Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Manitoba Judge "Sex" Scandal


Recommended Posts

Just count the Google hits inside and outside Canada, and try to focus on the subject instead. Or just ignore it...if you can.

And this is relevant to the thread how? And do you really want to get into the focus of the thread or just continue being a Cheney (aka dick) ???

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

as the info comes out it's becoming apparent the guy suing for damages is a blackmailer and also has a shady criminal past...this is an adult male who is claiming he was damaged by someone asking him to have sex with his wife, wtf! I've been propositioned by women for sex and I don't feel damaged by the experience and the solution was easy, "No thanks, I'm married" and that ended it...should I go back years later track down some of these women and sue them for harassment, this situation is ridiculous...

Link to post
Share on other sites

as the info comes out it's becoming apparent the guy suing for damages is a blackmailer and also has a shady criminal past...this is an adult male who is claiming he was damaged by someone asking him to have sex with his wife, wtf! I've been propositioned by women for sex and I don't feel damaged by the experience and the solution was easy, "No thanks, I'm married" and that ended it...should I go back years later track down some of these women and sue them for harassment, this situation is ridiculous...

Go back and read the full story.

The Judges husband was representing him in a case and was using his influence to pressure him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Go back and read the full story.

The Judges husband was representing him in a case and was using his influence to pressure him.

the judge wasn't a judge at the time and there was no pressure he's an adult, he could've said no thanks, he could've requested a different lawyer from the firm, but no he kept the lawyer and extorted $25,000 out of him to keep it quiet and now has gone back to the trough to see if can get more...the lawyer differs on when the discussion took place before or after the legal matter...

you have to be quite naive to believe the man in question with criminal(arson among other things) past was intimidated by a lawyers request for sexual games...my experience with criminals that I've known over the years tells me they explore any and every angle to make a quick buck...

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't work like that.

A lawyer says he will get you off if you just do his wife on the side. If you refuse he promises to let the court have their way with you. That is undue influence.

Sure Judge wasn't a judge at the time her husband pressured his client. However, she knew of the pictures, and knew they were on the internet before she went before the selection board, and did not disclose this to the board, despite being asked by the board if there was anything in her past that might affect their decision. She said there wasn't.

So not only did her actions make a potential problem, but she lied about it as well.

And despite what BC thinks, the Honour of the Crown is a tacit principle of our justice system. Of course he thinks we are like the Yanks where paying off judges and hanging innocent men is common place. Not in Canada, eh....

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, she knew of the pictures, and knew they were on the internet before she went before the selection board, and did not disclose this to the board, despite being asked by the board if there was anything in her past that might affect their decision. She said there wasn't.

Actually, according to reports, the opposite is true.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/judge-disclosed-problem-102047428.html

Edited by BubberMiley
Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't work like that.

A lawyer says he will get you off if you just do his wife on the side. If you refuse he promises to let the court have their way with you. That is undue influence.

that's hearsay there is absolutely no evdence of that, none...
Sure Judge wasn't a judge at the time her husband pressured his client. However, she knew of the pictures, and knew they were on the internet before she went before the selection board, and did not disclose this to the board, despite being asked by the board if there was anything in her past that might affect their decision. She said there wasn't.

So not only did her actions make a potential problem, but she lied about it as well.

speculation there is absolutely no evidence she was aware those pictures were on the internet...a quick search on the internet will reveal thousands of nudie photos and videos'posted by vengeful ex boyfriends and husbands...that the judges husband would do so without her permission or knowledge isn't hard to accept...
And despite what BC thinks, the Honour of the Crown is a tacit principle of our justice system. Of course he thinks we are like the Yanks where paying off judges and hanging innocent men is common place. Not in Canada, eh....
the real irony here is someone with the name "charter.rights" judging and convicting someone with nothing other hearsay evidence and the word of a convicted felon, you're backing the word of a blackmailing felon as the absolute truth...if this was such an honorable person why did he go to the website where the pictures could be found download, save and copy them?...why? extortion...

Alexander Chapman- has a criminal history, involving convictions for arson, theft and uttering death threats, and has a record of pursuing litigation....he did a shakedown of the lawyer once before for $25,000 and has been ordered to hand over any pictures he has of the judge as he persues a multi million dollar shakedown...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure Judge wasn't a judge at the time her husband pressured his client. However, she knew of the pictures, and knew they were on the internet before she went before the selection board, and did not disclose this to the board, despite being asked by the board if there was anything in her past that might affect their decision. She said there wasn't.

You are incorrect if the reported disclosure is true. Nothing wrong with perfectly legal "internet" pictures before she was appointed to the bench.

So not only did her actions make a potential problem, but she lied about it as well.

How/when did she lie?

And despite what BC thinks, the Honour of the Crown is a tacit principle of our justice system. Of course he thinks we are like the Yanks where paying off judges and hanging innocent men is common place. Not in Canada, eh....

