Manitoba Judge "Sex" Scandal

[bush_cheney2004]

A titillating story concerning a sitting Manitoba judge raises several obvious questions:

1) Why are her legal sexual habits relevant to qualifications for the job?

2) Why is the story more "lurid" because of "interacial" sex?

3) What laws or ethical rules have been broken?

Editor’s note: The following story contains graphic details of a sexual nature.

A prominent Winnipeg judge and her lawyer husband are at the centre of a lurid interracial sex scandal, accused of harassing a client to have sex with her.

“It made me sick to my stomach, like I’m living in a country with no integrity,” Alex Chapman said Tuesday.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2010/08/31/15205491.html

[Bonam]

I dunno, but the dude clearly shoulda just said so if he didn't want to have sex with or look at pictures of the judge. Sounds to me like the stereotypical case of a whiny woman unable to say no to a man's advances coming back months/years later hoping to get some money or publicity out of the thing, except gender reversed in this case. Honestly, who cares if this judge enjoys being gang raped by "young black men" in her off time?

The lawyer in a position of power forcing his client to do this? Sounds more like he was feeling out whether his client might be interested, and when he didn't get a "no", he kept advertising his wife's fetishes.

Edited September 1, 2010 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Honestly, who cares if this judge enjoys being gang raped by "young black men" in her off time?

Agreed....would this disqualify her as a judge nominee in Manitoba? Did she have to disclose sexual habits on the application? Are males subjected to the same standard?

[charter.rights]

Agreed....would this disqualify her as a judge nominee in Manitoba? Did she have to disclose sexual habits on the application? Are males subjected to the same standard?

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. There is a certain demeanor that we expect out of judges both in their public as well as private lives.

She should be turfed.

[Bonam]

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.

Who said anything about children? The article didn't mention anything about this couple going after children. If they did, that would of course be against the law and would be punished accordingly.

There is a certain demeanor that we expect out of judges both in their public as well as private lives.

She should be turfed.

No, private lives are just that: private. The obsession of an idiotic public with the private lives of politicians and other public figures is stupid. What matters is how they govern, what policies they make, and in the case of judges, how well they perform their judicial duties.

As for turfing... WTF? You think anyone whose sexual fantasies you might disapprove of should be fired from their job? Maybe gays shouldn't be judges if someone disapproves? What about people into bdsm? I'm sure there's plenty of others who disapprove of that. Should anyone that enjoys sex in any manner besides the traditional missionary method be sacked?

[capricorn]

Sounds to me like the stereotypical case of a whiny woman unable to say no to a man's advances coming back months/years later hoping to get some money or publicity out of the thing, except gender reversed in this case.

The complainant got $25,000.00 and is coming back for more.

"It made me sick to my stomach, like I'm living in a country with no integrity," Alex Chapman said Tuesday.

---

Chapman was paid $25,000 and signed a confidentiality agreement which included a promise to destroy all correspondence and pictures he received from King.

But Chapman didn't destroy the pictures and e-mails and in July filed a complaint with the Manitoba Law Society and Canadian Judicial Council.

---

"She should not be a judge," he said. "She has no integrity at all. She was a partner in the law firm."

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/08/31/15205306.html

If anyone is lacking integrity it is Chapman who failed to live up to an agreement that he would destroy the material in exchange for money. What a loser.

[GostHacked]

If there are grounds for harassment charges then she should be turfed. Since it looks like her lawyer hubby was involved, he should lose his license/ability to be a lawyer.

The charges that could be laid

Harassment, solicitation, extortion/blackmail, .... that would be more than enough to have her kicked off the bench and never to be a judge again.

[capricorn]

The charges that could be laid

Harassment, solicitation, extortion/blackmail, .... that would be more than enough to have her kicked off the bench and never to be a judge again.

It looks to me like the blackmailer is Chapman the complainant, not the judge or her husband.

All parties agree that shortly after his divorce was finalized, Chapman filed a complaint about King's conduct with senior partners at the law firm of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman.

