This is not shocking or even terribly interesting to me other than what it means in the broader perspective of public oversight of these institutions and the people who control our laws and have a monopoly of our Justice system. It is these same types of all too human (capable of mistakes or even corruption) fellow clowns as prosecutors that made decisions to not proceed against Willi Pickton on attempted murder charges, because in their opinion Jane Doe would not have made a good witness due to her drug use
The reporter in the News video clip says this raises questions about whether she disclosed her indiscretions as required and that might challenge her legitimacy as a judge. I say it should go deeper than that and see if she was biased for or against in her judgment of black men seeing as she might have a preference or even secret aversion to black men. The human psyche is deep and weirdly wide. Some would say wonderfully wide, even in such a case as this, but that is why there must be constant vigilance of our institutions, affective open methods of scrutiny for all of those whom we put in positions of trust over us. This is one reason why we need cameras to shine the light of day into our courtrooms, so that others might recognize who actually is sitting in judgment and whether they have any prejudices.
Aren't these the people in important positions Alex Carey claims the tree top strategy is marketing propaganda to?
All I am saying, is that without oversight and effective control, tyranny will develop as we see happening now. It is the monopoly of these important positions by the Law Societies of Canada which determines whether justice is applied in everyday circumstances. Lawyers, Judges can't be trusted to speak up and report something that they should because they are not interested in the rule of law, it seems, only the rulings in law. Just think about how the former law firm never mentioned any improprieties although they knew of the photos. We, as citizens, are required to inform police of a crime or we become accessories after the fact. Why not lawyers, too?
One day even the sheep might wake up if the reporters ask more than one question.
The crime is not in what she did in her private moments, rather that she did not reveal these indiscretions as required by law. Those who knew, such as her former firm, are duty bound to their profession, to the Justice system to have at least revealed what they knew in the interests of Justice, to preserve the rule of law and the respect of the Judiciary.
6:04 Pm.... I have been out interviewing Black men and others on my handycam. Very surprising the reactions
The reason that I think that it is odd that the former firm would not at least have come to her about it is this: In keeping it to themselves the question arises would they try to use it as leverage themselves in an important case/interaction?
That is the reason these things must be disclosed because of the potential hold someone who knows something like this has on another person.
I understand that this poor woman has resigned temporarily. This was the only thing she could do under the circumstances. It is sad that her husband and herself didn't have better judgment. Once having been publicly exposed it is too bad she didn't show better ethical base and have better judgment. If she did, in the spring, again answer untruthfully as to her vetting for the position of associate Chief Justice about having engaged in behavior which might cast dispersion on the Judiciary, then she might suffer the consequences.
If Judges can jail me for my choice of substances I can demand that they be truthful when taking on their office on my behalf. That is why as Chief Justice of the Unincorporated Deuteronomical Society I too must consider how I act, although I never had to answer any questions about things I might have done in the past.
Anyways I wish her well in the future and see no reason why, when all this is exposed and no longer has any hold on anyone, why she couldn't resume her duties and position of trust, a wiser more experienced person. Having had problems in her own life now she may have developed some valuable insights and empathy for others who have screwed up.
This is embarrassing, but should not prevent a person valuable to the community from reentering her productive role. Doing what is right does not necessarily mean destroying the person but educating and assisting can be productive alternatives for everyone. Let's not be vindictive. And the other thing is that she did actually have a right to expect Alex Chapman to have destroyed the pictures because that was the settlement he agreed to and she paid him to do. Now he trots them out again. He could be guilty of blackmail. It is a fine line.
Isn't this really just a crack in the smooth, seemingly seamless surface of the fiction we call our Justice system.
As of the 8th September 2010 this story is gaining legs! A further allegation of impropriety has surfaced in which the Judge failed to excuse herself on a matter where she may have had a more personal/biased involvement. Wu Li dancing is happening