In "'Pet prosecutor' sounds off" (TGI, letters, A4, 5-17-2008) Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho writes "I'm sure the rest of the community would take offense if I decided to unilaterally pick and chooses which laws I wanted to enforce or not." She is right. We do take offense even when the action is not unilateral, but done in concert with other council members as was done at the June 15, 2006 session of the Kauai County Council.
At that meeting Shaylene supported an investigation into what she described "as a conspiracy against the public being informed of the truth..." Shaylene said, "Having practiced criminal law almost solely for 15 years both as a public defender as well as a prosecutor, it is very disturbing because there are the kinds of cases that I exactly reviewed and took apart and to have this kind of misinformation published it's just horrific."
Shaylene and her county council co-conspirators then proceeded to take a sheet feed error and spin a conspiracy out of whole cloth claiming "someone" intended to alter a government document for purposes of deception. They called for an investigation and got one from the State Office of the Attorney General.
A former police chief and candidate for the Kauai County Council's house was raided by the State Attorney General.
Computers and electronics were seized as evidence.
An email threat was sent from a county official to a citizen for expressing the opinion it was a sheet feed error.
After a six month investigation, the State Attorney General declined to prosecute, returned the seized equipment, and dropped all charges.
After an enormous waste of time, taxpayer money, an email threat from a county official, and the tarnishing of a county council candidate's reputation during an election it turns out the altered document was indeed the result of a sheet feed error which was obvious to the non-conspiracy minded all along.
It is the job of the County Prosecutor to exercise prosecutorial discretion in picking and choosing which laws to enforce. Hopefully this discretion will be based upon the seriousness of the offense committed, and not upon a politically motivated, half-baked conspiracy theory.
At that meeting Shaylene supported an investigation into what she described "as a conspiracy against the public being informed of the truth..." Shaylene said, "Having practiced criminal law almost solely for 15 years both as a public defender as well as a prosecutor, it is very disturbing because there are the kinds of cases that I exactly reviewed and took apart and to have this kind of misinformation published it's just horrific."
Shaylene and her county council co-conspirators then proceeded to take a sheet feed error and spin a conspiracy out of whole cloth claiming "someone" intended to alter a government document for purposes of deception. They called for an investigation and got one from the State Office of the Attorney General.
A former police chief and candidate for the Kauai County Council's house was raided by the State Attorney General.
Computers and electronics were seized as evidence.
An email threat was sent from a county official to a citizen for expressing the opinion it was a sheet feed error.
After a six month investigation, the State Attorney General declined to prosecute, returned the seized equipment, and dropped all charges.
After an enormous waste of time, taxpayer money, an email threat from a county official, and the tarnishing of a county council candidate's reputation during an election it turns out the altered document was indeed the result of a sheet feed error which was obvious to the non-conspiracy minded all along.
It is the job of the County Prosecutor to exercise prosecutorial discretion in picking and choosing which laws to enforce. Hopefully this discretion will be based upon the seriousness of the offense committed, and not upon a politically motivated, half-baked conspiracy theory.
1 comment:
Shaylene's letter to the editor yesterday was patently offensive. Like Joanne's earlier diatribe about "expertise" which you wrote about in April, this one discouraged public participation by scolding a citizen who criticized her position on an issue. The tone of the letter was so condescending and vitriolic it felt like a signal to all of us who might publicly critique the actions of the council. Don't do it - you'll be met with withering sarcasm and disrespect.
Council people should be above this and willing to accept criticism with an open mind.
Post a Comment