Bullpuckey...the "Honour of the Crown" is a longstanding public relations disaster for the continued wholesale screwing of "aborigines".

http://canadiandimension.com/articles/1734/

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I thought it was obvious reasons but, apparently, not.

Lets go through this - she knew that she had skeletons in her past - a husband who may have pressured one (and perhaps more?) of his clients to have sex with her. That's just not professional, period.

There are naked photo's and perhaps other information about her with respect to her sexual practices.

She obviously has some kind of embarrassment about it since she paid Chapman off.

Hence, it's not a good idea to become a judge when you know that there is information out their that people could use to blackmail you.

Either come clean with the information from the outset and deal with the consequences (and I don't think the ethics committee takes kindly to lawyer's pressuring clients to have sex with spouses) to start a clean sheet.

Otherwise, no, she nor her husband have not demonstrated professionalism and, for all we know, may have in fact broken laws.

I agree entirely. She is free to live, but not as a judge.

My complaint is with the CBC. I think the CBC journalist should have presented privately the evidence and given her the opportunity to resign without this public display.

-----

All things considered, who named this judge? Who selected her?

Increasingly, I prefer the American system of electing lower court judges. At worst, such a method would mean a random/lottery choice - subject to obvious appeal (ie. re-election). Given this Winnipeg judge, a lottery system of choosing might be an improvement. And given Quebec news stories, a lottery method to choose judges would avoid taints of favouritism.

America. What a country!

It's my thread Alice. If you want to get your panties in bunch, have at it.
BC, you don't "own" this thread, anymore than I know what others have posted in it.

I'll go back and flip through the postings. Sorry if I repeated above others' ideas.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites

that's hearsay there is absolutely no evdence of that, none...

speculation there is absolutely no evidence she was aware those pictures were on the internet...a quick search on the internet will reveal thousands of nudie photos and videos'posted by vengeful ex boyfriends and husbands...that the judges husband would do so without her permission or knowledge isn't hard to accept...

the real irony here is someone with the name "charter.rights" judging and convicting someone with nothing other hearsay evidence and the word of a convicted felon, you're backing the word of a blackmailing felon as the absolute truth...if this was such an honorable person why did he go to the website where the pictures could be found download, save and copy them?...why? extortion...

Alexander Chapman- has a criminal history, involving convictions for arson, theft and uttering death threats, and has a record of pursuing litigation....he did a shakedown of the lawyer once before for $25,000 and has been ordered to hand over any pictures he has of the judge as he persues a multi million dollar shakedown...

You are still way out to lunch.

She has admitted that she knew about the pictures in 2003. She was appointed in 2005.

As the story is unfolding, it is clear that Chapman was King's client and that he felt pressured by the lawyer to sleep with his wife, in return for favourable treatment. Go back and read all the stories and you will see what I see.

Alexander Chapman- has a criminal history, involving convictions for arson, theft and uttering death threats...

And here you go convicting him because of his past.

Lastly this has nothing to do with "Charter Rights. That is a simpleton's red herring thrown in to divert attention that you are wrong. This is about a judicial review, the conduct of a Queen's officer and the failure of a Judge to disclose injurious information. (An earlier accounting by a Liberal MP sitting on the selection committee stated that the information was not disclosed during the selection process). A Crown must not only be exemplary but must appear to be impeachable at all time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then she is not free to live.

Again your Americanisms get in the way of understanding how Canada works.

Our Constitution places reasonable limits on freedoms in order to preserve certain long-standing rights, equality (and equity before the law) and to maintain peace, order and goodwill. According to the Canadian epic that IS freedom, but unlike the US where freedoms are impinged on the whim of the CIA or Borderland Security, we have real freedom and not that masked by subversive agencies.

The Honour of the Crown is a prevalent principle in the conduct of the Queen's officers of the Court, the Crown, and lawyers that swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and allegiance to the Queen.

The Honour of the Crown reflects the deepest and oldest layer of our democratic and legal traditions in Canada.
Appealing to the Honour of the Crown was an appeal not merely to the Sovereign as a person, but to a bedrock of fundamental principles that lay beyond persons and beyond politics.
In defining the quotation “fiduciary duty of the Crown,” the Supreme Court restored the concept of holding ministers to a standard of fairness that demands forethought as to what conduct lends credibility and honour to the Crown, instead of what conduct can be technically justified under the current law. The Supreme Court clearly rebuked the notion that a minister’s motivation to act can be defended on the grounds of political expediency.
The Honour of the Crown is not limited to the interpretation of legislation, or the application of treaties. Rather, I submit that the Honour of the Crown also refers to the same essential commitment that all Canadians understand as embodied in two words, “justice” and “fairness.” The Honour of the crown is much broader than a mere interpretation of s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. In every action and decision the women and men who represent the Crown in Canada should conduct themselves as if their personal honour and reputations depended upon that conduct. The idea of the Honour of the Crown is not merely an empty slogan, but is absolutely central to the historical relationship between the Sovereign and the subject.

THE HONOUR OF THE JUDICIARY –THE HONOUR OF THE CROWN, Judge David Arnot,Saskatchewan

Pages 11-71, Provincial Judges Journal, Volume 33, No.1 Summer 2010

You haven't a clue about what you are talking about. You goofed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again your Americanisms get in the way of understanding how Canada works.

It's pretty obvious how Canada "works".

Our Constitution places reasonable limits on freedoms in order to preserve certain long-standing rights, equality (and equity before the law) and to maintain peace, order and goodwill. According to the Canadian epic that IS freedom, but unlike the US where freedoms are impinged on the whim of the CIA or Borderland Security, we have real freedom and not that masked by subversive agencies.

Except for CSIS, RCMP, security certificates, CRTC, HRCs, etc., etc.

The Honour of the Crown is a prevalent principle in the conduct of the Queen's officers of the Court, the Crown, and lawyers that swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and allegiance to the Queen.

Sieg Heil!

You haven't a clue about what you are talking about. You goofed.

Tell that to the First Nations...tell them all about your "honour" and your queen across the ocean.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's pretty obvious how Canada "works".
You Americans may have a Constitution that has existed for over two centuries but we Canadians have, despite our injustices, never suffered a bloody civil war.

So, which country "works" better?

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites

You Americans may have a Constitution that has existed for over two centuries but we Canadians have never suffered a bloody civil war.

That's because you're not allowed to. Revolutions are verboten too!

So, which country "works" better?

They both "work" fine.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are still way out to lunch.

She has admitted that she knew about the pictures in 2003. She was appointed in 2005.

out to lunch? no that would still be you....pictures were posted in 2002 there is no evidence she knew they were posted by her husband at that time or that she consented to it...
As the story is unfolding, it is clear that Chapman was King's client and that he felt pressured by the lawyer to sleep with his wife, in return for favourable treatment. Go back and read all the stories and you will see what I see.

pressured :lol: ya I've seen him on tv he doesn't strike me as someone who is afraid of a lawyer, the lawyer had no hold over him it was a divorce case he could have switched lawyers at any time but chose to extort $25,000 with the pictures he down loaded from the website he found so objectionable :lol: ...a career criminal with a violent past ya right he's soooo scared of a lawyer ;)
And here you go convicting him because of his past.
ahh that's what courts do, when it's one persons word versus another credibilty comes into play...career criminal with a history of litigation vs lawyer with spicey sex life, hmmm let me think about that for a milisecond...
Lastly this has nothing to do with "Charter Rights. That is a simpleton's red herring thrown in to divert attention that you are wrong. This is about a judicial review, the conduct of a Queen's officer and the failure of a Judge to disclose injurious information. (An earlier accounting by a Liberal MP sitting on the selection committee stated that the information was not disclosed during the selection process). A Crown must not only be exemplary but must appear to be impeachable at all time.
I wasn't going to call you a simpleton but if that's how you want to label yourself so be it... :) Edited by wyly
Link to post
Share on other sites
They both "work" fine.

No, we Canadians work better. That's why you Americans elected Obama.

----

Manitoba judge? Sorry for the thread hijack.

Americans... You say how much you love winter and they say how much they love fur coats. And the next thing you know, you're talking about coats, not the weather.

Such are Americans. They are the white keys on the piano.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes...Canadians definitely work better in the USA.
Win, lose, work... whatever.

As I say, with you Americans, I can talk about hockey, but you will soon talk about sports and football. We're no longer talking about our problem, we're now talking about America.

So self-centred.

---

Manitoba Judge?

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites

...Lastly this has nothing to do with "Charter Rights. That is a simpleton's red herring thrown in to divert attention that you are wrong. This is about a judicial review, the conduct of a Queen's officer and the failure of a Judge to disclose injurious information....

Hey...if the Queen is all that and a bag of chips, what would happen if we came upon nude (or clothed) sex photos of the reigning monarch. Would it matter if the photos were taken before coronation (or whatever it's called)? Or would the Crown's "honour" be so besmirched that she would have to go?

An old joke goes something like this:

Do you have any nude photos of your wife?

Certainly not....And I am offended that you would ask!

Wanna buy some?
;)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it certainly could be an issue considering she was appoint to Family Court. I would certainly want to know that the Judge behind the bench considering the the welfare of children wasn't also thinking of a way to bring them into her chambers.

WTH are you on about? All we know is that the woman's hubby went bonkers a few years back, posted some private pics of her to a web site, and tried to entice a black man to come and have sex with her. So far as we are aware his wife had no knowledge of any of that going on. So what has this got to do with children and why shouldn't she be a judge?

Because she has sex? People who have sex shouldn't be judges?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...