1 On May 11, 10:51 pm, Geri wrote:

“This data importantly excludes more than 5000 infractions that our office handles annually. Deputy DA’s do not often prosecute infraction trials but do intake virtually all those offenses; most infractions are reviewed by a Deputy and many become part of larger criminal cases.”

”...the case data in the “Board Memorandum’s” chart does not distinguish between a murder charge and a misdemeanor menacing. Obviously the former takes a magnitude more staff time than the latter.”

In the case of the fisherman and his sons who were charged with filing a false application or providing false information on their application for a commercial fishing permit. The fact that the resident law is so ambiguous (as a matter of law in Oregon as well as the Federal law resdency is where one states they live, that is all) it makes little sense that the District Attorney’s office would choose to prosecute the family on this infraction given that these fishermen only have commercial fishing license for one state, Oregon. Furthermore, the license application itself is filled out with the clerk’s input and help. It isn’t unusual for only one person to have the license (the captain) and the rest of the family to have crew licenses (which don’t have any residency requiremments). Yet, with the clerks help, this family paid the higher fee and bought a full license for each member. It isn’t as if the Oregon commercial license gives them an extra benefit over the Washington license, quite the opposite (more rivers and fisheries are included in the Washington commercial license). The jurisdiction over the river in which they are licensed to fish is shared by both Oregon and Washington state enforcement agencies. In such instances the disparity between the resident and nonresident license fees constitute discrimination against the nonresidents in violation of interstate privileges and immunities, which is a violation of federal law. The privileges and immunities clause guarantees to nonresidents of a state equal privileges with residents and thereby protects nonresidents from the disabilities of alienage (Toomer v Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 68 S. Ct. 1156 (1948). http://supreme.justia.com/us/334/385/case.html
When the fisherman recieved his ticket for allegedly filing a false application for a fishing license or providing false information on an application the District Attorney’s office immediately recieved over 25 letters from people willing to attest to the truthfulness of the applicants character and where the family had lived for the past five years, in both states. The District Attorney’s office did not follow up on any of the letters. The only discovery they used was a WDFW report showing the family had been harassed by the Washington Fish and Wildlife for over three years yet had not been successfully prosecuted in over 22 counts ranging from such obscure charges of not having corks red enough to lifting their nets out of the way of debris floating in the river. This was even though the same agents documented over 100 hours of surveillance on the family.
Over and over again one asks, “WHY?” And the answer comes to numbers. If you don’t use it, you loose it. The Washington Fish and Wildlife needs to keep its money. They can show that they have over 100 hours of surveillance that resulted in 22 tickets. They do not have to show that all of the tickets were dismissed. The District Attorney’s office can choose whether or not to show the infractions it chooses to prosecute. It can choose to show the infractions that it prosecuted and won, without showing how many man hours it took to win. Even if this family, after being harassed now on both sides of the river and being without an income for over almost a full year, does decide to take a plea bargain (which the District Attorney has successfully removed from being a part of the memorandum) the tax payer has still paid for four court appointed attorneys, at least four court appearances, at least four hundred plus pages of discovery being mailed out to various defendants and their attorneys and the man hours it took the DAs staff to do all of this. All of this is somewhere buried in the District Attorney’s accounting of what he does with the money that the county allots his office. And, this is on one known, petty, insignificant case that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans and was only mounted in the first place because of the ego of Captain Mike Cenci.
This case satisfies the numbers for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. It satisfies the numbers for the Oregon State Police’s Fish and Wildlife dept. It satisfies the numbers for the District Attorney’s office. The average citizen is not better protected. The fish are not better protected. The average tax payer loses. There isn’t the necessary money to fight real crime.
The winners? Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Oregon Fish and Wildlife. The District Attorney. Should they be rewarded for this kind of work?