How do people this unethical…and dumb…get to be judges? I don’t understand this story at all.
Sidney Southerland is a party in a child custody case before Family Court in the Bronx, and was surprised one day to receive a personal message on 3Fun, “the leading app for sexually free singles.”
The message was from the presiding judge in her case.
“GM,” the woman wrote in a message just before 8 a.m. on January 24 (“GM” is texting slang for good morning), “Am Cynthia. How are you?” The sender’s profile photo showed a woman wearing black heels and a black negligee, sitting cross-legged on a couch.
A stunned Southerland read the woman’s profile, which stated, “We are a full swap couple in an ethical non-monogamous dynamic looking to have some hot sexy fun with other full swap couples and single ladies.” It continued, “We love thick girls just as much as we love petite girls! At the end of the day it’s all about personality. Guys at the most should be stocky and I the female, prefer males to be somewhat endowed.”
It was her Family Court judge, Cynthia Lopez, and she had sure picked the wrong target for a pick-up.
Southerland says her response was, “Bitch, you know who the fuck I am!” Judge Lopez blocked her, but not before Southerland captured images of the kinky jurist’s message, photo and profile and wrote, “I plan to file a complaint.” Then she revealed the incident in a video on TikTok and X two days later. The story and Southerland’s complaint were received by court officials, who at the moment have “no comment.”
But Lopez recused herself without explanation from the case yesterday during a teleconference with Southerland’s attorney.
Quite apart from the flagrantly unethical nature of using judicial power and influence to troll for sex partners, what an astoundingly stupid thing to do! How many other parties in cases before this woman were pressured into sexual relationships? It seems that a wide-ranging investigation is unavoidable, followed by a lot of overturned trials.
And now I’m wondering how many other judges out there are as bad as this one….and may have our democratic election prospects in their hands as they rule on the Democratic “lawfare” against Donald Trump.
Oh, stop it, Jack. As King Lear said, “That way madness lies.”
_________________
Source: New York Post
Ethics Alarms 
”Quite apart from the flagrantly unethical nature of using judicial power and influence to troll for sex partners,”
Uh? Have you ever used a dating or sex app before? I assume the judge matched or messaged this woman without having any idea who she was.
Profiles include pictures, and the (zaftig, black woman, just like the judge likes them) woman had been in front of the judge for quite a while. Occam’s Razor, my friend: which is more likely, a wild coincidence where a judge just happens to pick a party appearing before her in a court matter by accident for a sexual romp, or a judge figuring her superior power in the matter is a great lure, if the woman wanted an edge in the litigation? Though rare and disgusting, these kinds of things have been documented before, like the San Diego prosecutor who asked defendants for dates after they were acquitted. Sure, the judge will try your story. It won’t work. Wait and see.
Which is more likely, a wild coincidence where a judge just happens to pick a party appearing before her in a court matter by accident for a sexual romp, or a judge figuring her superior power in the matter is a great lure, if the woman wanted an edge in the litigation?
The first scenario is absolutely more likely and I can guarantee you exactly what happened.
It’s obvious you don’t know how dating or hook up apps work. The judge would still have had to of found this woman by chance and be within a specified mile radius set within the app…but anyway.
So you think this judge randomly found a women on a swingers app who also appears in her court, remembered who this woman was by looks alone, thought to herself “Hm, let me see if she’ll exchange sexual favors for a favorable ruling…” all while leaving a digital paper trail that could immediately end her career…
I mean, you can tell from the message she sent that she had no idea who that woman was. And as soon as the woman told her she knew her, she blocked her. Also, I bet the guy in this relationship is running the messages on the app.
But in that end…your theory makes absolutely no sense. The judge didn’t even do any of the things you said she was planning to do. All she did was match with a person who comes in her court. In this digital day and age, that’s very likely.
The targeted party has said she thought the judge was slow-walking her case, and now she knows why. As I said, if we are ever informed of the resolution of this,it will be shown that the judge has done this before. But by all means, hold on to your illusions….
I’ve written about and researched dating apps. The party’s face and profile was obviously among those the judge was “matched” to, but when the judge made actual contact, she had to have seen her photo, meaning it was not random chance.
But none of the things you claim even happened.
All this judge did was use a swingers app and accidentally matched with one of the hundreds of people she sees in her court room.
And then immediately blocked her when she realized she was someone she saw in court.
There’s no conspiracy.
And yes, it absolutely was random chance that they matched. Both parties had to like each other before they can message.
The judge is already on the app, I dont even understand how this scheme would work…she just waits around to randomly match with someone she sees in her court room? You can’t go out of your way to find a specific person, that’s not how it works.
Or! if the judge thought of this scheme on the fly after matching with her, she didn’t even do anything other than say “Hello” so again…I dont get how that’s evidence of anything malevolent.
“And yes, it absolutely was random chance that they matched.”
Well of course the match was absolutely random. But nobody has to contact everyone they are matched to. The judge contacting a litigant after seeing her photo and profile was not random. The question is whether the judge recognized the party before her from the profile and the photo, and it has the same potential effect whether that was intentional or not: tainting the litigation. I find it a stretch to believe the judge didn’t know what she was doing, and the judicial panel investigating her will have the same doubts. She won’t be a judge much longer. Good.
“find it a stretch to believe the judge didn’t know what she was doing,”
”Doing” as in what?
I find it highly probable that judges/professors/ cops etc will match and then message someone on a dating app without remembering who they are.
As in what happened here.
She was deliberately contacting and propositioning a party in litigation before her, taking advantage of her superior power over that party’s fate. That’s what she was doing.
Why do you think that?
I also want to make this clear that in order for the judge to do that, she would have decided to do this when she saw her on the app…not before since it would be impossible to plan this in advance.
That was clear from the start, to me, you and everyone.
No it’s not clear at all.
Because she randomly matched and then messaged someone she saw in her court room who she probably didn’t remember who she then immediately blocked?
That somehow means she was using her judicial power for sexual favors on a swingers app?
How? Other than her messaging this woman and saying “hello” I don’t think you have a solid argument at all.
Spin, spin, spin. She “probably” didn’t recognize a photo of the woman she had already seen multiple times in court? Sure, Bob. That’s more likely than her deliberately choosing a profile of someone she did recognize and who was dependent on her favor. She immediately blocked her when she realized she was in judicial disciplinary territory because her overtures were not merely declined, but declined “with prejudice,” and she knew she would be facing an investigation.
pin, spin, spin. She “probably” didn’t recognize a photo of the woman she had already seen multiple times in court? Sure, Bob. That’s more likely than her deliberately choosing a profile of someone she did recognize and who was dependent on her favor. She immediately blocked her when she realized she was in judicial disciplinary territory because her overtures were not merely declined, but declined “with prejudice,” and she knew she would be facing an investigation.
How is it clear that she went on this app to exploit her judicial power for sexual favors though?
Other than her RANDOMLY MATCHING with this woman and then deliberately messaging her with a “hello”?
Why is it impossible she didn’t recognize her? You haven’t explained that either.
And no…she was in judicial disciplinary territory as soon as she messaged her. I know you’re not arguing she wouldn’t have been in trouble if this woman was into having a threesome.
“How is it clear that she went on this app to exploit her judicial power for sexual favors though?”
I never have said or thought the judge went to the app for that reason: why would she think or assume the party was a member? It is likely that she recognized the woman from her photo and profile when she received her matches, and then made the contact, knowing she had that edge.
Of course there is nothing unethical about using a dating or hook-up app, for a judge or anyone else.
There is a third possibility – the judge looked at the litigants and said, “Hmm . . . dad looks like a jerk but let’s se . . . WHOA, Nelly! Who is that lady in the petitioner’s chair? Let’s see . . . it says here that her name is ‘Joan of Arc’. ’Alexis, find info on ‘Joan’. [scrolling through google results]. Well, now, isn’t she a looker? I wonder if she would be interested in a little . . . you . . . ’playtime’? . . . Would you look at that? This site has her email. Hmmm . . . . I will just send a little playful emaillypoo and see what happens.”
Then, the State Bar emailed her, saying, “Yo, judge. You ain’t allowed to do that! Why not come in and ‘splain yourself?”
How do I know? Well, because yesterday, a judge told me – from the bench that after our little contested hearing that she was going to take the defendant into her office, call my client [the landlord, who was represented by l’il ol’ me], intending to work things out with my client landlord to avoid an eviction. The exchange went like this:
Judge: ”Ms. Tenant, I don’t have any choice in this case, I have to rule in Mr. Burger’s favor and grant a judgment for possession and back rent. You will have 5 days to move.
Me: ”Thanks, judge. May I be excused?”
Judge: ”Sure, but I hope you don’t mind, but I am going to take the defendant into my chambers and call your client to work this out so she doesn’t have an eviction on her record. Is that okay with you?”
Me: ”Uh, what?”
Judge: ”She really needs someone to guide her and I have some time this afternoon. It won’t take too long. Besides, I am a lawyer, too, so I know how to resolve these issues. Okay?”
Me: ”Let me see if I understand – the judge presiding over this case is going to meet with a litigant to settle the dispute.”
