Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-23-2024 - Carners attachment 0 defense to the City about emailed cross exaimantion and the city using an AttorneyDefense of Mr. Carner To the Hearing Examiner: This defense is submiƩed on behalf of Mr. Carner in response to the City of Renton's repeated efforts to impose unreasonable burdens during these proceedings. The City’s ongoing conduct demonstrates a paƩern of harassment and an unwillingness to compromise. In light of these acƟons, Mr. Carner requests the Hearing Examiner’s intervenƟon to ensure fairness and compliance with legal standards. 1. The Legal Basis for Email Cross-ExaminaƟon A. Washington State Law – Access to JusƟce Under Washington State law, administraƟve proceedings are governed by the principle of fairness and access to jusƟce as arƟculated in the Washington AdministraƟve Procedure Act (RCW 34.05). Specifically: RCW 34.05.446(1): Allows for flexibility in hearing procedures, including the acceptance of wriƩen submissions and alternaƟve formats for tesƟmony and cross- examinaƟon when in-person or real-Ɵme parƟcipaƟon is impracƟcal. RCW 34.05.010: Emphasizes the importance of efficiency, economy, and convenience for parƟes involved in administraƟve proceedings. Requiring email cross-examinaƟon ensures that Mr. Carner’s witnesses, including those residing in Baja, Mexico, and those with hardships, can parƟcipate meaningfully without undue burden. B. U.S. Law – Due Process Rights The U.S. ConsƟtuƟon’s Fourteenth Amendment guarantees procedural due process, which requires that all parƟes have a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The U.S. Supreme Court has held in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), that the procedures used in administraƟve hearings must balance: The private interest affected by the proceedings; The risk of an erroneous deprivaƟon of rights through the procedures used; and The government’s interest in using alternaƟve procedures. Email cross- examinaƟon meets this balance by accommodaƟng the witnesses’ circumstances while preserving the City’s ability to quesƟon evidence. It is a reasonable method to ensure all voices are heard without disproporƟonately burdening any party. C. Americans with DisabiliƟes Act (ADA) If any of Mr. Carner’s witnesses face physical or mental impairments that create hardships for aƩending video or in-person hearings, the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) mandates reasonable accommodaƟons. Email crossexaminaƟon is a viable accommodaƟon to address these needs. 2. The City’s PaƩern of Unreasonable Conduct A. Repeated Delays and Harassment The City has demonstrated a paƩern of conduct aimed at complicaƟng these proceedings: Raising unnecessary objecƟons to straighƞorward soluƟons, such as email cross- examinaƟon. MisrepresenƟng logisƟcal challenges faced by Mr. Carner’s witnesses as selfinflicted hardships. Prolonging the process by insisƟng on procedures that impose undue financial, logisƟcal, and emoƟonal burdens on Mr. Carner. These acƟons not only violate the principles of fairness under Washington State law but also amount to harassment under RCW 9A.46.020, which defines harassment as acƟons that seriously alarm, annoy, or torment another person without lawful jusƟficaƟon. B. Failure to Act Reasonably The City’s refusal to accommodate email cross-examinaƟon, despite its pracƟcality and alignment with legal standards, reflects an unwillingness to compromise and a deliberate effort to obstruct. 3. Requests to the Hearing Examiner A. Approve Email Cross-ExaminaƟon Email cross-examinaƟon is consistent with Washington State law, U.S. consƟtuƟonal protecƟons, and the ADA. It provides a reasonable and effecƟve means of addressing the unique challenges in this case without compromising fairness or the City’s ability to examine witnesses. B. Accept Photo Evidence The authenƟcity and foundaƟon of Mr. Carner’s photographs can be addressed through wriƩen responses. The City’s insistence on in-person or video cross- examinaƟon is unnecessary and excessive, especially given the simplicity of the maƩer. C. Address the City’s Conduct The Hearing Examiner should document and address the City’s repeated efforts to complicate and delay this process, ensuring Mr. Carner is not further disadvantaged. 