Federal Judge Retires As 'Bad Lapse In Judgment' With 16-Year-Old Surfaces

Posted by $ nickursis 4 years, 10 months ago to Government
23 comments | Share | Flag

Yet another "bail out" when things get rugh (ala Lois Lerner) for another high government official, who should be morally uptight and able to render true justice. Until caught. Funny, he was just stepping in to fill in for the Obamanations nominee for SCOTUS, too. "Bad Judgement"...seems HillaryBeast uses that excuse too...
SOURCE URL: http://www.npr.org/2016/03/18/470852225/federal-judge-retires-as-bad-lapse-in-judgment-with-16-year-old-surfaces


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 10 months ago
    "Judges who serve at least 10 years and then retire under the disability statute are eligible to receive full salaries for the rest of their lives."

    Yes, the taxpayers should have to pay lifetime salary for this unethical, perverted, looting scumbag.
    He deserves a close up and personal demonstration of the physical effects of confined rapidly expanding gases
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 4 years, 10 months ago
      well, that's somewhat strong, Freedom... Apparently, from what CG is saying, paying for this clown for the rest of his life, is an ok thing. That is one of my main points, this is prevalent in this political regime. Everyone has a viewpoint, which I respect, but I just do not think this should be allowed. I object to being looted to give this jerk a free ride.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Flootus5 4 years, 10 months ago
        I agree. In my "semi-retirement" from private industry, I don't get a continuing salary for the rest of my life. Federal judges should have to plan for retirement just like private producers. And their current salaried positions can be lost due to indiscreet behavior. That might help some of this nonsense.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 10 months ago
    I have no understanding of how this ties into national politics b/c this is the first I've heard of it. I'm pretty sure it's unethical for a prosecutor to have a relationship with a witness on an active case.

    The age difference is a bogus issue, IMHO. He was 28, and she was 16. Such a relationship is not a good idea in modern society, but it's normal for people at 16 y/o to seek out new things and to start breaking away from their family and to have a relationship with someone they find themselves working with. (I think I'm telling myself this b/c I remember my own indiscretions and my kids are only 10 years away from it!)

    Calling someone 35 years later, tricking him to talk about an old relationship from his youth, and secretly recording it to be used for political reasons seems worse than anything in this story.

    I truly have no knowledge of this and how it relates to politics and all the childish name-calling that goes alone with it. I'm just saying secretly recording a conversation with someone you had a relationship with decades ago comes off really low.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Thoritsu 4 years, 10 months ago
      Same assessment for Cosby?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 4 years, 10 months ago
        Cosby is a similar issue, and if he is ever convicted of doing what he is accused of, that is a matter to be looked at. However, I was not paying Cosby through my taxes. Also, the issue of why all the women decided now was a good time to ressurect all this, is a question. If it really happened, and they were so offended, why did they not scream to the top of the roof then. We were not short of Liberals looking for poster children then, as we are not short now either. Also, I tend to think it is a matter between Cosby and the accusers, and until there is a hearing and some facts, that is a hard nut to crack.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 10 months ago
        "Same assessment for Cosby?"
        I have not followed it closely but I have wondered if drugs are to the Cosby allegation as the age difference is to this case-- both hot buttons to demonize the accused. I can't tell from what I've read where he secretly slipped people powerful drugs that made them not know what they were doing OR if it was something equivalent to either 8 oz of vodka or 10 mg of oxycodone.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Thoritsu 4 years, 10 months ago
          Did they have Oxycodone when Cosby was still capable?

          I accept the analogy.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 10 months ago
            Opium has been around since ancient times. Opiates started with laudanum a few centuries ago. The main difference among the opiates, from what I can tell, is what amt corresponds to a full dose and how long they last. It would be very difficult for a drug user to distinguish between morphine, oxycodone, and heroin in pill format. People have wanted this effect since ancient times, and they have consistently found ways to get it.

