Well, if I’m a black defendant whom she convicted or sentenced, I may well take a shot at having my conviction overturned, on the grounds that her (alleged) fetish prejudiced her against me. “She had a dehumanized view of me, and she made rulings against me out of resentment for my sexual unavailability.” I can’t really imagine winning that claim, though.
Exactly. Which is why I always think of it in terms of judges resigning, rather than being removed.
The question of her involvement is, I think, the question. It is possiblethat she was unaware of her husband’s “recruitment” activities, and that they involved his clients - but if she wasn’t, that certainly raises an issue of her fitness for judging.
My take on this is to reverse the genders involved and see if any unconcious prejudices are influencing my opinion. If a female family lawyer pressured a female divorce client to have sex with her husband, and arranged a meeting with her husband - would that raise an issue of her husband’s fitness to be a judge, a concermn that perhaps the husband was in on it?
To my mind, it still would.
I notice that your reverse gender hypothetical did not include anything about race. I guess this means that race is not really relevant to the case in your mind. Am I correct?
Oh, I don’t think it would. Are you saying any judge who is a cuckold or married to a philanderer is unfit to judge? Just because their spouse was able to carry on sexual impropriety without attracting their notice? There’s a reason why we call them “judges” and not “detectives” — and this goes double for appellate judges.
Also, to make it plain, in addition to construing the “bring the judiciary into disrepute” question as limited to the acts/omissions of the candidate, I also put the burden of production on those who would remove the judge for untruthful responses to the questionnaire. I would not attribute scienter of the improper solicitation to the judge merely because she was married to the one doing the soliciting. Thus, no prima facie case has been made out yet.
From what I read of this case and heard on the news:
-the husband (lawyer) approached one of his clients. He gave him the logon to a website with pictures, and suggested he have sex with the wife, and arranged for him to meet her (“for cofee” I think they said).
-the wife claims she knew nothing about the pictures being posted, etc. and the propositions until the shit hit the fan. It seems she did not deny knowing the pictures were taken, but obviously expected them to remain private.
-the client was seriously disturbed by this conduct; he mentioned taking to sleeping in his office and not answering the phone to avoid contact. The meeting happened after the case was finalized.
-the client complained (after his divorce was settled) to the law firm and also to the local Bar Association. In his mind, nothing was done about it, other than the law firm settled with him privately for $25,000 and a confidentiality agreement.
-his concern was that he complained to the Bar Association and it appeared to go nowhere. He began to get paranoid that the whole legal profession was out to get him; certainly the husband’s career did not suffer, and the wife moved way up the legal ladder.
-something (didn’t say what) set him off, he felt that they were interfering in his legal affairs - again, the paranoia that everyone in the legal system was out to get him for complaining. Hence teh reason why he went public in violation of his agreement - he felt they weren’t living up to their end of the bargain.
-The Bar Association says they cannot discuss this case due to privacy, except to say that there was no disciplinary judgement against the husband. (Reading betwen the lines, once the case was settled privately the complaint seems to have gone away.)
What did the wife do wrong?
The husband is obviously guilty of professional misconduct on several levels.
The claim by the husband is that his wife did not know of his internet posting or solicitation, at least until the shit hit the fan and the law firm had to settle.
So she knew of the postings (after the fact), but she did not do them. Should she have told the judical commission when offered the judgeship?
She did no have any further meetings with the guy or come on to him, so I’m guessing she did not know of the “arrangements”
She did pose for fetish photos that did escape into the real world. The posing miht be considered improper, but she did not distribute them or consent to them.
the client was supposed to have destroyed all copies, but he did not (paranoia again). The wife might reasonably assume the problem had “gone away”; there is no evidence the photos were resurrected from the web site, although that is always risk. So the wife might reasonably assume that “no there are no compromising photos out there”.
I would like to pose an alternate question:
- let’s say someone is involved in a he-said-she-said episode. She claims rape, he says she consented and claims it’s a revenge/stalking/remorse. Without some evidence of force, could you convict the guy? Would you allow the woman to become a judge, or would the possibility the guy is telling the truth mean that a questionable(?) rape victim cannot be a judge? Would you as an accused rapist want to appear before that judge?
How badly can someone else’s actions ruin your chances for success in your chosen career?