4. Legal Precedents SupporƟng Mr. Carner’s PosiƟon A. Washington State Cases Shor v. Dep’t of Licensing, 142 Wn. App. 282 (2007): AdministraƟve hearings must consider pracƟcality and fairness in applying procedural requirements. In re Marriage of King, 162 Wn.2d 378 (2007): Flexibility in proceedings is essenƟal to avoid prejudicing parƟes with legiƟmate hardships. B. Federal Cases Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970): Procedural due process requires adapƟng hearing procedures to ensure fairness to all parƟes, including those with hardships. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976): Establishes the balancing test for procedural fairness in administraƟve hearings, favoring soluƟons like email cross- examinaƟon when they reduce burdens without compromising integrity. Conclusion The City’s refusal to engage reasonably and its insistence on burdensome procedures is an abuse of process and an aƩempt to disadvantage Mr. Carner. Allowing email cross-examinaƟon and accepƟng photographic evidence are fair, pracƟcal soluƟons that align with Washington State law, federal due process standards, and principles of jusƟce. Mr. Carner respecƞully requests the Hearing Examiner intervene to prevent further harassment and ensure these proceedings are conducted in a manner that upholds fairness and jusƟce. Respecƞully submiƩed, Kelly Carner This is a response to Thit citys email dated (12-23-24) About Sheila using the City AƩorneys during her response to Mr Carner who is not using legal counsel , In defending Mr. Kelly Carner against the City of Renton for failing to disclose its legal representaƟon during a code enforcement proceeding, several legal principles and procedural requirements at the federal, state, and municipal levels are perƟnent. 1. Due Process Under the U.S. ConsƟtuƟon The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Fundamental to due process is the right to fair noƟce and the opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner. The unexpected presence of an aƩorney represenƟng the city, without prior disclosure, could impede Mr. Carner’s ability to prepare an adequate defense, potenƟally consƟtuƟng a due process violaƟon. 2. Washington State Administra Ɵve Procedure Act (APA) Washington’s APA (Chapter 34.05 RCW) governs administraƟve hearings and emphasizes fair process. While the APA does not explicitly mandate disclosure of legal representaƟon, it underscores the necessity for transparent procedures to ensure fair hearings. The lack of disclosure regarding the city’s legal representaƟon may contravene the APA’s intent to provide fair and imparƟal hearings. 3. Renton Municipal Code – Code Enforcement Procedures The Renton Municipal Code (RMC) establishes procedures for code enforcement to ensure fairness and transparency. Specifically, RMC 1-10-1 outlines the purpose of the non-judicial code enforcement system, emphasizing the protecƟon and promoƟon of health, safety, sanitaƟon, and aestheƟcs in the city by providing an expedited and cost-effecƟve process to address civil code violaƟons, with prompt hearings and decisions. While the RMC does not explicitly require disclosure of legal representaƟon, the principles of fairness and transparency inherent in these procedures suggest that such disclosure is in line with the code’s intent. 4. Ethical ConsideraƟons AƩorneys are bound by rules of professional conduct that promote fairness and integrity in legal proceedings. In Washington, Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 prohibits aƩorneys from communicaƟng with a represented party about the subject of the representaƟon without consent. While this rule addresses direct communicaƟon, the spirit of the rule supports transparency regarding representaƟon to prevent unfair advantage. The city’s failure to disclose its legal representaƟon could be viewed as undermining the ethical standards expected in legal proceedings. Conclusion The city’s nondisclosure of its legal representaƟon may have compromised Mr. Carner’s ability to prepare and present his defense effecƟvely, potenƟally violaƟng due process rights under the U.S. ConsƟtuƟon, conflicƟng with the fair process principles of Washington’s APA, and contravening the fairness and transparency objecƟves of the Renton Municipal Code. These factors collecƟvely support a defense challenging the city’s acƟons during the code enforcement proceeding. Mr Carner is asking Hearing Examiner what he plans to about the City of Renton’s deceiving and compromising this hearing, it has definitely not been fair when one side has aƩorneys helping them, and the other doesn’t.