The matter was resolved quickly and privately when King agreed to pay Chapman $25,000 in exchange for signing a confidentiality agreement that he would not take any legal action, would never speak publicly about the issue and would turn over and destroy all photos he had of Douglas.

---

Gange also accused Chapman of attempting to "extort" up to $100,000 from King before agreeing to the lesser amount.

"I only recommended it to protect Lori, and his son. He was succumbing to the blackmail," said Gange. "He did something stupid and out of character, but it was not illegal, and it was never acted upon."

He said King and Douglas likely have several legal avenues to pursue against Chapman for breaches of the confidentiality agreement, of the Privacy Act for not destroying the personal photos, and for defamation of character.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Manitoba+judge+lawyer+face+probe+over+past+personal+lives/3467000/story.html

The judge's status is under review by the Canadian Judicial Council and hubby is under investigation by the Law Society. There may be morality and conduct related sanctions, but I can't see that the couple would face any charges.

[ToadBrother]

A titillating story concerning a sitting Manitoba judge raises several obvious questions:

1) Why are her legal sexual habits relevant to qualifications for the job?

2) Why is the story more "lurid" because of "interacial" sex?

3) What laws or ethical rules have been broken?

Editor’s note: The following story contains graphic details of a sexual nature.

A prominent Winnipeg judge and her lawyer husband are at the centre of a lurid interracial sex scandal, accused of harassing a client to have sex with her.

“It made me sick to my stomach, like I’m living in a country with no integrity,” Alex Chapman said Tuesday.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2010/08/31/15205491.html

Well, as some experts have pointed out, if these allegations are true, then it shows a profound lack of judgement. For better or for worse, we hold judges to a higher standard, perhaps the highest standard (save maybe for doctors), and what this lady has shown is horrifically bad judgement. I wouldn't want her presiding over a case involving me.

[msj]

1) A judge who puts herself into a position to be blackmailed should not be a judge for, I hope, obvious reasons.

2) It is "lurid" not because of interracial sex but because it is sensational when you have a husband and wife who should know better (for obvious reasons per #1 and also per #3) but don't and then get caught up in the media with this kind of story.

3) For a lawyer to pressure a client to have sex with his wife is unbecoming for any professional especially when that lawyer then buys (even unsuccessfully) the client's silence.

4) Neither husband nor wife deserve to be members of the Law Society.

[bush_cheney2004]

1) A judge who puts herself into a position to be blackmailed should not be a judge for, I hope, obvious reasons.

Clearly she was not a judge at the time nor is it clear that the actions of her husband were completely known to her.

2) It is "lurid" not because of interracial sex but because it is sensational when you have a husband and wife who should know better (for obvious reasons per #1 and also per #3) but don't and then get caught up in the media with this kind of story.

Then why is race significant to the story? What "kind of story" is this? Is it lurid to have sex with non-white males in Manitoba?

4) Neither husband nor wife deserve to be members of the Law Society.

Why?

Edited September 1, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[capricorn]

1) A judge who puts herself into a position to be blackmailed should not be a judge for, I hope, obvious reasons.

The Chapman affair happened in 2003, the judge was appointed to the bench in 2005. How come the 2003 affair was not uncovered before her 2005 appointment to the bench?

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, as some experts have pointed out, if these allegations are true, then it shows a profound lack of judgement. For better or for worse, we hold judges to a higher standard, perhaps the highest standard (save maybe for doctors), and what this lady has shown is horrifically bad judgement. I wouldn't want her presiding over a case involving me.

I will review the timeline, but she wasn't a judge yet as far as I can tell. Judges are not required to adhere to your notion of what constitutes "higher standard" for legal sexual activity....is there a special law in Manitoba? What about Charter Rights?

Something is askew here.....

[bush_cheney2004]

The Chapman affair happened in 2003, the judge was appointed to the bench in 2005. How come the 2003 affair was not uncovered before her 2005 appointment to the bench?

