HomeMy WebLinkAboutDefense to the City-of -Renton-12-07-2024
REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE (Carner) CODE23-000293
Defense to the City’s Statements Questions
Raised by the City:
1. Did the Motfon for Reconsideratfon meet the evidentfary threshold of presentfng new evidence
unavailable during the initfal hearing?
2. Does the evidence provided, including witness statements and photographs, meet the burden of
proof required to support Mr. Carner’s claims?
3. Are the submitted materials admissible and sufficient in foundatfon, relevance, and credibility to
warrant reconsideratfon?
Legal Defense
1. Threshold Determinatfon of New Evidence (Motfon for Reconsideratfon)
Under Washington Administratfve Procedure Act (APA) RCW 34.05.470, motfons for reconsideratfon must
present material evidence that was unavailable at the tfme of the original hearing. U.S. law also provides
for procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, ensuring fair opportunity to present one’s
case.
• Response:
The evidence submitted in the Motfon for Reconsideratfon meets this requirement. For example, the
aerial photograph and witness statements were either previously unavailable or not considered in detail
during the initfal hearing. These materials provide new context to the existfng facts and should be
weighed under the Washington Rules of Evidence (ER 401) regarding relevancy and ER 406, which allows
habit evidence to establish consistency over tfme.
• Rebuttal to Lack of Challenge Assertfon:
Failure to explicitly challenge the City’s threshold argument does not negate the sufficiency of the Motfon
for Reconsideratfon. Legal standards focus on substance over procedural technicalitfes.
2. Photographic Evidence (II.A.1 and II.B.2)
The City questfons the public source of the photograph which was Google Earth and the lack of
metadata or independent verificatfon.
• Legal Argument:
Under Washington ER 901(a), evidence is admissible if authentfcated by a reasonable witness or expert,
or through circumstantfal proof. The photograph in questfon depicts the relevant trailer and property,
and while the trailer in questfon doesn’t matter but the way in which was used is the questfon, Mr.
Carner has provide with the evidence and its authentfcity can be corroborated by witness testfmony.
Metadata is not a legal requirement for admissibility but can enhance credibility, as you can see below
the pictures provided show the informatfon the City was concerned about, and had the City protected
Mr. Carners rights instead of trying to take them away, they would have done there due diligence and
obtained this informatfon prior to the harassment that has taken place, this in fact is free for anyone to
use.
3. Witness Statements (II.A.2 and II.B.1)
The City challenges the foundatfon and personal knowledge of witnesses regarding the trailer’s use and
compliance with City Code.
• Legal Argument:
Personal witness testfmony is admissible under Washington ER 602, provided the witness has personal
knowledge. Each witness’s statements are based on direct observatfon of the trailer’s presence and use.
Their lay opinions on the trailer’s conditfon are permissible under ER 701, as they are based on ratfonal
perceptfons informed by their observatfons and experience.
• Response to Expertfse Challenge:
While the witnesses are not experts, their testfmony aligns with the requirements for admissible lay
testfmony. Mr. Carner can further establish their familiarity and length of acquaintance in supplemental
affidavits, both Mr. Carner children were partfally raised in the trailer after the Divorce in 2008. Everyone
that knows Mr Carner knows his situatfon so of more testfmonies are needed that wont be a problem.
Katfe Amos -Mr Carners Ex-wife.
Kris Amos Mr. Carners Ex-Wife husband
Tim Carner Mr. Carners Brother
Stephiane Carner Mr. Carners Sister-in-law
Morgan Rydberg Mr.Carners Daughter
Caleb Carner Mr. Carner Son
4. Alleged Contradictfons in Statements (II.A.2)
The City asserts contradictfons in Mr. Carner’s own statements.
• Legal Argument:
Discrepancies, if any, do not negate the entfrety of the evidence presented. Per Washington ER 403,
minor inconsistencies should not lead to wholesale exclusion of evidence if they are outweighed by
probatfve value.
• Rebuttal:
The City has cited two occurrences they feel the truth was not being told, first the Orange Statement
below is True, for example Mr. Carner left to Livermore California on 09-23-2024 and stfll today when
this rebuttal is being made on 12-07-2024 is stfll there, the average amount over the last few years
has been in his RV is 3 days a month which was a true statement, can the City provide documented
proof these statements are False, During the tfme periods this case is about.
The Second accusatfon the City says is not true, please understand this also isn’t the trailer in questfon,
the Highlighted area in blue is also a true Statement my dad lived in the Montana RV untfl he died and
the Montana RV was sold months ago and isn’t even on the Property ,so the City has made another False
accusatfon.
5. Burden of Proof on Affirmatfve Defenses (II.A.2)
The City argues that Mr. Carner bears the burden of proof for all affirmatfve claims.
• Legal Argument:
While the burden of proof partfal rests on Mr. Carner, procedural fairness requires the City to evaluate
evidence without undue dismissal. Washington’s APA and U.S. case law, such as Mathews v. Eldridge, 424
U.S. 319 (1976), emphasize a balanced approach in administratfve proceedings to avoid arbitrary denials
of substantfve rights.
These materials that were sent directly , address the City’s concerns and reinforce the factual basis for
Mr. Carner’s Motfon for Reconsideratfon.
Conclusion
Mr. Carner respectiully requests the Hearing Examiner reject the City’s motfon to strike evidence and
consider the materials submitted as relevant and credible. The evidence provided satfsfies the threshold
for reconsideratfon under Washington and U.S. law, ensuring procedural due process and a fair hearing of
substantfve claims.
Sincerely
Kelly Carner