WELCOME TO THE WDSU NEWS HOT SEAT.
TONIGHT, IT IS THE DISTRICT ONE SUPREME COURT RACE.
THIS DISTRICT INCLUDES MOST OF JEFFERSON PARISH, WASHINGTON, AND PARTS OF ORLEANS AND ST.
HELENA PARISH.
IT IS A SPECIAL ELECTION AS THE FORMER JUSTICE GREG GUIDRY THEY KIDDED THE SEAT AFTER BEING APPOINTED TO THE FEDERAL BENCH BY PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP.
THIS TERM IS FOR 10 YEARS.
FOUR CANDIDATES HAVE QUALIFIED FOR RUNNING.
THEY ARE ALL HERE TONIGHT.
TH A WILLI CRAIN, HANS LIJEBERG RICHARD DUCOTE, AND SCOTT SCHLEGEL.
JUDGE CRAIN, YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS.
MR. CRAIN: I AM A LIFELONG RESIDENT OF THE NORTH SHORE, WHERE MY WIFE AND I HAVE RAISED OR FOR CHILDREN.
I PRACTICE LAW FOR 22 YEARS BEFORE BECOMING A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
FOR THE LAST SEVEN YEARS, I HAVE SERVED AS A COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE, WHERE I HAVE OFFERED OVER 300 OPINIONS, WHICH CONFIRM MY CORE BELIEF THAT JUDGES SHOULD INTERPRET THE LAW, NOT
LEGISLATE.
I HAVE SERVED WITH DISTINCTION AT EVERY LEVEL OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH AND THE JUDICIARY, AND WILL DO SO AS YOUR NEXT SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.
THANK YOU.
TRAVERS: MR. DUCOTE.
MR. DUCOTE: I HAVE PRACTIC MY PRACTICE HAS BEEN DEVOTED TO THE PROTECTION OF ABUSED WOMEN AND KIDS NATIONWIDE.
I HAVE GOTTEN ALL SORTS OF HONORS AND AWARDS FOR MY WORK.
I HAVE NOT BEEN ABOUT MAKING PEOPLE RICH.
I HAVE BEEN ABOUT MAKING VULNERABLE PEOPLE SAFE.
I DO NOT TAKE A SINGLE PENNY OF COMPING -- CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.
I AM ALSO THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO IS PUSHING FOR, AND I ACTUALLY FILED SUIT TO ENFORCE THI THE OPENING OF ALL JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT RECORDS.
TRAVERS: JUDGE LIJEBERG, YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS.
MR. LIJEBERG: MY NAME IS HANS LIJEBERG.
I CHECK ALL BOXES.
I’VE BEEN A CIVIL ATTORNEY, PROSECUTOR, DISTRICT JUDGE, AND AN APPEALS COURT JUDGE.
MY VALUES ARE GOD, FAMILY, COUNTRY, AND THE RULE OF LAW.
I SERVED FOR 10 YEARS INTO THE DISTRICT COURT AND Y UP PROMOTED ME TO THE APPEALS COURT.
I HAVE 17 YEARS OF JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE.
TRAVERS: JUDGE SCHLEGEL, YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS.
MR. SCHLEGEL GOOD EVENING, I AM RUNNING FOR THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT BECAUSE I HAVE A PLAN TO IMPROVE OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.
AS A FORME PROSECUTOR WITH ALMOST 20 LIFE SENTENCES, I UNDERSTAND WHAT RECIDIVISM MEANS AND THE UGLY CYCLE OF RECIDIVISM.
AS A FORMER VICTIM OF A VIOLENT CRIME, I UNDERSTAND THE TRUE COST THAT CRIME HAS ON A FAMILY.
AS A FORMER CIVIL █ATTORNEY, I UNDERSTAND THE COST OF LITIGATION IS FAR TOO HIGH.
WE HAVE TO REIMAGINE OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE AND DO A BETTER JOB SO WE CAN MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT AND EXCESSIVE BULL TO EVERYBODY.
TRAVERS: THIS FIRST QUESTION IS FOR YOU, 30 SECONDS TO ANSWER.
SHOULD YOU HAVE TO BE AN APPELLATE COURT JUDGE BEFORE BECOMING A JUDGE ON THE SUPREME COURT?
MR. SCHLEGEL: THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION.
THE ANSWER IS NO.
