[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 90 (Friday, May 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25653-25657]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-11939]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antritrust Divsion


United States v. Jeff Mulkey, et al., Civ No. 97-234 MA; Response 
of the United States to Public Comments Concerning the Proposed Consent 
Decree

    Pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Antritrust Procedures and Penalties 
Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 16(d), the United States publishes below the 
written comments received on the proposed Consent Decree in United 
States v. Jeff Mulkey, et al., Civil Action No. 97-234 (MA), United 
States District Court for Oregon, together with its response thereto.
    Copies of the written comments and the response are available for 
inspection and copying in Room 3235 of the Antitrust Division, United 
States Department of Justice, Tenth Street and Constitution Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530 (telephone 202/514/2481) and for 
inspection at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District 
Court for the District of Oregon, United States Courthouse, Madison & 
Broadway, Portland, Oregon.
Rebecca P. Dick,
Deputy Director of Operations.

In the United States District Court for the District of Oregon

    State of Oregon, ex rel.., Attorney General Hardy Myers State of 
Washington, ex rel., Attorney General Christine O. Gregorie, State 
of California, ex rel., Attorney General Daniel Lungren, United 
States of America, Plaintiffs, v. Jeff Mulkey, Jerry Hampel, Todd 
Whaley, Brad Pettinger, Joseph Speir, Thomas Timmer, Richard 
Sheldon, Dennis Sturgell, Allan Gann and Russell Smotherman, 
Defendants. Civil Action No. CV 97 234-MA United States' Response to 
Public Comments Filed: May, 1997.

 I. Background

    On February 11, 1997 the United States jointly filed with the 
states or Oregon, California and Washington a complaint to prevent and 
restrain the defendants from violating Section One of the Sherman Act 
(15 U.S.C. Sec. 1). At the same time, a Stipulation was filed in which 
the parties agreed that the Consent Decree, lodged with the Court in 
conjunction with the filing of the Stipulation, may be filed and 
entered by the Court at any time after the expiration of the sixty (60) 
day period for public comment provided by the Antitrust Procedures and 
Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 16 (b)-(h). The sixty day public comment 
period terminated on April 25, 1997.
    Under the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act notices were 
published in the Federal Register and the Portland Oregonian directing 
anyone who wished to comment on the Consent Decree to send their 
comments to the United States Department of Justice Antitrust 
Division's San Francisco Office. The Antitrust Division has received 
comments from the following:
    1. Peter G. Heckes--Oysterville, Washington.
    2. T.J. Lindbloom--Roseburg, Oregon.
    3. Lyle Hartzell--Westlake, Oregon.
    4. Dorothy Nicholson--Florence, Oregon.
    5. Rita J. Sellers--Reedsport, Oregon.
    6. Katy Ellis--Roseburg, Oregon.
    7. Debbie Coffman--Eugene, Oregon.
    8. Travis Wolf--Florence, Oregon.
    9. Bill Bradbury--Bandon, Oregon.
    10. Jim Edson--South Beach, Oregon.
    11. Nick Furman--Coos Bay, Oregon.
    The United States Department of Justice's Antitrust Division has 
carefully reviewed the comments from the above individuals and has 
prepared this response to address issues raised in those comments.

II. Response to Public Comments

    The Comments fall into two principal categories: (1) There was 
insufficient evidence to support the allegations in the Complaint; and 
(2) it was not fair for the plaintiffs to name only the defendants in 
this matter since there were hundreds of other fishermen who 
participated in the alleged tie-up and this type of conduct has long 
been commonplace in the industry. The comments criticize the actions 
and behavior of the plaintiffs in bringing this case. None of the 
comments discuss the terms or impacts of the decree and, thus, do not 
discuss whether entry of the Consent Decree is in the public interest. 
Collectively, they indicate that commercial crab fishermen have 
violated the antitrust laws for more than just the charged 1995-96 
season. In short, they support, rather than attack, a finding that 
entry of the Consent Decree is in the public interest.
    The comments reflect in part a misunderstanding of the antitrust 
laws and the limited exemptions granted fishermen from the antitrust 
laws by the Fishermen's Collective Marketing Act (``FCMA'') (15 U.S.C. 
Secs. 521-522). As pointed out in the Competitive Impact Statement 
filed in this matter, the FCMA provides protection from the antitrust 
laws only if fishermen jointly make marketing decisions as members of a 
fish marketing association formed pursuant to the terms of the FCMA. 
The FCMA does not protect fishermen who are not members of a fish 
marketing association and it does not protect fish marketing 
association members who

