Lori Douglas persecuted?
Dear Ms Wente:
We'd like to begin by congratulating you on having your article referenced on Above the Law (http://abovethelaw.com) operated by Harvard trained, New York-based Elie Mystal which claims a monthly readership of over half a million professionals. Reference, Quote of the Day: Words of Wisdom for Women.
To save time, we've added comments (bold) which hopefully will add value to your article.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
________________________________________________________
Margaret Wente
The Persecution of Lori Douglas
Globe and Mail
July 14, 2011
Here’s a cautionary tale for every woman. Never, never, never allow your husband (or anybody else) to take dirty pictures of you. The pictures could wind up on the Internet. You could be publicly humiliated. You could lose your privacy, your dignity and your career.
The "dirty pictures" are tantamount to an electronic tattoo that, like it or not, will follow her literally forever. For example, a few months ago we received a copy of an e-mail a fellow blogger had been anonymously sent. It carried a Shaw based address with instructions for opening the 30-nude photographs of in-limbo Justice Douglas - completely unedited, censored or redacted. Keep in mind at the time there was a Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Order (Justice McKelvey) banning their publication.
Not all (but several) have also appeared on the aforementioned Above the Law site with red maple leafs covering the private parts - how apropos. God only knows where else they've been reproduced!
That is the awful situation facing Lori Douglas, the Manitoba judge who will soon endure a public inquiry to determine her fitness for the bench. This is an extraordinary event. Since its creation 40 years ago, the Canadian Judicial Council has held only eight public inquiries into the judicial fitness of a judge. All the cases dealt with flagrant behaviour on the bench that obviously compromised a judge’s competence and impartiality.
Madam Justice Douglas has the option of voluntarily resigning from the Bench prior to the opening of a public inquiry. A few months ago, Manitoba Chief Justice Glenn Joyal announced she had been assigned "administrative duties" but chose not to elaborate. All we can say with certainty is she's not presiding over cases - no one seems to know exactly what she's doing these days. According to The Judges Act her annual salary is $254,600.
To be sure, there’s plenty of misconduct in this sordid tale. But none of it was committed by Judge Douglas. Instead, she has been victimized many times over – first by her disturbed husband, then by an opportunist, then by the media, and now by a judicial oversight body that appears to have caved in to public (i.e., media) pressure.
The public pillorying of Lori Douglas began last August, when CBC’s The National ran a sensational story with the headline “Naked photographs of a senior Manitoba judge engaged in bondage.” The story, decreed Wendy Mesley, raised questions about “the vetting of judges in this country” and whether Ms. Douglas had withheld vital information about her judicial fitness.
And what headline might you have given the story at the time had you been associated with the CBC's The National?
The details – supplied by a self-styled victim named Alex Chapman – were deliciously salacious. Back in 2002, Mr. Chapman had hired Ms. Douglas’s husband, Jack King, to handle his divorce. Mr. King had a few kinks. He was obsessed with interracial sex. He tried to get Mr. Chapman (who’s black) interested in having sex with his wife, who was also a family lawyer at the time. Mr. King had even posted nude pictures of her on a pornographic website. Ms. Douglas knew nothing about any of this.
"A few kinks?" Perhaps it's worth noting at this time the contention Justice Douglas knew nothing obout nude pictures of her posted on an American website (Dark Cavern) has yet to be challenged - examined and cross-examined before the Canadian Judicial Council's public inquiry. Best to reserve judgment on the issue.
Mr. Chapman complained to Mr. King’s law firm. Mr. King, who left the firm in 2005, paid him $25,000 to settle the matter, and got some much-needed psychological counselling. As part of the settlement, Mr. Chapman agreed to surrender his copies of the dirty pictures.
What was The Law Society's involvement/culpability in this mess? Was it deemed appropriate and sufficient? Your article abstracts from any discussion of this very important consideration. Hopefully, the LSM will be called to appear before the public inquiry.
Meantime, Lori Douglas’s career was going much better. In 2005, she was appointed to the bench. She gained a reputation as a highly competent and respected judge, and in 2009 she was promoted to associate chief justice. Manitoba’s legal world isn’t large, and her husband’s personal problems were widely known. There’s not a shred of evidence that these problems had any impact on her judging.
A report surfaced a second much less publicized complaint was lodged with the CJC regarding Justice Douglas's handling of a case in which the complainant was a party. Are you aware of this? You might wish to undertake further research to ascertain the accuracy of the information.
