy a documentary DVD about his case entitled, Roman
8 Polanski: Wanted and Desired. (AR 547 – 548). The documentary, including all interviews, is
9 almost 4 hours long.
10 In addition, Harland Braun, counsel for Mr. Polanski, suggested that he meet with the

11 Board to summarize the exceptionally long and complex criminal case and answer any questions
12 from the Governors. (AR 537 – 538). As stated in the Declaration of Harland Braun, and as
0250 CONSTELLATION BOULEVARD, SUITE 020

13 described in his brief submitted to the Krakow Regional Court (AR 259 – 279), Mr. Polanski’s
OS ANGE ES, CA FORN A 90067
BRAUN & BRAUN LLP

14 attorney is personally familiar with the material facts of the Polanski case that were not generally
15 known to the public or considered “common knowledge” and could have easily explained the
16 four-decades-old criminal case and Mr. Polanski’s debated “fugitive status” to the Board in less
17 than an hour. See Decl. of Harland Braun at ¶¶ 1, 4, and 5. Mr. Braun wanted to appear before
18 the Board because, after reviewing the extensive and dense administrative record, he and
19 Petitioner both felt that a short follow-up presentation would assist the Board in processing and
20 evaluating the 450 pages of documents from the criminal litigation, and was reasonably necessary
21 in order for the Board to truly evaluate Mr. Polanski’s criminal case and purported fugitive status.
22 Decl. of Harland Braun at ¶ 6. Yet, for no legitimate reason, the Board denied Mr. Braun’s
23 request to appear and advocate on Mr. Polanski’s behalf. Decl. of Harland Braun at ¶ 6.
24 Mr. Polanski’s counsel asked the Academy’s lawyers how the voluminous record was to

25 be made available to the members of the Board and whether he or the Academy should reproduce
26 a copy for each member. (AR 47). Instead, the Academy’s attorneys arbitrarily decided that the
27 record was to be put online with an instruction for the members to view it online. (AR 547 – 548).
28

8.
PETITIONER’S OPENING BRIEF
 1 The members were also told, without any legal reason, that the record could not be downloaded
2 and printed and could only be accessed on a computer. (AR 547, 565, and 570).
3 Every document provided by Mr. Polanski to the Academy was a public record and all the

4 other documents from the Academy were uninteresting to the public. Because the documents
5 were merely uploaded to an online portal, there is no proof that any member of the Board of
6 Governors accessed this voluminous package of dense legal documents, let alone read them and
7 understood them. After all, why would the Governors, who are extremely busy individuals in the
8 entertainment industry, spend approximately 10+ hours reading dense legal documents on their
9 computer to educate themselves on a matter that was “widely known” to them and for which they
10 had already voted upon in May of 2018?
11 Unsurprisingly, after 15 minutes of discussion, the Board voted that Mr. Polanski “should

12 remain expelled.” (AR 583 - 585). Just as minutes from the initial expulsion back in May of
0250 CONSTELLATION BOULEVARD, SUITE 020

13 2018, the minutes from the meeting merely stated that there was “a two-thirds majority” upholding
OS ANGE ES, CA FORN A 90067
BRAUN & BRAUN LLP

14 the original decision to expel Mr. Polanski from the Academy. (AR 583 – 585). The

15 administrative record is completely silent as to which Governors cast a vote to uphold the
16 expulsion, and therefore it was impossible for Mr. Polanski to know whether the Governors
17 deciding his fate were in fact neutral and unbiased.
18 In retrospect, it is clear that the entire “reconsideration” process was a sham designed to

19 cover-up an improper expulsion, which the Board recognized was bogus. Not only was there no
20 established procedure or rules governing the reconsideration process, but the Academy even went
21 so far as to arbitrarily deny Petitioner’s basic reasonable request to allow Mr. Polanski’s counsel
22 to appear before the Board to explain the complex record to the Governors, many of whom are
23 non-lawyers and not familiar with the complexities and nuances of criminal law.
24 III. ARGUMENT

25 A. The Academy’s Administrative Policies and Proceedings Were Unfair

26 A writ of administrative mandate should be issued where the petitioner has been denied a

27 fair hearing. Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5; See also Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48
28 Cal.App.4th 1152. In addition “any expulsion, suspension, or termination [of a member] must be