I don’t get it. What’s with the repeated questions on this topic?
I’ve said about five times already that the race issue is only relevant because that’s the fetish they allegedly share, and thus because it lead to the choice of client to harrass. If the particular fetish had been for red-heads, and they (or depending on who you believe, he) harrassed a red-headed client, then their red-headed fetish would be “relevant”, too.
Um, no. That’s not what I’m saying. Read it again - I’m saying it raises an issue if the wife was in cahoots with her husband on the whole “getting her husband’s client to fuck her” project.
If not - he can be as much the cuckold as they both wanna be, or have sex with ten guys a night and videotape it - and that’s their business.
You don’t think what arguably amounts to being involved in a scheme by a divorce lawyer to sexually exploit his clients (as alleged by the client) is sufficient to trigger the ‘bring the judiciary into disrepute’ concern?
I guess we are just so used to being fucked by the judiciary that it doesn’t raise any eyebrows? 
However, you left out the manner in which the client was chosen in your hypothetical. Perhaps, and I’m just tossing this out there, the manner in which the client was chosen was not relevant.
Not relevant to what? It’s the story as given. These people, in point of fact, had this particular fetish, and not some other.
Please spell this out for me. What, exactly, is your concern?
Is it even possible anymore for her to command the normal amount of respect on the bench anymore, with everyone else in the courtroom thinking about, or even having seen, what’s underneath that robe?
Leaving aside the coercion attempt issue, if she can’t do the job anymore, she shouldn’t keep it.
I will say that lots of lawyers agree with this. They may not say, but are thinking, that nipple-clamp pix are incompatible with the dignity required for a judge.
I don’t, simply because I think in the near future (if we aren’t there already) chances are high that just about everyone will have embarrasing stuff about them posted on the net somewhere.
This pretty much sums up how I see the issue. Race and bondage and posting online pictures are not impeachable offenses. But pressuring clients and concealing that fact are legitimate grounds for an investigation.
Not relevant to your hypothetical which, I assume, you feel is analogous to the issue presented in your OP. So not relevant to the question you asked, "The issue for debate is this: is the scandal her private business, or should she be made to resign? "
Had your OP began, "Facts: the Associate Chief Justice of Manitoba is involved in a scandal, in which her husband posted bondage sex pics of her on an internet site devoted to attracting men for sex.
The husband (also a lawyer) allegedly pressured a client of his into having sex with her - according to the client. No sex took place, but allegedly it went so far as the husband sending sexy emails of the wife to the client, giving the client a password to the website with sex pics of her on it, and arranging a meeting. "
That, along with some information about the disclosure form, contains all the information needed to debate, " *s the scandal her private business, or should she be made to resign?"
Why on earth, in your opinion, is it necessary (or desireable) for me to limit my OP strictly to the minimum necessary information to debate? :dubious:
In short, what’s the big issue?
Cool, we agree. The race information is not a necessary part of this debate. I am glad we could see eye to eye on this.
I don’t understand why you give a shit or what you are on about. Clearly, whether or not it’s ‘a part of the debate’, it’s a part of the story that inspired the debate, and so properly mentioned. Or are you claiming it wasn’t?
I am quite willing to pay damages to any mid-Victorian aunts whose pearls were damaged by clutching because interracial sex fetish was mentioned in the OP. :dubious:
I’ll take up for Malthus here - the race of the guys her husband recruited is not necessary to get a handle on the legalities, but if you’re telling a story you may want to include more info.
If the husband had a web site where he like to post pictures of red cars, and had allegedly pressured a client to let him post a picture of the client’s red car, you could understand the legalities without knowing that it was red cars in particular he was interested in. But including that detail in the story is just part of telling a story.
Except to the extent that it may afford some litigants a basis to challenge her rulings on racial grounds, as I suggested above.
It’s worth pointing out that (as of when I was reading the papers about it) the former client was claiming racial discrimination —they picked on him because he was black. Oh, sure, it’s no better to do it to a white person, I’ll grant you that, but the mere fact that his race played a decisive factor in his treatment violates one more of his rights. He could presumably argue the same thing if they were only interested in bondage with white people and he (the client) was white.
But no, it’s certainly not the central point of the story. Then again, I haven’t seen anyone present it as such.