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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT