Legal fight in judge controversy grows

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 10/09/2010 (5578 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Allegations of sexual impropriety against a Manitoba judge and her lawyer husband have created a rapidly expanding legal powder keg that may soon become too hot for provincial officials to handle.

Alex Chapman, the man at the centre of the complaints, told court Thursday he plans to bring a motion to have all members of the Court of Queen’s Bench "disqualified" from hearing any further proceedings on the grounds there will be a perception of bias against him. If successful, it would mean having to bring in judges from other jurisdictions to hear all cases related to the scandal.

Chapman, 44, blasted Manitoba justice officials, saying he is the victim of a corrupt and racist system that has him fearing for his life.

"I’m a black guy who has dirt on top officials. Tell me, where do black people get fair treatment in our system?" Chapman said outside court. "If I was a white woman in this situation, I think this story would look different."

Chapman told Queen’s Bench Justice Joan McKelvey he is trying to obtain a lawyer to represent him but is having difficulty because so many in Manitoba have previous relationships or histories with the parties involved in the case. He said he will likely have to expand his search to other provinces.

"In Manitoba, every lawyer seems to be connected," he said earlier, inside court.

Chapman came forward last week with allegations his former lawyer, Jack King, tried to coerce him into having sex with King’s wife, Lori Douglas, while representing him in a divorce case in 2003. He said King also sent him numerous explicit nude photographs of Douglas, who was a lawyer at the time in the same firm of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman.

Douglas was appointed to the Court of Queen’s Bench family division in 2005 but announced last week she was temporarily removing herself from the bench pending the ongoing investigation.

Chapman has also filed a $67-million lawsuit against Douglas, King and their former law firm. King has filed a countersuit against Chapman, alleging he has breached terms of a confidentiality agreement struck in 2003. The deal saw King pay Chapman $25,000. In exchange, Chapman agreed to return all photos of Douglas, not seek legal action and not speak publicly about the case.

On Thursday, Chapman initially refused to provide his home address to the court so that sheriff’s officers could execute McKelvey’s order to seize his home computers, saying his life is in jeopardy. He finally agreed to provide it when threatened with a potential contempt-of-court finding.

"There’s a lot of injustice being done to me. For seven years I’ve been living in hell," he said in the courtroom.

Chapman told court Thursday he is angry he seems to be painted as the enemy. Chapman accused King’s lawyer of "slander" for bringing up the fact he was convicted of arson and uttering threats in 1993, in an attempt to discredit him. Chapman says he received a pardon for his crimes, which are registered under his previous legal name of Lenard Quaccoo.

McKelvey refused to hear any further argument on the issue, telling Chapman to file a formal motion against King’s lawyer, Bill Gange, if he wishes to pursue the issue further.

"I plan to," Chapman said.

Outside the courthouse, Chapman said he believes judges and lawyers will go out of their way to protect their own, and is glad the truth "is coming out."

The Free Press revealed this week the Law Society of Manitoba blocked all public access to allegations against Douglas and King as part of a court hearing on an unrelated case. Court documents show at the request of the law society, the Court of Appeal issued a sealing order on, among other things, documents containing what they called "very sensitive" facts outlining the incidents Chapman has now come forward with.

The province’s highest court also agreed with the law society’s request not to notify media outlets about the motion to prevent access as part of proceedings in an unrelated case they were hearing. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated the media should be given notice of any attempt to ban access to or publication of information in a court proceeding.

www.mikeoncrime.com