But Mr. Chapman wasn’t through. Last summer – five years after the settlement – he filed a $10-million lawsuit against Mr. King, a $50-million claim against Mr. King’s former law firm, and a $7-million claim against the judge herself. He complained of racial harassment and emotional distress. Conveniently, he had also kept copies of the pictures, which he was more than happy to show the CBC. Since then, his claims have either been dropped or dismissed – but not before the sanctimonious media began demanding the judge’s head.
It is our understanding Mr. Chapman's lawsuits were summarily dismissed because the statute of limitations on this type of litigation had expired.
Further, are you aware Mr. Chapman was represented by Winnipeg lawyer Ian Histed who negotiated the original confidentiality agreement a few years ago? Additionally, he unsuccessfully appealed a Law Society of Manitoba ruling to the Manitoba Court of Appeal which ordered the "dirty pictures" of which you speak sealed?
So what was it that Judge Douglas did wrong? According to her critics, she erred back in 2005 by failing to disclose that there was something in her past that might bring the administration of justice into disrepute. (In fact, she candidly discussed the matter during her vetting interviews.) According to some critics, whether or not she disclosed the dirty-pictures incident doesn’t even matter. Their mere existence should cost her her job.
What is the authority(ies) for, "..... she candidly discussed the matter during her vetting interviews." To the best of our knowledge this aspect of the case has not been covered in any detail by the media.
Of course we should hold judges to a higher standard than other people. But judges live in the real world. They even have sex lives. Lori Douglas’s only crime was to choose an unstable spouse, and have sex with him. If that’s enough to lose your job, then a large proportion of our judiciary should be removed.
As a writer to another blog stated, "Lori Douglas's crime was as a sitting senior judge to allow her husband to electronically record her sexual preferences in this the age of the internet." Alternatively stated, to display such gross bad judgment.
The judges who will sit in judgment on her should give the public credit for being reasonable adults. Also, they might want to ask themselves: What if this were me? Because it’s no stretch to imagine – especially if you’re a woman – that it could be.
The judges who will sit in judgment should also ask, "Should someone in her position be allowed to continue? How effective will she be should she remain on the Bench? Will she become a target of lawyers appearing before her calling for her to recuse herself on behalf of their client(s)? Given what has gone before, realistically, can she remain an Associate Chief Justice especially in the Family Court Division?
We'd like to begin by congratulating you on having your article referenced on Above the Law (http://abovethelaw.com) operated by Harvard trained, New York-based Elie Mystal which claims a monthly readership of over half a million professionals. Reference, Quote of the Day: Words of Wisdom for Women.
To save time, we've added comments (bold) which hopefully will add value to your article.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
________________________________________________________
Margaret WenteThe Persecution of Lori Douglas
Globe and Mail
July 14, 2011
Here’s a cautionary tale for every woman. Never, never, never allow your husband (or anybody else) to take dirty pictures of you. The pictures could wind up on the Internet. You could be publicly humiliated. You could lose your privacy, your dignity and your career.The "dirty pictures" are tantamount to an electronic tattoo that, like it or not, will follow her literally forever. For example, a few months ago we received a copy of an e-mail a fellow blogger had been anonymously sent. It carried a Shaw based address with instructions for opening the 30-nude photographs of in-limbo Justice Douglas - completely unedited, censored or redacted. Keep in mind at the time there was a Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Order (Justice McKelvey) banning their publication.
Not all (but several) have also appeared on the aforementioned Above the Law site with red maple leafs covering the private parts - how apropos. God only knows where else they've been reproduced!
That is the awful situation facing Lori Douglas, the Manitoba judge who will soon endure a public inquiry to determine her fitness for the bench. This is an extraordinary event. Since its creation 40 years ago, the Canadian Judicial Council has held only eight public inquiries into the judicial fitness of a judge. All the cases dealt with flagrant behaviour on the bench that obviously compromised a judge’s competence and impartiality.
Madam Justice Douglas has the option of voluntarily resigning from the Bench prior to the opening of a public inquiry. A few months ago, Manitoba Chief Justice Glenn Joyal announced she had been assigned "administrative duties" but chose not to elaborate. All we can say with certainty is she's not presiding over cases - no one seems to know exactly what she's doing these days. According to The Judges Act her annual salary is $254,600.
To be sure, there’s plenty of misconduct in this sordid tale. But none of it was committed by Judge Douglas. Instead, she has been victimized many times over – first by her disturbed husband, then by an opportunist, then by the media, and now by a judicial oversight body that appears to have caved in to public (i.e., media) pressure.
