Cute GILF judge gets outed

[Bear669]

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...raise-questions-about-private-lives-of-judges

Really feel sorry for her and Mr. Damn clear they were hit by a scumbag blackmailer,:grrrrrr: who decided to come back for more.

 

[emotional intelligence]

Why never give in to blackmailers. They Always come back for more. Remember Letterman?.

 

[SillyGirl]

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...raise-questions-about-private-lives-of-judges

Really feel sorry for her and Mr. Damn clear they were hit by a scumbag blackmailer,:grrrrrr: who decided to come back for more.

I feel sorry for her, but if Mr. did in fact post those photos without her knowledge, he's an asshole and doesn't deserve sympathy.

 

[Bear669]

I agree with you SG

I agree with you SG

I feel sorry for her, but if Mr. did in fact post those photos without her knowledge, he's an asshole and doesn't deserve sympathy.

But I doubt it very much. Not sure if you have been into swinging, but considering they (he?) were advertising for boy toys, the nature of the photos etc, more likely it was a joint decision.

Naked, in sub gear and with her mouth full, they likely figured there was little chance anyone would connect the pics to their straight world.:neutral:

Of course he (they) screwed up by approaching someone direct.:frown:

"Hi, glad we could correspond before meeting. Isn't Cancun great? arty:Call me "Bob" and this is "Carol' we have a separate play room booked upstairs!"

 

[Iambad]

"Hi, glad we could correspond before meeting. Isn't Cancun great? arty:Call me "Bob" and this is "Carol' we have a separate play room booked upstairs!"

Some just don't learn to be discreet.

 

[el matador]

Can someone who poses naked with a whip be considered a person of integrity, or does the question open the door to inappropriate moral judgments about an individual’s personal life?

Good question, what do you all think?.

 

[Bear669]

?

?

Can someone who poses naked with a whip be considered a person of integrity

Yes

, or does the question open the door to inappropriate moral judgments

Yes

about an individual’s personal life?

Good question, what do you all think?.

And you think it is a 'good' question because....?:na:

 

[latin rascal]

Good question, what do you all think?.

We've done worse, next question.

 

[Raiden]

It's not fair but being in that position they were not thinking with their heads.

 

[SillyGirl]

It's not fair but being in that position they were not thinking with their heads.

I think Mr. was. :tongue:

 

[Esquire]

Reading the article, it seems like a huge invasion of her privacy, if she had no knowledge of the posting of those pics or attempts to 'seduce' the complainant into having sex with her (he called it harrassment - I guess you would if you're a complete computer nerd - sorry to the computer guys here, but I couldn't resist. He's apparently not into 'GILFS'.).

 

[Bear669]

BLACKMAIL!

BLACKMAIL!

Reading the article, it seems like a huge invasion of her privacy, if she had no knowledge of the posting of those pics or attempts to 'seduce' the complainant into having sex with her (he called it harrassment - I guess you would if you're a complete computer nerd - sorry to the computer guys here, but I couldn't resist. He's apparently not into 'GILFS'.).

Seriously, do you think it was anything more complicated?

 

[jumpingjackflash]

I would love to see the pics, anyway to access the site where her naked pics are visible?

 

[Sexmachine]

I would love to see the pics, anyway to access the site where her naked pics are visible?

Pervert! Let me know if you find the site please!

 

[tboy]

I read the story the other day and I think the "moral" majority are way out to lunch here. The ONLY problem with her still presiding over a court room is the fact that people now know she had a kinky side. Her work should be the ONLY thing she is judged on (pun intended). Was she a good judge? Did she abide by the rules? Was her performance up to par?

If she knowingly participated in the advertising of her sexuality then that showed poor judgement but she shouldn't be punished because someone invaded her right to privacy (that person being her psycho ex husband).

If you look back over all the public figures who have been so against things like homosexuality, drugs, or what have you, sooner or later it comes out they are the biggest hypocrites and are caught doing exactly what they've been against all these years.....

 

[lagavulin]

He was a client !!!!

He was a client !!!!

The husband was this man's lawyer, that key fact has not been mentioned in the thread thus far. That completely changes the dynamic.

Lawyers should not (but it is legal) have sexual affairs with a client. Doctors are completely forbidden from any sexual contact with a patient, but lawyers are allowed a free first grope (reminds me of laws where a dog is allowed a first bite and only get put down on the second bite).

The husband / lawyer was a TOTAL IDIOT to proposition a client for a sexual encounter.

JUDGMENT should be a criteria for being a judge, she demonstrated that she does not have it and so she should be removed from the bench. Not for the sex but for the incredibly poor judgment of a sexual encounter with a client (she was a lawyer at the same firm at the time).

Every case that ever involved a blackman in a divorce that was before her is now open for review, an enormous waste a tax dollars.

 

[jumpingjackflash]

When I first read about this story I felt bad for her and didn't think she should be ousted, but Legavulin hit the nail on the head referring to their lack of judgement.

I am now swaying towards dethroning the lady and then having her over to sample one of her BBBJ's.

 

[tboy]

Are you guys imagining things? Where in the story does it say she had sex with anyone? The story posted says that her HUSBAND was trying to get his client to have sex with her and no where does it say she a) knew about his or b) that she actually went through with it.

Someone post a link please........