Thanks...I thought that was the case. So why would legal sexual activity or civil efforts to squelch photos exclude her from the bench?

[msj]

Clearly she was not a judge at the time nor is it clear that the actions of her husband were completely known to her.

She has naked photo's of herself floating around the internet and you think that she should be a judge?

She knew about these and she knew that she (now evidently unsuccessfully) bought off Chapman for his silence - you honestly don't think that she knew these would be relevant issues upon becoming a judge?

You don't think that someone else may have found the photo's and tried to use them against her (especially if she was a judge sitting on that person's case)?

Do you really think a professional is professional for paying off someone?

Then why is race significant to the story? What "kind of story" is this? Is it lurid to have sex with non-white males in Manitoba?

It isn't very important. It is a fact, however, that she belonged to an interracial website.

Nothing wrong with reporting facts.

Why?

For the wife - see reasons above.

For the husband - is it not a criminal act to pressure your client to have sex with your wife?

Perhaps not, but it is certainly unethical.

Edited September 1, 2010 by msj

[msj]

The Chapman affair happened in 2003, the judge was appointed to the bench in 2005. How come the 2003 affair was not uncovered before her 2005 appointment to the bench?

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

She has naked photo's of herself floating around the internet and you think that she should be a judge?

It does not preclude membership in many professions. What is the hangup? Sex?

She knew about these and she knew that she (now evidently unsuccessfully) bought off Chapman for his silence - you honestly don't think that she knew these would be relevant issues upon becoming a judge?

I'm sure she did know and sought to prevent public disclosure. But it is not necessarily an ethical lapse unless you have hangups about her personal sexual habits.

Do you really think a professional is professional for paying off someone?

Of course...happens all the time in real life civil suits.

Edited September 1, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[msj]

It does not preclude membership in many professions. What is the hangup? Sex?

Well, since it looks like she and her husband paid off Chapman to be hush, hush, obviously it could be a hangup for her.

I don't want a judge to be in a position where she has a hangup that could be used to blackmail her.

I'm sure she did know and sought to prevent public disclosure. But it is not necessarily an ethical lapse unless you have hangups about her personal sexual habits.

My hangups are as follows:

1) Did she and her husband pressure people to have sex with her? Is there an abuse of power going on here? (I'm talking about the husband abusing his power as a lawyer but who knows what her role has been).

2) Since she and her husband paid hush money for this we already know that they have some kind of hangup - are there any cases that she presided over where someone received a favourable ruling in order to prevent her photos or other information about her sex life from becoming public?

3) Is the payment of hush money legal? Is that bribery?

Edited September 1, 2010 by msj

[capricorn]

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

I'll elaborate. Presumably, candidates for judgeship are somehow vetted prior to appointment. How could those internet photos and the information about Chapman not have been uncovered by those making the decision to appoint her? Or, could it be that whoever appointed her knew full well about the whole thing and she was nevertheless appointed?

[msj]

I'll elaborate. Presumably, candidates for judgeship are somehow vetted prior to appointment. How could those internet photos and the information about Chapman not have been uncovered by those making the decision to appoint her? Or, could it be that whoever appointed her knew full well about the whole thing and she was nevertheless appointed?

Who knows?

Chapman did sign a confidentiality agreement so maybe it was kept hush hush until now?

She should have made sure it was known, but somehow I doubt that she did. For that reason alone I think she should be turfed.

If anyone who vetted her knew about this and kept quiet then they, too, should resign for, once again, obvious reasons (or at least one would hope would be obvious reasons - but, my gawd, apparently not).

[GostHacked]

I will review the timeline, but she wasn't a judge yet as far as I can tell. Judges are not required to adhere to your notion of what constitutes "higher standard" for legal sexual activity....is there a special law in Manitoba? What about Charter Rights?

Something is askew here.....

If they want to serve on the bench, then yes their history and past actions do count. Judges are required and expected to be held to a higher standard, simply because they are the ones passing judgment on others. We put them on the bench because they are of a higher standard. If we don't , then proper and just justice will not be served.