[[Page 25654]]

enter into marketing agreements with non-members.
    The comments also demonstrate a lack of appreciation for the 
reasons we as a nation have adopted and enforce antitrust laws. When 
sellers work collectively, they can raise their prices to artificially 
high levels. Above-market prices inevitably reduce overall production, 
restricting the nation's output of goods and services; on a more 
personal level, they can directly harm individual consumers. These 
harms are sufficiently serious that price agreements among sellers are 
usually punished criminally. Our economic strength, which ultimately 
benefits us all, results in no small measure from our consistent 
refusal to tolerate price-fixing in any sector of the economy.
    The Complaint alleges and the plaintiffs were prepared to prove at 
trial that the defendants entered into agreements to market crab and 
either were not members of a fish marketing association that had 
authority to market their crab or, if they were members of such an 
association, entered into agreements with non-members to market crab. 
In addition, they used threats, coercion and intimidation to enforce 
the agreements. Such agreements and conduct are not protected by the 
FCMA and are violations of Section One of the Sherman Act. As noted, 
the United States Department of Justice normally prosecutes conduct of 
this type criminally. The United States chose not to proceed criminally 
in this matter because some of the defendants mistakenly believed that 
their conduct was not a violation of the Sherman Act.
    The United States joined this action in order to give notice that 
the defendants' alleged conduct is not permitted under federal law. The 
United States attempted to deter such conduct in the early 1980's when 
it filed civil actions and obtained entry of Consent Decrees against 
two northwest fish marketing associations in United States v. All Coast 
Fisherman's Marketing Association, Inc., Civ. #82-233 (Oregon 1982) and 
United States v. Del Norte Fishermen's Marketing Association, Inc., 
Civ. #82-3355 (N.D. Calif. 1984). Under the terms of those Consent 
Decrees the defendant associations held meetings in Crescent City, 
California and Charleston, Oregon, attended by their members and other 
interested fishermen, at which attorneys explained the applicability of 
federal antitrust laws to the marketing of seafood by commercial 
fishermen.
    The United States hopes that by bringing this action against 
individual fishermen, it will succeed in accomplishing what those 
actions sought to accomplish--deterring illegal conduct in the future. 
The Consent Decree provides the defendants, as well as all the other 
fishermen that may have participated in illegal marketing agreements 
with them, with a guide as to what is not permissible under the Sherman 
Act. It is hoped that in the future any defendants and other fishermen 
who wish to jointly market their crab will take steps to determine how 
they can do so legally.

III. Conclusion

    The conduct alleged in the Complaint violates the Sherman Act. The 
Consent Decree was proposed and agreed to in order to deter such 
conduct in the future and ensure compliance with the law. It helps to 
ensure price competition among commercial crab fishermen. None of the 
comments have addressed the terms of the Consent Decree or demonstrated 
that its entry is not in the public interest. Thus, entry of the 
Consent Decree is in the public interest.

    Dated: May    , 1997.

    Respectfully Submitted,
Christopher S. Crook,
Richard B. Cohen,
Attorneys, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice.
March 16, 1997.
Mr. Christopher Crook, Acting Chief, U.S. Department of Justice 
Anti-Trust Division, Box 36046, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, 
CA 94102.

