Judge Samuel B. Kent was nominated to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in 1990 by then-President George H.W. Bush. Eighteen years later, after numerous problems with discipline, he became the first federal judge to be charged with federal sex crimes. Between 2003 and 2007, "often intoxicated ," he initiated nonconsensual sex with two female employees. Today, the impeachment charges against him were dropped in the Senate.
As the only justice in a one-judge district, Kent shared authority with no one. After his conviction and sentencing to 33 months in prison, he preferred to retire, rather than resign, but was denied the disability status required to receive retirement benefits at 59. He finally submitted his resignation (effective July 1, 2010) to deter the Senate from hearing the testimonies of his accusers, but the two brave women, Cathy McBroom and Donna Wilkerson, testified against him anyway. He will continue to receive a yearly salary from the government of $169,300 while behind bars, until his resignation takes effect July 1, 2010.
An excerpt from his heartfelt letter to the Senate:
“Influenced by misguided emotions that probably stemmed from[..]alcohol abuse and[…]my first wife, Mary Ann’s slow, excruciating death from brain cancer, I began relating to Mrs. McBroom and Mrs. Wilkerson in inappropriate ways. {…}
Nevertheless, I remain proud of other aspects of my 18-year record of service on the federal bench.”
Sadly, he is not alone in the gaggle of men in authority positions who:
-Exact their power to initiate sexual contact with coworkers or employees
-Get caught
-Lie about it
-Go to rehab for “alcohol-related” problems
-Refuse to resign or retire
-Return to their families
Now that the hearings are complete, the the saga concluded earlier today in the Senate on CSPAN-2, with a live quorum in the U.S. Senate. The Senate discussed whether to dismiss all articles of impeachment brought against Kent upon request of the House. There is a transcript of the proceedings here, and a transcript of Mrs. McBroom's testimony is here.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Day of Reckoning Live! On C-SPAN 2.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15101
"he initiated nonconsensual sex with two female employees..."
Ummmm what?!?! You mean he raped them?!?! I'm too angry to form coherent thoughts at the moment.
Check out Mrs. McBroom's testimony-- it was forced groping, contact, and battery, but I don't think he was able to completely rape either, thank God.
The security guards knew about the entire thing, didn't stop Kent, but did help the two women hide from him when he was on a drunken rampage.
why is this guy still getting a paycheck while in prison? I'm pretty sure anyone else convicted of sexual assult on employees would be fired...
Just reason #1,596,405 to continue to dream of a matriarchy...
Ah yes, lets replace one "sexist power structure" for another.
"he initiated nonconsensual sex with two female employees"
if its non-consensual its not sex. its sexual assault or rape.
Now I'm confused, is initiated non consensual sex mean he made advances (forceful) for sex or he actually began to rape them?
"...he initiated nonconsensual sex with two female employees."
We used to have a succinct word for that phrase.
This guy is clearly a jerk, but everyone in the storyline (besides the two victims) should be brought up for charges. What is up with these security personnel helping "hide" workers from their superior because they KNEW he was drunk and preying on the women in the office?
"...he initiated nonconsensual sex with two female employees."
We used to have a succinct word for that phrase.
This guy is clearly a jerk, but everyone in the storyline (besides the two victims) should be brought up for charges. What is up with these security personnel helping "hide" workers from their superior because they KNEW he was drunk and preying on the women in the office?
"...he initiated nonconsensual sex with two female employees."
We used to have a succinct word for that phrase.
This guy is clearly a jerk, but everyone in the storyline (besides the two victims) should be brought up for charges. What is up with these security personnel helping "hide" workers from their superior because they KNEW he was drunk and preying on the women in the office?