It's not just legal items we need to scrutinize. If they behaved morally wrong in the past (I guess that is subjective) then I would not feel comfortable with having them on the bench. If they are morally weak, they can be taken advantage of and again justice won't be served.

[bush_cheney2004]

If they want to serve on the bench, then yes their history and past actions do count. Judges are required and expected to be held to a higher standard, simply because they are the ones passing judgment on others. We put them on the bench because they are of a higher standard. If we don't , then proper and just justice will not be served.

Higher standard than what? Is this standard defined? What is unethical about membership on a legal web site?

It's not just legal items we need to scrutinize. If they behaved morally wrong in the past (I guess that is subjective) then I would not feel comfortable with having them on the bench. If they are morally weak, they can be taken advantage of and again justice won't be served.

Right...which morals? Is it immoral to have multiple sex partners? Or immoral to pay hush money? Or immoral to.....?

[GostHacked]

Higher standard than what? Is this standard defined? What is unethical about membership on a legal web site?

Like I said, if you have not acted morally in the past, should you be considered for the position of 'judge'? By that I mean if you were soliciting some one for sex and the soliciting is not wanted you got a case for harassment. Now even being in a position where your past actions are being investigated for some reason or another, that's enough for me to say, take them off the bench or prevent them from getting to the bench without proper investigation.

Conflict of interest is essentially what I am getting at here.

Right...which morals? Is it immoral to have multiple sex partners? Or immoral to pay hush money? Or immoral to.....?

I'd say it is immoral to pay hush money, because it was immoral to solicit someone else for sex when it was not welcomed.

IN the end, people who server on the bench must be held to a higher standard. Justice cannot be served properly if this is not considered. If you want to prevent an air of corruption among those deciding our fates, then you hold them to a higher standard.

Do you want a corrupt judge (morally or legally) presiding over a case that involves you? If so, what are your justifications for it? And how do you think it won't come into play when they make their decision?

[msj]

Higher standard than what? Is this standard defined? What is unethical about membership on a legal web site?

Professionals are held to a higher standard than "ordinary" people because we are in a position of power.

Doctors have a code of conduct whereby they aren't supposed to use their position to, for example, sexually assault patients.

It would seem that lawyers in Manitoba fall under their own Code of Conduct.

In particular are chapters 7, 19 and 20.

For judges, well, they have their own code of conduct.

Right...which morals? Is it immoral to have multiple sex partners? Or immoral to pay hush money? Or immoral to.....?

It is immoral to pressure a client to have sex with you or your wife.

It is questionable to put oneself into an untenable position whereby one could be blackmailed - this is exactly the position she has found herself in.

As a professional, she should not be a member of a website (even a legal website) if such membership can be used against her.

This is pretty obvious stuff, B_C.

[bush_cheney2004]

Like I said, if you have not acted morally in the past, should you be considered for the position of 'judge'? By that I mean if you were soliciting some one for sex and the soliciting is not wanted you got a case for harassment. Now even being in a position where your past actions are being investigated for some reason or another, that's enough for me to say, take them off the bench or prevent them from getting to the bench without proper investigation.

But that is arbitrary and capricious....such a standard would exclude the vast majority of jurists and non-jurists alike.

Conflict of interest is essentially what I am getting at here.

Maybe...I would prefer that a judge follow written law, not their "moral" preferences.

I'd say it is immoral to pay hush money, because it was immoral to solicit someone else for sex when it was not welcomed.

No it's not...."hush money" is a standard settlement method for many civil claims and circumstances. What's so different about this one....sex?

IN the end, people who server on the bench must be held to a higher standard. Justice cannot be served properly if this is not considered. If you want to prevent an air of corruption among those deciding our fates, then you hold them to a higher standard.

Then define the "higher standard".

Do you want a corrupt judge (morally or legally) presiding over a case that involves you? If so, what are your justifications for it? And how do you think it won't come into play when they make their decision?

Your premise is flawed....what is "morally corrupt" about this situation?