Federal Judge Samuel Kent Will Have To Make His Advances on Female Prison Guards
We noted in yesterday’s Morning Docket that libidinous federal judge Samuel Kent is heading to the slammer for three years. We’ve covered Kent’s unraveling extensively, but new details continue to emerge.
Kent is the first federal judge to be charged with a sex crime. He could have faced up to 20 years in prison, but a plea agreement got him a shorter sentence of just 33 months. Despite loudly proclaiming his innocence last year, the 1990 Bush appointee now admits to being an alcoholic and having “nonconsensual sexual contact with two employees between 2003 and 2007.”
From the Houston Chronicle:
Cathy McBroom, the one-time Galveston case manager for Kent who made the formal complaint that led to the judge’s downfall, said he first attacked her in a small room about 10 feet away from co-workers when he came to work drunk. She said she didn’t want to give up her job and her pension so she tried to avoid him as much as possible, while Kent told people she wanted the affair.“Being molested and groped by a drunken giant is not my idea of an affair,” McBroom said. She said she lost her marriage, her Galveston position, sleep, self-esteem and more and asked Kent be sentenced so he and others will remember it.
Donna Wilkerson, Kent’s secretary, said Kent sexually and psychologically abused her starting her fifth day on the job.
“He said he hated bullies. How sad,” Wilkerson said. “He’s the biggest bully of them all.”
She said she believes Kent is “crazy” and she fears for her family’s safety.
The ABA Journal points out that Kent is still being paid a judicial salary. Kent’s lawyer says though that Kent intends to “retire early due to an unspecified disability.” Does ‘being a sexual predator’ count as a disability?
However, Kent may not have the retirement option. Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Lamar Smith, the committee’s ranking Republican member, are getting the congressional impeachment process started today.
Kent sentenced to 33 months behind bars [Houston Chronicle]
Disgraced Judge Gets Nearly Three Years in Prison [Wall Street Journal]
Judge Kent Apologizes to His Family, But Not Claimed Sexual Abuse Victims [ABA Journal]
Earlier: Previous ATL Coverage of Samuel Kent
(49) Comments
Comments
OK, tasteless shtick off for a minute. Why is the impeachment process only now getting underway? The guilty plea was in February.
He sounds like a charming guy. I bet all two-time sex offenders get the same sweetheart deal he got...
Jesus, now I get it (and have confirmed via testing)--guest posting is disabled!
Can't deal with this. Please leave the room if you think this will affect you.
No, no, no. This will hurt someone.
*puts gun in mouth*
BLAM!
Let's have a moment of silence for our fallen comrade...
Judge Samuel Kent was a good man and a gentlemen. The world lost a little class today.
Shouldn't ATL have made a post about disabling guest postings? Yes.
test
Testing testing.
Guys in my high school used to get impeached all the time. It was no big deal.
Does it work now?
YARRR, NINJAS HAVE STOLEN ME BOOTY!
??
ATL's been a gracious host,
So what concerns us the most
Isn't Judge Kent
Or who he caused to get bent
But the end of anonymous posts (?)
EVERYBODY DANCE NOW!
The guest comment function was disabled while Latham installed its new IP tracking system into ATL's programming code.
Hey 2---he'll be slightly less rich and less powerful. I think that's punishment enough!
Obligatory "TTTexas" comment.
What a waste. I feel terrible for his former clerks. Do you list that on your resume, or not?
Probably a lot less rich after civil suits get done with hm.
That's also probably 3 years of solitary - I can't imagine being a federal judge in prison. That's like "former cop"x10.
Latham down in flames...
Quinn remains.
"sexual predator" seems like a bit much..... grossly offensive bumbling idiot? absolutely
8, do you even know the meaning of impeach?
From Merriam-Webster's: "to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office"
I don't think any of the "guys" in your high school were in public office, ergo they could not have been impeached! And if, as you say, there really were people getting impeached in your high school, I'm sure you're also lying about it not being a big deal - getting impeached is a very big deal!
21: I'm very sorry that you haven't had your evidence class yet. You, sir, are a dumbass.
I'm guessing he's not going into a supermax, 18.
I suppose the aging former execs and fraudsters might take out their misery on him ... but I wouldn't bet on a homemade shiv in the kidney from a thug who's had nothing to do but lift weights for 10 years.
22, you are the dumbass - how does this have anything to do with evidence? This is just the definition of a word. No public official = no impeachment - as simple as that!
21 = FAIL
24 = Pre-law.
Here's some free advice to you, 24: you'll probably find more success in plastics than law.
-Not 22
21/24: Run a quick search of this site for "FRAT STUD." Then go back to studying -- the LSATs are right around the corner (unless they've changed the schedule since I took 'em).
26, despite your protest, you must be 22. Success in plastics? What does that even mean?
You and 25 are both morons. LOOK UP THE DEFINITION!!
Guys at my high school used to say stupid things because they didn't get inside jokes all the time. It was no big deal.
29 = NICE
29 = NICE
21=FAIL; 28 = EPIC FAIL. Once is bad enough, but to persist?
LOL. 21/28 you suck.
Hey douche,
Did you ever think there may be more than one definition of "impeach"? Yes, impeachment in your context is an act to remove from office. However, as has been hinted to you by others, in Evidence, one day to be taken by you, there's another meaning.
So, fuck off!
Seriously, I don't see how THE REPLIERS to my messages can be so stupid - i HAVE already defined impeachment for you, there's BEEN sufficient time for you to look it up. HAD you just bothered to read the definition, you would all see it my way!
-21
The secretary says she was "sexually and psychologically abused"? You're a secretary, honey. I'm pretty sure that was in your job description.
She lost her marriage because the judge groped her? Is something missing in this tale?
Why the sudden silence 22, 25-26, 29-34? Nothing witty to say now?
Tsk, tsk.
-21
Ms. McBroom reported abuse, and was rewarded by shabby treatment from her supervisors, and an insultingly light slap on the wrist from the Fifth Circuit. Before, that is, the story got too big to sweep under the rug.
The judiciary truly is the last plantation in our society. And it sits at the pinnacle of a profession supposedly committed to eradicating discrimination in its own ranks.
I see nothing wrong with the Judge's behavior. The minute I make it to the federal bench, I'm going to molest and grope everything in sight.
[Utter disbelief at 38 et al's stupidity.]
Enjoy Cooley.
38 = poop in a hat.
It's good Ms. McBroom was represented by Rusty Hardin. He did such an effective job of providing good advice for Roger Clemens, there is no doubt she is in good hands.
Both sides of the "impeach" debate = fail
39 = fail
Plantations are awesome
Despite those trainwreck press conferences, Rusty Hardin is actually a pretty good lawyer. Jackass roid-ed up clients make anyone look bad.
29 = EPIC WIN!
And, (I can't believe I'm actually doing this) there is more than one definition of impeach which you would learn in evidence (hell as part of character evidence it is half of the evidence section of the CA bar). According to Black's Law Dictionary "impeach, vb. 1. To charge with a crime or misconduct; esp., to formally charge (a public official) with a violation of the public trust . • Impeaching a federal official, such as the President, the Vice President, or a judge, requires that a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives vote to return at least one article of impeachment to the U.S. Senate, itemizing the charges and explaining their factual grounds. Even if an official is impeached, removal from office does not occur unless two-thirds of the senators vote for conviction. 2. To discredit the veracity of (a witness) . [Cases: Witnesses 311-409. C.J.S. Witnesses §§ 559-775.] 3. To challenge the accuracy or authenticity of (a document) ."
Spot on 36, I see now real issue here.
*Spot on 36, I see no real issue here.