9.
PETITIONER’S OPENING BRIEF
 1 done in good faith and in a fair and reasonable manner.” Cal Corp Code § 7341(b). In
2 determining whether an agency provided a petitioner with a fair hearing, a reviewing court
3 independently evaluates whether, “the administrative proceedings were conducted in a manner
4 consistent with the minimal requisites of fair procedure demanded by established common law
5 principles.” Rosenblit v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1434, 1442.
6 Courts have held that due process and a fair procedure generally require “notice

7 reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and an opportunity
8 to present their objections.” Doe v. University of Southern California (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th
9 221, 240 quoting Bergeron v. Department of Health Services (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 17, 24; see
10 also Rosenblit v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1434, 1445 [“Notice of the charges
11 sufficient to provide a reasonable opportunity to respond is basic to the constitutional right to due
12 process and the common law right to a fair procedure”]. Additionally, the opportunity to be heard
0250 CONSTELLATION BOULEVARD, SUITE 020

13 must be afforded “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Armstrong v. Manzo (1965)
OS ANGE ES, CA FORN A 90067
BRAUN & BRAUN LLP

14 380 U.S. 545, 552. “To ensure that the opportunity is meaningful, the United States Supreme
15 Court and this court have identified some aspects of due process as irreducible minimums. For
16 example, whenever ‘due process requires a hearing, the adjudicator must be impartial.’” Today’s
17 Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Education (2013) 57 Cal.4th 197, 212, citing
18 Haas v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1017, 1025. Furthermore, fairness and due
19 process require that “‘[a]ll parties must be fully apprised of the evidence submitted or to be
20 considered, and must be given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, to inspect documents and
21 to offer evidence in explanation or rebuttal. In no other way can a party maintain its rights or make
22 its defense.’” Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 965,
23 971.
24 In the present case, the Academy voted to remove Bill Cosby and Roman Polanski as

25 members of the academy “for cause” pursuant to the Board’s authority stated in Article X, Section
26 3 of the Academy’s By-Laws. (AR 29 and 37). There was no indication as to why the Academy
27 elected to expel Mr. Polanski when the underlying letter, which was brought to the Board’s
28 attention, only proposed the expulsion of Bill Cosby. (AR 36 – 38). Furthermore, the record is

10.
PETITIONER’S OPENING BRIEF
 1 vague as to whether the vote to expel Mr. Polanski was inextricably tied to the vote to expel Bill
2 Cosby, or whether the expulsion of Petitioner was a separate and distinct vote from the expulsion
3 of Cosby. (AR 36 – 37). Finally, other than stating that there was “a two-thirds supermajority”,
4 the record is silent as to which Governors cast a vote to expel Petitioner and therefore it is
5 impossible for Mr. Polanski to know whether the Governors deciding his fate were in fact neutral
6 and unbiased.
7 Mr. Polanski had been given no prior notice that his membership status was to be debated

8 on May 1, 2018, nor was he given any notice of the reasons that the Board of Governors of the
9 Academy was considering terminating his membership. (AR 39). Similarly, Mr. Polanski was not
10 informed of what evidence or information was presented to the Board to justify his expulsion or
11 what charges against him were being considered. (AR 39). Petitioner was not even afforded the
12 opportunity to respond to the claims brought against him prior to his expulsion in accordance with
0250 CONSTELLATION BOULEVARD, SUITE 020

13 the Academy’s own procedures, let alone the opportunity to question witnesses. (AR 34 and 39).
OS ANGE ES, CA FORN A 90067
BRAUN & BRAUN LLP

14 It is abundantly clear that the Mr. Polanski’s initial expulsion was arbitrary, done in violation of
15 California law, and deprived Petitioner of his right to due process.
16 B. The Academy’s Offer to “Reconsider” Its Decision After the Fact Was Also Biased
and Unfair
17
18 Knowing that its decision to expel Mr. Polanski was not supported any reliable evidence

