Laserfiche WebLink
4. As noted in the Motion to Re-Open, Fontanari, through counsel, had stated that he <br /> could not be present on August 21, and explained carefully to the Division's counsel, Scott <br /> Schultz, that Fontanari was searching for substitute counsel. Mr. Schultz was further informed <br /> that,just days before the hearing, that new counsel had been located and was being interviewed, <br /> but could not be present and prepared for the August 21 hearing. Despite this information, the <br /> Division opposed a continuance to the September 26 meeting. <br /> 5. Fontanari made his intent to have legal representation clear both before and <br /> during the hearing. Fontanari stated clearly that he requested representation if the Division was <br /> seeking civil penalties in excess of$15,000. (September 26 Order at 24). In fact, the Division <br /> sought Civil Penalties of$57,000, and the Order imposed penalties of$43,000, a six figure bond <br /> increase, and, ordered the removal of an irrigation system believed to have cost in excess of <br /> $100,000. <br /> 6. Construction Materials Rule 2.8.1 (1) provides the right of any party present to <br /> present oral testimony, documentary evidence, rebuttal evidence and to cross-examine witnesses. <br /> Any party not attending forfeits its party status and all of its rights and privileges. <br /> 7. Construction Materials Rule 2.8.1 (2) further provides for the general applicability <br /> of the rules of evidence, and providing further for objections, the applicability of the rules of <br /> privilege, the exclusion of unduly repetitious evidence, and for the introduction of original <br /> documents. See Rule 2.8.1 (2) (a)-(d). <br /> 8. The matters concerned in Rule 2.8 generally involve the exercise of legal and <br /> lawyerly skills in the context of a full evidentiary hearing. At that hearing, the Division was <br /> represented through the attorney general, who examined expert and lay witnesses, presented <br /> 3 <br />