ADVERTISEMENT

You can't make this sh!t up. Eakin's ironic testimony

In an emotional testimony, Eakin said it’s been “terribly frustrating” to be the subject of an ongoing scandal without the opportunity to address the accusations against him.

Oh puhleeze. The commonwealth never afforded that opportunity to the PSU 3 - who still await their constitutional right to due process. The commonwealth also handily torched Joe and others, along with a regional economy and the larger PSU community based a singular lie.

At least Eakin is afforded a hearing.

Veering off topic here - but how exactly does Gansler and the Buckley Sandler team go thru 1 MILLION emails (not using Freeh's Best Practices of course) and do the legal teams of Curley, Schultz, Spanier have the opportunity to petition to see if Corbett/Fina/Freeh/Frazier/SITF - the "flip" strategy - are part of that conversation?
 
In an emotional testimony, Eakin said it’s been “terribly frustrating” to be the subject of an ongoing scandal without the opportunity to address the accusations against him.

Read more: http://www.thelegalintelligencer.co...-CJD-in-Bid-to-Avoid-Suspension#ixzz3uzmxNL4s

Eakin needs to go. He should be suspended, if not fired, immediately. There is no excuse for sending pornographic and racist emails using state computers on state time. He is not fit to be any kind of judge, let alone a Pa. supreme court judge.
 
Oh puhleeze. The commonwealth never afforded that opportunity to the PSU 3 - who still await their constitutional right to due process. The commonwealth also handily torched Joe and others, along with a regional economy and the larger PSU community based a singular lie.

At least Eakin is afforded a hearing.

Veering off topic here - but how exactly does Gansler and the Buckley Sandler team go thru 1 MILLION emails (not using Freeh's Best Practices of course) and do the legal teams of Curley, Schultz, Spanier have the opportunity to petition to see if Corbett/Fina/Freeh/Frazier/SITF - the "flip" strategy - are part of that conversation?


Gansler's compensation is capped at 2 million and PSU paid Freeh 8.5? Does that seem strange to anyone else?
 
  • Like
Reactions: EPC FAN
for another article on the hearing, CLICK HERE
Thanks for posting this TOM. I could not get to the other one because of some sort of paywall.

Eakin's testimony proves he DOES NOT GET IT, EVEN NOW. If he does not get a very hefty suspension--like, many months or a year--then this is simply ridiculous.

State Supreme Court Justice J. Michael Eakin tearfully apologized Monday for exchanging emails that included pictures of naked women and crude jokes that mocked minorities, gays, lesbians and others.


But the justice also said he had been the victim of a "media circus" - "dragged through the mud without the opportunity to address the misstatements and, in my mind, the total dishonesty in many of the news reports."

Appearing before the judicial ethics court that is weighing misconduct charges against him, Eakin said he regretted the messages, sent and received on a private account but made public because they were exchanged on government computer servers.

"I apologize," he told the Court of Judicial Discipline, adding that he believed he should be held accountable for the messages he sent, but not the ones he received. "I apologize to my brethren, to the judiciary, to the legal profession, to people who voted for me, to people who didn't vote for me, for what I have allowed to happen."


Eakin, 66, a Republican who has served on the high court for more than a decade, has said the messages do not reflect his character.

"Perhaps my demeanor was 'one of the boys,' " he told the court. "But what I sent was to people who were 'one of the boys.' It was in the locker room." {Does he not realize that being secretive about your evil biases is an even GREATER problem if you are a SC Justice? Holy Mother of God.}

The Judicial Conduct Board charged Eakin with misconduct earlier this month, saying he had "detracted from the dignity of his office" by sending or receiving the messages. In a 52-page complaint, the board said Eakin "engaged in conduct so extreme that it brought the judicial office into disrepute."

In court Monday, Francis J. Puskas, the deputy chief counsel for the Judicial Conduct Board, argued that suspending Eakin was necessary to protect the integrity of the high court and give the public confidence that it operates without bias.

"The public is left wondering whether Justice Eakin has a conscious or even unconscious bias about the groups who are the butt of these emails," said Puskas.

He specifically cited an email Eakin received showing an obese naked woman on all fours with a pig snout and pig ears.

"Women might say it's equating women to animals," he said.

Puskas said Eakin's conduct failed "the smell test." He added: "There is something horribly wrong in the air and this court must clear it."

Eakin, in court papers filed last week, described the messages as "male banter" and said they did not cast the court, or his position on it, in a bad light because they were exchanged with friends and were never intended to be made public. {They cast both the court and his position on it in a bad light at the very least. He cannot even pretend to be a fairminded judge. Really this is not a close call, and they are only talking about suspending him. Sheesh.}

Eakin's lawyer, William Costopoulos, told the court Monday that suspending Eakin would be a knee-jerk reaction to pressure generated by the media.

"What we cannot do," he said, "is burn him at the stake.

Lawyer Samuel C. Stretton, an expert in legal ethics who testified on Eakin's behalf, said the justice did not violate judicial canons in sending the emails.

"He's fully accepted responsibility and apologized," Stretton said. "I don't think a suspension is warranted."

As for the offensive emails, he said, "There isn't a judge alive - or a man alive - who hasn't looked at pornography or laughed at an off-color joke."

The conduct board launched a review of Eakin's emails in the fall, after Attorney General Kathleen Kane revealed that the justice had sent and received what she called "racial, misogynistic pornography."

Eakin exchanged the messages with a small group of friends, including a prosecutor in Kane's office who used his government email address.

Some of the justice's emails that Kane has made public contain pictures and videos depicting topless women. Others are crude jokes that mock women, African Americans, Mexicans, feminists, gays and lesbians, and other groups.

The Inquirer has reported that Eakin also exchanged a series of emails that contained racy comments about two of the justice's female staffers.

At Monday's hearing, two of the Eakin's staffers testified that they were not offended by emails in which he joked with a friend about sleeping with them during a planned golf outing in Myrtle Beach, S.C.

"He's always been respectful and professional," said Lynn Zembower, Eakin's office manager. Of the emails, she said, "They did not bother me."

Eakin's secretary, Janey Thrush, testified that she was not offended by the email messages. She said one of the participants in the email exchange, Jeffery Baxter, a prosecutor at the Attorney General's Office and a friend of Eakin's, had sent her flowers after news broke of the mails in which the two joked about inviting the two women on the golf trip and sleeping with them. She said she called to tell him the flowers were "not necessary in any way."

Of Eakin, Thrush said she had "nothing but utter respect and admiration for him."

As The Inquirer has reported, while the Judicial Conduct Board was completing its investigation of Eakin, he attempted to appoint a new member to the Court of Judicial Discipline. Eakin voted in favor of the appointee - a fellow Republican from Cumberland County - even though she would have had a say over whether he should be disciplined.

After the newspaper story was published, Chief Justice Thomas Saylor withdrew the appointment, and Gov. Wolf called on Eakin to resign.
 
I have to admit that I have not followed this as closely as some may have (so please correct my misunderstandings)...

This is a man who has sent hundreds (not received, SENT HUNDREDS) of pornographic, racist, misogynistic emails to his buddies which he now diminishes as 'male banter' and 'locker room' talk. Don't bother to draw equivalencies to others who may have RECEIVED similar memes (in that case Eakin's total soars to over a thousand).

Aside from the silly, sophomoric, and embarrassingly childish memes this 'man' thought were amusing -- we add the emails he sent to friends which, in my opinion, create a concrete foundation for a sexual harassment lawsuit. Never mind the testimony of the two women today who thought this behavior was okay --- lots and lots of women (and men btw) would find this rightly offensive and Eakin would find himself unsuccessfully defending this nonsense in a whole different court.

But let's set all of that aside. Really, as difficult as it is... remove ALL OF THAT...

We're still left with a judge who rigged the judicial review a year ago when he had a buddy give him a clean pass without any hint of conflict of interest because he was a close friend of Eakin's.

We're still left with a judge who weighed in on Kane's law license without any statement of conflict of interest.

We're still left with a judge who after successfully 'jury-rigging' the first judicial review of his conduct attempted to stack the board on a second review.

This guy is a sleaze-ball. Worse, he is a sleaze-ball who views himself above the law... the laws and canons of ethics simply do not apply to Michael Eakin.

In my view the judiciary board has a no-brainer decision. I agree with Eakin's lawyers, he does not deserve to be 'burned at the stake.' But he HAS NO BUSINESS acting as a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. Bye-bye Michael Eakin.
 
Thanks for posting this TOM. I could not get to the other one because of some sort of paywall.

Happy to help, Dem. When I saw that the OP had posted a link to a Legal Intelligencer article, I went looking for other options. I signed up for free access to the Intelligencer a few years ago, and as a result I ended up being constantly bombarded by e-mails from them. I wasn't going through that routine again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: step.eng69
So the excuse is that it is okay because no one was ever supposed to know....just boys being boys. Porn and offensive jokes aside, what does his conduct relating to his subordinate females warrant for the potential sexual harassment? Is sexual harassment in okay as long as it is just in private? And then they trot out the assistants to say that they weren't offended as if that justifies his behaviour. I imagine that their jobs are somewhat contingent on Eaker remaining in his position, so throwing him under the bus doesn't serve them well now, but are they really to be flattered that their pervy boss and his buddies fantasize about them?

How many bosses survive when it comes to light that they discussed sexually desiring there subordinates? And theses judges and prosecutors were dumb enough to "memorialize" it. Eaker's pissing contest with Kane has just devolved into him pissing in the wind on himself....how much more splatter will the other justices take before they've had enough?
 
"Lawyer Samuel C. Stretton, an expert in legal ethics who testified on Eakin's behalf, said the justice did not violate judicial canons in sending the emails"

I dunno, I have a real problem with a Supreme Court Justice considering himself just "one of the boys" in the "locker room". I'd have a similar problem with a female Supreme Court Justice considering herself just one of the "gals" in the "Kaffee Klatch". It just cheapens the robe they wear.

Would the voters still have elected this judge if he offered up the fact that he was this chummy and this comfortable to behave like this with a prosecutor in the AG's office?

I have to wonder if Stretton isn't the go-to guy or The Fixer for those caught up in disciplinary procedures. Even more so, I'd like to know just how far these tentacles reach and into what offices. That's the issue.
 
I dunno, I have a real problem with a Supreme Court Justice considering himself just "one of the boys" in the "locker room". I'd have a similar problem with a female Supreme Court Justice considering herself just one of the "gals" in the "Kaffee Klatch". It just cheapens the robe they wear.

Would the voters still have elected this judge if he offered up the fact that he was this chummy and this comfortable to behave like this with a prosecutor in the AG's office?

I have to wonder if Stretton isn't the go-to guy or The Fixer for those caught up in disciplinary procedures. Even more so, I'd like to know just how far these tentacles reach and into what offices. That's the issue.
thanks Wendy...learned a new term today.
kaf·fee·klatsch
[ˈkäfēˌkläCH, -ˌklaCH, ˈkôfē-]
https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/javascript:void(0)

NOUN

  1. an informal social gathering at which coffee is served.
    • talking or gossip at an informal gathering where coffee is served.
 
Supreme Court Justice Eakin testifies amid suspension threat at 'Porngate' hearing
12/21/2015
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2015/12/michael_eakin_not_suspended.html

When asked how he would handle a court clerk facing the same allegations, Eakin said he would have a stern talk with the subordinate.

"I would not boot them out the door on the first go-round," he said.

Eakin said he took responsibility for the emails and apologized for having allowed the exchange to continue.

"I can't help what was sent to me," he said. "I should've put a spam filter on some of my friends. Instead I changed my email to something that was not recognizable as someone who was affiliated with the court."