    Dear Mr. Cook: As one who's involvement in Oregon's crab 
industry dates back to 1975 when I first set foot on a crab boat as 
a college student working to cover tuition costs, I find both the 
official ``spin'' and accompanying media coverage of the anti-trust 
investigation and pending cases quite disturbing. If a person were 
to take all that has been written and reported on the subject at 
face value, it would lead them to believe that those targeted 
individuals are the commercial fishing industry's equivalent of 
``mafioso's'' and close relatives of the Gotti family.
    To imply that twelve individuals ``illegally conspired'', 
``coerced'', ``intimidated'' and ``threatened'', using ``strong-
armed tactics'' and ``violence'' to ``fix prices'' and hold the 
entire West Coast crab industry hostage, is grossly unfair and fails 
to take into consideration that the historical nature of the fishery 
and dynamics involved. To conclude that these twelve individuals 
alone had enough influence to keep upwards of 1000 fishermen and 
their vessels tied to the dock in fear of reprisal is simply 
ludicrous.
    In short, the ``tie-up'' at the start of the 1995/96 crab season 
(legal or otherwise from an anti-trust standpoint) was a direct 
result of excessive frozen inventories and prevailing market 
conditions, and not the conspiratorial actions of anyone, fisherman 
or otherwise. Right or wrong, the process of crabbers collectively 
establishing an ``asking price'' prior to setting their gear, with 
buyers responding accordingly, has been going on for decades and 
actually helps to bring a certain amount of stability and order to a 
situation that can by nature, be intensely chaotic. Once fishing has 
commenced, stock abundance and consumer demand ultimately determine 
whether the starting price will hold, increase, or even drop as it 
has in some years.
    Crabbers coast wide have always held these pre-season meetings 
publicly and in broad daylight, with no attempt to ``plot secretly'' 
as Webster's definition of conspiracy and the accusations associated 
with this case would suggest. On the contrary, all one has to do is 
go back and read the early December issues of any of the coastal 
newspapers during times of ``soft'' markets, to find reported 
accounts of meetings, conference calls, price impasses, and yes, 
even strikes. One can only wonder why, after all these years, is 
this process suddenly deemed worthy of the scrutiny and attention it 
has recently received, to the detriment of the entire industry.
    In conclusion, let me say that violent acts associated with any 
activity should be vigorously investigated and prosecuted 
accordingly. It's unfortunate that in this case, it is the anti-
trust laws that are being vigorously applied to a situation that 
resulted from an entire industry's lack of a clear understanding of 
those laws as they related to their collective activity.

    Sincerely,
Nick Furman,
P.O. Box 403, Coos Bay, OR 97420.

    Note: Newspaper and magazine article notices have not been 
reprinted here, however they may be inspected in Room 3229, 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC and at the Office of the Clerk 
of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.

March 21, 1997.
Jim Edson, P.O. Box 518, South Beach, OR 97366.

Christopher S. Crook, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Golden Gate 
Ave, Box 36046, San Francisco, CA 94102.

    Dear Mr. Cook: I am outraged at what is happening to the 
crabbing industry. Thanks to the Justice Departments, we crab 
fishermen will no longer be able to negotiate a fair price for crab. 
The charges that were brought against the infamous 12 fisherman were 
very unnecessary and the fact that they were threatened and 
intimidated into paying for something they did not do is criminal. 
The Oregon Dept. of Justice has handled this investigation in a very 
despicable manner and we want these charges dropped against all 
these men.
    The Attorney Generals Office recently investigated the crab 
industry on charges of price fixing and coercion. Apparently, they 
found that 12 out of over 400 crab fishermen were involved.
    Actually, all 400+ fishermen were equally guilty of all trying 
to negotiate a fair price.
    Now, the AG's Office is allowing the 12 villains to pick up the 
tab for their botched inquiry.

[[Page 25655]]

    Since the A.G. doesn't have a clue to who the bad guys are, it 
might be wise to diagnose the problem. Maybe there are no bad guys, 
just problems.
    Fortunately for all of us, 2 of the villains, Scott and Charlie 
have enough wherewithal and fortitude to challenge these bogus 
charges.
    There is something very wrong in a system that would punish 
qualities such as honesty, integrity, and hard work, All qualities I 
have personally observed in Charlie Schuttpelz and Scott Hartzell.
Jim Edson,
Commercial Fisherman, South Beach, OR, 541-867-3107.
Bill Bradbury, P.O. Box 1499, Bandon, Oregon 97411, 541-347-9377.

Mr. Christopher S. Crook, Acting Chief, U.S. Department of Justice 
Anti-trust Division, Box 36046, 450 Golden Gate Ave, San Francisco, 
CA 94102.

Re: Consent Decree regarding Commercial Crab Fleet

    Dear Mr. Crook: From 1980 until 1995, I represented the South 
Coast of Oregon in the Oregon Legislature, serving as a State 
Representative and State Senator. During my tenure I became quite 
familiar with the operations and challenges of the commercial 
fishing industry of Oregon.
    When I learned that 12 crab fishermen had been selected to bear 
responsibility for the delay in the 1995-96 crab season, I was 
outraged.
    My outrage stems from the following. First, the practice of 
delaying the season until a price is established between the 
fishermen and the processors has been going on for over 30 years. 
Second, during the delay, the processors were either not buying crab 
or they offered a price below the fishermen's cost. The facts of 
this case could easily be interpreted as a ``lock out'' by the 
processors, not a ``tie up'' by the fishermen. Third, over 95% of 
the vessels on the coast did not go fishing; to select out 12 people 
for doing what 300 other fishermen also did seems grossly unfair.
    The state may characterize the ones selected as the leaders, 
however, more prominent leaders, especially in Newport where a coast 
wide meeting was organized and held, were not named in this case. 
The only common characteristic of the fishermen selected is that 
they catch a lot of crab.
    I request that you question closely the advisability of entry of 
a consent decree that is unfairly selective of the defendants, is 
widely perceived as unfair and that ignores the liability of the 
processors in creating the situation in which the fishermen found 
themselves.

