Small Town News

Reason petition filed disputed in opening arguments

---

Hunt petition hearing...

It will be several weeks before a decision is rendered in the petition filed to remove Big Horn County Attorney Georgia Antley Hunt from office.

A seven-hour hearing was held last Wednesday before the Big Horn County commissioners and hearing officer Tom Ju-bin. The hearing included the submission on more than 40 exhibits, all written documents, and testimony from four witnesses. The hearing concluded shortly after 5 p.m. with Jubin telling the parties that written closing arguments are due by Sept. 23. The commissioners will have time to review all the testimony and exhibits before making a decision. No timeline has been set for commissioners' deliberation or decision.

The petition, filed by Letitia Abromats of Greybull on Aug. 2, alleges five reasons for removal -- mishandling of criminal records data; vindictive and selective prosecution of petitioner; closing office; conflict of interest with defense attorney Bill Simpson; and exposing County Clerk Dori Noyes to a federal contempt citation.

The hearing opened with Jubin announcing that motions had been filed requesting the removal of the two of the commissioners -- Keith Grant and Thomas "Scotty" Hinman.

Both commissioners declined to recuse themselves, stating they could be fair and unbiased.

OPENING ARGUMENTS

Letitia Abromats used her opening arguments to discuss what the case is not about. "I'm not an attorney. I'm a citizen bringing forth this petition pro se. I wanted to point out first of all what we're not discussing."

She said she did not bring forth anything that she did not feel she had sufficient evidence for. She said prosecutorial discretion would not be discussed or questioned, nor would competence. She said they would not be discussing probable cause regarding the driving under the suspension charge brought by Hunt against Abromats that is at the heart of the vindictive prosecution allegation.

"Those have been dealt with extensively in the federal court and those are not pertinent to the issues I'm bringing forward today, "Abromats said.

"This is a very serious proceeding that I'm coming forward with. I didn't do this in a flip or cavalier manner, "Abromats said.

She said the statute provides recourse for citizens to deal with elected officials in between elections because elections are so far apart, but added that there are reasons she brought the petition forward close to the election.

"There are issues of public interest that need to be put on record. There's also a situation of a deterrent for other county

officials and others in positions of authority that they need not to use their position of authority in an improper manner or they're not to be reckless with their position of authority, "Abromats said.

Abromats said, "I'm depending upon you three gentlemen to do what's important for the

public policy issues, which is to make sure that our elected officials are held accountable by the public."

Hunt's attorney Larry Jones said there has been a long history between the two parties, who are currently battling it out in federal court and district court on two separate civil cases.

He said the biggest question is: why was the petition filed? "The reasons (Abromats) gave of why we are here today does not answer the question ..."

"There's been a primary election and my client has not won. She lost. There are some four months left in her term. Her term will end Jan. 1 or 2." He said even

if the commissioners use their discretion and choose to remove Hunt from office "my client will serve out her term." There is a right to an appeal and any decision is stayed during an appeal. He said, "No District Court is going to resolve an appeal in four months. So to remove my client from office can't be the reason we are here. It's illogical."

Jones addressed Abromats' opening comments about filing the petition as a deterrent to other public officials. "That is a totally improper reason for bringing any claim under the statute, "he said.

"I believe the evidence will show that the petitioner and her husband filed this particular action on Aug. 2 and argued that it had to be heard on Election Day. (During a commission meeting in presenting the petition Aug. 3, Phil Abromats argued that the hearing should be held Aug. 16 so a decision could be made for the voters to make an informed decision.)

"Can there be any other reasonable conclusion from that other than the petitioner wanted to influence the election?" Jones said.

He added that motivation for the petition is "purely personal. It is solely intended as a means of gaining an advantage in the federal court litigation."

Jubin said the Petitioner (Abromats) will have the burden of proof, which is "clear and convincing proof."



Copyright 2010 The Lovell Chronicle, Lovell, Wyoming. All Rights Reserved. This content, including derivations, may not be stored or distributed in any manner, disseminated, published, broadcast, rewritten or reproduced without express, written consent from SmallTownPapers, Inc.

© 2011 The Lovell Chronicle Lovell, Wyoming. All Rights Reserved. This content, including derivations, may not be stored or distributed in any manner, disseminated, published, broadcast, rewritten or reproduced without express, written consent from DAS.

More from The Lovell Chronicle