Judge Douglas’ Lawyer Cries Uncle

They say if you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen, an appropriate admonishment to Judge Douglas’ lawyer, Sheila Block, who is now desperate to call a stop to the judicial inquiry.

So what are Ms. Block’s options? Can she call in sick? No, she can only rely on an age-old legal ploy to extricate her client from the debacle that is called the Judge Douglas Judicial Inquiry.

There are times when proceedings in court or in a similar judicial hearing become untenable, and you believe your client is being prejudiced by the unfolding events. For example, in one case I argued the central theme of the case revolved around off-shore bank accounts. The presiding judge interrupted my argument to suggest that only people who have something to hide would use off-shore bank accounts.

The judge’s jaded view of such accounts led me to believe that she may decide the case based on her ignorance of the world of multi-national corporations and high stakes business dealings. I then made an argument that the judge should remove herself from the case on the basis of the legal maxim called “a reasonable apprehension of bias”. Interestingly, there are hundreds of case where an allegation of bias has been asserted against a sitting judge, most of them unsuccessful, as was mine. Face it, why would a judge admit they were biased?

This is the argument that is being made on behalf of Judge Douglas, however, the allegations of bias flow from the vigorous cross-examination of Judge Douglas’ better-half by Vancouver lawyer George McIntosh, who is counsel for the Inquiry panel.

Ms. Block complains that Mr. McIntosh’s questioning of Jack King is overly aggressive and shows “animus and bias”. From the media descriptions of Mr. McIntosh’s cross-examination it appears that Jack King is easy pickin’s as he tries to convince the panel that Judge Douglas had never seen the photos.

You can only imagine the snickering in the hearing room as Mr. McIntosh toyed with Mr. King, suggesting to him that it strained credulity that the good judge would pose for pictures, but never ask to see them and was unaware they were posted online.

Judge Douglas desperately needs a saviour and apparently believed her husband could play that role convincingly, but it isn’t working. The truth is Mr. King’s testimony is another nail in her coffin. And the panel has not even dealt with the “main event”, namely, why did Judge Douglas deliberately conceal the pornographic photos and the events relating to Alex Chapman, “Dark Cavern” and drinks at Earl’s?

I guess I’d want to get out of there too.

8 thoughts on “Judge Douglas’ Lawyer Cries Uncle

  1. “It strained credulity that the good judge would pose for pictures, but never ask to see them and was unaware they were posted online.”

    Right. So you’re trying to please your partner, you trust him, and for doing this you’re not a “good judge”? You moralizing nut. I hope your partner isn’t doing anything behind your back: I’ll deem you to know about it anyway.

    “Why did Judge Douglas deliberately conceal the pornographic photos and the events relating to Alex Chapman, “Dark Cavern” and drinks at Earl’s?”

    Did you fall asleep while reading those CJC documents? J. Monnin, J. Freedman, the director of the Law Society, etc. all have stated that they knew. J. Freedman has now testified that he knew, and that ACJ Douglas did the right thing in answering “no” to the application question. She disclosed.

    I hope you put more effort into your billable hours than you do into your posts.

  2. Hi Georgialee
    I am so enjoying your blog, This stuff is better than TV. I imagine that the Vancouver Sun does also. Your right that in stating that Judge Douglas so needs a Saviour, and if he had the right one (Jesus) he probably wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with. I am curious as to how does the gang at the courthouse and the law society respond, and do they like your postings too? And of course no Judge wants to admit bias even if it could be true.

    Keep up the good work.


  3. Hey! Great job!

    So your above column ridiculing judge’s counsel for pulling out the “reasonable apprehension of bias” argument is now facing the fact that independent counsel has applied for JR due to committee counsel asking questions that show that the committee has taken a position relative to credibility and the facts. So two applications for JR have been made in one day, both arising from the actions of the committee, both in lock-step as to the actions giving rise to JR, and one of those applications is from independent counsel.

    But of course, a family law blogging diva in BC knows better than those silly eastern litigators, right?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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