http://www.post-gazette.com/news/st...-Justice-J-Michael-Eakin/stories/201510220178
This should be interesting.
This should be interesting.
Here come the judge's emails.
- Thread starter lionlurker
- Start date
as a citizen and tax payer of the state of PA - I want those e mails published and, if warranted I want him removed from the SC. We deserve better.
If she has other e mails - get them out too. Clean this state up.
If she has other e mails - get them out too. Clean this state up.
Exactly.
The idiots at the Patriot News made a HUGE Stink over how much Paterno was getting paid for years.
Seems like they (Patriot News) should be all over this as well. Unless they are protecting someone or have an agenda.
Sounds like she is releasing some, and holding yet others back. She's playing hardball.
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/st...-Justice-J-Michael-Eakin/stories/201510220178
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/st...-Justice-J-Michael-Eakin/stories/201510220178
Eakin was longtime DA in Cumberland County, home to the Patriot-News. So I would be very confident in saying there are long standing relationships between the Justice and the reporters.
Kathlee Kane said:
Am I missing something here? He's sending these with his personal e-mail address. If the guy likes to watch porn, then so what? If he's not watching the porn while he's working and he's not sending these images with an e-mail account through the Commonwealth, then what's the problem?
That's a serious question, because I read through that article and I don't see what this guy did that would warrant him being ousted.
Really?
A SCJ sharing this stuff with Prosecutors and other "members of the Court".
1 - It's not like this is a bunch of pics of naked gals. It is MORE than enough to severely taint the participant as biased against women/minorities/etc etc ....which ain't exactly a good thing for a the guy who sits in judgment
2 - Having a relationship with Prosecutors etc...that devolves to the level of being co-horts is the distribution of porn and other perverted stuff....doesn't exactly conform with maintaining a neutral relationship.
Now....giving the benefit of the doubt, maybe you are not familiar with just what is in there, or whom all was included in the "circle"....but if you make yourself aware, I can't imagine you would see it as "no big deal".
I looked at some of the images, but not all of them. The images I did look at seemed to be what I would expect from a pornographic image. But again, I didn't look at all of them. I also do not judge those who are in porn and as long as both parties agree to whatever it is that they are doing I don't find it degrading to anybody. It's their choice and I don't judge them for it.
As far as being friends with prosecutors on this level, until somebody can show me that it has effected his objectivity in a case then I'm not worried about who he is friends with. Is he not allowed to be friends with a prosecutor? Or a defense attorney? You can be both friends with prosecutors and objective at the same time. If he is not being objective then it's a problem and I'm all for ousting the guy if that's the case. If it is, I'd like to see which cases somebody can point to specifically where they think he was biased in some way due to his relationship with a prosecutor. If this is all because he is friends with prosecutors and they share porn through their private e-mails then I'm still confused.
His taste in porn and what he does in his private time regarding it are none of my concern. If he and his friends want to share porn that's not against the law if they aren't using Commonwealth resources to do so. I was expecting to see that he was sending these images through a Commonwealth account or something. The morality police have no jurisdiction in this matter as far as I am concerned.
WOW
This is probably an exercise in futility....but one shot:
Lets suppose you are a woman arguing a case involving workplace sexual harassment (I don't know how likely a case like that is to get to the PASC....but let's just suppose).
Are you going to feel you are going to be treated fairly and impartially by Eakin?
What if one of the opposing Counsel is in his "circle of friends?
What if you are party to a racial discrimination suit? A "hate crime"? Anything like that.
Are you going to be looking forward to arguing your case in front of Eakin?
IF YOU HAVE ALREADY argued a case in front of Eakin....for any related situation.....do you now feel like you were working against a stacked deck?
Good Lord.
Last edited:
Wow what, exactly? If he's guilty of being biased due to his relationship with a prosecutor then let's take a look at those accusations as they pertain to actual cases. Let's look at examples where he was not being objective.WOW
If you think porn is degrading to women, or that the morality police should have a say in this, well then we disagree. What I want from a judge is somebody who is objective and adheres to the law. Whether or not he is sharing porn with his friends with is personal e-mail account is not my concern and it shouldn't be the concern of anybody. If Kathleen Kane thinks that his taste in porn is morally wrong then that's her opinion, and it isn't one that is shared by everyone. She doesn't have to like his taste in these things and as long as what he is sharing isn't against the law then neither should anyone else.
So again, if his friendship with prosecutors has affected his ability to be an objective judge then let's review his cases and find those instances where it has affected this in regards to those friends. If somebody looks at those cases and believes his actions were compromised by his friendship then I'll get out my pitchfork. Until then I don't care if Kathleen Kane doesn't like his taste in porn.
WOW
This is probably an exercise in futility....but one shot:
Lets suppose you are a woman arguing a case involving workplace sexual harassment (I don't know how likely a case like that is to get to the PASC....but let's just suppose).
Are you going to feel you are going to be treated fairly and impartially by Eakin?
What if one of the opposing Counsel is in his "circle of friends?
What if you are party to a racial discrimination suit? A "hate crime"? Anything like that.
Are you going to be looking forward to arguing your case in front of Eakin?
IF YOU HAVE ALREADY argued a case in front of Eakin....for any related situation.....do you now feel like you were working against a stacked deck?
Good Lord.
F.Y.I. so the argument can continue
Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct
Note: The Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct is based upon the American Bar Association 1972 Model Code of Judicial Conduct. This web page includes the amendments to the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct on August 15, 2011, effective August 27, 2011, see 41 Pa.B. 4620.
CANON 1. Judges should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary
CANON 2. Judges should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities
CANON 3. Judges should perform the duties of their office impartially and diligently
CANON 4. Judges may engage in activities to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice
CANON 5. Judges should regulate their extra-judicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties
CANON 6. Compensation received for quasi-judicial and extra-judicial activities permitted by this code
CANON 7. Judges should refrain from political activity inappropriate to their judicial office
Note: Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. Judges must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. They must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. They must therefore accept restrictions on their conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.
WOW!!!! (exclamation points added
)Personally....I couldn't care less if you - personally - choose to spend your Saturday nights getting drunk and humping barnyard animals.
I don't much care if my accountant, my auto mechanic, or my neighbor three doors down does the same (though I think I would RSVP my regrets to any party invitation)
We are talking about a man entrusted to sit on the Supreme Judicial body in the Commonwealth.
Authorized to exercise his judgment (and tremendous power) over every citizen of the Commonwealth.
Please tell me you don't vote.
WOW!!!! (exclamation points added
Personally....I couldn't care less if you - personally - choose to spend your Saturday nights getting drunk and humping barnyard animals.
I don't much care if my accountant, my auto mechanic, or my neighbor three doors down does the same (though I think I would RSVP my regrets to any party invitation)
We are talking about a man entrusted to sit on the Supreme Judicial body in the Commonwealth.
Authorized to exercise his judgment (and tremendous power) over every citizen of the Commonwealth.
Please tell me you don't vote.
Yes, I do vote. And all the monkey pictures in the world won't make your argument any better. If his decisions are not above board, then fine. Something should be done. So let's look at his decisions instead of convicting him in the court of public opinion based on arbitrary moral standards that differ between people. Let's have somebody qualified to take a look at his cases involving everybody involved and determine if he's above board.
And if he is above board then you can dislike him all you want and it won't matter. You can hate who he's friends with but it won't matter. But if he's doing his job the way he is supposed to then your complaints are without warrant. Until somebody can show me where his judgement has been compromised then it's a moot point.
And btw, the content of the porn is irrelevant. If people want to look at his friendships with the prosecutors, fine. But the content is immaterial. He shouldn't be on trial for his taste in porn. That's absurd.
I see your point, but I'm not interested in the perception of whether he's compromised. Let's look at whether or not his decisions were above board when he was dealing with these particular prosecutors. Let's get the opinion of somebody qualified to determine this. Otherwise we're doing nothing but convicting a guy in the court of public opinion and firing him based on that.
The public thinks Joe knew all about Jerry Sandusky. Does that make it a reality? Does that mean Joe is just as guilty because that's the perception? I have a hard time reading PSU fans who will fight tooth and nail to convince people to look past the perception and public opinion and to judge what happened at PSU by the merits of the facts and then turn around say what you said, that the perception is what makes someone guilty and not the actual facts.
Just to add some perspective here. I'm not a lawyer but have seen some cases presented before the PA Supreme Court (they are occasionally televised by PCN.....and yes I was bored enough to see what it was like and how things are done).
