SIAP: Fina, other Philly DA porny racists transferred! HAA!
- Thread starter demlion
- Start date
So, something like "Why do ex-military men go work for planned parenthood?" "Because they want to continue killing babies"
No, not really a big deal, and yes, there were wounded vets in my family.
Now you're saying that if you told such a joke, you couldn't rule in favor of a veteran who had been assaulted by a guy in a bar? Really?
The problem with you guys is that you think you can convince everyone that there's nothing more shameful, humiliating, terrible than a few jokes and some pornography.
But most people in today's world have looked at some pornography, and many posters here regularly post pictures of naked women, and there have been GIFs of women having sex. Not one of the posters who are so outraged by Eakin ever said a thing at the time. So, the argument that private pornography is a problem may have flown in 1965, but it's 2015 and it won't.
And people can tell the difference between some harmless joking and jokes meant to hurt and demean.
So, you're left with differentiating a normal person from a judge. But many people are fair-minded, and they know that judges and lawyers have private lives.
And people don't like the idea of their private lives being splashed up for all the world to see because someone can get back door access to their e-mails, as Kane did.
People can see a purely political attack from honest outrage.
But most people in today's world have looked at some pornography, and many posters here regularly post pictures of naked women, and there have been GIFs of women having sex. Not one of the posters who are so outraged by Eakin ever said a thing at the time. So, the argument that private pornography is a problem may have flown in 1965, but it's 2015 and it won't.
And people can tell the difference between some harmless joking and jokes meant to hurt and demean.
So, you're left with differentiating a normal person from a judge. But many people are fair-minded, and they know that judges and lawyers have private lives.
And people don't like the idea of their private lives being splashed up for all the world to see because someone can get back door access to their e-mails, as Kane did.
People can see a purely political attack from honest outrage.
So Sonia Sotomayor should recuse herself on virtually anything with consequences for Hispanic people then? Because she cannot appear impartial.
PSUEngineer - you're aware that most people you quote think the matter of Eakin should be left to the voters, right?
You mean these legal experts?
How absurd of me to expect ethical behavior from a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.
Well, I'm just telling you that of the people in your previous post, most of them said he shouldn't be sanctioned and that it should be left to the voters.
If you don't like that they said that, why did you post it?
Jesus Christ. I'm not discussing if he should be sanctioned or fired or voted out. I'm discussing the expectations I have regarding character and ethical behavior from a freaking Supreme Court Justice...someone that makes a living judging other people's behavior.
And secondly, as a PA taxpayer (one that lives by ALL the rules and pays a ridiculous tax burden), I'm sick of paying these assholes' salaries.
Exactly. If Eakin had an ounce of character, integrity, or ethics he first of all would have recused himself from the vote to suspend Kane's license and he would have resigned from his post.
Instead he released some half assed apology then dug in his heels like a cry baby.
Many believe Philadelphia journalism and politics are pornographic in and of themselves.
Dem, this comment is *just* as offensive to people of faith as the original joke--at least as tasteless. What makes you think *they'd* be any less offended? You are better than this.
Mind you, I try to have a thick skin when words are just that--words. I do think we live in a country now where too many people are perpetually offended. The best thing to do with yahoos who say such stupid things is to ignore them.
Oh, but that is just political correctness, right?
To treat your comment with the respect it deserves, I would say that the insertion of the word "creepy" was intended to set the truly creepy ones--like Westboro Baptist Church--apart from other megachurches, which are certainly not all "creepy megachurches." I could see the WBC observing the standard set by those who did not fire Fina or even publicly bring it up, but my point is that the mainstream of American corporate and especially government orgs would put you on the street for the "tits" comment.
Last edited:
I did not read all the posts on this, but I do know this:
I work for a private company, and if I am found using the company email to forward pictures of sexual acts or nudity (and that includes my company cell phone), I could lose my job. And, in our case, the HR manual is specific to sexual acts or nudity....photos like I have on my sig pic would not break company rules, but would certainly force me to explain some things.
I work for a private company, and if I am found using the company email to forward pictures of sexual acts or nudity (and that includes my company cell phone), I could lose my job. And, in our case, the HR manual is specific to sexual acts or nudity....photos like I have on my sig pic would not break company rules, but would certainly force me to explain some things.
Agree 'ro. And even if your company did not have such a rule, and the only limit on your posting was the child porn laws, you would still be WAYYY different from either Fina or Eakin, since I am guessing that it is not your job to put people in jail, nor to determine for those sentenced to jail whether the system treated them fairly or not.
