Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Insane Utah "judge" throws hunter out of courtroom

If this has already been posted, I apologize, but I've got to spread the word.
You guys aren't going to believe this.
I'll copy an article from the local newspaper , the deseret news. Watch this clip and see if you become as furious as I did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgtWZXK9gm8


Hunters Target Judge
Her views on sport trigger ouster effort via Internet
By Geoffrey Fattah
Deseret Morning News

Utah deer hunters have a new target in their sights: 3rd District Judge Leslie Lewis.
Leslie Lewis Members of the hunting community have started a grass-roots campaign to oust Lewis after she ordered that a defendant's brother be arrested for expressing displeasure with her views on hunting during a hearing last February.
Opponents have launched a Web site, www.firejudgelewis.com, that contains a link to the in-court video of the February episode, which has been posted on the Web site YouTube. The posting is one of the first instances of Internet campaigning being used in a judicial election in Utah.
"She thinks she's God in her courtroom," said hunting advocate Tony Abbott, who hosts The Big Outdoors, a local radio show on KFAN AM1320. Abbott said he has no ties to the court case but is just expressing his personal views. He said Lewis' lecture has angered some people who believe she should be voted off the bench during next month's judicial-retention election.
Lewis is among 24 district-court judges up for retention election this time around. She has caused controversy in the past for her occasional verbal outbursts. She is also the only district-court judge up for retention who received a sub-standard score in two areas of a recent survey by attorneys who appear in her court.
According to the survey of 123 attorneys, 60 percent found Lewis' behavior "free from bias and favoritism." Only 54 percent of the attorneys approved of how she "perceives legal and factual issues." Under standards set by the Utah Judicial Council, judges should pass with 70 percent approval or greater. Lewis has countered that under state law, she passed the review by receiving at least 70 percent approval on 75 percent of the 15 questions in the questionnaire.
The hunting-community controversy stems from a February hearing on a third-degree felony count of wanton destruction of protected wildlife filed against Michael Jacobson. In the hearing, Lewis was recusing herself from the case because of her personal bias against deer hunting.
While expressing her views, Lewis confronted Jacobson with questions of how he feels while shooting a deer. Jacobson's brother, Kent Jacobson, stood up to leave the courtroom. Lewis ordered a bailiff to bring him back into the courtroom.
"Now, why did you feel the need to make such an explosive and clear indication of your displeasure or boredom at being here?" Lewis asked.
Kent Jacobson responded: "OK, it's not just the displeasure of being bored here. The problem is, is we have just as much rights of going out and shooting deer as you have the right ..." He was then cut off by Lewis.
"What are you talking about?" she injected, and then ordered that he be arrested and sent to a holding cell.
Court records show Lewis recused herself and sent the case to Judge Dino Himonas, who ordered Michael Jacobson to pay $2,500 in restitution and to give up his hunting rights for two years.
In a statement released Wednesday, Lewis said she was constrained by the Code of Judicial Ethics from debating or commenting on the matter.
"It's my obligation as a judge handling a criminal calendar to maintain control over my courtroom," Lewis stated. She also points out that she has been certified by the Judicial Council as fit to stand for re-election.
Abbott said he planned to dedicate his call-in show Wednesday evening to discussing Lewis' actions. He declined to identify the people behind the creation of the anti-Lewis Web site.
If voted out, Lewis would become only the second district-court judge to be removed from the bench by voters. In 2002, Judge David Young was ousted by a 53 percent vote after a public campaign was waged to unseat him over accusations of leniency and bias involving sex offenders and DUI offenders.

Here is a link with some other good info from another site:
http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?p=3392584#post3392584

she's outta control....

The entire legal system is outta control. But it begins with judges/magistrates. Judicial evaluation/performance commitees (most states have them these days) that "rate" judges are generally nothing more than "rubber stamp" committees.

The real problem is the judicially created doctrine of Absolute Judicial Immunity that has been created by the courts beginning in the mid 1800's. It was NOT created by popular citizen demand, it was NOT created by legislative or congressional law--but created FOR judges BY judges. Congress and state legislatures have virtually abdicated their responsibility and authority to impeach judges who violate constitutional principles, violate fundamental rights, or who just plain violate the law.

A ballot initiative in South Dakota may be one of the most important process in our self-government and the right to determine our own destiny in generations:

http://www.amendmente.com/

http://www.southdakotajudicialaccountability.com/

I want to know what happened to the gentleman who was thrown in jail for contempt.

Casey

Her condescension really turns my stomach, but she did say she was explaining her feelings in order to recuse herself from the case. I mean really, guys? You think thats insanity? It seems reason over emotion to me.

She threw brother bubba in the tank because he tried to storm out of the courtroom. I doubt his demeanor would fly in any courtroom.

If you go to the website, it says she's been sanctioned at least twice for her conduct on the bench. Quite a few female judges I know are, well, beoches, but this conduct is pretty over the top. Just wish I lived there so I could vote to chuck her out.

Here's the transcript first part. Holy smokes!

I have a prejudice concerning deer hunters and people who kill deer and transport deer that have been shot. You ever actually looked at a deer when they are alive?

RESPONDENT 1: Uh-huh.

JUDGE LEWIS: And it doesn�t bother you that you can see their heart beating? I�m asking you a question. I expect an answer.

RESPONDENT 1: Yeah.

JUDGE LEWIS: Were you starving? Did you need the meat?

RESPONDENT 1: I wasn�t the one that shot the animal.

JUDGE LEWIS: Could you have stopped your friend?

RESPONDENT 1: Nope. I wasn�t there at all.

So she's already at full throttle, and it turns out the guy being charged was helping his poacher buddy. Still, poaching is uncool and I would say he needed to be busted. But her rhetoric right there is WAY out of line.
Her career needs to end now. Should she ever be appointed to say the federal bench (could happen after 2008) then you know the animal rights lawyers will be doing whatever they can to get on her docket so they can set "precedents." Same thing happened with environmental laws, the enviros hammered and hammered until they got what they wanted.
Boy, I hope she's gone sooooooon.

I didn't see on the film any overt action on the brother leaving the courtroom..looked like he just stood up and walked out..are courtroom attendees not allowed to leave when necessary? Boredom notwithstanding...maybe he should've said " I have to take a leak, Your Honor!"

If she loses, I would make it a point, I would take a day off from work, to chase her down and then tell her "guess what, now we are on the same level, so go f%^$ yourself. You put me in handcuffs, and it cost you your bench seat..choke on it".

Follow it up, let us know how it goes on the 7th.

I'm a lawyer, been in courtroom often enough to know that calling someone BACK in who is trying to leave is just plain BS. BMT

It's my understanding that any govrnment employee can be critiqued by a citizen at any time and short of using physical force they can say or do it, in any way they want. At least that's what the local judges tell LEO's while performing their job in my area. If someone calls you a name or insults you, you just have to live with it.

The way I see this unfolding it's OK for her to tell the accused any thing she wants but it's not OK for the accused or witnesses to say what they want to, to her about her job performance. Her personal opinions need to be kept to herself. However, now that she has spoken and we know her true feelings, she needs to go. kwg

ald, you're absolutely right. I watched again and all I could hear was a sigh as he got up- no storming out.

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment E, the so-called judicial accountability amendment, was brought to us by people from California who couldn't get it to play there. Besides being relatively easy to get a proposed amendment on our ballot, apparently they thought us hicks would go for a little anarchy.

The latest straw poll in northeast South Dakota shows the amendment loosing 14% to 86% and, being a straw poll, part of that 14% is just "tweaking" the system. (Watertown Public Opinion, 23 Oct 06)

In a nutshell the amendment applies to judges, jurors, school boards, city councils, county commissioners, and the like. Amendment E would empower a "grand jury" of 13 volunteers (anyone with legal training excluded) to expose these people to fines and jail for breaking the rules that the grand jurors make up, interpreting the laws to mean what they think the law should be. So, imagine 13 of the dumbest and most irrational people you know deciding on complex issues and making up the rules as they go, possibly leading to jail time and fines, with NO appeal. And only seven have to agree to decide a matter.

Sorry, just had to post on this insane proposed amendment.

SD Attroney General's explaination & full text, Amendment E
(scroll down for Amendment E)

========================================

Yep--Ain't ever seen it in 20 years myself. She has a lot to answer for by that conduct alone.She violoated at least 3 Judicial Canons I can think of right from the get go.She's in the barrell big time on this one.And with STEVE NO pointing out 2 prior misconduct findings, her next recusal could be permanent.

I am no lawyer but this judge admitted to predjudice in this case in open court , looks to me like she has no business even hearing this case. She should be jailed , not the brothers. Get her a job at Wal-Mart........late at night...........mopping floors.............

Not in that town 6mm---If she gets ousted, I see a necessary relocation in her future!!

It's clear she can't be fair to "hunters" or "poachers". I can't support poachers at all...but I can't support a judge that is so anti-hunting that she can't tell the difference and jails people for displaying displeasure at her views. If she was recusing herself, she needed to do it and move on, and not do what she did.

I have followed the proposal since its beginning in South Dakota. And more importantly, those who buy into the Attorney General's argument have not read the proposed amendment. Because NOWHERE does the text of the amendment say ANYTHING about jurors, city councils, county commsioners, school boards, etc, etc. Besides they can already be sued under current law.

Please read the text of Amendement E (obviously for the first time) and point out to me where it specifically--or even suggests--that others can be indicted by the Special Grand Jury.

And you are being thoroughly duped by those who oppose Amendment E--the elite. The insurance companies, the banking institutions, the politicians, and the members of the legal system--in other words, those who benefit from judges who "rubber stamp" their policies. Of course the members of the legal system don't want Amendment E--it would hold judges ACCOUNTABLE!!--and in turn, judges would begin holding other members of the legal system ACCOUNTABLE! Of course the attorney general doesn't like Amendment E, because judges would hold him ACCOUNTABLE for HIS behavior.

Amendment E holds ONLY those accountable who have given themselves Absolute Judicial Immunity. Nowhere does the amendment say ANYTHING about any other position or elected office--period.

The United States Constitution was created back east--should we chuck it because it came from a bunch of eastern liberals? Secondly, the ENTIRE Amendment E is being sponsered by a South Dakota farm implement dealer, Bill Stegmeier.

Amendment E actually has FAITH in the citizens appointed to the special grand jury to make good decisions--while the "elite" think only they are the only ones to make such decisions. It appears most who oppose Amendment E have no faith in citizens. I for one, do have faith in those "dumb and irrational" South Dakota citizens to ultimately make good decisions--which is why I even (shudder) support American citizens right to vote (what a concept!).

Nighthawk,

Please, PLEASE, show me in the text of Amendment E where ANYBODY other than judges/magistrates--those who are protected by Absolute Judicial Immunity--can be held accountable by the Special Grand Jury created under Amendment E. Really. Please educate me.

Casey

Unless judges have life tenure under South Dakota law, they're already accountable. The poll sounds like testimony to the good sense of the citizenry IMHO.

I was channel surfing a while back and came upon a court case with a Lady Judge and stopped and watched for a bit. The case was about a Man that was keeping an old Lady's place mowed for the right to hunt deer on it. She had an old tractor and he fixed it up and she gave it to him. After a few years, he quit mowing her place and she wanted the tractor back. I did not see the whole case but I did hear the verdict, which was, The judge stated that she "knew" the man was trying to trick the old lady because he was also trying to trick the deer. I think that the Judge's name was Maria Lopez but am not sure. I had never seen that show before and will not watch it again. miles