Judge Belk? (Charlotte: deal, money, companies)

[baybook]

What's the deal with Judge Belk? He was elected because of a bad divorce??

[GirlTravels]

That election is an example of why I believe that judges should not be elected.

Belk did not like the judge who handled his divorce proceedings, so he decided to run against him. He is vengeful. He threw a ton of money at the campaign and plastered his name everywhere, and people voted for him. Had people done ANY research, they could have found out the backstory, but they did not.

Now a good judge is out of a job and Belk is now a "judge." Who, by the way, is already committing ethical violations.

[anifani821]

Dear Lord. And the losers are . . . YOU AND ME!!!

We need a divorce from Judge Belk.

[flyingscotsman]

They should jail Belk for his violations, he seems to think he is above the law.

[nchunter]

Originally Posted by baybook

What's the deal with Judge Belk? He was elected because of a bad divorce??

He happened to win the seat of the judge that presided over his divorce.

[baybook]

I see. He's the angry one. Thanks!

[Timm]

What are these "ethical violations"? Can someone provide links?

[Timm]

Nevermind. I forgot that Google is my friend.

[anifani821]

Originally Posted by Timm

Nevermind. I forgot that Google is my friend.

Google and I are connected at the hip, but it still would be great if someone shared some links so we are all talking bout the same stuff.

[GirlTravels]

Here you go:

Belk tries to attend Sonic meeting | CharlotteObserver.com

Conflicts of interest are a big deal to those of us who practice and abide by our ethical obligations.

He will likely argue that all he has to do is recuse himself from cases involving these companies. but that puts a strain on the other judges, and sometimes the conflict would not arise until too late (for example, he might not know that a witness in a proceeding is a Sonic employee until the trial is halfway over, for example, and then there is a mistrial, and a whole bunch of money wasted).

Edited to add: if the code of judicial conduct says he can't do it, then he can't do it. if he wants the rule changed, he needs to abide by it until the rule is changed. disagreeing with the code is not an excuse to ignore it.