POST 38: Investigation Report - Page 9 Referenced Conversations with the Investigator

Page 9 of the Investigation Report referenced my conversations with the investigator

Below is an image of page 9 of the Investigation Report which reference my conversations with the investigator.

If you can't read the report in the image, here is what is documented: "On May 1, 2019 Winkelman contacted VOLK by telephone. VOLK stated he was currently represented by Jackson Lofgren and that he wanted to talk to his attorney before speaking." "On May 2, 2019 VOLK called Winkelman on his cell phone and informed Winkelman that he would not be providing a statement per the advise of his attorney and that he would not consent to Game and Fish taking the fish without a search warrant. Winkelman stated to VOLK a decision would be made based on the evidence. VOLK stated that he was 100% sure the fish was hooked in the mouth and that he had witnesses. Winkelman stated that he would be interested in hearing from those witnesses because everyone, including GIBBS, is saying the opposite. VOLK stated again he was not going to provide any information." 

I went into detail in POST 28 about my May 1st and May 2nd conversations with the Game and Fish investigator. Below is a recap of what that post stated.

My First Conversation with the Investigator

May 1st, 5:57pm, was the first time Scott Winkelman from Game and Fish contacted me and asked if I would provide a statement. I told him I would have to contact my attorney and ask for advice before I could agree. Scott replied, he only wanted to ask a few "simple" questions. I asked if Gibbs was being charged with a crime. Scott replied, “no.” I replied, “Good. Because all he did was net my fish.” I asked why Game and Fish didn’t do a better job of verifying the walleye when they had exclusive access to it. I also asked why they published a press release announcing the new record if they had concerns. Winkelman stated, “because we didn’t have any reason to believe otherwise.” I stated I would get back to Winkelman about providing an official statement once I heard back from my attorney.

On May 1st at 6:04pm, I spoke with my attorney. He reminded me Game and Fish was still looking to press criminal charges and advised me not to provide a statement. The attorney also recommended to not hand over any personal property (the walleye) unless Game and Fish went through the proper procedures to acquire it.

My Second Conversation with the Investigator

On May 2nd, 8:02am, I called the Game and Fish lead investigator back and explained how I was advised not to provide a statement due to the criminal charges. Scott replied, “I was expecting that.” Winkelman asked if he could take the fish. I replied, “Yes, but you will need to get a warrant.” I stated, "I would love to” provide a statement because it would clear some things up but was advised not to due to the criminal charges.

I again asked why Game and Fish didn’t do a better check of the fish when they had access to it. And stated I was “frustrated” with what was happening. Scott again stated, “They had no reason to believe otherwise.” I said, “I am 100% sure the fish was hooked in the mouth.” Scott replied, “You are the only one.”

After I made the statement, "I'm 100% sure the fish was hooked in the mouth," the investigator responded, "you are the only one." The investigator's response affirmed my attorney's advice.

The statements made by the investigator suggested his mind was already made up and there was no way to change it. 

I asked Game and Fish to provide the recordings of these conversations, but was told they were "not recorded." I find this hard to believe. 

Changes

I wholeheartedly believe my walleye was caught legally before it spit the hook in the net. The physical condition of the walleye supports this. There is a hole in the mouth and string burn on the cheek. There is no damage from a hook to the back, body, tail or fins. I am so sure my walleye was hooked and caught legally, I offered the walleye and my evidence to the investigator. I was really hoping and actually expected they would inspect my evidence before giving me a warning and making the statement my walleye didn't qualify for a record. 

Why would an investigator refuse to review new evidence? This is unethical. My evidence should have been accepted and reviewed when it was offered. 

Is an investigation truly "closed" prior to the statue of limitation? Why was I given a written warning? Was Game and Fish being "nice" to me as what was stated by the investigator in the conference call? Or, was the written warning used as justification for stripping me of a potential record and as a way to make me appear guilty without giving me an opportunity to prove my case in court? A written warning prevented me from being able to confront adverse witnesses or call on my own witnesses. It also prevented me from being able to present my evidence including the walleye.

Giving me a written warning and stating my walleye didn't qualify for a record "punished" me without Due Process of Law. 

When Game and Fish "concluded" and stated my "walleye didn't qualify" they acted as the judge and jury. Is this legal to do? Due Process of Law is the guaranteed rights per the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as a safeguard against unfairness in all legal matters to prevent inaccurate or unjustified decisions. Due Process gives each person rights such as:

• A hearing before an impartial person.
• The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
• The right to present evidence, including the right to call on your own witnesses.
• An opportunity to appeal a decision.

I'm not an attorney, but according to Due Process of Law, I believe Game and Fish violated my rights. These types of actions need to stop.

#northdakotaslargestwalleye #volkswalleye #justiceforthelargestwalleye