19 and was based on an improper, arbitrary, and illegal administrative proceeding, the Academy then
20 tried to manufacture an administrative record after the fact by disingenuously allowing Petitioner
21 to present evidence to the Board of Governors so the Academy could “reconsider” its decision to
22 expel Mr. Polanski. (AR 45 – 46, and 50). Rather than reinstate Mr. Polanski as a member and
23 have a fair and comprehensive administrative proceeding about Mr. Polanski’s expulsion, the
24 Academy allowed the illegal and improper expulsion to stand and merely allowed Mr. Polanski to
25 present evidence after the fact. Rather than placing the burden on the Academy to argue why
26 Petitioner should be expelled, by design, this “reconsideration” process effectively placed the
27 burden on Mr. Polanski to convince the Academy as to why it should reconsider its prior decision
28 and readmit him as a member.

11.
PETITIONER’S OPENING BRIEF
 1 Notwithstanding the completely biased and unfair “reconsideration process”, Roman

2 Polanski submitted various documents pertaining to his criminal case to the Academy, including
3 an 11-page explanation about the circumstances surrounding his conviction and purported fugitive
4 status and 450+ pages of exhibits which are contained in the administrative record. (AR 62 – 535)
5 [also marked internally as Exhibits 1-23]. Mr. Polanski also submitted to the Academy a
6 documentary DVD about his case entitled, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. (AR 547 –
7 548). The Academy’s attorneys arbitrarily decided that the record was to be put online with an
8 instruction for the members to view it online. (AR 547 – 548). The members were also told,
9 without any legal reason, that the record could not be downloaded and printed and could only be
10 accessed on a computer. (AR 547, 565, and 570). Because the documents were merely uploaded
11 to an online portal, there is no proof that any member of the Board of Governors accessed this
12 voluminous package of dense legal documents, let alone read them and understood them.
0250 CONSTELLATION BOULEVARD, SUITE 020

13 Counsel for Mr. Polanski, who is personally familiar with most of the participants in the
OS ANGE ES, CA FORN A 90067
BRAUN & BRAUN LLP

14 Polanski case, knew that the 450+ page submission would be hard for a layperson to digest and
15 offered to make himself available to explain the criminal case and Mr. Polanski’s debated
16 “fugitive status” to the Board. (AR 259 – 279, 537 – 538); see also Decl. of Harland Braun at ¶ 6.
17 Yet, for no legitimate reason, the Board arbitrarily denied Petitioner Polanski’s reasonable request
18 to have his attorney appear and advocate on his behalf.
19 Finally, just as with the initial expulsion, the administrative record was silent as to which

20 Governors cast a vote to uphold Petitioner’s expulsion, and therefore Mr. Polanski has no way of
21 knowing whether the Governors deciding his fate were in fact neutral and unbiased.
22 C. The Factual Findings Are Unsupported by the Evidence

23 Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 provides that a Court, when considering a petition

24 for writ of mandamus, should inquire as to whether “there was any prejudicial abuse of
25 discretion.” Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5(b). Such an abuse of discretion is found where, inter alia,
26 the administrative decision “is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by
27 the evidence.” Id. “Section 1094.5 clearly contemplates that at minimum, the reviewing court
28 must determine both whether substantial evidence supports the administrative agency’s findings

12.
PETITIONER’S OPENING BRIEF
 1 and whether the findings support the agency's decision.” Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community
2 v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 514-515. Simply put, a Court should not be left
3 to “speculate as to the administrative agency's basis for decision.” Id. at 515. Under the

4 circumstances, de novo review should apply to the Court’s examination of the administrative
5 record. See Conlan v. Bonta (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 745, 753 [“because…the material facts were
6 [undisputed], raising a purely legal question…[w]e exercise independent judgment”].
7 In the present case, the Academy has never formally set forth the reasons why Mr.

