Douglas Judicial Inquiry: “Gotcha” Moment Arouses Media, But Doesn’t Matter

Unless you have been in a courtroom and been cross-examined by a tough litigator, you have no idea what Madam Justice Lori Douglas’ accuser, Alex Chapman, is putting up with.

What is puzzling, however, is the commentary from media pundits who seem ticked off because Mr. Chapman is fighting back and who, in my view, are misinterpreting the significance of the questions and answers flowing from Judge Douglas’ counsel’s cross examination.

Judge Douglas’ counsel, Sheila Block’s apparent “gotcha” moment came as she suggested to Mr. Chapman that he had taken up his neighbor’s offer to have sex with his wife for $500.00 a week, allegations Ms. Block made based on her review of Mr. Chapman’s diary.

Mr. Chapman denied the allegations saying that what his neighbor wanted was for him to teach his wife computer skills. Mr. Chapman maintained that Ms. Block’s allegations were incorrect and that she could call his neighbors as witnesses, if she really desired the truth.

My question is who cares and how does this advance Judge Douglas’ case?

Lawyer Sheila Block has already produced convincing evidence that Alex Chapman is willing to lie when he needs to. He admitted to her that despite his previous claims, he did not have a degree in computer science. He also admitted that he did have access to money to retain a lawyer, when earlier he said he did not, and also, that he was not accurate when he suggested he had been fired from his job because of the media fall-out after going public about Judge Douglas and her husband, lawyer Jack King.

The real issue between Mr. Chapman and Judge Douglas is whether Judge Douglas knowingly participated in her husband’s seduction scenario. Did she touch Chapman’s arm when her husband arranged for them to meet with Chapman for a drink? The Judge says she did not. I can’t imagine how this “controversy” will significantly impact the issues before the Judicial Council.

Presumably, they will believe Judge Douglas and not Alex Chapman, but how does that really assist the Judge to rebut allegations that she knowingly engaged in a plan to involve Alex Chapman in her private life?

Her counsel also pounced on an even less relevant line of questioning, accusing Mr. Chapman of violently abusing his former wife during their marriage. Mr. Chapman’s retaliatory retort was that he was not there to debate his divorce. No, he wasn’t, but it’s not unusual for presiding judges to listen to reams of evidence that make not a whit of difference at the end of the day.

I guess her counsel’s theory is that if she can make Mr. Chapman out to be a twisted sex addict who lies, beats his wife, and is a vexatious litigant, the Judicial Council will welcome Judge Douglas back to the bench with open arms.

In my view, none of the evidence elicited by Ms. Block adds anything to Douglas’ defence to the main allegations, namely, did she make a change in her diary to hide the truth about Chapman?; did Judge Douglas omit to advise the judicial committee that vetted her application for judgeship of her nude internet photos?; and can she carry on her judicial duties with the integrity expected of judges while the internet reveals all?

Another typical day in court… I wonder when they’ll start dealing with evidence that really matters.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang


19 thoughts on “Douglas Judicial Inquiry: “Gotcha” Moment Arouses Media, But Doesn’t Matter

  1. Obviously, you haven’t read all of the CJC background material in this matter. There are reams of it, and it’s on their website if you feel like actually having some sort of basis for your opinion (including the lack of misconduct evidence and the full disclosure – admitted by both the judicial selection committee and the appointing minister’s office).

    Your fundamental basis for your post is wrong. This is not another typical day in court. This is an atypical day in a CJC inquiry process that has had so many flawed missteps that it’s a perfect storm of “reasonable apprehension of bias” and “procedural unfairness”. It’s also a PR war in which a judge has been (arguably) destroyed more by the process and media coverage than the actual pictures themselves.

    Your normal courtroom rules have been thrown out the window. This judge, after sitting silently and trusting the destructive process, is now fighting on every front to survive. I’m shocked you haven’t the insight to see that.

    1. Yeah, like you want this woman sitting above you in judgement ? She should have resigned at the outset, taken an unwarranted fat pension, and crawled back under the rock of private practice, with her husband. But because her parents made it always about her, she still feels the entitlement of a multi-million dollar public debate of her poor judgement, painting herself as either a nitwit, or a liar. Glad we’re all paying for it, in money and crisis of confidence in the judciary, thanx Lori!

  2. Au contraire, I have read all of the CJC material and have written ten stories on this topic ( at Lawdiva, Huffington Post, and commencing when the Douglas photos were put online by AbovetheLaw. I would be interested in hearing from you about the “flawed missteps”, “reasonable apprehension of bias” and the “procedural unfairness”. Are you speaking of Judge Douglas’ failed attempt to have the photos excised from the hearing?

    I simply think it is a waste of time and energy to continue to pursue Alex Chapman, albeit he is an easy target. Even a junior lawyer would have a field day with him! I believe that without Ms. Block’s salacious allegations, the media interest would be muted.

    Thanks for your opinion!

    1. I’ve read your ten stories on the topic and, if you’ve read the CJC material, I have to doubt your reading comprehension. Or at least your legal comprehension.

      If you have not been able to tick off the procedural missteps as the CJC has process has occurred since 2010, I would suggest that either you take a refresher Administrative Law course over the summer, or that you carefully examine your own biases in this matter.

  3. I thoroughly enjoyed this reading. The issue is not so much about the integrity of Mr. Chapman as it is about whether Judge Douglas is guilty of the things alleged. I think the most damaging would be the fourth element of the inquiry, the impact of the sexually pictures upon her personal reputation as a judge.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s