-----

Eakin doesn't deny sending emails and that's the primary issue. But here he tries defend what was sent to him. He is correct that you can't really control what is sent to you. He says he should've put a spam filter on some of his friends - that could've worked (for what they sent him, but not for he sent to them). Instead, he simply changed his email address so it wasn't obvious he and prosecutors in the OAG were sharing insensitive emails.

I have to wonder, if this were a different person and Eakin were judging this case, wouldn't you imagine the judge would ask why, once he changed his email address, that he gave his new address to those friends he would've put a spam filter on. Of course, that's largely a rhetorical question. The answer is that he changed his email so that he could continue sharing insensitive emails & he actually changed his email because he knew it was wrong. He even states that if this were a clerk he would have a stern talk with them, but this is a misleading scenario since a clerk doesn't have to abide by the same canons of judicial ethics that Eakin does.
 
Supreme Court Justice Eakin testifies amid suspension threat at 'Porngate' hearing
12/21/2015
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2015/12/michael_eakin_not_suspended.html

When asked how he would handle a court clerk facing the same allegations, Eakin said he would have a stern talk with the subordinate.

"I would not boot them out the door on the first go-round," he said.

Eakin said he took responsibility for the emails and apologized for having allowed the exchange to continue.

"I can't help what was sent to me," he said. "I should've put a spam filter on some of my friends. Instead I changed my email to something that was not recognizable as someone who was affiliated with the court."


-----

Eakin doesn't deny sending emails and that's the primary issue. But here he tries defend what was sent to him. He is correct that you can't really control what is sent to you. He says he should've put a spam filter on some of his friends - that could've worked (for what they sent him, but not for he sent to them). Instead, he simply changed his email address so it wasn't obvious he and prosecutors in the OAG were sharing insensitive emails.

I have to wonder, if this were a different person and Eakin were judging this case, wouldn't you imagine the judge would ask why, once he changed his email address, that he gave his new address to those friends he would've put a spam filter on. Of course, that's largely a rhetorical question. The answer is that he changed his email so that he could continue sharing insensitive emails & he actually changed his email because he knew it was wrong. He even states that if this were a clerk he would have a stern talk with them, but this is a misleading scenario since a clerk doesn't have to abide by the same canons of judicial ethics that Eakin does.

Through his actions AFTER being "outed", Eakin has shown himself to be a MUCH more dangerous character than it first appeared.

Initially, one could have simply written him off as a scummy, corrupt judge. Part of a network of scummy, corrupt Scoundrels within the Judiciary and Prosecutor's offices.

But, with every sentence out of his mouth in his own "defense", it becomes crystal clear that he is a Sociopath.
 
So the excuse is that it is okay because no one was ever supposed to know....just boys being boys. Porn and offensive jokes aside, what does his conduct relating to his subordinate females warrant for the potential sexual harassment? Is sexual harassment in okay as long as it is just in private? And then they trot out the assistants to say that they weren't offended as if that justifies his behaviour. I imagine that their jobs are somewhat contingent on Eaker remaining in his position, so throwing him under the bus doesn't serve them well now, but are they really to be flattered that their pervy boss and his buddies fantasize about them?

How many bosses survive when it comes to light that they discussed sexually desiring there subordinates? And theses judges and prosecutors were dumb enough to "memorialize" it. Eaker's pissing contest with Kane has just devolved into him pissing in the wind on himself....how much more splatter will the other justices take before they've had enough?

The assistants themselves are not the final word in this matter. Even if they are okay with him sharing his fantasies with his buddies (and I doubt this for the reasons you cite), not every woman whose case will be judged by Eakin has a personal or working relationship with him. He must avoid the appearance of impropriety with all those women and their families, too. He simply cannot do that now.

Imagine an attractive female arguing a case before Eakin. Not some subordinate whose very paycheck depends on Eakin's continued employment, but an attorney whose client has been wronged, who is fighting with everything she has to retrieve that client's rights from whatever distant hell the lower court sent them off to. How much of her time should she waste worrying about what one of the justices is imagining in the recesses of his repulsive mind? Why put her in the box of even having to think about it?

If we are going to have a judiciary which sits idly by while county judges lock up children for profit, then I am pretty sure we have set the bar low enough that we need not have perverts with fake email addresses on the Court. Lots of people will qualify.

That reminds me of one final thing which has come up here but which I did not see in the link. The justice set up a fake email address. He knew what he was doing was wrong, and he did it anyway. That sort of guilty knowledge is a commonplace in the consideration of wrongdoing all the time. A guy will say he killed someone in a trance or a daze or a psychotic break where he did not know right from wrong. The prosecution will counter with evidence that he ran away, hid the gun, and lied to the cops. That is usually the end of that sort of claim. It should be no different here.
 
I have no idea why this guy didn't just resign and fade away. Why he would want to put himself through this in the media, etc. at his age is beyond me. Some combination of self delusion, entitlement and invincibility I guess...
 
I have no idea why this guy didn't just resign and fade away. Why he would want to put himself through this in the media, etc. at his age is beyond me. Some combination of self delusion, entitlement and invincibility I guess...
Sociopath. Or, maybe a bit more precisely, psychopathic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
That reminds me of one final thing which has come up here but which I did not see in the link. The justice set up a fake email address. He knew what he was doing was wrong, and he did it anyway. That sort of guilty knowledge is a commonplace in the consideration of wrongdoing all the time. A guy will say he killed someone in a trance or a daze or a psychotic break where he did not know right from wrong. The prosecution will counter with evidence that he ran away, hid the gun, and lied to the cops. That is usually the end of that sort of claim. It should be no different here.

Dem -- thanks for highlighting this. It's another element of Eakin's behavior that is troubling. The fake email address along with his comment (I'm paraphrasing) that 'a prudent judge goes out of state to fill his titty deficit' are clear indicators that Eakin knew his conduct was unacceptable and took steps to conceal it. Hard to come back after it's come to light and say it's no big deal.

I'm also not impressed with his lawyer's contention that these emails were private/personal and never intended to be made public. While that may be true, now that we know the guy is a pig are we supposed to just 'unknow' it?
 
"... suspending Eakin would be a knee-jerk reaction to pressure generated by the media."

... firing Paterno would be a knee-jerk reaction to pressure generated by the media. Shame the OG BOTs didn't have the same perspective!
 
Supreme Court Justice Eakin testifies amid suspension threat at 'Porngate' hearing
12/21/2015
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2015/12/michael_eakin_not_suspended.html

When asked how he would handle a court clerk facing the same allegations, Eakin said he would have a stern talk with the subordinate.

"I would not boot them out the door on the first go-round," he said.

Eakin said he took responsibility for the emails and apologized for having allowed the exchange to continue.

"I can't help what was sent to me," he said. "I should've put a spam filter on some of my friends. Instead I changed my email to something that was not recognizable as someone who was affiliated with the court."


-----

Eakin doesn't deny sending emails and that's the primary issue. But here he tries defend what was sent to him. He is correct that you can't really control what is sent to you. He says he should've put a spam filter on some of his friends - that could've worked (for what they sent him, but not for he sent to them). Instead, he simply changed his email address so it wasn't obvious he and prosecutors in the OAG were sharing insensitive emails.

I have to wonder, if this were a different person and Eakin were judging this case, wouldn't you imagine the judge would ask why, once he changed his email address, that he gave his new address to those friends he would've put a spam filter on. Of course, that's largely a rhetorical question. The answer is that he changed his email so that he could continue sharing insensitive emails & he actually changed his email because he knew it was wrong. He even states that if this were a clerk he would have a stern talk with them, but this is a misleading scenario since a clerk doesn't have to abide by the same canons of judicial ethics that Eakin does.