AS A FORMER CIVIL ATTORNEY, A FORMER PROSECUTOR WHO HAS LIVED AND BREATHED IN THE COURTROOM AND TRIED NUMEROUS CASES, AND AS A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ACTS IN REAL TIME MAKING THOSE
DECISIONS, I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU HAVE TO BE AN APPELLATE COURT JUDGE BEFORE YOU BECOME IN SUPREME COURT JUDGES.
IT IS LIKE ASKING A REFEREE ON THE FOOTBALL FIELD WHETHER THEY CAN STILL DO THE JOB GOING INTO THE INSTANT REPLAY BOOTH AND A SLOW DOWN AND HIT REPLY.
OF COURSE THE INDIVIDUAL CAN DO THE JOB.
TRAVERS: THANK YOU.
JUDGE LIJEBERG, SAME QUESTION.
DO YOU HAVE TO BE AN APPELLATE COURT JUDGE BEFORE BEING PROMOTED THE SUPREME COURT?
MR. LIJEBERG: I HAVE BEEN ON THE APPEALS COURT FOR SEVEN YEARS.
I REVIEW CASES, I REVIEW LOWER COURT DECISIONS, AND I CAN TELL YOU IT IS A HUGE ASSET TO HAVE SERVANTS IN THE DISTRICT COURT, BECAUSE I CAN READ THE NUANCES.
I THINK THE SAME THING APPLIES TO THE SUPREME COURT.
IN ORDER TO BE EFFECTIVE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE EXPERIENCE AT EVERY LEVEL IN THE JUDICIARY.
TRAVERS: MR. DUCOT, SAME THING.
SHOULD YOU BE AN APPEALS COURT JUDGE FOR BEING ELECTETO THE SUPREME COURT?
MR. DUCOTE: YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE.
THE LONGEST JUSTICES IN LOUISIANA HISTORY WERE NEVER JUDGES OF ANY KIND BEFORE THEY WERE ELECTED TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT.
ADDITIONALLY, I WON A CASE IN THE SUPREME COURT.
THE JUDGE WHO WROTE THE OPINION HAD NEVER BEEN A JUDGE OF ANY SORT BEFORE HE WAS APPOINTED TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
AND RAIN QUEST, WHO WAS ON THE PANEL, HAD NEVER BEEN A JUDGE OF Y KIND BEFORE HE WAS APPOINTED TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
TRAVERS: THANK YOU.
JUDGE CRAIN, SAME QUESTION.
MR. CRN: I BELIEVE THE POSITION ON THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD BE THE PROGRESSION OVER THE COURSE OF A CAREER.
I HAVE SAT AT EVERY LEVEL, AT THE DISTRICT COURT LEVEL WHERE YOU EXERCISE THE TYPE OF DISCRETION YOU DO INTO THOSE DECISIS.
UNTIL YOU HAVE SAT AS AN APPELLATE COURT JUDGE AND FACED DETERMINING WHETHER THAT TRIAL JUDGE HAS ABUSED HIS DISCRETION OR NOT, IF YOU HAD NOT SAT IN THAT POSITION, YOU OBVIOUSLY DO
NOT HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE.
HAVING SERVED AT EVERY LEVEL, I BELIEVE IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE BREADTH OF EXPERIENCE TO SERVE AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF THE COURT SYSTEM IN OUR STATE.
TRAVERS: WE WILL START THIS QUESTION WITH YOU.
YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE TO ANSWER.
SHOULD JUDICIARY COMPLAINTS BE SECRETIVE, OR SHOULD THE PUBLIC KNOW ABOUT THE COMPLAINTS WHEN THEY ARE MADE AND AGAINST WHOM?
YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE.
MR. CRAIN: I BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE NO PRIVATE REPRIMAND OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL.
THAT MEANS THAT ONCE A COMPLAINT RISES TO THE LEVEL OF DISCIPLINE, IT SHOULD BE WIDE OPEN.
I BELIEVE AT THE SAME TIME THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME THRESHOLD THAT A COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE TO MAKE BEFORE IT BECOMES PUBLIC, SIMPLY BECAU, AS A JUDGE, WE DISAPPOINT SOMEONE EVERY DAY.
SOMEONE WINS, SOMEONE LOSES.
IF YOU ARE SUBJECT TO AN OPEN COMPLAINT EVERY TIME THERE IS A WIN OR A LOSS, IT CAN AFFECT YOUR INDEPENDENCE AS A JUDGE.
HERE SHOULD BE SOME STAN SHOULD MEET.
AND WE HAVE SMART ENOUGH PEOPLE TO ESTABLISH WHAT THAT STANDARD IS.
ONCE THE DISCIPLINE CHARGE IS MADE, AT THAT POINT THE RECORD SHOULD BE COMPLETELY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
TRAVS: THANK YOU.
MR. DUCOTE, SAME QUESTION.
MR. DUCO: ALL THESE RECORDS NEED TO BE PUBLIC.
WE HAVE HAD A BIG SCANDAL IN THE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE OF THESE SHENANIGANS.
AGAIN, I AM THE ONE WHO HAS CALLED OUT THIS TO BE A PRIMARY I AM THE ONE WHO FILED SUITS TO DECLARE THE STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
WHERE HAVE MY FRIENDS BEEN THROUGH THR CAREERS WHEN THESE COVERUPS WITH JUDGES HAVE OCCURRED?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
IT NEEDS TO BE PUBLIC.
TRAVERS: JUDGE LIJEBERG, SAME QUESTION.
MR. LIJEBERG: PUBLIC OFFICIALS’ REPRIMANDS SHOULD BE PUBLIC.
FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE CONFIDENCE, IT NEEDS TO BE PUBLIC.
TRAVERS: JUDGE SCHLEGEL, SAME QUESTION.
MR. SCHLEGEL: I WOULD AGREE.
ONCE THE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN VERIFIED, IT SHOULD BECOME PUBLIC.
IF WE DO NOT HAVE FAITH AND CONFIDENCE IN OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE, WE WILL HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS.
TRAVS: AS THE HIGHEST COURT IN LOUISIANA, SHOULD YOU DISCLOSE CAMPGN CAMP -- CONTRIBUTIONS FROM LITIGANTS OR THEIR LAWYERS THAT HAVE CASES IN FRONT OF YOU?
MR. SCHLEGEL: OUR JUDICIAL CANNONS DO NOT ALLOW JUDGES TO TAKE MONEY OR ASK FOR MONEY.
ALL OF THOSE CAMPAIGN FINANCES ARE DONE BY A COMMITTEE THAT HAS CREATED ALL THOSE RECORDS.
THEY ARE PUBLIC AND DISCLOSED.
MR. LIJEBE: I THINK THAT THE JUDICIAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION THING IS A RED HERRING.
I HAVE SERVED FOR 17 YEARS AND I HAVE NOT BEEN BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY BIG BUSINESS OR ANYONE ELSE.
I DO THE RIGHT THING.
EVERY ONE WHO HAS PRACTICED IN FRONT OF ME KNOWS THEY HAVE COTTON A FAIR SHAKE.
WE -- KNOWS THEY HAVE GOTTEN A FAIR SHAKE.
WE DON’T KNOW WRE THE CONJUGATIONS COME FROM, SO WE CANNOT DISCLOSE IT.
TRAVERS: MR. DUCOTE, SAME QUESTION.
MR. CRAIN: IT -- MR. DUCOTE: IT IS NOT TRUE.
THE CANDIDATES DO KNOW WHO IS CONTRIBUTING, AND THAT IS WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT.
THIS IS THE TRUTH, JUDGE SCHLEGEL’S CAMPAIGN TOOK MONEY FROM A COMPANY THAT IS INVOLVED IN APPROXIMATELY 20 MULTIMILLION DOLLAR SUITS IN LOUISIANA AND THE COURTS, OVER 100 FILINGS IN
THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL AND THE SPRING COURT.
BY A TEXAS COMPANY WANTS TO GIVE M -- WHY IT TEXAS COMPANY WANTS TO GIVE HIM MONEY, IT IS OBVIOUS.
IT ERODES CONFIDENCE.
TRAVERS: WE WILL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPD BECAUSE YOU WERE MENTIONED BY NAME.
MR. SCHLEGEL: OUR CAMPAIGN FINANCES ARE DONE BY COMMITTEES.
I DO NOT PERSONALLY RAISE ANY FUNDS.
IF ANYBODY KNOWS ME OR CARES TO KNOW ABOUT ME, THEY KNOW MY INTEGRITY AND HONESTY IS FIRST AND FOREMOST.
TO SUGGEST OTHERWISE MEANS YOU HAVE NOT EVER ACTUALLY SPENT THE TIME TO VISIT WITH ME AND GET TO KNOW ME.
TRAVERS: JUDGE CRA, GOING BACK TO THAT QUESTION.
SHOULD YOU DISCLE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM LITIGANTS OR LAWYERS?
MR. CRAIN: SIMPLE ANSWER, IT IS YES.