DOH violates client’s civil rights again

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides many basic protections for the civil rights of individual Americans. The Amendment requires that felonies be tried only upon indictment by a grand jury; the Grand Jury Clause is one of the few provisions of the Bill of Rights not held to have been incorporated to the states, most of which have replaced grand juries. The Amendment also provides several trial protections, including the right against self-incrimination (held to also apply to custodial interrogations and before most government bodies) as well as the right to only be tried once ("double jeopardy") in federal court for the same offense. The Amendment also has a Due Process Clause (similar to the one in the 14th Amendment) as well as an implied equal protection requirement (Bolling v. Sharpe). Finally, the Amendment requires that the power of eminent domain be coupled with "just compensation" for those whose property is taken.It appears that the Department of Health (DOH) and the attorneys at the Washington State Attorney General’s Office have never read that document. Recently a client came to the Rosenberg Law Group, PLLC who was facing charges by the DOH. He was alleged to have performed unlicensed activity. He had represented himself in the hearing process for several months. He had even conducted settlement negotiations with DOH attorneys. Those attorneys told the Appellant that if he admitted to the unlicensed activity then he would only face a small fine and reprimand. What they did not tell him was that such an admission would follow him for the rest of his professional life and prevent him from being licensed in any profession. What is more curious is that those attorneys did not share the Department’s investigative file with him. That file contains the evidence that the DOH has gathered and is routinely obtained by written request. Of course, the Appellant did not know that. He was representing himself.The DOH attorneys knew that they should share their evidence with the Appellant. They knew that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment demanded that should have compelled them to provide the information necessary for the Appellant to understand the charges against him and to confront his accusers. Instead of ensuring that justice was done, those attorneys tried to railroad the Appellant into accepting a deal that was contrary to his interests and without knowing the basis of the allegations against him.Don’t get railroaded by a regulatory department. Contact the Rosenberg Law Group, PLLC now to protect your rights.