Did he just admit he originally was using his work email account? I wonder if at any point he told the senders to stop sending inappropriate emails. If they continued then he could report it, and then block the email address if it continued. Once you do that, you're not responsible for what people send you other than that first email. You don't do that, and yes, you are responsible for what you receive even if you don't hit send. This guy still doesn't get it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: demlion
Did he just admit he originally was using his work email account? I wonder if at any point he told the senders to stop sending inappropriate emails. If they continued then he could report it, and then block the email address if it continued. Once you do that, you're not responsible for what people send you other than that first email. You don't do that, and yes, you are responsible for what you receive even if you don't hit send. This guy still doesn't get it.
I am pretty sure if he had evidence that he EVER, even one time, told someone to cut it out, we would have seen that evidence. nada.
 
Psychopathy
"Psychopath" redirects here. For other uses, see Psychopath (disambiguation).
Not to be confused with Psychosis, Psychopathology, or Psychic.
Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/), also known as—though sometimes distinguished from—sociopathy (/soʊsiˈɒpəθi/), is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathyand remorse, and disinhibited or boldbehavior. It may also be defined as a continuous aspect of personality, representing scores on different personality dimensions found throughout the population in varying combinations. The definition of psychopathy has varied significantly throughout the history of the concept; different definitions continue to be used that are only partly overlapping and sometimes appear contradictory.[1]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marshall30
"... suspending Eakin would be a knee-jerk reaction to pressure generated by the media."

... firing Paterno would be a knee-jerk reaction to pressure generated by the media. Shame the OG BOTs didn't have the same perspective!

Of course, one has to note the difference between suspending and firing. Also, Paterno did not get the benefit of the doubt that some are desperately trying to apply to the much-lesser eakin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile
Sociopath. Or, maybe a bit more precisely, psychopathic.

That reminds me of when Chief Justice Castille called out Justice McCaffery as a sociopath - this was more than a year ago, FYI.



Here's Castille's statement - the sociopath statement is on page 5:
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/430jadco.pdf?cb=1
Be sure to check out page 4, it starts this way:

Lastly, there is the recent report that Justice J. Michael Eakin was being “asked” by Justice McCaffery to have my public report to the citizens concerning the general content of the pornographic emails Justice McCaffery sent to the Attorney General’s Office be withdrawn from the public realm, or else Justice McCaffery would see to the release of other emails allegedly implicating Justice Eakin in similar conduct (although as yet not identified).

---
See also this article on the top professions that attract sociopaths:
http://mic.com/articles/44423/10-professions-that-attract-the-most-sociopaths#.A13PmxthA
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marshall30
I think the standard should now be that anyone who has ever snickered at a dirty joke in a bar, locker room, or via e-mail should be disqualified from any public office.
 
I think the standard should now be that anyone who has ever snickered at a dirty joke in a bar, locker room, or via e-mail should be disqualified from any public office.

Yeah? Let's forget the emails for the moment. Eakin also failed to disclose a conflict of interest back in Dec '14 when he had his buddy Graci looking into his conduct (who just so happened to label the emails as no big deal) he also failed to recuse himself from the vote to suspend Kane's license when he had a CLEAR COI, and he also tried to stack the judicial tribunal in his favor by trying to appoint one of his friends to it.

The above actions alone are conduct unbecoming of a judge. When you add the emails to the equation it's a no brainer this guy needs to be gone.
 
Psychopathy
"Psychopath" redirects here. For other uses, see Psychopath (disambiguation).
Not to be confused with Psychosis, Psychopathology, or Psychic.
Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/), also known as—though sometimes distinguished from—sociopathy (/soʊsiˈɒpəθi/), is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathyand remorse, and disinhibited or boldbehavior. It may also be defined as a continuous aspect of personality, representing scores on different personality dimensions found throughout the population in varying combinations. The definition of psychopathy has varied significantly throughout the history of the concept; different definitions continue to be used that are only partly overlapping and sometimes appear contradictory.[1]
Sounds about right......eh?
 
