Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should this guy have served time?
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 63 of 112 (280226)
01-20-2006 9:34 AM


Teens too broad a category
Teens seems an almost a uselessy broad categorisation covering as it does a range of 8 years. The upper range of Teens, i.e. 18-19, is presumably above the age of consent throughout the United states.
TTFN,
WK

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 67 of 112 (280273)
01-20-2006 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by randman
01-20-2006 10:24 AM


Re: she is pro-gay
There isn't anything in that 'indictment' to suggest a less than professional realtionship existed. All the evidence seems to consist of is that these women attended a number of functions all connected with their professional work.
It seems ludicrous to claim that a judge should not be allowed to attend a Woman's Bar Association function on the grounds that it might be attended by politicians. Surely a Bar Association function is a legal rather than political function?
To characterise a speech given to a large gathering as some sort of personal and intimate encouragement to a particular attorney seems disingenuous to say the least as does categorising the attorney as a friend of the judge with the scant evidence presented.
About the 'indictment' of Justice Marshall, did this ever actually lead to anything or was it just a bit of grandstanding? The 3rd count seems completely non-sensical since presumably the Judge's opinion would be a matter of public record and when given would be the end of the case, and therefore the case could not have been pending or impending in any court.
Was there any actual indictment in a legal sense? Or indeed any actual legal or professional fallout? At the moment this indictment and the similar Pawlick complain simply seem to be a lot of noise thrown out by a group with a clear vested interest in overturning the decision rather than with upholding the ethical standards of the Massachusetts courts.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 10:24 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 12:01 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 71 of 112 (280296)
01-20-2006 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by randman
01-20-2006 12:01 PM


Re: she is pro-gay
I see, so judges aren't allowed to have personal opinions, that seems to be a new concept, I hadn't come across it before.
I can understand that they shouldn't air personal opinions relevant to a case which is sub judice and should endeavour to seperate them from their professional opinions as a judge when they are in court, But surely they are still allowed to actually have opinions?
Do you know if this actually resulted in anything because if it is a case of professional misconduct then why haven't the guilty parties been subjected to professional censure?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 12:01 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Chiroptera, posted 01-20-2006 1:16 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024