The public pillorying of Lori Douglas began last August, when CBC’s The National ran a sensational story with the headline “Naked photographs of a senior Manitoba judge engaged in bondage.” The story, decreed Wendy Mesley, raised questions about “the vetting of judges in this country” and whether Ms. Douglas had withheld vital information about her judicial fitness.
And what headline might you have given the story at the time had you been associated with the CBC's The National?
The details – supplied by a self-styled victim named Alex Chapman – were deliciously salacious. Back in 2002, Mr. Chapman had hired Ms. Douglas’s husband, Jack King, to handle his divorce. Mr. King had a few kinks. He was obsessed with interracial sex. He tried to get Mr. Chapman (who’s black) interested in having sex with his wife, who was also a family lawyer at the time. Mr. King had even posted nude pictures of her on a pornographic website. Ms. Douglas knew nothing about any of this.
"A few kinks?" Perhaps it's worth noting at this time the contention Justice Douglas knew nothing obout nude pictures of her posted on an American website (Dark Cavern) has yet to be challenged - examined and cross-examined before the Canadian Judicial Council's public inquiry. Best to reserve judgment on the issue.
Mr. Chapman complained to Mr. King’s law firm. Mr. King, who left the firm in 2005, paid him $25,000 to settle the matter, and got some much-needed psychological counselling. As part of the settlement, Mr. Chapman agreed to surrender his copies of the dirty pictures.
What was The Law Society's involvement/culpability in this mess? Was it deemed appropriate and sufficient? Your article abstracts from any discussion of this very important consideration. Hopefully, the LSM will be called to appear before the public inquiry.
Meantime, Lori Douglas’s career was going much better. In 2005, she was appointed to the bench. She gained a reputation as a highly competent and respected judge, and in 2009 she was promoted to associate chief justice. Manitoba’s legal world isn’t large, and her husband’s personal problems were widely known. There’s not a shred of evidence that these problems had any impact on her judging.
A report surfaced a second much less publicized complaint was lodged with the CJC regarding Justice Douglas's handling of a case in which the complainant was a party. Are you aware of this? You might wish to undertake further research to ascertain the accuracy of the information.
But Mr. Chapman wasn’t through. Last summer – five years after the settlement – he filed a $10-million lawsuit against Mr. King, a $50-million claim against Mr. King’s former law firm, and a $7-million claim against the judge herself. He complained of racial harassment and emotional distress. Conveniently, he had also kept copies of the pictures, which he was more than happy to show the CBC. Since then, his claims have either been dropped or dismissed – but not before the sanctimonious media began demanding the judge’s head.
It is our understanding Mr. Chapman's lawsuits were summarily dismissed because the statute of limitations on this type of litigation had expired.
Further, are you aware Mr. Chapman was represented by Winnipeg lawyer Ian Histed who negotiated the original confidentiality agreement a few years ago? Additionally, he unsuccessfully appealed a Law Society of Manitoba ruling to the Manitoba Court of Appeal which ordered the "dirty pictures" of which you speak sealed?
So what was it that Judge Douglas did wrong? According to her critics, she erred back in 2005 by failing to disclose that there was something in her past that might bring the administration of justice into disrepute. (In fact, she candidly discussed the matter during her vetting interviews.) According to some critics, whether or not she disclosed the dirty-pictures incident doesn’t even matter. Their mere existence should cost her her job.
What is the authority(ies) for, "..... she candidly discussed the matter during her vetting interviews." To the best of our knowledge this aspect of the case has not been covered in any detail by the media.
Of course we should hold judges to a higher standard than other people. But judges live in the real world. They even have sex lives. Lori Douglas’s only crime was to choose an unstable spouse, and have sex with him. If that’s enough to lose your job, then a large proportion of our judiciary should be removed.
As a writer to another blog stated, "Lori Douglas's crime was as a sitting senior judge to allow her husband to electronically record her sexual preferences in this the age of the internet." Alternatively stated, to display such gross bad judgment.
The judges who will sit in judgment on her should give the public credit for being reasonable adults. Also, they might want to ask themselves: What if this were me? Because it’s no stretch to imagine – especially if you’re a woman – that it could be.
The judges who will sit in judgment should also ask, "Should someone in her position be allowed to continue? How effective will she be should she remain on the Bench? Will she become a target of lawyers appearing before her calling for her to recuse herself on behalf of their client(s)? Given what has gone before, realistically, can she remain an Associate Chief Justice especially in the Family Court Division?
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 11:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home