8 Polanski was expelled. Rather, it was the Academy’s attorneys who wrote Mr. Polanski’s attorney
9 after the fact saying, “[T]he factual predicate for the expulsion was Mr. Polanski’s criminal
10 conviction and his subsequent fugitive status. Period. These events are widely known, including
11 by the Board of Governors”. (AR 60) [emphasis added]. (See also AR 45 – 46 and 54).
12 Despite these representations that Mr. Polanski’s criminal case and purported fugitive
0250 CONSTELLATION BOULEVARD, SUITE 020

13 status were the basis for his expulsion, the fact of the matter is that there is nothing in the
OS ANGE ES, CA FORN A 90067
BRAUN & BRAUN LLP

14 administrative record that suggests that the Board of Governors reviewed, or were provided
15 with, any documents related to Mr. Polanski’s criminal conviction or fugitive status prior to
16 their vote to expel him from the Academy on May 1, 2018. Rather, the only reasonable
17 inference from the Academy’s lawyer’s letter is that the Board received no evidence about Mr.
18 Polanski’s criminal case and purported fugitive status, let alone substantial evidence, because they
19 all supposedly “knew” about the case from the media, word of mouth, and other unreliable
20 sources. (AR 60). It is undisputed that the Academy only allowed Mr. Polanski the opportunity to
21 submit documents and evidence regarding his criminal case and purported fugitive status to the
22 Academy after he was already expelled.4
23 D. The Court Must Decide Whether the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine Applies

24 The Academy has asserted that Mr. Polanski has no standing as a lawful party to this

25 action because of the equitable doctrine of fugitive disentitlement. See Respondent’s Affirmative
26
4
If the Board actually read the decisions of the California Court of Appeals, the Swiss Confederation Court, the Polish
27 Regional Court in Krakow, and the Polish Supreme Court in Warsaw – the Governors would have learned about the
secret e-mails from the Los Angeles Presiding Judge to various Judges authenticated under oath by Court Official
28 Allen Parachini directing the trial judge to impose the equitable doctrine of fugitive disentitlement to Mr. Polanski and
the judicial misconduct that compromised the integrity of the criminal proceedings. (AR 62 – 71; AR 101 – 112).
13.
PETITIONER’S OPENING BRIEF
 1 Defense No. 1. Unfortunately, Mr. Polanski’s dispute about fugitive disentitlement was short-
2 stopped in the criminal case by the secret emails, which were revealed by Mr. Allan Parachini, the
3 press officer for the Los Angeles Superior Court. These emails have been filed with the Superior
4 Court and are in the administrative record submitted in this case. (AR 101 - 112). Neither

5 District Attorney Lacey nor any of the judges involved, have disputed the authenticity of these
6 emails.
7 Because the issue of fugitive disentitlement is still an open issue, the Court must make a

8 ruling on whether fugitive disentitlement applies to Petitioner and therefore whether Mr. Polanski
9 has standing to bring this action. However, that being said, in order for the Court to competently
10 rule on the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, the Court must first be equipped with all of the
11 underlying facts – including those facts contained in the sealed deposition of prosecutor Roger
12 Gunson. To the extent that the Gunson deposition deals with Mr. Polanski’s failure to appear for
0250 CONSTELLATION BOULEVARD, SUITE 020

13 sentencing, that deposition is relevant to his fugitive status. [Interestingly, the Swiss Court would
OS ANGE ES, CA FORN A 90067
BRAUN & BRAUN LLP

14 not extradite Mr. Polanski to Los Angeles because the Los Angeles Superior Court refused to
15 provide Switzerland with the sworn statement of prosecutor Roger Gunson, thereby corroborating
16 how essential the deposition is to Mr. Polanski’s purported fugitive status. (AR 0252).]
17 The reason the Gunson deposition was sealed is discussed in Harland Braun’s brief to the

18 Krakow Court. (AR 265 – 266). To date, the only rationale for keeping the deposition sealed is
19 that there has not been a trial that would merit a decision on Mr. Polanski’s fugitive status.
20 However, now that the defense of fugitive disentitlement has been asserted and there is a set trial
21 date, Mr. Polanski respectfully requests that the Court read the sealed deposition of prosecutor
22 Roger Gunson to determine whether it should be unsealed.
23 IV. CONCLUSION

24 For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Polanski respectfully requests that this Court read the sealed

25 deposition of prosecutor Roger Gunson so that the Court is in a position to settle the outstanding
26 issue as to whether the fugitive disentitlement doctrine applies to Mr. Polanski.
27 In the event that it is determined that Mr. Polanski does have standing to appear before this

28 Court, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment to set aside the Academy’s

14.
PETITIONER’S OPENING BRIEF