Anytime a judge who enjoys racist jokes has a black litigant in his court, a public record of the judge's racism creates a huge perception problem. While some posters he cannot or will not accept that this makes judges and prosecutors different from message board posters and people in private industry, it is nevertheless so.
Depends on how one responds (laughs) when telling or hearing the joke, which can be an indicator of what is in their mind and heart.
As one cannot certain of that relationship, it is best to avoid jokes connected with race, religion, sex, etc, especially if one is in a position of authority for many reasons even if there were no intent. One always has the privacy of one's home, which I respect and want respected.
We should demand impartiality from our public servants. Anything less, inferred or otherwise, is unacceptable. It seems PA's judicial and prosecutorial systems have slid significantly in the opposite direction.
The Sandusky, and more specifically the Penn State situation, may very well be some of these characters' Waterloo.
It is true of all our public servants, but it is LEGALLYY MANDATED in judges and prosecutors.
You need look further than the Kids for Cash scandal to see that he PA SCt is pretty sloppy on policing judges.
“Reminder PA taxpayers: Only need to look at first 5 images sent by sick pig Frank Fina. On taxpayer computers.
(about 10 hours ago)
Caution: Fina’s email’s contain explicit pornographic material…these are not off-colored humor
Link:
https://twitter.com/PSUEngineerx2/status/672572109906923521
“AG Kathleen Kane reads the old boys the riot act 'Make no mistake: this wasn’t your father’s press conference.' (about 10 hours ago) Twitter / yardbird.com
Link:
http://newslanc.com/2015/12/03/keisling-ag-kathleen-kane-reads-the-old-boys-the-riot-act/
by Bill Keisling
“For the last few months it’s been painfully obvious that someone must appoint a special prosecutor to look into the Pennsylvania court’s long-festering pornographic email chain scandal.
It’s been just as obvious that whoever investigates the court’s dirty laundry can’t be under the thumb of the state courts.
In the last few weeks, the court’s mouthpieces in the media, outlets like the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Legal Intelligencer, floated the humorous suggestion that the state supreme court itself appoint someone to put the court’s own porno email scandal to bed.
They say the high court should appoint someone connected with the court who is above reproach, someone whose integrity is unquestioned, someone above all who’s independent.
Forget for a moment that there is no one in Pennsylvania connected with our courts who’s above reproach, whose integrity is unquestioned, and who’s independent. That’s how we got into this mess, folks.
The real danger to the public was that someone on the high court might actually get around to appointing a special prosecutor, and those emails would quickly disappear down a rat’s hole and never again see the light of day”
Last edited:
Oh, but that is just political correctness, right?
WBC is hardly a "megachurch". It's a small group of yahoos--according to Wikipedia (which quotes from their own website)--that number about 40 people. Not much "mega" there. You want to complain about them, fine. I gots no beef there. I'd only defend their right to free expression, because I'm a Constitutionalist--even though I deplore their views. We've had similar idiots harass our church, in fact. But they tend to be small in number.
While some megachurches churches do take a conservative stance, that's not outside the mainstream of political opinion in the US--though it sometimes is a minority opinion. Some churches also take a rather liberal stance. Personally, I wish they did neither (my church only advocates being a good citizen and voting)--but free expression is part and parcel of the US experience. I prefer Billy Graham's approach--involved in the political world and with political leaders but not espousing any particular candidate or party *as a church*. Sadly, his son has moved away from this.
But I would also be careful of claiming that a espousing a certain political view by a church is always improper. Or then it would have been wrong for the church in both the US and England to have been strongly involved in Abolition.
Now we are starting to get rather far afield, but to the extent that a megachurch, as an employer, was permitting the kind of racist and misogynistic speech in the workplace which created a hostile work environment for minorities and women, it would have a legal problem which could not be defended by resort to the First Amendment. Same is true for private and gov employers of all kinds, which is why they prohibit this stuff at work and on workplace comm devices.
Anyone would--which I why I did *not* go to WBC's website for more "information". But even in the situation you noted, the First Amendment *does* still have to be taken account of. It may be a balancing act. A "hostile work environment" claim does not automatically override the First Amendment. Had someone claim once that a bible verse posted in a person's private office was offensive--on (their) principle--but a Tibetan prayer flag was fine (in one of those CYA sessions often held in the workplace to educate). This was not a hypothetical example either. First Amendment applies at least to the point that you can have both or neither in a public workplace but you cannot choose one over the other.
Still, your original comment was poorly chosen. I think you know that and I think you by and large are better than that. I hope I am not mistaken.
Yes, but that's not what happened here. Eakin only used his personal e-mail account, and no one is alleging he used it at work (well, they've stopped trying to allege that, as I've pointed out the falsity of that position repeatedly).
