In 2011 - five years ago - a criminal complaint was reportedly filed against #JudgeJoelBaker claiming that the judge sent thousands of unsolicited sexually explicit e-mails to a woman.
The alleged female victim also reported that the judge stalked her physically, putting messages like "call me or text me" and "do not hide behind the curtain" on her window.
The matter was investigated in 2011.
The judge refused to turn over his laptop to the investigator claiming the laptop contained "sensitive material" related to his "official business" as a judge.
For that, search warrants for in camera court review exist. There was enough evidence to obtain such a search warrant.
Obviously, the police, fearing the judge's status, did not apply for such a search warrant.
Of course, how could they.
Look how many "committees" the "honorable" Judge Baker was on, see that the "honorable" Judge Baker was also previously a prosecutor (in case authorities pull this information offline, I also include it as scans) - how could such a criminal complaint against A JUDGE and a former PROSECUTOR be taken seriously?
How could the police put in turmoil the whole life of a "family man" and a "proud parent of three children" - as well as an "active member of Marvin United Metodist Church" where this "family man" is "serving on several church committees". Like they do with the lives of other criminal defendants?
Once again, even after such serious accusations, supported by evidence - police reports were published by a blogger here, of sexual stalking - both physical and online, by use of means of interstate commerce, the judge was not criminally prosecuted by either the state or federal authorities (online stalking is a federal crime), and was not IMMEDIATELY taken off the bench as an interim measure of protection of the public.
Look at the police reports - from 2011.
When caught, the judge claimed that he had problems with neighbors stealing his electricity - and that's why his Logitech camera was pointing at the neighbor's bedroom window in the middle of the night.
Now is the question - since the alleged victim of Baker's online stalking asked to remain anonymous (at least for now), the question is - was it the same neighbor, or is it a different victim already.
And, whether it is a different victim or not, wouldn't Judge Baker's alleged use of his Logitech webcam on his laptop to catch his neighbors in stealing electricity (Baker's version), or, rather, to videotape or photograph a naked woman in her own bedroom in a neighboring house, like a regular peeping Tom (the alleged victim's version from 2011 police reports) acquire a new meaning with the reports of Judge Baker's online relentless stalking of a female, even during the sessions of the court where he sat on a panel hearing judicial misconduct cases?
Appears Judge Baker was fixated on sexual stalking, and the way the law deals with such fixation is not only and not so much resignation and prayer, but criminal prosecution.
So far, Baker was blaming his victim in 2011 - accusing the neighbors who complained about his sexual stalking of stealing electricity from him (wouldn't the judge then install a night-vision security camera then, specifically where the electric meter on his house(es) is or are, instead of pointing his webcam at the neighbor's bedroom window?)
Blame the victim it was in 2016, too, when Judge Baker accused the woman he was reportedly stalking with thousands of sexually explicit unsolicited messages was, instead, stalking him and trying to "destroy his family".
Which did not explain why Baker-the-family-man-the-church-committee-member has sent to the woman reportedly thousands of unsolicited sexually explicit messages in the first place.
By the way, this particular tactic ("blame the victim") was used before Judge Baker, coincidentally, by TWO judges out of Texas (federal judges) - Judge Walter S. Smith (according to deposition of his victim, Judge Smith's law clerk called the victim asking her to end investigation and practically accusing her of causing trouble for the judge, see also here) and Judge Samuel Kent.
Baker has actually resigned - "after much thought, consideration and prayer".
I wonder whether Baker prayed much when he was stalking a woman in 2011.
I wonder whether Baker prayed much when he was SEXTING from the bench while sitting in review of judicial misconduct cases (!).
Remember, Baker remained on the bench for 5 more years after serious accusation of sexual stalking and harassment first surfaced.
To save face, the system exposed people to a sexual predator on the bench and in the streets for 5 years.
Now, the question is, will this "family man" and prayerful person be criminally prosecuted - as every one of us would, had any one of use, mere mortals, committed what Baker did - by state criminal authorities or by the feds?
Will there be an investigation whether any of the multiple connections of Judge Baker - the people from the numerous "Committees" noted in his biography, law school buddies, fellow judges - interfered with criminal investigation in 2011 and stalled it?
Will his law license be revoked?
Will his state pension be revoked?
For how long will the public tolerate sexual predators in black robes?
For how long will the public tolerate the cover-up and non-prosecution of public officials committing serious crimes against public safety? Against women?
I will continue covering this story.
Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment