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

The "straw poll" mentioned by the opponents of Amendment E has no source--at least they refuse to reveal it. Or they are lying through their eye teeth--which is a good bet. Members of the legal system are scared to death of Amendment E--and it's not limited to South Dakota. Even former Justice O'Conner in a Wall Street Journal column--obviously directed at Amendment E-- went so far as to quote out of context a passage from one of the Federalist Papers. She was immediately called on it by a number of legal scholars.

On the other hand, here is a Zogby poll conducted last month:
http://www.dakotavoice.com/200609/20060921_3.html

Before making judgements, take the time to skim through the following (being well armed with accurate information BEFORE we pass judgement is kind've like knowing your target BEFORE pulling trigger):
http://www.southdakotajudicialaccountability.com/
http://www.amendmente.com/
http://www.jail4judges.org/index.html

The problem with retention votes:
1. Much of what goes on in court is inaccurately reported, or is kept secret, or the reporting is so bad and biased that we rarely understand what is really taking place--the legal elite like it that way. Or it has become so convoluted through judcial doctrine, rules of the court, rules of evidence ( all created by judicial fiat), that nobody can understand it--which is exactly what the legal elite want <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

2. The various committees that "rate" judicial performance (most states have them) are nothing more than rubber stamps for judges. They ask all the wrong people all the wrong questions--and they get the answers they want. The national average for these commitees is a vote to retain--over 99% of the time. These retention commitees are the best friends bad judges ever had.

If Amendment E passes, South Dakota judges would begin to look at the rights of citizens in their courtroom with much a more "critical eye" towards individual rights. They would view legislation and government policy more critically in the context of what is--and is not-- constitutional. Prosecutors would no longer control the courtroom in criminal cases (which is increasingly the case). Why?--because judges would be held ACCOUNTABLE for illegal and unconstitutional acts, and in turn, judges would begin to hold the rest of government actors ACCOUNTABLE for illegal or unconstitutional acts.

No person, especially public officials, should be absolutely immune--it's a dangerous concept from the get-go. And it invites arrogant behavior. And it is the antithesis of what democracy is about.

Not to be melodramatic, but the proposals in Amendment E strengthen due process rights like no other proposal since the 14th Amendent. The legal system is scared to death this citizen's proposal will spread. How dare "dumb and irrational" citizens do such a thing...

Casey

I'll be voting against that bitch for all of you who can't.

You're welcome! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Prosecutors would no longer control the courtroom in criminal cases (which is increasingly the case).
========================================
Alpine--Upon which facts do you rely in support of the above premise??

The start of this thread is the perfect example of why Amendment E is an excellent proposal. The judge broke the law--as in a criminal act!

Although the Court has every right to enforce decorum and control in the courtroom through contempt of court proceedings, no reasonable person could say the gentleman disrupted the proceedings. He sighed, and walked out of the courtroom. The court had absolutely NO jurisdiction or authority to send the baliff after that guy and drag him back to the courtroom. No more authority than you or me. It is apparent to me she had instantly decided she was going to jail him--the rest of it was just cover.

A judge MUST find authority within a statute or a state/federal Constitution before they can have "jurisdiction" over a person.

More importantly, the judge did not merely chastise this guy--SHE THREW HIM IN JAIL!! That is no small thing.

Under Amendment E, that gentleman could go directly to the Special Grand Jury (otherwise, a party to a case must first go through the appeals process) and submit a criminal complaint.

If the Special Grand Jury indicts, it then orders a trial to be held and appoints a judge and prosecutor. Who in turn, selects a regular jury for--in this case-- regular criminal trial.

But instead, the poor guy, who is not a party to this case, has virtually no recourse against this outta control judge--WHO THREW HIM IN JAIL! The behavior of this judge is arrogant, despicable--and criminal.

Let a few judges be indicted, and better yet--convicted--and judges would stop doing this Bullsh$t.

That judge should not be merely voted out--she needs some jail time.

Casey

That should be hard to believe.....too bad it isn't..... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

I wonder if the dude can go after the judge in a civil suit?
Take her for a few hundread grand...Might shut her up...

dry..,

Thinking about forming a new club Commandos for Christ. Anyone interested? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Direct observation of prosecutor's behavior in the courtroom--and watching judges defer to them. Numerous reports of others relating the same behavior of prosecutors and judges.

No, I'm not a lawyer--the vast majority of lawyers don't know how to spell constitutional rights, must less practice them for their clients.

What really happens in a courtroom is seldom understood by most non-lawyers--or accurately reported by the press. The outcome of trials and hearings is often predetermined by rulings on motions beforehand--often those rulings suppress relevant information, or just plain trample on due process--and prosecutors know this. Ten years ago, I too would have been skeptical.

Casey

Thank you--glad somebody in Utah is paying attention.

Casey

I am a trial lawyer and my experiences vastly differ from yours. If there is a suppression motion and evidence is kept from being admitted at trial, that is more often than not, the good work of a defense lawyer not a prosecutor. Experiences relayed by other non-lawyers, who are unfamiliar with the dynamics of litigation, are hardly reliable in relaying experiences with any credibility.It is the defense lawyers who mostly swing and wave the "Constituional flag" (hope I spelled it right) so I am leery as to why you keep throwing these digs at prosecutors. Nevermind--I think I know why!!

Judges tend to protect judges (now that's an understatement). First he has to prove she was acting outside her authority. If she has her butt parked on the bench and is wearing a black robe (terrorists in black robes as my friend says), another judge will almost invariably rule she was acting in her capacity as a judge and therefore enjoys Absolute Judicial Immunity. And that will be the end of it. Unless he wants to appeal. Then the appellate courts will simply rubber stamp the first judge's ruling--count on it these days. Even 30-40 years ago, judges were successfully sued (not for monetary damages, but for declatory and/or injunctive relief). But not currently. Oh, if she jumped off the bench and started beating him with statute book she may be successfully sued--but even then probably not (much less be arrested and prosecuted for assault).

Casey

"Constituional flag" C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N-A-L Nope, didn't spell it right--missed the third "T". I'll set that aside for the moment...

But, I am not focused on prosecutors--I am focused on judges. Because our legal system really begins and ends with--and vitally depends on--the judges. Often what happens in these threads is one phrase catches somebody's eye and before we know it--were off on a new tangent.

Prosecutors are only one part of the equation. Prosecutors, defense lawyers (sorry), civil trial lawyers and judges are all lawyers. But it's only the judges we need to focus on. Make the judges accountible, and the judges will take care of the rest.

I realize that I kind'a hijacked this thread, but notice how 1) Attention is diverted from Amendment E? and 2) nobody has actually refuted the text of Amendent E?

This is exactly what the opponents of judicial accountablity have been doing in South Dakota.

I'm still waiting for Nighthawk and the South Dakota AG to demonstrate where the language in Amendment E makes every other public official subject to the Special Grand Jury--I''ll probably be waiting for.....ever.

And no, it's not necessarily what you think it is, but yes, I have been through the legal mill in recent years. And yes, I am about to stick my head in the lion's mouth again--this time in federal court. I gave up on lawyers a long time ago--with all due respect, they don't know how to spell constitutional rights--really. Just to give you some idea where I'm headed Issac, go here:
http://www.pacegroup.org/pace_044.htm

Casey

"Constituional flag" C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N-A-L Nope, didn't spell it right--missed the third "T". I'll set that aside for the moment...
========================================
Sorry you missed the joke Dude!! This is obviously emotional for you and I thought I'd throw in a line to get you smiling a bit. You were focused on prosecutors and your comments were innaccurate and misplaced. But, I do wish you well in your endeavors.

Actually, I emailed your "intentional" misspelling (sorry, I ain't buying it--you're a lawyer) to a buddy (who is taking on the legal system too--thanks to an incompetent attorney)and I have to admit, he immediately called and was laughing so hard he couldn't talk. Only then he got me laughing...

I can tell you right now, our postings and "intentional" misspelling is making the rounds through numerous forums entirely unrelated to hunting and shooting--but entirely related to "constituional" (sic) rights...

OK, for the "Lawers" among us..in watching the tape, (and I think with all the cameras in there, perhaps she thought she'll be the next "Judge Judy") while recusing herself she began to ask the defendant a lot of questions..if she wasn't going to preside, she should not have been asking anything pertaining to his case, is that correct? Since it was recorded, it could be brought up in his trial, right?

I am so embarrassed(yeah) but not surprised that my throwing in ( "I hope I spelled it right") didn't provide you some hint. But, as I said, I'm not really surprised you can't grasp it at all. So there is no misunderstanding, I couldn't care less as to what your buying or not buying. You and your buddies can take on the legal system without benefit of counsel to your heart's content. But, from what I've gathered from your blatherings, you couldn't beat your own speeding ticket in a courtroom. Go get 'em tough guy!!

Since she indicated she was recusing herself, she should not have asked anything substantive relating to the case. Identifying information would be acceptable as well as other innocuous type inquiries, but substantive factual questions should not have occurred. If this was a court of record and there was a court reporter who transcribed the dialog between the two, counsel for the defendant should move to render the transcript inadmissible at a later hearing. That motion may or not be granted. Hope this helps you somewhat Ald!!

[quote]OK, for the "Lawers" among us..in watching the tape, (and I think with all the cameras in there, perhaps she thought she'll be the next "Judge Judy") while recusing herself she began to ask the defendant a lot of questions..if she wasn't going to preside, she should not have been asking anything pertaining to his case, is that correct?[quote]

You're exactly right. She was entirely out of line--and it was an entirely inappropriate line of questioning given the fact she was about to recuse herself. What I really noticed is how the lawyer standing next to the defendant (I assume it was his lawyer) didn't say JACK to the judge. They rarely do. One example of (arguably) misconduct on the part of the judge, and at the same time, of a lawyer who won't say JACK to a judge. The poor guy doesn't have a chance. What's worse, after the defendant and his lawyer get out the door, the lawyer will probably laugh about it, tell the defendant to not worry about it because he sees this all the time, no skin off his nose--they call it "professional detachment".

[quote]Since it was recorded, it could be brought up in his trial, right? [quote]

If you're talking about the original defendant--not a chance. A new judge is ostensibly not biased (at least against hunting). A lawsuit against the original judge is a non-starter. In the legal systems mind, she did nothing illegal--just exhibited a "poor attitude" Absolute Judicial Immunity. Of course, the state retention committees will probably recommend some "sensitivity training" (I'm not kidding--they do it all the time), but recommend she be retained.

If you're talking about the second guy with the "explosive" sigh--unlikely. Very unlikely. Absolute Judicial Immunity will prevail. (The judge's exaggerated description of the sigh was entirely for the record so she could nail him for contempt--I will argue she had made up her mind to jail him before he was halfway out the door. Judges often ask a question for just that effect--or if you don't answer EXACTLY what they want to hear, a judge will cut you off. If the guy didn't want to go to jail, he is expected to mumble and repent (and tug on his forelock).

Keep in mind, in the span of about 30 seconds, the judge probably violated rights and commited a crime involving two citizens, and nothing will happen. Except possibly be voted out. But she will keep her pension/state retirement benefits.

Casey

How about everyone sending her pictures of their deer they got this year or last year, just for fun!

What is her mailing address?

Well, I'm not a lawyer and I really don't feel qualified to comment on what "judicial remedies" may be appropriate in this particular instance.

That being said however, as a man, I believe the "remedy" for that bitch, or any other woman who speaks to a man in that manner, should be a good HARD KICK IN THE AZZ!!!