Laserfiche WebLink
a 30-page cross examination of Fontanari,with no attorney present either to enter <br /> objections, or to cross-examine DRMS's lay or expert witnesses, or to present Fontanari's <br /> defense.This is neither"due process",a"fair hearing"or in compliance with the APA or <br /> supporting caselaw,of which Erbe is a nearly perfect example. <br /> E. FONTANARI WAS NOT AFFORDED DUE PROCESS IN ANY REAL <br /> SENSE OF THAT TERM;THERE WAS NO WAIVER OF HIS <br /> FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED,AND ONE CANNOT <br /> BE IMPLIED GIVEN THAT HIS PRESENCE WAS REQUIRED <br /> Under the circumstances presented, Fontanari was not accorded due process. <br /> Due process requires the opportunity to appear and to be heard in a fair hearing. <br /> The right to counsel pursuant to the APA is a fundamental right. Here, Fontanari, <br /> through counsel, made multiple requests to have the ability to be present,for a <br /> continuance,or to have substitute counsel appear at the next,following Board <br /> hearing. Fontanari made a further request at the hearing itself to have an attorney <br /> present. This is precisely the opposite of knowing waiver ofa fundamental right, <br /> and in no manner an election to appear pro-se.It would appear that Fontanari's <br /> multiple requests to be represented were concealed from the Board. Surely DRMS does <br /> not suggest that Fontanari's (required) appearance was an implied waiver of a <br /> fundamental right? <br /> There is a secondary point which deserves mention here. At the hearing,a <br /> DBMS witness described attorney Beckwith as an"associate" of Mr. Fontanari, and <br /> described actions and statements by Beckwith in the field in the testimony. However <br /> knowingly,or not, DRMS made Mr. Beckwith a witness in the case. And, of course, <br /> without revealing to the Board Beckwith's function as Fontanari's attorney and his <br /> multiple requests for Fontanari to be represented. This was anything but a"fair <br /> 8 <br />