ILNews

Judge apologizes for remarks some found offensive

 Associated Press
August 21, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 A northeastern Indiana judge apologized Thursday for saying at a public retirement reception for court staff members that one of the female retirees could have a second career as a phone-sex operator.

Allen Superior Court Judge Stanley Levine used a microphone to make the comment Friday at an event attended by family, friends, co-workers and some children, the Journal Gazette reported.

"First of all, I wanted to state that I have made a sincere and heartfelt apology to the woman about whom I made inappropriate remarks by talking to her personally, and she has accepted my apology," Allen Superior Court Judge Stanley Levine told the newspaper.

He added: "What I quite mistakenly meant to be humorous was, in truth, extremely tasteless. ... I deeply regret having said it."

In an email Wednesday to courthouse staff, the Allen County Board of Judges said they found Levine's comments to be inappropriate and that some people found his comments offensive. The email reminded all courthouse staff that anyone who feels he or she has been harassed has the option to report the conduct.

Kathryn Dolan, the state Supreme Court spokeswoman, said in an email that she couldn't say whether a specific situation violates the Code of Judicial Conduct that requires judges to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.

"Only the five members of the Supreme Court have the authority to determine what (if any) judicial misconduct has occurred in a specific situation," she wrote.

Levine, appointed to the bench in 1998, is up for re-election this year.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT