Disrobed Judge faces disrobing

In a case that is taking the country by storm and putting my city on the map, but not in a good way, a local judge is on the hot seat defending herself against allegations that she knowingly hid her spotted background during the screening process for her job.  She failed to disclose the naked truth about herself, so to speak.

The story has more turns and twists than a bait worm contorting on a fish hook.   Apparently Jack King uploaded his wife’s photos sans robe, on a website without her knowing.  She did however, knowingly took the pics but had no idea what became of them after that until she got the call from Hugh Hefner.  Just kidding, jeez, can’t a guy have some fun with this?

Jack also tried to coerce and twist the rubber arm of a brother, (As in black guy) Alex Chapman, to get him to engage in some hanky panky with him and his unsuspecting wife, in her chamber perhaps?  Alex at first had no issue with  seducing ‘your honor’ but later voiced objections, which were sustained.  Anyways, cash was exchanged and a confidentiality agreement was signed by Alex to keep mum about the nudes and the offers Mr. King made to him.  After all, risqué photos never come back to haunt anyone.

This all happened in 2003.  Time passed and the potentially lethal volcano lay dormant but still highly explosive.   (Wow! Did I just wax poetic there or what?) then in 2010, it exploded.  Alex, sill harboring thoughts of what could have happened, decided that he could maybe squeeze some more money out of this situation.   He tried to sue Lori and Jack  on the grounds of sexual harassment and the resulting investigations and court hearings got us to where we are now.  Read it here for yourself or Google the sordid circus act.

So Jack the lawyer, moonlighting as a Hustler photographer, was ordered by whoever lawyers report to, to pay a few thousand dollars for his major part in all of this.  His practice was left intact.  His law practice that is.   Not sure if he’s still practicing photography and solicitation.  His wife, who still maintains her ignorance, is faced with losing her livelihood.  The scales of justice seems a bit unbalanced here, doesn’t it? Or is it just me?  Jack started this whole mess and that’s all he got? I guess his buddies at the law firm didn’t know Jack.

I realize she may be lying through her teeth but her husband confirmed that she was not privy to any of his dirty deeds past the  nude photos taking.  It is difficult to prove that she did indeed know so it boils down to her word against the judiciary council’s and if it doesn’t fit, then they must acquit.  Right? Isn’t that how it works? If not, what do I know? I am not a law student but it sure did work for OJ.

When asked if there was anything in her background that would reflect on poorly on the judiciary,  Lori was quoted as saying, “Well this one time at band camp…”

ORDER!

 

Related articles

• Judge’s lawyer calls for sex scandal inquiry to fold – CBC.ca (cbc.ca)
• Internet nudie judge faces inquiry Monday (lfpress.com)
• Husband of Manitoba judge in sex scandal set to testify (cbc.ca)
• Christie Blatchford: Jack King falls on his sword over nude photos of judge wife (fullcomment.nationalpost.com)
• Inquiry into judge sex scandal to resume in Winnipeg (cbc.ca)
• In Canada, it’s dandy for a judge to pose for nude bondage pics (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)

Put your clothes back on, woman!

Irish Farmer Tells Rihanna to Put Her Clothes Back On

  Email 14 Smaller Font Text Larger Text | Print

Photo Press Belfast/Splash News

Rihanna may be perfectly good at being bad, but when a Northern Ireland farmer tells her to cover up, she listens.

The R&B singer caused a bit of controversy in the corn fields of Ireland Tuesday while filming a video for her new single, “We Found Love” with Scottish DJ Calvin Harris.

The 23-year-old pop star undressed from a flannel checked shirt into a stars-and-stripes bikini, a red bra, a mesh black top before, finally, going topless while shooting in the fields, located just east of Bangor.

At that point, Alan Graham, the 61-year-old farmer who lent Rihanna his land for the video, had enough and drove his tractor over to the shoot to tell the barely-dressed star to cover up.

“The state of undress was becoming inappropriate,” Graham told the UK’s The Telegraph. “I requested that they stop filming and they did.”

“I had a conversation with Rihanna,” said the father of four.  “She understood where I was coming from. We shook hands and parted company on good terms.”

Admitting he had “never heard of Rihanna” until her team asked permission to use his fields, Graham explained, “If someone wants to borrow my field and things become inappropriate, then I say, ‘Enough is enough. You are not entitled to do that.’”

Rihanna’s wardrobe malfunction didn’t end with Graham’s ‘enough is enough,’ however.

The issue went as far as Ireland’s political stage when, during a debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly, one politician asked the country’s first minister Peter Robinson whether potential investors in entertainment industry projects might be deterred after seeing the pop star banned for nothing more than “wearing red, white and blue.”

Rihanna is in Ireland for a series of sold-out shows in Belfast this weekend.  Filming for her video is reported to have resumed at a secret location there.

My take? See previous blog.

Grin and ‘bare’ it?

Ladies: Rocco Grimaldi requests you cover up for God

By Greg Wyshynski

I respect Rocco Grimaldi, the California kid that the Florida Panthers selected in the second round of the 2011 draft and is going to play for North Dakota this season. (Where he could be rookie of the year in the WCHA.)

I respect that he’s a role model for young players, who see a 5-foot-6 forward on a path to the NHL. I respect that he’s a devout Christian who uses social media to preach what he believes, even if his candor may have scared off some teams at the draft.

I respect that, in the end, Grimaldi views faith as a way to affect positive change in someone’s life and in society, which is a view I imagine places him in the majority in the United States.

What I don’t respect, however, are Twitter rants that espouse Puritanical nonsense about how women need to cover themselves lest their feminine curves tempt men.

Rocco wants to know, ladies: Are you honoring God with those jeans that make your butt look great?

Here are Rocco’s observations about the female form from his Twitter feed (@RGrimaldi23):

There’s a thin line between “ladies are too scantily clad these days” and “God wants you in a potato sack because your brothers can’t help themselves,” and Rocco ran through it. I mean, to each his own, but in my eyes this entire request veers uncomfortably close to the asinine “she was asking for it/look how she was dressed” denouncement women have had to battle for decades.

Rocco moved on to the fellas after that:

“Guys, when did sleeping with every girl u can make u a man? Anyone can lay with a woman. And don’t blame the women for how they dress. Don’t say it’s because they want attention. Don’t blame ur “curiosity” or that u just wanted a little taste of what it would be like. Women are not an object for playing with. Sex is a gift from God. We have made it idolatry by how we use it. We blame the women for what they’re wearing, we blame the media for what they’re producing, but we never blame OURSELVES for how WE’VE twisted God’s gift to only glorify ourselves. WE are the men and WE are to blame. God put US in charge of this earth so WE are the ones who need to man up and lay down our lust. Don’t fall into that temptation. If you don’t do this, you may be a boy for the rest of ur life #ManUp“

So, in summary: Women should cover their boobs and ask if God approves of their outfit in case it unfairly tempts men, but men only have themselves to blame if they’re tempted sexually.

Huh, weird … you usually never see contradictions in religious dogma …

Like I said: I respect Grimaldi, immensely, for having this level of candor and using his modicum of fame for what he believes is his mission on this rock. I follow him on Twitter, and 98 percent of what he writes reads like an inspiration poster in a Christian greeting card store. Please don’t misconstrue this as some attempt to silence him.

But his comments about women are the kind of sexist, archaic thoughts that cloud the positive impact of faith. As a (lapsed) Roman Catholic myself, it’s a constant struggle: You believe there are aspects of religion that are undoubtedly beneficial, but they’re constantly overshadowed by clunky views on sex and gender that repel people and open up the entire community to ridicule.

I hate to make this into Dan Ellis Part Deux, but it’s the same principle: The messages Rocco Grimaldi shares have value, if not to me or you than to someone else. His heart’s in the right place with the comments about men; his comments about women drown them out.

His best argument against the objectification of women was to objectify them. We can’t give an “amen” to that.

s/t to Minnesota Slim for the tip.

Related: Florida Panthers, Hockey Fans

Let’s cut straight to the chase.  Do I think women objectify themselves? A resounding YES!  Women are, for some reason,  seeing an increasing need to bare skin in order to get noticed.  I am not saying that all women who wear a nice mini dress/skirt are begging for attention but do you really have to let it all hang out to look good?  If you are out at a function and spend every minute trying to pull your dress down to cover your undies, then it is too short.  If your breasts are falling out of your bra and posing a risk of eye injury to the person you are talking to, then your bra is too small.  Come on, it’s common sense. When you go to a restaurant, you don’t know what the food looks like until it is served.  There are no hints or displays in the window, so why do you feel the need to preview your body to the world?

Women, I agree wholeheartedly with Rocco’s sentiments.  Cover up, it leaves more to the imagination and gets you the respect you deserve.  No woman should be objectified or taken advantage of due to their clothing or lack of clothing but women, for the sick preys out there, why give them that fuel?  Just my take.