It's not like a normal court case you see on TV. Each lawyer gets like 2-3 minutes to present a statement at which time 2 or 3 justices (of the 7 IIRC) may bluntly quiz them on points of their case. Then they do the same with the other side. Whole process takes like 15-20 min tops per case and they handle several cases at 1 sitting. It's not the examination/ cross examination and rulings you see from a normal judge in TV court cases. It's very easy to have a Supreme Court judge either stay quiet in public session or direct focused and unchallenged questioning to 1 side in a case.
The ability to have a compromised judge or improper relationships between judges and prosecutors (or defense lawyers) seems much more of a risk to me (an untrained observer) than a normal court proceeding. It seems easier for a judge to hide in these cases (and say nothing publicly) or direct the course of a case with a brief burst of directed blunt challenges/ questions to 1 side and then use influence in private discussions of the court before a decision is announced. The judges aren't scrutinized like you can a normal court judge evaluating their every decision and action through a case.
It was interesting to see and appears modeled on the U.S. Supreme Court proceedings. If you ever see it on PCN, take 10 minutes to watch. It is enlightening on how the process works.
Last edited:
WOW!!!! (exclamation points added
Personally....I couldn't care less if you - personally - choose to spend your Saturday nights getting drunk and humping barnyard animals.
I don't much care if my accountant, my auto mechanic, or my neighbor three doors down does the same (though I think I would RSVP my regrets to any party invitation)
We are talking about a man entrusted to sit on the Supreme Judicial body in the Commonwealth.
Authorized to exercise his judgment (and tremendous power) over every citizen of the Commonwealth.
Please tell me you don't vote.
WOW....this is better than the Ali-Liston fight. I would like to participate, but I don't do oral arguments very well, especially if they are to be typed. I become confuse & a jackass
Great photo---yes?
Last edited:
Ah, if it were only so easy to determine what is "above board" maybe we'd actually have a justice system that is just.
Was he "above board" to not excuse himself in voting for disciplinary action against Kathleen Kane?
Strawman argument count (non-apologies to CountVonNittWitt):
Yes, I do vote. And all the monkey pictures in the world won't make your argument any better [ONE!]. If his decisions are not above board, then fine. Something should be done. So let's look at his decisions instead of convicting him in the court of public opinion [TWO!!] based on arbitrary moral standards that differ between people [THREE!!!]. Let's have somebody qualified to take a look at his cases involving everybody involved and determine if he's above board.
And if he is above board then you can dislike him all you want and it won't matter [FOUR!!!!]. You can hate who he's friends with but it won't matter. But if he's doing his job the way he is supposed to then your complaints are without warrant [FIVE!!!!!]. Until somebody can show me where his judgement has been compromised then it's a moot point.[SIX!!!!!!]
And btw, the content of the porn is irrelevant. If people want to look at his friendships with the prosecutors, fine. But the content is immaterial.[SEVEN!!!!!!!] He shouldn't be on trial for his taste in porn.[EIGHT!!!!!!!!] That's absurd.
____________________________________
I see your point, but I'm not interested in the perception of whether he's compromised. Let's look at whether or not his decisions were above board when he was dealing with these particular prosecutors.[NINE!!!!!!!!!] Let's get the opinion of somebody qualified to determine this. Otherwise we're doing nothing but convicting a guy in the court of public opinion and firing him based on that.[TEN!!!!!!!!!!]
The public thinks Joe knew all about Jerry Sandusky. Does that make it a reality? [ELEVEN!!!!!!!!!!!] Does that mean Joe is just as guilty because that's the perception? [TWELVE!!!!!!!!!!!!] I have a hard time reading PSU fans who will fight tooth and nail to convince people to look past the perception and public opinion and to judge what happened at PSU by the merits of the facts and then turn around say what you said, that the perception is what makes someone guilty and not the actual facts.[THIRTEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
______________________________________
Wow what, exactly? If he's guilty of being biased due to his relationship with a prosecutor then let's take a look at those accusations as they pertain to actual cases. Let's look at examples where he was not being objective.[FOURTEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
If you think porn is degrading to women, or that the morality police should have a say in this, well then we disagree. [FIFTEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]. What I want from a judge is somebody who is objective and adheres to the law. Whether or not he is sharing porn with his friends with is personal e-mail account is not my concern and it shouldn't be the concern of anybody. [SIXTEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]. If Kathleen Kane thinks that his taste in porn is morally wrong then that's her opinion, and it isn't one that is shared by everyone.[SEVENTEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!] She doesn't have to like his taste in these things and as long as what he is sharing isn't against the law then neither should anyone else.[EIGHTEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
So again, if his friendship with prosecutors has affected his ability to be an objective judge then let's review his cases and find those instances where it has affected this in regards to those friends. [NINETEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!] If somebody looks at those cases and believes his actions were compromised by his friendship then I'll get out my pitchfork. Until then I don't care if Kathleen Kane doesn't like his taste in porn.[TWENTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
I don't know if that is a record....but it has to be a contender!!
Yes, I do vote. And all the monkey pictures in the world won't make your argument any better [ONE!]. If his decisions are not above board, then fine. Something should be done. So let's look at his decisions instead of convicting him in the court of public opinion [TWO!!] based on arbitrary moral standards that differ between people [THREE!!!]. Let's have somebody qualified to take a look at his cases involving everybody involved and determine if he's above board.
And if he is above board then you can dislike him all you want and it won't matter [FOUR!!!!]. You can hate who he's friends with but it won't matter. But if he's doing his job the way he is supposed to then your complaints are without warrant [FIVE!!!!!]. Until somebody can show me where his judgement has been compromised then it's a moot point.[SIX!!!!!!]
And btw, the content of the porn is irrelevant. If people want to look at his friendships with the prosecutors, fine. But the content is immaterial.[SEVEN!!!!!!!] He shouldn't be on trial for his taste in porn.[EIGHT!!!!!!!!] That's absurd.
____________________________________
I see your point, but I'm not interested in the perception of whether he's compromised. Let's look at whether or not his decisions were above board when he was dealing with these particular prosecutors.[NINE!!!!!!!!!] Let's get the opinion of somebody qualified to determine this. Otherwise we're doing nothing but convicting a guy in the court of public opinion and firing him based on that.[TEN!!!!!!!!!!]
The public thinks Joe knew all about Jerry Sandusky. Does that make it a reality? [ELEVEN!!!!!!!!!!!] Does that mean Joe is just as guilty because that's the perception? [TWELVE!!!!!!!!!!!!] I have a hard time reading PSU fans who will fight tooth and nail to convince people to look past the perception and public opinion and to judge what happened at PSU by the merits of the facts and then turn around say what you said, that the perception is what makes someone guilty and not the actual facts.[THIRTEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
______________________________________
Wow what, exactly? If he's guilty of being biased due to his relationship with a prosecutor then let's take a look at those accusations as they pertain to actual cases. Let's look at examples where he was not being objective.[FOURTEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
If you think porn is degrading to women, or that the morality police should have a say in this, well then we disagree. [FIFTEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]. What I want from a judge is somebody who is objective and adheres to the law. Whether or not he is sharing porn with his friends with is personal e-mail account is not my concern and it shouldn't be the concern of anybody. [SIXTEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]. If Kathleen Kane thinks that his taste in porn is morally wrong then that's her opinion, and it isn't one that is shared by everyone.[SEVENTEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!] She doesn't have to like his taste in these things and as long as what he is sharing isn't against the law then neither should anyone else.[EIGHTEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
So again, if his friendship with prosecutors has affected his ability to be an objective judge then let's review his cases and find those instances where it has affected this in regards to those friends. [NINETEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!] If somebody looks at those cases and believes his actions were compromised by his friendship then I'll get out my pitchfork. Until then I don't care if Kathleen Kane doesn't like his taste in porn.[TWENTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
I don't know if that is a record....but it has to be a contender!!
Depends on your view of Kathleen Kane. I've read progressive blogs that have quite an unflattering view of her. Which is exactly why the appearance of impropriety is in the code of conduct.
Well, that depends on the timeline. If he knew that she was going to release unflattering e-mails or it was after she did then no, he should have abstained from voting in this case. He can't be unbiased when it comes to that.
I've never disliked Kane, though. Although, the fact that she released these e-mails and is trying to argue he's somehow guilty of something due to his taste in porn is a bad argument, and shame on her for even trying it. It's not relevant.
There is a reason that a SUPREME COURT JUSTUICE is held to a much, much, much higher standard than me, you, or the guy down the street.