      My best,
Bill Bradbury.
March 19, 1997.
Christopher S. Crook, Acting Chief, U.S. Department of Justice 
Antitrust Div., San Francisco, Ca 94102.

    Dear Sir: In regard to the ten crab fishermen who have been 
charged by the Oregon Attorney General's Office with price fixing 
and who have agreed to pay a $9,100 fine and sign a consent decree. 
As you may know, Oregon's anti-trust laws are more stringent than 
Washington, California and the Federal Government's. There is a bill 
before the senate sponsored by Rep. Terry Thompson, Newport (HB 
2659) that would exempt Fishermen's marketing and trade 
association's from Oregon's anti-trust laws. This would put Oregon 
in line with Washington, California and the Federal Government. If 
this passes and the Oregon Attorney General has stated he will not 
oppose it, than the charges brought against the crab fishermen would 
not be illegal and all charges should be dropped.
    I am sending a copy of notes from the chairman of the Oregon 
Crab Commodity Commission about his meetings and discussions in 1994 
with the Oregon Assistant Attorney General Andrew Aubertine. It 
looks as if he was just waiting for an opportunity to bring charges 
against the top producers in the industry. Most if not all of the 
crabbers charged are members of marketing associations. Please give 
this your serious consideration.

      Sincerely,
Travis Wolf,
88359 Hwy 101 N, Florence, Or 97439.

Nick Furman's Notes Regarding Meetings with Aubertine

Summary of Initial Contact/meeting With A. Aubertine--AG's Office 
Oct.-Nov. 1994

    10/12/94--Received call from Port Orford-area crabber with 
question--Can/how can fishermen legally negotiate/establish ex-
vessel price with processors in a timely and orderly fashion prior 
to the start of the season? Responded that I would check with an 
attorney available to ODCC through AG's office, and get back with an 
answer.
    10/13--Was discussing an assessment-related collections issue 
with Dan Rosenhouse (AG's office) on behalf of the ODCC, and posed 
the fisherman's question to him. Dan said he wasn't comfortable 
providing an answer on that type of issue, but he would contact a 
colleague in Salem who might be better versed with that aspect of 
the law.
    10/17--Received a call from Andy Aubertine from the AG's office. 
Stated that he wanted to set up meeting in Salem to discuss issue 
further. Asked about the ODCC's role in preseason price process. 
Explained role as a Commodity Commission, stating that we produced 
an informational market summary and disseminated to the industry. No 
additional role in process.
    10/25--Aubertine called again, saying that ``Dept. of Justice 
was on-board, and that they had a `game plan'.'' Wanted to meet on 
11/3 in Salem with his superiors.
    10/26--Aubertine called to confirm meeting and informed me to 
bring ODCC documents (i.e. minutes, market reports).
    10/31--Aubertine called again and scheduled the meeting for the 
2nd.
    11/2--Salem: Met with Aubertine and subordinate at 3 pm. in his 
office. Immediately made to feel uncomfortable by his demeanor and 
authoritative style. Was obviously on a ``fishing expedition'' and 
had no interest in responding to my initial question. Asked a lot of 
questions about the industry in an attempt to play ``catch-up''. Was 
curious about the role of Eureka FMA and had never heard about All 
Coast FMA. Summarized law by saying that only legal way to establish 
price was ``one on one'' between fisherman and processor. Didn't 
know the process of establishing a legal entity such as an 
association, and wasn't in a position to offer free legal advise. 
Couldn't help industry with problem and suggested that fishermen 
hire a lawyer to answer question in more detail. Stated that Ag's 
role was that of enforcement. Indicated that he would summarize our 
conversation in writing, for a fee, if he received a written 
request. Time is billed at $78/hr and $28/hr for an attorney and 
assistant, accordingly.
    Summary: Decided that any further contact with this individual 
would be pointless and a waste of the Commission's money. Had no 
authority to go any further with this issue.

March 12, 1997.
Debbie Coffman, 35807 Willama Vista, Eugene, OR 97455, (541) 746-
4760.

Christopher Crook, U.S. Department of Justice, Box 36046, San 
Francisco, CA 94102.

    Dear Mr. Crook: I am writing to you in regard to the 
unconstitutional treatment that has been imposed on 12 coastal 
fishermen. I have read numerous articles and letters that have been 
directed toward the Attorney General's Office. I am sickened at how 
corrupt our government has become and even more disheartened that 
Hardy Meyers has not stood up and supported the fishermen that have 
been threatened, coerced, and intimidated by the Justice Department.
    Andrew Aubertine has violated these fishermen's rights. Farmers 
and fishermen are among the hardest working people in the business 
community. Their products are so perishable, marketing them has to 
be done in advance, not when they have a boat load of crab, and a 
unpredictable market. Their largest threat is ``Mother Nature''. 
Storms and unpredictable weather were their worst nightmare until 
the Attorney Generals Office decided to take down the crab industry.
    How is it that they have selected these ``12'' fishermen? Who 
are the fishermen that originally called in this complaint? Are they 
honorable men worthy of trust? Has their background been 
investigated? Out of hundreds and hundreds of fishermen, what 
criteria did they use to select the 12 fishermen that have been 
targeted? Ability to pay is what I have heard. The men that have 
paid the settlement of $9,100. Paid because they were afraid that 
litigation would cost them their livelihood and devastate their 
families. They only settled because they were threaten to do so by 
the A.G.'s Office. They were not guilty of anything. They were not 
even charged. They were railroaded, pure and simple.
    I have lived in a coastal community for years, so I can speak 
from experience when I say that fishermen are the most honest 
hardworking people in America. Every time that they head out to sea, 
they risk their lives. I believe if this injustice is not stopped, 
the State of Oregon will be subject to a huge class action lawsuit 
from the whole fishing fleet for damages to the whole crabbing 
industry.

[[Page 25656]]

These fishermen's civil rights have been violated and as a concerned 
citizen I ask you to please look into this investigation. I believe 
the Justice Department is guilty of numerous violations, threats, 
coercion, intimidation, and the most terrifying is extortion!

      Sincerely,
Debbie Coffman.

March 13, 1997.
Christopher S. Crook, U.S. Department of Justice, Box 36046, San 
Francisco, CA 94102.

re: crab fisherman

    Dear Mr. Crook: The Attorney General didn't know which end the 
crab snaps until he attacked innocent Crab fishermen. Now he can 
expect to get pinched himself for his unprofessional conduct, 
threats, coercion, intimidation, and extortion. Their office doesn't 
have a clue to how the industry operates and can't grasp the fact 
that supply and demand controls the market, NOT THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL! He is leaving a trail of more innocent victims up and down 
the coast suffering from harassment and threats in order for the 
department to settle their trumped up cases. Our tax dollars in 
action being wasted.
    In 1994 Aubertine was asked by the Crab Commission, ``How can 
fishermen legally negotiate a price for crab? '' Aubertine stated, 
``I am in the enforcement division.'' Instead of working with the 
crab commission and the fishermen, Aubertine decided to take down 
the whole crabbing industry. He claims the fishermen he has charged 
with price fixing, had hurt the economy and damaged the consumer in 
Oregon, Washington, and California, quite a feat for 12 independent 
crab fishermen out of 1,367 from all three states. The time in 
question, 1995/96 season, crab was plentiful and very reasonable to 
the consumer, there were millions of pounds of crab in cold storage.
    How can the Attorney General decide when and at what risk these 
fishermen should take, endangering their lives to harvest crab. It 
is their right to tie up their boats when ever, and for what ever 
reason they choose. If they choose not to join associations, like 
the A.G.'s office is coercing them to do, it is there right. Never 
should association's have more rights than an individual.
    It is time for the Attorney General Office to admit the witch 
hunt is over and get back to work.
    I would like to see all these charges dropped against these 
fishermen as the Justice Department has violated these fishermen's 
civil rights as well as denying them due process of the law and used 
extortion, threats, and intimidation to coerce them to settle when 
they claim innocence.

      Sincerely,
Katy Ellis
P.O. Box 87, Roseburg, OR 97470.
Chrispopher Crook, Acting Chief, San Francisco Office, Anti-trust 
Division, Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA 94102.