Note - no one is defending Fina's use of government resources to send out truly pornographic material. It appears that's exactly what he did, and I do think that he should be fired.
Eakin destroyed his ability to appear impartial by sending the wife beating joke. He also showed his lack of ethics by not recusing himself before he voted to suspend Kane's license.
When you add those two together there's no way he is fit to be a judge of any kind let alone a SJC. How you continue to defend him and try to paint what he did as no big deal is beyond me.
kgilbert: Have you tried any cases for or against church employees regarding anything beyond just showing a bible or a prayer flag? I have, and the First Am does not provide much protection. When an employer shows porn to female subordinates, or uses racist language with a woman whose husband is an African American, the First ain't much of a shield. That's the experience out of which my comment arose. They specifically thought it was in my case, at least until they talked to their lawyer. The TOLD the woman she had no claim because the first amendment protected how they treated their employees. To the extent that you had no way of knowing my actual experience, the comment was poorly chosen I will agree.
Did Sonia Sotomayor destroy her ability to appear impartial when she quoted as follows: ""I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion." That sentence, or a similar one, has appeared in speeches Sotomayor delivered in 1994, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2001. In that speech, she included the phrase "than a white male who hasn't lived that life"
It is clear to all intellectually honest people that to whatever amount Eakin destroyed his appearance of impartiality, Sotomayor destroyed hers far more.
So, when you guys call for her to step aside, I'll take your outrage seriously. As for now, I view it as completely subjective.
So that's the best you can do, claiming other people may also not appear impartial as an attempt to avoid admitting Eakin is a disgrace that needs to step down...Got it......
Enough with the strawman arguments about people who have nothing to do with this discussion. Sotomayor talking in a speech about how her life experience growing up as a Latina woman/minority gives her a different/more complete perspective as a judge than a white male has nothing to do with her ability to appear impartial. It's basically her just puffing up her resume and why she feels she makes a good judge.
When she starts sending domestic violence or racist jokes from private email accounts to high level state prosecutors and failing to recuse herself from votes in which she has a clear cut COI, let me know. Until then you can't compare the two.
It's not even REMOTELY similar to a judge sending an email (from a deliberately private account so that it was hard to attach to his real name) making a domestic violence joke to folks in the OAG.
Also when evaluating Eakin's conduct weren't not looking ONLY at his emails. Not surprisingly, you CONTINUALLY ignore the other part of my post, you know, that part where Eakin failed to remove himself from the vote to suspend Kane's license due to a MASSIVE COI. This failure was a clear ethical and professional breach.
When you add the email and his failure to recuse himself together you get a person not fit to sit in judgement of others. There's no possible way you can spin it otherwise.
Great point psuro.
Here' s what happened to me.
About 10 years ago while working for a Fortune 100 company I was sent an email that was deemed pornographic by IT. I'm not even sure who sent it to me but it was a black and white cartoon that was soft porn at best in my opinion. Well IT reported me to HR and they called me in to express the seriousness of this type of material and gave me a warning and put a notice in my file. They also stated that I would only get one warning.
Mind you I was a 12 year employee and considered a high performer. Honestly I was shocked. But this shows you how seriously companies look at this stuff.
Happy to report no further incidents. I delete anything that comes my way when I'm not sure of the content of the message/attachment.
So, you're saying that if one of your friends sends a pornographic e-mail to you at work, you can be fired and YOU are OK with that? You think you deserved to be threatened with termination because someone sent YOU a pornographic e-mail? And you think IT is going to be impartial about these things? So, if you complain about IT's service, or you criticize one of their implementations, you get reported. But if you're on good terms with IT, the e-mail is deemed "borderline acceptable", and nothing's done.
And you're OK with this?
I'm just telling how it worked at my company. And I'll clarify again by saying this was a huge company... I believe it's actually Fortune 50 now.
I'm not sure they would have fired me(but I really don't know) and they clearly were serious about the warning process.
I opened the email and left it in my read file. I never deleted it. To be honest it's because I forgot about it. It was a stupid cartoon...one that I would never consider being porn IT works in a different state so there was never any personal interaction with them. They just followed the rules.
Others may know more than me but I think this is pretty much the norm in the corporate world.
I will only add that your only misstep was not reporting it immediately to your manager and/or someone in IT. As an IT professional, I can assure you that the bozos here who think this is nothing major, that receiving porn EVEN BY ACCIDENT is no big deal . . . they are not living in the 2016 IT world. maybe the 1916 IT world, HAHA!
Yes, companies today take this stuff VERY seriously. Which is why minimizing what these bozos like Fina did is pretty archaic.
