Laserfiche WebLink
44. Mr. Beckwith had represented Mr. Fontanari and the operation for several years <br /> and had assembled thousands of pages of documents relevant to the operation and to the issues <br /> raised in in Reason to Believe letter issued by Division on July 12, 2019. <br /> 45. Mr. Beckwith was assembling document sets and pleadings relevant to the Reason <br /> to Believe letter and the resulting Board Hearing, but made it clear he could not enter an <br /> appearance as he could not be present on August 21-22. <br /> 46. As noted in the Motion to Re-Open, Mr. Beckwith informed counsel that he could <br /> not be present, and that he and Mr. Fontanari were searching for substitute counsel, and, had <br /> located counsel who could be prepared and present at the September meeting. Division opposed <br /> the continuance through counsel. <br /> 47. The Board was not informed of the prior requests for representation, although the <br /> correspondence between Beckwith and Division counsel went on for more than a month. <br /> 48. The Board was left with the impression that the first request for representation by <br /> counsel was made by Fontanari and Grosse at the hearing; in reality, that request simply book- <br /> ended the prior written requests through Beckwith, never revealed to the Board. <br /> 49. As a result, Fontanari was left unrepresented by legal counsel to present <br /> documentary and oral evidence, to cross examine witnesses, to confront and cross examine State <br /> experts and to present the opinion testimony of experts for Fontanari, including rebuttal <br /> evidence. <br /> 50. Fontanari was denied his due process rights, including his right to be represented <br /> pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, and rights embodied in the Construction <br /> Materials Rules. <br /> 9 <br />