    Dear Sir: I am writing to you concerning the alleged price 
fixing by The West Coast Commercial Crab Fishermen. My interest has 
risen daily from reading the many public editorials and watchdogs 
newspaper accounts. Somehow I don't think the Oregon Attorney 
General's Office is doing justice, the more information I receive.
    First of all I would like to know how the Fishermen were price 
fixing crab at $1.25#, when their fellow West Coast Crabbers were 
getting the same price or more during the time frame in question. 
Please check these facts for yourself, Central California Dec. 1995 
crab price was $1.50#, Puget Sound Washington Dec. 1995 price was 
$1.25, British Columbia late fall 1995 price was $1.40 U.S. and 
Washington tribal price Dec. 1995 was $1.25#.
    The only thing I could find illegal so far from the alleged 
boycott, was the apparent sabotage of a delivery truck in Brookings, 
Or. If this incident really happened then someone should have been 
criminally charged. As far as I know no one has been.
    Now the Oregon Department of Justice is saying this 
investigation has cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. I ask 
myself is this taxpayers money well spent. After just reading that 
Lawrence Singleton struck again and O.J. Simpson purchased a mansion 
in Florida perhaps there is more injustice than justice in our legal 
system.
    The message that I am getting from the newspaper articles is 
that perhaps Oregon Assistant Attorney General Andrew Aubertine 
would have fit better in another era. Seem's to me that I have read 
about his type before, during the Roman's persecution of the 
Christians and the 17th century witch hunts.
    In closing I would like to ask that the U.S. Department of 
Justice immediately dismiss this case, and then see that Andrew 
Aubertine is reprimanded for his vindictive investigation of 
independent fishermen.
    The current price paid to the fishermen for dungeness crab is 
$2.50 a pound. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure 
out that supply and demand control the market.

      Sincerely,
Dorothy Nicholson,
1525 West 20th, Florence, OR 97439, Ph. 541-997-3149.

March 6, 1997.
Christopher Crook, Acting Chief, San Francisco Office, Anti-trust 
Division, Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA 94102.

    Dear Sir: The charges of price fixing by the commercial Crabbers 
seems to me to be an uncalled for attack on a few hard working 
fishermen.
    There are 1363 fisherman in Ore., Cal., and Washington. Why have 
only 12 of these men been singled out and accused? Could 12 men have 
possibly stopped all of these fisherman from taking their boats out 
during the 1995-96 crabbing season? I think not.
    Ten of these men have agreed to pay the fines imposed on them in 
order to avoid further harassment by the Attorney Generals office. 
Scott Hartzell and Charley Schuttpelz have refused to pay off and 
admit guilt for something they are not guilty of.
    Almost every year in my memory, the fishermen and the processors 
have haggled over what a fair price for crabs should be. After a few 
days a price is set by the processors and the Crabbers go out to 
risk life and limb to bring in the crabs, and hopefully made a 
decent living at it.
    Why should these fisherman have to pay fines to pay the expenses 
incurred in a lawsuit that never should have been started?
    Perhaps the people in the Attorney Generals office that stared 
this investigation should have to dig into their own pocket and pay 
for their own mistakes. Unfortunately, it will be paid for by we, 
the taxpayers.

      Sincerely,
Rita J. Sellars,
908 Fir Ave., Reedsport, Ore. 97467.

March 1, 1997.
Christopher Crook, Acting Chief Anti-trust Div., U.S. Depart. Of 
Justice, San Francisco, California.

    Dear Sir: The Oregon Department of Justice led by Assistant 
Attorney General Andrew Aubertine has conducted a witch hunt 
investigation of crabbers. Apparently once he started he felt he 
could not stop until he made some pay for his investigation. He has 
coerced and intimidated the fisherman he has interviewed. The 
statements that have come out of the Oregon Attorney Generals office 
by spokeswoman Jan Margosian have always said more fishermen may be 
charged. With this hanging over their heads and leading questions 
some fishermen have been coerced into saying what Mr. Aubertine and 
his other investigators wanted to hear. The Oregon Department of 
Justice has made a mountain out of a molehill. This whole 
miscarriage of justice by an over-zealous assistant attorney general 
should be dropped. The ten fishermen who have signed the consent 
decree and paid the fines, did so not because they had done anything 
wrong but because of the huge attorney fee's they would be faced 
with.