Judge: ”Yes.”
Me: ”The presiding judge is going to negotiate with a client the judge knows is represented by counsel, to settle a judgment the court has just entered in favor of the plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, you know . . .me?”
Judge: ”Yes, is there a problem?”
Me: ”I don’t know how to say this, judge, but I am very uncomfortable with the judge presiding over my client’s case, directly contacting my client to settle the case, when the presiding judge knows my client is represented by counsel, you know . . . me.”
Judge: ”Well, you don’t want me to talk to your client?”
Me: ”No.”
Judge: ”Why not? I have experience in landlord-tenant cases and I can usually get a good result for the parties. I don’t see the problem.”
Me: ”You may be right but I cannot and will not agree to that.”
Judge: ”Oh.”
Me: ”In fact, that a presiding judge wants to have ex parte communications with my client, without my authorization or approval, gives me a whole lot of concern.”
Judge: ”When you put it that way it sounds bad. Okay, I won’t contact your client but I will set the defendant up on a phone to make sure that she can talk to an actual person.”
Me: ”Really? When and where will this little telephone call occur?”
Judge: ”I’ll take her into my office and let her call the number on the lease, and help her through the prompts to talk to a person.”
Me: ”Remember that thing I said about a presiding judge contacting my client without my approval? That still applies here. Ms. Defendant has the number and a very cool cell phone – in fact her phone is nicer than mine – and she is quite capable of pushing the correct buttons on the screen. I am really worried about this. I cannot and will not authorize my client to anyone on this case outside of my presence.”
Judge: ”[annoyed at me] Oh. Well, I guess that settles that. Ms. Defendant, let me know how you want to proceed.”
jvb
Here is an unpleasant update: The judge actually called my client, left a message for someone to return her car to discuss a resolution of the case.
I am thinking the judge took off her judge’s robe, hung it on the coat rack, and said, “Well, now I am just Judy ’cause I am not wearing the black dress. As a private citizen – and, incidentally a damn fine lawyer – I am at liberty to provide justice for this poor, downtrodden tenant facing eviction. Aren’t I wonderful?”
So, she called my client – again, MY client and she knows I represent MY client – from her private cell phone, couldn’t get through to anyone in particular so she left a voice mail message:
Her: ”Oh, hi. This is Judge Jud . . . erm . . . I mean Citizen Judy. Would you please call me on my cell about this tenant? If you can’t reach me on my cell, her is my office number 214-123-4567, and I am be reached at the county courthouse. Just ask for Judy. My court coordinator will get the message to me right quick. Thanks.”
jvb
“Random matching” is indeed not as random as we might want or hope. I’ve read about prostitutes who have one Facebook account for their friends and family, and one for their… professional duties. Facebook manages to make “people you may know” suggestions of Johns to the personal account, thereby exposing their real identities to the unsavory sort who frequently their services. This is done with marketing data, cookies, and other “big data” cross-referencing.
It is very conceivable that such online marking data contributed to “matching” the judge’s account to the litigant’s account.
This could theoretically be entirely innocent. However, once that connection is made, it is the judge’s duty to screen her matches and block the account before any further contact is made through such channel.
One must, however, question the judge’s, well, judgement in even being on such a website. She is a family court judge. She is going to be handling custody cases, many of which will be triggered by divorces due to one or both parties using a “swingers” dating site without consulting the other. The chances of being matched to someone before the court are quite likely.
Add this to the likely chance of being matched with prostitutes offering their services through the site, or matched with those who might otherwise appear before criminal court in the same building as her family law court, and having such an open minded “ethical” non-monogamous relationship seems simply untenable for judge.
At best, this incident reveals the judge to be entirely reckless in separating her private and public lives. Propositioning a litigant before her court, however, is such outrageously coercive behavior that any benefit of the doubt that her behavior was merely reckless is itself a reckless rationalization.
I don’t think the standard for the judge is “a case of mistaken identity” or “I didn’t realize”. If the standard is “the appearance of impropriety”, then I would wager there’s a significant problem here.
Plus, just…ick.
I wonder how the judge knew the woman participated in a swinger’s app, though. That seems to be a wild coincidence. Did the judge google “Ms. Petitioner” and find her swinger profile? I admit that I google lawyers/parties I don’t know to see get an idea of the person I will be dealing with on a certain case. Their social media profiles give an indication about age, personal life, etc.
jvb
Regardless of the judge’s inappropriate conduct, I’d like to think I would have come up with a more politic reply than “Bitch, you know who the fuck I am!”
Actually, it might have been a smart response. Anything respectful or welcoming might have made it appear that she was accepting the conditions of a bribe.