Just prior to the Advocacy filing a legal complaint in Thurston county over its season setting with tribal co-managers, a citizen (West) filed an action acting as his own attorney.  Since both challenges were similar and before the same judge, the Advocacy moved to consolidate the two cases so they could be heard at the same time.  WDFW then filed a motion opposing the consolidation.  Today, the Advocacy filed a response and a hearing is set for this Friday.

The process allowed one to read the “nuts and bolts” of the legal fight.  The Advocacy response is truly an interesting read.  Here’s some highlights:

WDFW’s motion to dismiss (WEST) is frivolous. It ignores that no facts need to be proven because Washington courts require only notice pleading, and it ignores the fact that a committee of the WDFW governing body admittedly conducted secret meetings at which they excluded the public and acted on behalf of the Commission.

E. The Process Used by WDFW Would be Akin the Court and the Undersigned Striking a Deal in Secret Dictating the Outcome of a Case.

In 2019, WDFW conducted meetings at a hotel in California to agree to the LOAF, which has already been codified into federal law. Frawley Decl., May 22, 2019, Ex. H. WDFW has already enacted “emergency” regulations to begin the fisheries that were agreed to. Id.,, Ex. I. As described above, the APA process and any public input is a charade, and WDFW has effectively enacted what will be the law when the LOAF was signed. Now imagine that process in a court setting.

If an analogous process were followed, the undersigned and the Court would meet at a hotel, perhaps a California hotel to ensure that the public was not present, and would enter into an agreement regarding the outcome of the case. The Court would then process the case, set deadlines, hear motions, and ultimately conduct a trial. At the end of the trial, the Court would announce its decision, entirely consistent with the Court’s agreement with the undersigned, and publicly announce that the decision was necessary to “implement the agreed-upon” result. Such a process would be preposterous and clearly illegal. It also mimics the process followed by WDFW.

The Advocacy’s full response is available for review HERE