Read Daily Astorian Article "Astoria To Look Into DUII Changes!!!GRP: Here is the text of the letter, hand delivered to District Attorney, Josh Marquis and KAST-AM Personality Tom Freel last Thursday night, to my understanding and signed as well by all members of The Astoria City Council and today I read there will be a "Special Meeting" by that same panel to approve this same letter four or five days later and after it has become more than public? Is something seriously amiss here? I would like to see another letter explaining the legality of this action. Is our city government beginning to backslide at this 200th year anniversary?Are we back to City Manager Benoit, at the urging of "The Mayor" to keep rewriting findings of fact till he gets the fact he needs to satisfy the particular agenda as has been alluded to in the past?
What specifically has CofA done to impact the admininstration and records keeping of the court to truly make it a Court of Record as Mayor Van Dusen implies and new Commissioner Mellin, who was so adament in her campaign position on Municipal Court's DUII's needing to be sent to Circuit Court and now seems to have abandoned that position?
Update - 02/08/2011 - Read Daily Astorian Report On Oregon Rep., Debbie Boone's Legislation Regarding Municipal Court DUII Jurisdiction And Prosecution Authority Change Into The Hands Of County District Attorneys.
January 27, 2011
To the Citizens of Astoria:
The Astoria City Council has decided to continue to handle DUII cases from the City of Astoria in the Astoria Municipal Court. We would like to explain this decision to the citizens of Astoria and correct recent inaccurate public statements.
Astoria Municipal Court was created over 50 years ago pursuant to Oregon statutes. Several attorneys have served as part-time Astoria Municipal Court Judge over the years. They include Jerry McCallister, Judge Phillip Nelson, Judge Paula Brownhill, and Justice of the Peace Neal Lemery. Kris Kaino currently fills the position. He is an Astoria attorney in good standing with the Oregon State Bar. Local attorney Mary Ann Murk prosecutes the DUII cases in Municipal Court. She is a skilled attorney in good standing with the Bar.
In March of 2010, District Attorney Josh Marquis contacted the City Council and said he had a proposal that would save the City of Astoria thousands of dollars. He said the City only had to transfer prosecution of Astoria’s misdemeanor DUII cases to Clatsop County Circuit Court. The City Council took this offer seriously and asked City Manager Paul Benoit to investigate the District Attorney’s claim. Mr. Benoit reported back to the City Council that this move would not save money; it would actually cost the City revenue and additional overtime to the Astoria Police Department. The Council made no changes to Municipal Court and we notified Mr. Marquis of our decision.
In August of 2010, Mr. Marquis again asked the City Council to transfer all misdemeanor DUII cases to Circuit Court. His reason this time was different. He said that there were many cases that were mishandled and justice would be better served in Circuit Court. Again we took his statements seriously. We asked him to prepare a report of the mishandled cases. He agreed to do so and in August of 2010 he submitted a report that listed 14 cases. On October 4, 2010, the City Council held a public meeting to discuss the cases. Mr. Marquis appeared in person and presented his report.
The report, which Mr. Marquis said took over 100 hours to prepare, listed 14 cases over the last eight years. Mr. Marquis acknowledged that many of the cases were handled properly. As he went through the report, we discovered that it contained many significant errors. One case that Mr. Marquis said was mishandled in Astoria Municipal Court was actually a case where the defendant was arrested in Seaside. That case was handled in Circuit Court. Also in the report, he described one defendant with two DUII cases and asserted that both cases were dismissed improperly. We learned from Judge Kaino that the defendant was never charged with DUII; this defendant had one theft charge that was handled properly.
The Astoria City Council and City staff have spent a great deal of time investigating Mr. Marquis’s allegations. We acknowledge, after discounting the incorrect information in the report, that two misdemeanor DUII cases in the last eight years were not handled appropriately. The City Council has implemented changes that will help prevent such problems in the future. We implemented a new computer system that provides for electronic citations to be sent directly by the officer to the Municipal Court, and a record-keeping system that makes it easy to find and track files. We record all DUII hearings and trials so anyone may hear what happens in court. We have an aggressive prosecutor who pursues fair and lawful resolutions of these cases.
We gave Mr. Marquis our full attention. We admit that his concerns have been one of the reasons for the recent changes in Municipal Court; however, he failed to demonstrate a good reason to transfer Astoria DUII cases to Circuit Court. He has threatened to sue the City and have a judge decide whether he can take these cases, even though it would cost the City substantial attorney fees and lost revenues. We are comfortable that our decision is in the best interest of the citizens of our City. We are committed to an annual review of Astoria Municipal Court. Please contact any one of us if you have questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
THE CITY OF ASTORIA
____________________________
Willis L. Van Dusen
Mayor
_________________________________________________________
Arline LaMear Ward 1 Councilor
_________________________________________________________
Peter Roscoe Ward 2 Councilor
_________________________________________________________
Karen Mellin Ward 3 Councilor
_________________________________________________________
Russ Warr Ward 4 Councilor
34 comments:
Is circulating a letter among the Council members by email and reaching agreement by email considered a public meeting? It seems similar to getting a quorum together in person to make City decisions, which is prohibited unless there is a public meeting notice. Maybe that's why they need a special meeting so the letter can be approved in public, even though this is after the fact.
As Sheriff Bergin said back in October, "This gut {the DA[ is willing to dig you a ditch for free and you say no...why?"
The real question is why on earth is the City Council fighting so hard, spending so much time and money to fight to KEEP DUII cases in Muni Court?
The City Council should take the next step and file charges against Marquis with the Oregon Bar. Marquis promoted facts that were not accurate and in doing so violated provisions of the Code of Professional Conduct. In fact, the Astoria City Attorney may be ethically obligated to file such charges. That Marquis is really more a politician than a lawyer is no excuse. He is still regulated by the Bar. Besides, he does not need a lawyer's license to be DA, he only needs one to be elected DA.
The DA has to be a member of the Bar but the Muni Judge does not. A Court of Record requires both a real lawyer and actual record-keeping. The city fought that.
Judge Kaino has experience with the Oregon Judicial Fitness Commission:
State ex rel Kaino v. Commission on Judicial Fitness
Docket No. S49792
LTE printed today 2-1-11
Sorenson, Handy broke trust
Why should the taxpayers foot the bill for the illegal antics of Lane County’s disgraced commissioners, Rob Handy and Peter Sorensen? They were found guilty of “willfully” violating the public meetings law, then displayed arrogance and defiance toward Judge Michael Gillespie’s decision.
Sorensen and Handy knew the rules regarding public meetings laws when they were warned by County Counsel Liane Richardson, but continued to violate the laws and got caught. Handy and Sorensen at the very least are a huge embarrassment to Lane County and have been proven to be very untrustworthy, almost to a criminal degree.
It’s hard to imagine how the Lane County Board of Commissioners can function with these two on board. They recently tried to obstruct the routine appointment of Undersheriff Tom Turner as interim sheriff, not once but twice. In late October, Handy, Sorensen and Bill Fleenor tried to ram through land use proposals stripping McKenzie River property owners of the use of 200 feet of their land without prior public input.
Robert Emmons (letters, Jan. 29) suggests “common decency” dictates the board should join in the effort to appeal the judge’s decision. I disagree. An appeal will not make this an effectively working board. It may even distract and divide it even further.
I suggest “common decency” dictates that Sorensen and Handy need to realize they have broken the trust of the people and for the good of Lane County take responsibility for their actions, cowboy up and resign.
Anne Pratt
Springfield
What does Sheriff Bergen have to do with this? Putting DUIIs into the state system will reduce the amount he charges the cities to jail people charged with city ordinance offenses. Bergin knows nothing about politics and should stay out of Astoria's business, unless he wants to file charges against someone in the Astoria government.
Please, learn the proper use of commas. Your punctuations skills are at the 3rd grade level at best.
"Anonymous said...
Please, learn the proper use of commas. Your punctuations skills are at the 3rd grade level at best."
A 10:30 PM post and you're whining about punctuation?
What's your position on Municipal Court versus Circuit Court prosecution of DUII's in Astoria?
Are we supposed to believe an elected official who was appointed to fill a vacancy created by a corrupt DA and, since then, has never "run" for election, since to run you have to be a lawyer and no lawyer wants the job, or people who have run for election and won over an opposing view. I believe the regular citizens who need no special schooling to run for election and who ran and defeated an opposing view.
Now I am really curious. The Astoria Municipal Court gets a yearly review by the City Council. Does anyone review the District Attorney's Office or the State Circuit Court. I think the answer is no, the DA and state Judges do anything they want without any oversight. It this is true, is it not more likely that cases will be better tried in municipal court than in state court?
A yearly "review"
This is a joke, right?
Every year the City has given 5 gold stars to Kaino and Van Thiel.
The DA and the Circuit Judges get ELECTED.....unlike the Muni court officials.
They also have to answer to agencies like the Judicial Fitness Commission, which Kaino got a pass from because he's not a "real judge."
Ask the cops where cases get tried better.
Oh, wait...they don't actually ever try DUIIs in Muni Court...they get dismissed
But, there is a review of the Municipal Court and it is open to the public and on the record and done by elected officials. There is not a review of the DA. The DA has never run against anyone. Why? Even the best elected official usually faces opposition, but Josh seems to excape. But, then, what lawyer would want the job? He doesn't make that much and he is constantly fighting with someone. By the way, the Judicial Fitness Commission is a joke. Whom has it ever decided against? Just like the Oregon Bar, the Fitness group only sacrificed those lawyers who have pissed off other lawyers and even then only when the Bar figures it needs to whack someone to show how "ethical"it is. It took the Bar 6 months to disbar former DA Leonhart, after she got out of jail on her felony conviction.
Please post the Municipal Court review.
The DA's performance measures are in the county budget and can be accessed at the county's website and the ultimate review...the 2010 election can also be viewed at the County election's website.
Show me where there is any review of the Muni Court or the various defense attorneys who "work" there?
Anon, I called the City of Astoria and you can get the review by mail. just give them a call. Please help me with the DA performance measures. I cannot find them on the county website at all, including in the latest budget. Can you help me find them?
Also, I got the election results, but with no opposition the only factor is the undervote, which seems pretty high.
As far as a review of all the lawyers that practice before the muni court, as Josh says, the only source is the Oregon Bar, for what it's worth.
If the district attorney already has the power to force DUII cases to move from a municipal court to a Circuit Court, what is the issue? Josh can remove the power of the City Council as he wishes. Or, is this "legal" opinion not as firm as stated?
"Anonymous said...
If the district attorney already has the power to force DUII cases to move from a municipal court to a Circuit Court, what is the issue? Josh can remove the power of the City Council as he wishes. Or, is this "legal" opinion not as firm as stated?
6:39 PM"
ORS 8.660...Let that intellect of yours, "Anonym", interpret it for us. Read it and by the way, it is and has been in-place way before this Astoria Municpal Court issue came into view, to my knowledge.
Patrick,
It is illegal for a person who is not licensed to practice law to give a legal opinion. In any case, the question remains: if Josh already has the power to seize DUII cases from municipal courts, why does he just not do that?
"Anonymous said...
Patrick,
It is illegal for a person who is not licensed to practice law to give a legal opinion. In any case, the question remains: if Josh already has the power to seize DUII cases from municipal courts, why does he just not do that?"
Over on the left of this site you will see a link to: Clatsop D.A. Josh Marquis. Click on it, go there and ask him.
The current law says a DA has jurisdiction for prosecutions in any court as long as the city attorney is not prosecuting for a violation of ORS 153 (traffic violations). The proposed law give the da jurisdiction for any misdeameanor in any court. Clearly, the changes proposed by Boone do not clarily the law, they change the law.
Interestingly, there is also a law that says misdemeanors will be prosecuted as violations, unless the prosecutor ojects. Currently, the city attorney can object and the case is prosecuted as a misdeameanor. However, if the proposed law is passed, it does not specify which attorney does the objecting. So, if the city attorney does not object, but the district attorney does, is the case still a misdeameanor or does it change to a violation? This thing has grown wings of its own.
Hence the term....A "Housekeeping" Bill in HB 3025, to clean-up the wording to make very clear the exact authority of a County D.A., from what I read.
Umm, one would have to wonder that if things were going so badly in the municipal court that the elected district attorney believed intolerable, he did not step in under the authority of existing law and the concept of justice. That would not only resolve the instant problem but also set precident for additional interdictions. That such did not happen makes one wonder if, indeed, the problem actually exists. While the district attorney is not subject to any oversight agency, and he is generally never opposed for election, he is still subject to the Professional Code of the Oregon Bar. Thus, is DA Marquis able to justify taking over municipal court cases without violating the Bar regulations or is this just a mental health issue for him?
A BILL FOR AN AC Relating to district attorneys; amending ORS 8.660.
Here's the wording for the Bill HB 3025 with further explanation of provision 6 of ORS 153.076
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: SECTION 1. ORS 8.660 is amended to read: 8.660. (1) The district attorney shall attend the terms of all courts having jurisdiction of public offenses within the district attorney's county, and, except as otherwise provided in this section, conduct, on behalf of the state, all prosecutions for such offenses therein. { + Notwithstanding any provision of ORS chapter 221, a district attorney may take control of the investigation and prosecution of any misdemeanor committed in the county served by the district attorney. + } (2) A district attorney shall not conduct prosecutions under this section when: (a) A city attorney is prosecuting a violation under ORS chapter 153; or (b) The district attorney is prohibited from appearing in a violation proceeding under the provisions of ORS 153.076 (Conduct of trial
(6) A district attorney or city attorney may aid in preparing evidence and obtaining witnesses but, except upon good cause shown to the court, shall not appear in violation proceedings unless counsel for the defendant appears. The court shall ensure that the district attorney or city attorney is given timely notice if defense counsel is to appear at trial. [1999 c.1051 §21])
you make the point, Patrick. The proposed law is not housekeeping because at present the DA cannot take over municipal court cases if the city prosecutor is prosecuting under ORS 153. Since DUII also involves other traffic crimes, if the city prosecutor decides to prosecute a charge that was initially a DUII under something different, like reckless driving, the DA cannot demand the case. The proposed law is, therefore, a new law. I wonder why Josh is just calling this "housekeeping"? Another point is that Josh has tried to take over municipal court cases and the Circuit Court judges have ordered him to return them to the municipal court. Again, having had this experience, why is Josh calling the Boone law a housekeeping change?