I believe his story, and I believe what you say is true - All of which does not make it right. Welcome into the world of no tolerance. A great place.
I own shares in a few companies. As a shareholder, I'm not going to "tolerate" the assets that I own being used to swap porn. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of PA taxpayers who feel the same. Boo hoo for you.
You can't make it through an 8-hour work day without having a look at some porn? Too bad for you.
No one is making the argument that you should be allowed to look at porn at work. I am making the argument that being sent porn should not result in a warning with a threat of dismissal. The fact that you are willing to say otherwise is laughable. Does this mean I can get someone fired simply by sending them pornography without their consent?
Now for you other posters - Aoshiro has demonstrated what is called a strawman - arguing against a position that your opponent has not actually taken.
Straw man.
Straw man.
Straw man.
Straw man.
Straw man.
Straw man.
Straw man.
Straw man.
Well, you do have the anecdotal and appeal to authority fallacies going on there. As well as cherry picking. But I'm not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
And you were tarring a large group of people with a big brush. I'd never deny that there are some real idiots out there--in every belief system (or lack thereof). But one idiot does not prove the whole--even if you personally are not fond of whatever belief system they may be from.
Another aspect to the porn emails is that they are notorious for carrying viruses - some that the IT departments have not yet figured how to deal with.
Naked people having sex tends to spread viruses. Even in the virtual world.
Naked people having sex tends to spread viruses. Even in the virtual world.
Will Eakin be able to successfully argue he's met the judicial code of ethics that requires avoiding the 'appearance of impropriety' after all the emails he sent to prosecutors are revealed?
-----
Strip clubs, sexual commentary were topics of Eakin emails
12/6/2015
http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=/philly/news&id=360648781
In 2009, State Supreme Court Justice J. Michael Eakin exchanged emails with some buddies, including a state prosecutor and a prospective lower-court judge. Among the topics: visits to strip clubs and sexual gibes about female staffers in Eakin's office.
At one point, the justice wrote that he had "a stake" of 50 one-dollar bills to give strippers - to resolve his "titty-deficit."
In that same June 18, 2009, email, Eakin wrote that an incoming Dauphin County judge would soon learn that a discreet "judge has to go out of state to see boobs."
Eakin and prosecutor Jeffrey Baxter also joked about inviting two of Eakin's female aides to join them on a trip to Myrtle Beach, S.C., to enjoy its golf courses and strip clubs. The men then mused about sleeping arrangements.
"I'll take care of her rooming needs," Eakin wrote of one of his aides.
His friend the prosecutor said of the other Eakin aide, "I'll certainly take care of her one night."
'Yuck'
The email chain, reviewed last week by The Inquirer, has never before been made public. It is believed to be part of a cache of email messages that Attorney General Kathleen Kane retrieved from the computer servers in her office and has decried as offensive.
Lynn A. Marks, executive director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, a judicial reform group, said Eakin's email exchanges and his comments about his aides raised serious questions about his judgment.
She said the code of conduct for judges makes clear that they must avoid the appearance of impropriety. Judges are held to a higher standard of conduct than the average citizen, she said, "because they sit in judgment of others."
-----
Strip clubs, sexual commentary were topics of Eakin emails
12/6/2015
http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=/philly/news&id=360648781
In 2009, State Supreme Court Justice J. Michael Eakin exchanged emails with some buddies, including a state prosecutor and a prospective lower-court judge. Among the topics: visits to strip clubs and sexual gibes about female staffers in Eakin's office.
At one point, the justice wrote that he had "a stake" of 50 one-dollar bills to give strippers - to resolve his "titty-deficit."
In that same June 18, 2009, email, Eakin wrote that an incoming Dauphin County judge would soon learn that a discreet "judge has to go out of state to see boobs."
Eakin and prosecutor Jeffrey Baxter also joked about inviting two of Eakin's female aides to join them on a trip to Myrtle Beach, S.C., to enjoy its golf courses and strip clubs. The men then mused about sleeping arrangements.
"I'll take care of her rooming needs," Eakin wrote of one of his aides.
His friend the prosecutor said of the other Eakin aide, "I'll certainly take care of her one night."
'Yuck'
The email chain, reviewed last week by The Inquirer, has never before been made public. It is believed to be part of a cache of email messages that Attorney General Kathleen Kane retrieved from the computer servers in her office and has decried as offensive.
Lynn A. Marks, executive director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, a judicial reform group, said Eakin's email exchanges and his comments about his aides raised serious questions about his judgment.
She said the code of conduct for judges makes clear that they must avoid the appearance of impropriety. Judges are held to a higher standard of conduct than the average citizen, she said, "because they sit in judgment of others."