  Sincerely,
Lyle Hartzell
05821 Canary Rd, Westlake, Or 97493.

February 19, 1997.
Box 27, Oysterville, WA, 98641.

Cristopher S. Crook, Acting Chief, San Francisco Office, U.S. Dept. 
of Justice, Antitrust Div., Box 36046, Golden Gate Ave., San 
Francisco, Calif., 94202.

    Dear Mr. Crook: It has been very disturbing to follow the 
escapades of Assistant Attorney General Aubertine in his attempts to 
terrorize the west coast crab fleet by trying to hang price fixing 
charges on key members of the industry. If you were to examine the 
men he singled out, you would find that they are mainly guilty of 
being able to pay these outrageous fines--with income other than 
that of crab fishing, which has been dismal this season.
    It is obvious the A.G.'s office did not want these cases to go 
to trial. Could it be lack of evidence? Immediately after these 
fines were levied it was made abundantly clear that to fight these 
charges could be very, very expensive. If found guilty, not only 
would the fishermen have to pay the fines, their lawyers, but also 
the expenses of the A.G.'s office. This could easily amount to over 
ten

[[Page 25657]]

times the cost of the fine. Even with a better than a 50% chance of 
winning the case, the odds were so stacked against the fishermen 
most of them simply signed off. With such a skewered system of 
justice who could predict what might happen.
    Although I haven't crabbed for several years, I have been 
involved in the commercial fishing industry all my life. To ask a 
fisherman not to talk about the price they expect to receive for 
their catch is like asking freshmen highschool girls not to talk 
about boys. Fishermen talking about price is a normal, natural 
American thing to do.
    Violence, intimidation and destruction of property to achieve 
price goals is a different matter. Seems to me if any of this could 
be proven real criminal charges should be filed--not phoney fines 
with no realistic way of challenging them.
    I contend that Mr. Aubertine, being fairly young, politically 
ambitious and not too bright, spent a lot of state money on his 
price fixing investigation in hopes of furthering his political 
career. When the investigation came up short of hard evidence he 
took the easy way out. He tried to recoup the money he had wasted by 
singling out members of the industry by their ability to pay rather 
than other reasons. He did it in such a way they had no chance to 
defend themselves.
    The solution is simple. If Mr. Aubertine has real evidence of 
price fixing he should come forward with this evidence and file 
charges. If he doesn't have this evidence he should accept the 
responsibility of wasting the state's money and face the 
consequences. This would include public apology to the men he 
wronged and immediate disbarment proceedings.

      Sincerely,
Peter G. Heckes,
Heckes Oyster Co.

Oregon Crabbers Fight To Stay Afloat

    The two Oregon Crab Fishermen that have been charged with price 
fixing must be mighty powerful forces to have done what they are 
accused of. I have read the articles and editorials that have been 
published, and have spoken with each of these fishermen.
    It would appear from everything I have heard and seen that the 
Department of Justice has used threats, coercion, and intimidation 
to get these hard working, self employed fishermen to sign 
statements saying that they are guilty when in fact they are not. 
Most of these individuals simply could not afford to fight the 
Attorney General on matters they didn't understand. Faced with fines 
of over $100,000.00 and loss of their commercial fishing license 
(their very livelihood) they simply caved in to the pressure, payed 
the $9,000.00 ``settlement'' and went back to work.
    It sure is odd that the Department of Justice alleges that 
meetings were held to organize and enforce the conspiracy to fix 
prices at $1.25 per pound when in fact they went fishing for $1.15 
per pound, (which all the major fish plants were offering). If this 
is price fixing then it sure went the wrong way! It would seem that 
the rule of supply and demand set the prices. I should remind 
everyone that since the dawn of time fishermen have had to negotiate 
the best price they can for their product.
    The State Attorney General Office said the lawsuit was filed 
after several months of negotiations failed to produce a settlement. 
What it should have said is they failed to produce a settlement 
after the threats, intimidation and coercion didn't work. The 
Assistant Attorney General, Andrew E. Aubertine, told these 
fishermen that they would pay for this investigation, and the ones 
who pay last will pay the most! I for one was unaware that this was 
the way our elected officials conducted investigations. Now, you 
tell me, who is guilty of coercion, threats, extortion, and 
intimidation. Is it the hard working fishermen, or the overzealous 
A.G.?
T.J. Lindbloom,
Roseburg, Oregon, 541-673-6047.

[FR Doc. 97-11939 Filed 5-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M