Supreme Court Justice Eakin testifies amid suspension threat at 'Porngate' hearing
12/21/2015
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2015/12/michael_eakin_not_suspended.html

When asked how he would handle a court clerk facing the same allegations, Eakin said he would have a stern talk with the subordinate.

"I would not boot them out the door on the first go-round," he said.

Eakin said he took responsibility for the emails and apologized for having allowed the exchange to continue.

"I can't help what was sent to me," he said. "I should've put a spam filter on some of my friends. Instead I changed my email to something that was not recognizable as someone who was affiliated with the court."


-----

Eakin doesn't deny sending emails and that's the primary issue. But here he tries defend what was sent to him. He is correct that you can't really control what is sent to you. He says he should've put a spam filter on some of his friends - that could've worked (for what they sent him, but not for he sent to them). Instead, he simply changed his email address so it wasn't obvious he and prosecutors in the OAG were sharing insensitive emails.

I have to wonder, if this were a different person and Eakin were judging this case, wouldn't you imagine the judge would ask why, once he changed his email address, that he gave his new address to those friends he would've put a spam filter on. Of course, that's largely a rhetorical question. The answer is that he changed his email so that he could continue sharing insensitive emails & he actually changed his email because he knew it was wrong. He even states that if this were a clerk he would have a stern talk with them, but this is a misleading scenario since a clerk doesn't have to abide by the same canons of judicial ethics that Eakin does.

News flash to Eakin....this isn't your first go round. Remember the first Judicial Conduct Board ruling that your buddy helped you to whitewash your involvement? That was the first go round...you're now on the second go round because you swept it under the rug. The hubris of these guys that try to talk their way out when they are caught redhanded is astonishing. You assume they have some sort of intellect, but where is it? You do yourself no favor in trying to justify it because it is patently unjustifiable. It's a bridge too far and by trying to leap there questions not only your ethics and morals, but your intellectual capacity. Maybe it's diminishing in your old age. Almost makes you wish there was a way to remove incapable senile folks from office easily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JmmyW
I think the standard should now be that anyone who has ever snickered at a dirty joke in a bar, locker room, or via e-mail should be disqualified from any public office.

Why is it that you and some other fools feel the need to be wrong about every single thing?

Why do guys like you do this to yourselves?
 
News flash to Eakin....this isn't your first go round. Remember the first Judicial Conduct Board ruling that your buddy helped you to whitewash your involvement? That was the first go round...you're now on the second go round because you swept it under the rug. The hubris of these guys that try to talk their way out when they are caught redhanded is astonishing. You assume they have some sort of intellect, but where is it? You do yourself no favor in trying to justify it because it is patently unjustifiable. It's a bridge too far and by trying to leap there questions not only your ethics and morals, but your intellectual capacity. Maybe it's diminishing in your old age. Almost makes you wish there was a way to remove incapable senile folks from office easily.

I see what you did there.
 
The assistants themselves are not the final word in this matter.

I'm in agreement in that he has to answer to those that he purports to sit in front of as an arbiter of justice. Even if you limited it just to those assistants though, it is still similar to the Ravens and Ray Rice trotting out Janae for a media conference. The outrage isn't that Janae likes sparring or that Eakin's assistants like turning their boss on (neither of which is likely the case), but rather that Rice punched her or that Eakin would abusing his authority for his and his friends sexual dalliances. You cannot effectively apologize for your mistakes while simultaneously trying to minimize or discredit them. The point is exactly that the assistants feelings have NO bearing on Eakin's conduct. Even if consensual, there is the obvious sexual harassment issue between a subordinate and their superior, which is an ethical issue. On that alone Eakin should already be suspended and on his way to dismissal. That it is for the highest court in PA makes it even more intolerable.
 
The Philadelphia Inquirer had an editorial in today's edition calling on the Judicial Conduct Board to suspend Eakin while the board continues to investigate his role in the e-mail scandal. You can read the editorial at THIS LINK.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT