At The Bar: The Zuker Enigma

With Mustapha Ururyar, swarthy perp in the Mandi Gray sex assault case, out on bail until his September sentencing, despite the best efforts of rape-myth-bustin’ Judge Marvin Zuker to keep him in pokey, keener legal minds than Frank‘s are still attempting to parse Hizzoner’s bizarro July 21 verdict.

Readers will recall this instant classic, coming soon to an appeal court near you, in which boring old case law is bumped aside to make room for such authorities as Maya Angelou, Virgina Woolf and the entire Wimmin’s Studies 100 syllabus.

“A jaw-dropper,” quoth Justice Michael Quigley of his learned colleague’s opus, as he overturned Zuker’s bail revocation.

The 179-page judgment itself is an eccentric effort, padded out with trial transcripts and crown and defence submissions, plus Justice Zuker’s distinctive stream-of-consciousness narration. Minor factual howlers abound, with Toronto Police detective Stephen Berry, for example, twice referred to as “Det. Chuck Barry” [sic].
And then there’s the porny play-by-play of the night in question, some of it even written in sentences. A taste:

“Mandi in bed with Mr. Ururyar according to him, his clothes mostly on. What’s the rush to take off his clothes? Mandi only wearing a tank top, he thinks. The accused wearing a long sleeved shirt and long underpants. Mandi under the covers first. She tries to kiss him. He moves away. You are bad (he is thinking). He is not, not happy with her behaviour. He admonishes her. We are not compatible. It is over. Mandi apologizes and cries. He says he tries to console her, he holds her. He touches her arm and back. “We lean into each other. We kiss. He rolls on his back. She pulls down his pants, removes his shirt and begins oral sex. He asks her. Do you want me inside of you? Yes, doggie style no condom. Was he tired? Just wanted to sleep? Maybe upset? Maybe angry? Maybe all of the above. Reject Mandi (he did it). Tell her off (he did it). We are done (he said it).”

WT-honourable-F? Zuker, 74, has been provincial judge for 37 years, most of them in family court, and most of them thoroughly devoid of judicial hilarity.

Rule-proving exception: his extraordinary 2005 legal contretemps with disbarred leftie lawyer Harry “Oh Fuck, It’s” Kopyto, in which the learned justice handed the noted loose cannon beaucoup de balls by inexplicably altering court transcripts.

Zuker had barred Kopyto from acting as a legal agent in a family law case on the basis that he was too “adversarial” (and, er, not a lawyer, ever since getting one up for bilking legal aid).

But when the tireless Kopyto ordered up transcripts for his inevitable appeal, that reference to his adversarial oeuvre, central to his appeal, had mysteriously vanished, as if the learned judge had never said it.

The two had nursed a mutual hate-on dating back to 1985, when Zuker had smacked Kopyto with a contempt of court charge. Harry had outrageously accused Marv’ of cop-cozy bias in a case he’d fought and lost, characterizing Hizzoner as “stuck together like Krazy Glue” with the RCMP. The charge stuck, but Kopyto beat it on appeal.

Zuker did not fare as well with the Ontario Judicial Council, admitting in his judicial misconduct hearing to having doctored the record. He wrote a letter of apology to Kopyto and promised to refrain from falsifying such documents in future.

So that’s all right, then!

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone
3 comments on “At The Bar: The Zuker Enigma
  1. tyrone says:

    The Zuker Enigma. Which Robert Ludlum book is that again?

  2. daveS says:

    I see that the file on Marvin Zuker on their Board of Advisors indicates an interesting past and future.
    Or will Carswell cancel one of the forthcoming books?

  3. There's a Zuker Born Every Minute says:

    W T Honourable F indeed. 74 or not (and what’s age got to do with it anyway?!!) this dude’s a Stage 5 Skeever! Picturing him being all colonial-as-fuck in his robes in chambers penning his sad, little Penthouse Forum limerick; having to call in the bailiff to help him … (that’s enough Lawyers in Love! —ed.)

Leave a Reply