|The Douglas Inquiry re-victimizing another taxpayer!|
Good Day Readers:
With the Douglas Inquiry about to resume on Monday (November 24) you really have to give your head a good shake.
In July of 2010 Complainant Alex Chapman went to the Law Society of Manitoba to complain about the actions of his then lawyer the late Jack King and Mr. King's wife Lori Douglas both lawyers for Winnipeg BigLaw Thompson Dorfman Sweatman
at the time. The following month Ms Douglas went on administrative leave presumably at full pay of close to $300,000 annually plus a benefits package that for federally appointed Judges can only be described as "extremely generous" - no one from Queen's Bench Manitoba has yet disputed those fact.
Next you have her publicly financed legal bills which must be starting to approach $2 million by now with no end in sight. But then there are all
the other costs associated with a public Inquiry. The cost of an Acting Associate Chief Justice to replace Ms Douglas while she stays at home tending her tomato patch, Independent Council's legal fees; travel costs for the Inquiry Panel and witnesses, translation and transcription services, and on and on it goes ..... How many millions do you figure the total public cost of this sideshow will be - $5 million, $10 million? For what?
So what will the Douglas Inquiry have demonstrated for taxpayers once it's over? Just how seriously flawed the appointment process is for federal judges and how it's damn near impossible to get rid of one who may be seriously wanting
Re-victimization of whom by whom?
To add insult to injury for taxpayers, you now have Team Douglas claiming that to allow the Inquiry Committee to view the pictures would be re-victimizing their client even though only a very few individuals directly associated with the Inquiry would be allowed to view them. That's re-victimization? And BTW, CyberSmokeBlog
has seen the photographs and they're nothing to write home about. Trust it you don't want to see them. It's the taxpayers who are paying the Inquiry's costs who are constantly getting re-victimized.
And while still on the subject of victimization, aren't those ladies who find themselves in shelters for woman who have been verbally and/or physically abused the real victims? Imagine what the money being ....ed away on the Inquiry could accomplish if it were channeled into better support services for these woman who really need it. You need to get your priorities straight Douglas Inquiry.
It's really quite amazing woman and their advocacy groups aren't out rioting in the streets against Team Douglas' characterization of their client' "re-victimization."
In this the age of digitization it is nothing short of shocking Lori Douglas did not have the presence of mind to refuse to pose for the pictures. Pose on your head if that's what turns you on but don't allow it to be digitized!
Look at the case of Manitoba Queen's Bench Justice Vic "You either stand with the child pornographers or the government" Toews. The hacker group Anonymous
still have half a dozen or so YouTube
videos on the internet that contain some rather embarrassing, unflattering allegations if they are to be believed. Makes you wonder how he was ever appointed a federal judge.
Clare L. Pieuk
Lori Douglas case to start anew with sex photos off-limits
Manitoba judge says photos were taken by her husband and posted online without her consent
/The Canadian Press
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Manitoba Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas won a temporary ban on the use of graphic photographs taken of her from being used at her disciplinary hearing.
A second hearing into whether a senior Manitoba judge should be kicked off the bench is finally set to start in Winnipeg on Monday but sex photos central to the allegations against her will be off-limits — at least for the time being.Lori Douglas wins temporary ban on nude photos at disciplinary hearingBlock sex photos ahead of disciplinary hearing, Lori Douglas's lawyer asks court
The three-person panel of the Canadian Judicial Council had wanted to view the images of Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas but her lawyers won an 11th-hour stay of that decision on Friday.
In ordering the stay, Federal Court Judge Richard Mosley stressed it would be up to another hearing to decide whether the images should be permanently sealed. That judicial review is slated to happen Dec. 9 in Ottawa.
"(Douglas) points to the emerging social consensus in Canada that intimate images should not be disclosed or disseminated against the will of the persons they depict, unless it is absolutely necessary," Mosley said in written reasons.
"If the stay is refused and (Douglas) subsequently succeeds on the merits of her application for judicial review, the court will have condoned unnecessary disclosure of such images."
Douglas faces three allegations:
The photographs could be seen as "inherently contrary to the image and concept of integrity" of the judiciary and undermine public confidence in the justice system;
Douglas failed to disclose information about the pictures when she applied to become a judge in 2004;
She altered her personal diary after learning the council was probing her conduct.
The committee has set aside 10 days for the Winnipeg hearing. It expects testimony from 23 witnesses. It's not clear how its inability to view the images might affect the proceedings.
This is the second panel to hear the case.
The first hearings collapsed after a few weeks in 2012 amid accusations levelled by Douglas that the five-judge committee was biased against her. The committee's independent counsel resigned, followed by the resignation of the panel itself a year ago.Committee 'almost fell from their chairs' over judge's nude photos: lawyer
The issue of bias became part of a legal fight currently headed to appeal after Federal Court ruled there was none.
The Canadian Judicial Council — essentially comprising the country's chief and associate chief Superior Court justices — has drawn scathing criticism for its handling of the case, especially its contention that it does not answer to the courts.
That issue is also headed to appeal after Federal Court firmly rejected that notion.
In March, the council appointed a new panel, comprising two male judges and a female lawyer. Also appointed was a female lawyer to act as independent counsel to the panel.
The complaint against Douglas arose after her now-late husband, Jack King, took photos of her and posted them on the Internet without her knowledge or permission in 2003.
King would later describe his behaviour as "bizarre, ridiculous, stupid, self-indulgent, grotesque."
Years later, King's client Alexander Chapman again posted the images on the Internet in violation of an agreement to return or destroy them.
The current committee dropped an allegation that Douglas had sexually harassed Chapman.
Douglas's lawyers have argued passionately the proceedings have only served to revictimize a woman already victimized by the non-consensual distribution of the intimate photographs, an act the federal government is seeking to criminalize.Lori Douglas, celeb Jennifer Lawrence both nude photo victims: lawyer
"This was classic revenge porn," lawyer Sheila Block told Mosley in Toronto last week. "Suppose the judge was raped and somebody put it on YouTube?"
The judicial council could recommend Douglas's removal from the bench but only Parliament can fire her.