Thursday, January 07, 2016

"Poor" Lori Part II - The camera never lies but sometimes people do!

Good Day Readers:

Thought CSB was finished commenting on the Lori Douglas fiasco until this interesting e-mail arrived earlier today.

Dear CyberSmokeBlog:

Read your questions from yesterday. Here`s another for you. Was the camera digital (ie. no film) or old school (like I use) with actual film? In any case, one would hear a ``click`` or sound when a picture is taken, and if no film the camera would make no sound at all.

I wonder what Lori Douglas would have been asked if she had gone forward with the hearing? Perhaps Ms Douglas should also think of how those facing her as a judge in family court felt when all their private information was brought out - how sympathetic did she feel towards them?

Further, I wonder if she is subbing for Maria Matousis at Petersen-King law.

Finally, at Law School, is she a lecturer (for a course, and paid peanuts), or a guest lecturer, as it seems many lawyers indicate they give sessions at law school - is this a voluntary action, professional responsibility, gratis, single time? [I went to my non-Law faculty several times by invitation for presentations of various kinds to students - gratis / professional responsibility - and never thought of adding it to my resume - though easily could have - and of course had the support of my employer to do so during work hours.]

Attached is a sampling of comments about Lori Douglas` Canadian Lawyer Magazine which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press yesterday.


Anonymous

Dear Anonymous:

Thank you for contacting CyberSmokeBlog.

Good points all.

As I recall from attending the Douglas Inquiry, Jack King's initial nude photographs of Lori Douglas were taken with a Polaroid camera so how could she not have seen them unless, of course, immediately afterwards he raced into the next room and hid them from her view? Later he upgraded to a better camera. Thirty nude photographs were posted on the internet but was this all of them?

Good point about a camera making a clicking sound. As for what Lori Douglas would have been asked had she testified God only knows. Suzanne Cote who was Independent Inquiry Council at the time (now a Supreme Court of Canada Justice) was quite thorough and aggressive (in a low key sort of way) in her questioning at least up to that point in the Inquiry.

Went back to check the Canadian Lawyer Magazine article. The phrase "on a limited basis" is used to describe her work with Petersen-King so perhaps she's subbing for Marie Matousis. Regarding her work at the University of Manitoba, it's unclear whether she'll be a regular sessional lecturer. The only hint we have of her status there is her comment about enjoying working with young people.

In Family Court proceedings people's personal lives are often laid bare so the Inquiry gave her first hand experience on how it must feel. How sympathetic was she to those appearing before her? Don't know.

Here`s a sampling of the comments from an article on the subject that accompanied a Winnipeg Free Press article yesterday on the subject. At the time there were 41 some believe it or not positive.
  • Not many people under house arrest draw a salary of $275 thousand for 5 years (and build up a lucrative pension) for doing nothing more than disgracing the bench. I expect there are a lot of people who would love "house arrest" with that perk.
  • Unfortunately terms of Judge Lewdy's financial settlement with Manitoba Justice are sealed and unavailable to public scrutiny. I imagine she received somewhere between $1.25 and $1.75 million as part of her deal to resign from the bench. If she had been late 30s to early 40s she probably would have been given 3 to 5 million. I believe she's now in her mid 60s so she'll also receive her full civil service pension (probably around $10,000-$12k / month) plus various old age pensions. And now she'll take in more money teaching at a mediocre law faculty.
  • Had she lost her job and had to hustle like most normal people she would not have "been stuck in the house" and would not have had time to be depressed.
  • If you hold a judgemental or authoritative position, don`t do lewd and stupid things you can be judged for by others. I have no pity for you. Enjoy the $1,000,00.00 plus in salary you received for doing nothing and your rich pension plan.
  • If YOU "don't do lewd and stupid things," You don't need to blame others for publicizing the lewd and stupid things you've done
  • Really? What was she thinking on that sunny day when she and her husband were outside, taking those pictures? No film in the camera? Just a bit of fun? For such a brilliant legal scholar, that wasn't her finest moment! Not to speak ill of the dead, but Jack King was no saint. He was a ruthless man, who destroyed many families in addition to his own. Lori and Jack, weren't thinking of their son or Jack's children through all of this. Their actions and bad choices caused this mess. This was the worst keep secret for years, and because of Alex Chapman , is now public knowledge. Sorry, but I can't find sympathy for her or her circumstances.
  • No one who becomes involved in a tawdry episode such as Ms Douglas did can possibly continue sitting as a judge. Now she appears to be trying to deflect it into a women's issue. It was massively poor judgement on the part of both her husband and herself.
    • Did she not know she was bare naked? What did she think she was doing. She is the epitome of poor judgement. I cannot believe anyone would suggest she become a law prof. Yes, that's just what we need someone like her teaching future lawyers. Why would someone stay married to a man who would treat her like that. Take responsibility for what you did stop complaining. You are lucky you were able to collect as much money as you did. Don't try to get more from the taxpayers now. Most of us are tired of hearing about this.`
    Sincerely,
    Clare L. Pieuk

    0 Comments:

    Post a Comment

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home