            I have seen many young people experiment with drugs like this and say, "Oh my, I would never behave like that if it weren't for the drug." Generally I think this is a white lie and an excuse to test social boundaries. If someone chooses to take, say, 4 oz of vodka and someone slips in 5mg of oxycodone, the people taking the drug will get higher than they wanted to. But if their memory is still functioning and they're able to move around, I am very skeptical of claims that they were raped b/c they didn't know the amount of drug they were taking. Clearly it's wrong and unacceptable to trick someone into taking more drugs than they want, but I don't think of it as rape unless there was force or the victim didn't know what was happening.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 4 years, 10 months ago
      He was a prosecutor for the Feds, and worked the relationship into it while preparing her to testify. That much he admitted to. He is the Judge who was to succeed Obamanations nominee for SCOTUS. The issue was actually quite public, with open hearings and being run up the flagpole through all the normal layers of bureaucratic BS. That someone rises to this level in the Federal Judiciary, along with the fact it was an open secret, says that his selection process is not exactly reliable? Also, the point was, it was an ethical, and possibly legal violation, yet he is allowed to retire, like Lerner, which seems to be the Dumbocrap answer to any moral or legal issue. I would think these make a pretty good collection of examples of just how bad our political/legal/moral system has decayed.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 10 months ago
    That's what happens when the little head takes over from the big head. However, let's be honest. There likely isn't a man alive who hasn't been attracted to a pretty young woman. A woman with whom it would be entirely inappropriate to act upon. His brain taking over from his hormones with Get Thee Behind Me Woman would solve everything. However if the flesh is weak and so is the brain, Mr. Johnson takes over.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 4 years, 10 months ago
    He was 28, she was 16... and it happened in 1980.

    She was not old enough in 1980 to give informed consent. I think that is called statutory something or the other... Regardless of Attorney (Justice) Roberts' actions, intent says it all.

    But something else got me thinking... this was 35 years ago. Making her now 51. There were 33 years of her being in the majority and able to file these charges... so WHY DID SHE WAIT THIS LONG??

    The whole thing stinks on both sides of this wall...

    One of a predatory younger attorney using his position, prestige and power to woo and loot a 16 year old girl of her (alleged) innocence, and

    Two, a woman who now, with this beau from her teenage fling from 35 years ago becoming famous (and having both power and income) looking to mooch a meal ticket, e.g. "the prize".

    Should be the case of the century - Looter v. Moocher. Where is Judge Narragansett when you need him to try a case?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 4 years, 10 months ago
      That time issue is one of the problems, most people like to say she had no choice, and was now able to do something. Personally, I tend to think they wait until they have leverage to get something out of it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 4 years, 10 months ago
    Yeah, I know a couple guys who have had similar "lapses in judgment". Look at that guy. What woman would take him seriously?...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 4 years, 10 months ago
    16 is, and should be, the age of consent in most states. I see this as another bogus play of the "victim" card. Yawn.

    Now if it had led to a corrupt decision by the judge, that's a different matter, but if anyone believes that, they should have the guts to say so.

    FWIW, I believe the same about Cosby -- he didn't rape anyone, he just shared the drugs he was using himself with women he wanted.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jabuttrick 4 years, 10 months ago
    Couple of points need to be clarified here. First, Roberts was not "stepping" in for Garland. Garland is an appeals court judge and Roberts served as a District Court Judge. Two different courts. Second, under the Constitution, Federal judges serve life appointments unless they are impeached or retire. Some here don't seem to like that cushion against pressure from the legislative branch. I guess they want the Constitution amended. That's OK but those who favor that course should provide a reasoned argument for doing so. Third, apparently the liability retirement was in the works before this lawsuit was filed. Fourth, no criminal charges have ever been initiated. The current suit is a civil one which I'm guessing will be dismissed, but we shall see. Finally, there is a hint here that this incident was either known or should have been known when he was appointed. The vetting process for federal judges is exhaustive and includes investigations by the White House, the FBI and the Senate. However, this incident was pretty much hidden, I would assume, because it certainly was not of public record and nobody interviewed would have known about it except the Judge himself and if he considered the event legal and himself non-culpable I'm thinking he would not have volunteered it as I assume no nominees list all the romantic relationships they ever entered into years before.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 4 years, 10 months ago
      Valid points, I interpreted what they said as meaning he was on the slate to take Garlands post. Although the chain of reporting seemed to indicate there were a lot of people who knew of this a while back.
      "Questions of impropriety first surfaced in 2014, when the woman's lawyer contacted the Utah attorney general. Investigators interviewed the woman and several others involved in the old civil rights case, who said they had no inkling of the sexual relations at the time. State officials eventually brought the matter to Paul Cassell, a law professor and former federal judge, for his review. Cassell pointed to "significant evidence" that Roberts engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with the then-16-year-old under the guise of "witness preparation," based on the woman's account and a phone call she recorded years later with Roberts."
      The timing is an issye, but it seems that they had enough proof to show he did do this while they were in trial. That makes it very unethical. The issue of women thinking they cannot report such things immediately and be believed shows how bad it was then, and I don not think it is any better today.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo