Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "Counsulor, "For her eyes only? An invasion of privacy?" Welcome ot the internet!"Good Afternoon Mr. Pieuk,
Hmm, I wonder if Madam Justice Douglas has seen this? The irony of this video is inescapable! He gave the photos to a person he trusted - so did she. That trusted person betrayed him - as did hers.
Legal proceedings are against the person who broke the trust - she has yet to take action against her husband.
Many wondered what would happen to a male who did as our illustrious Madam Justice did, and now we know there is at least one male public figure who has done the ethical thing! His pictures were part of a typical male/female relationship - Madam Justice's have that kink edge that many find repulsive and degrading. He couldn't survive in office - why does she think she can?
Take your cue from those who have fallen before you and resign Ms. Douglas, before the whole country has a field day in your bedroom.
I remain,
VJH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear VJH:
Thank you very much for contacting CyberSmokeBlog.
Your comments have raised a few issues:
(1) Is Lori Douglas represented by legal counsel? If so whom? Hopefully, it's not her husband lawyer Jack King!
(2) Have negotiations quietly been taking place behind-the-scenes (plea agreement) to avoid a public inquiry? Justice Douglas steps down from the Bench in exchange for .....
(3) Were the actions of the various players in this debacle/fiasco appropriate? The Law Society of Manitoba? Lawyers representing the various parties? The Manitoba Court of Appeal's decision to seal the documentation?
We support a public inquiry because given the aforementioned questions, and other that undoubtedly exist, it's time to take a closer look at the procedures by which judges are selected, vetted and appointed. Are there serious flaws that need to be fixed?
BTW, we found this on the Manitoba Justice website:
An inquiry is established by an Order in Council (a public document) of the government (could be either federal or provincial), setting out the terms of reference for the inquiry and appointing an individual as a Commissioner for the inquiry. In recent Manitoba public inquiries, Commissioners have tended to be either sitting or retired judges. The inquiry holds public hearings to hear evidence and submissions in regard to the subject of the inquiry. At the end of the hearings, the Commissioner makes a report and submits it to the government who commissioned the inquiry. The Commissioner’s report contains recommendations in accordance with the terms set out in the Order in Council. It would then be the decision of the government as to the course of action it would take in response to the recommendations of the Commissioner.
An inquiry is called in accordance with the provisions of The Manitoba Evidence Act by the government in response to a matter which it considers to be of such public importance that an inquiry is necessary. Public inquiries are not court proceedings and it is up to the Commissioner to determine the level of media and public access to be given, e.g. televising of proceedings.
So you see VJH, even if there is a public inquiry it really will depend on the terms of reference, that is to say, what's considered in bounds and what's out of bounds? Nevertheless, it would be a good first step should in-limbo Justice Douglas and lawyer husband Anthony King opt to take their chances.
If the decision is made to roll the dice we could be in for quite a public spectacle - lots of dirty laundry getting washed in public? "Do you feel lucky well do you?"
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
P. S. When was the last time Parliament was asked to remove a sitting judge?
(ex).jpg)