"Anonymous said...
you make the point, Patrick. The proposed law is not housekeeping because at present the DA cannot take over municipal court cases if the city prosecutor is prosecuting under ORS 153. Since DUII also involves other traffic crimes, if the city prosecutor decides to prosecute a charge that was initially a DUII under something different, like reckless driving, the DA cannot demand the case. The proposed law is, therefore, a new law. I wonder why Josh is just calling this "housekeeping"? Another point is that Josh has tried to take over municipal court cases and the Circuit Court judges have ordered him to return them to the municipal court. Again, having had this experience, why is Josh calling the Boone law a housekeeping change?
2:22 PM"
Come on "Anonym"!!
Your usual pattern is to click off this site and go right to "The District Attorney's" site yourself so, while there why don't you just ask him the question yourself and cut the pretense?
Because he will not answer the question. Also, glad to know you track the people who attend your site. You make it obvious that you want people who use this site to give their true names and that you track email addresses. The founding fathers did not use the press that way. And, what if the folks who organized the Egyptian sites had the same requirement? Do you think the organization of groups than changed the government there would have been successful using your concept of internet responsibiltiy?
Indeed, Patrick. Do you actually track the people who attend your site? Please let us know if anonomyous reporting is dead on your site. That seems only fair
"Anonymous said...
Because he will not answer the question. Also, glad to know you track the people... The founding fathers did not use the press that way. And, what if the folks who organized the Egyptian sites had the same requirement? Do you think the organization of groups than changed the government there would have been successful using your concept of internet responsibiltiy?
7:23 PM
Anonymous said...
Indeed, Patrick. Do you actually track the people who attend your site? Please let us know if anonomyous reporting is dead on your site. That seems only fair
7:30 PM"
You notice your posts are still here don't you, regardless of my view on "Anonymity"?
And why are they still here, even if they have nothing to do with the conversation?
Now, to your points.
The Founding Fathers use of "The Press"? I really don't know how they would have used "The Internet" back then if it were available and I find it interesting that you now consider this Blog a member of "The Press" but still, it doesn't have a darned thing to do with ammending ORS 8.660.
The Egyptian protests and change in power? The ammendment of ORS 8.660 don't have a darned thing to do with the current situation in Egypt but, I do know that, kind of effort has no boundaries so long as the goal is achieved.
Anonymous Reporting?Is there really such a thing? Isn't that called "Rumor" or "Hearsay" or is that what Tom Freel calls "A Usually Reliable Source"? And does this have a darned thing to do with ammending ORS 8.660?
Really?
Does your computer actually track "Anonymous" emails?
Are there comptuers that can do that?
"Josh Marquis is on of the best DA's in Oregon"
Lars Larson
Am I missing something?
Ah ha, yes, political fanageling seems at hand. But, by whom? Undoubtedly, the media organ of Patrick McGee (recognized as such by the County of Clatsop) will keep us informed with the truth.
WTF?!?!?! McGee isn't a media organ. How can anyone think differently? He's got an internet connection, nothing more nothing less. This phoney blog isn't a media organ-it's just a page that reposts other websourced material. McGee isnt a journalist even by the longest stretch of anyone's imagination.
Journalist?
No but, you described what I do perfectly...."It's just a page that reposts other websourced material."
Thank you.
Patrick, if you are not a journalist, but simply a person who reprints things others write, how can you be admitted to the executive sessions of the county commission? Indeed, why would you need to have this privlege since you only reprint what others take the time to compose. Something smells rotten here.
"Anonymous said...
Patrick, if you are not a journalist, but simply a person who reprints things others write, how can you be admitted to the executive sessions of the county commission? Indeed, why would you need to have this privlege since you only reprint what others take the time to compose. Something smells rotten here."
Maybe it's just your upper lip that smells "Anonym", double check.
You had till 5:00 PM yesterday, the 23rd, to voice your concerns about my site's qualifications as a Media Organ with Exec. Session Privilege and get it own the "Public Record". Why didn't you do that?
I simply followed process, met the criteria and was approved and why would I want to be? Because I am a "News Blog", a Media Resource that shares and reports news I deem of interest to our community and I have that privilege as of yesterday with CCBofC and that entitles me to attend Executive Sessions.
Pay close attention to my site "anonym" and to the best of my knowledge, every article on the site is always linked to its appropriate author/contributor and publication as it always should be.
this is gonna be entertaining....
Post a Comment