He sits in absolute Supreme authority over every citizen of the Commonwealth.
Even a glimmer of potential lack of impartiality is too much to allow such a person to sit in that position - obviously.
No one can ever get inside of a SCJ's head and KNOW why he made a particular ruling (despite jrd23's inane contentions)....that is why such a person must - at a minimum - portray ZERO outward appearances of bias.
To be not only sharing in racist, misogynistic, perverse material....but to be involved in sharing it amongst a ring that includes those who may very well someday be arguing a case before his court....if that doesn't qualify???
Anyone - like jrd23 - who doesn't see that...well, they are just too stupid for words.
Out!!
He sits in absolute Supreme authority over every citizen of the Commonwealth.
Even a glimmer of potential lack of impartiality is too much to allow such a person to sit in that position - obviously.
No one can ever get inside of a SCJ's head and KNOW why he made a particular ruling (despite jrd23's inane contentions)....that is why such a person must - at a minimum - portray ZERO outward appearances of bias.
To be not only sharing in racist, misogynistic, perverse material....but to be involved in sharing it amongst a ring that includes those who may very well someday be arguing a case before his court....if that doesn't qualify???
Anyone - like jrd23 - who doesn't see that...well, they are just too stupid for words.
Out!!
bwifan
Well-Known Member
You used pictures of monkey (you're calling me a monkey or comparing me to one) and you want to point out that I use straw man arguments? You used an ad hominem attack to bolster your argument. You also don't know what a straw man argument is if you think that's what is happening. I'm not ignoring your arguments and arguing something else, I'm telling you flat out that if anybody, including Kathleen Kane, wants to claim that this judge is compromised then they should show evidence that he is. The fact that he shares porn with prosecutors is not evidence that he has ever made any biased decisions while performing his duties related to his friendships. And while we're on the subject of logical fallacies, let's just point out the red herring that Kathleen Kane presented when she said:
Kathleen Kane said:
That's a complete misdirection and does nothing but plays on the moral compass of those reading it. If you want to accuse me of straw man arguments you should understand them first, because you don't understand them.
Timeline is the past month when the conduct board issued a suspension in her law license. In 2014, Eakin was under review by an “independent “ (lol) law firm to investigate Eakins email issues. Do you not believe that Eakins may hold prejudice toward Kane in 2015?
You're conveniently ignoring the element of the pictures that truly raises the question of impartiality: THE CAPTIONS! You also ignore the blatant racist pictures of the black men with a bucket of chicken. Finally, you keep ignoring the importance of maintaining the public trust in his role as justice of the state supreme court, which makes me think you're completely naive or just trying to get a rise out of the board.
You're wrong.
I'll give you a specific example. I serve on a body that adjudicates disputes in my sport.
In our training, we are told that the best practices is to recuse ourself from any case in which we have a personal relationship with any of the parties. If we go ahead and hear a case despite a personal relationship, we are required to reveal that relationship to all parties and if any party objects we are required to leave the panel.
This is because human beings are naturally biased towards our friends (and against our enemies). It is idiotic to argue otherwise. Demanding that a person prove that this bias affected the outcome of a hearing is patently unfair. The onus is on the judge to ensure that his/her bias doesn't affect a proceeding and the best way to do that is to remove oneself.
This is just for a silly little sports league and the stakes are pretty low in the scheme of things. The worst we can do is disqualify a competitor.
Now you have a judge who clearly has a personal relationship that is close enough that he (and they) feel comfortable exchanging bawdy humor. I'd say this goes far beyond the courteous, "So how are the wife & kids." I think anyone would agree. It clearly constitutes some kind of friendship.
If Eakin was hearing cases involving his email pals, that was wrong. It was really, really, wrong if he hid is friendship from opposing counsel, denying them the opportunity to object.
I honestly can't believe that this has to be explained to anyone over the age of 16.
This made me laugh. One member of the porn dog email circle was Frank Noonan who is the same guy who said Joe did his legal duty but not his moral duty. Really?? I guy who swaps porn with other court officers thinks HE is the morality police?? Is it really so hard for you to understand how hypocritical all those people are?? It's not the type of behavior which engenders public confidence in our justice system.
If you think that there is nothing offensive about a wife-beating joke, then you need to recalibrate your moral compass, pronto.
Similar threads
