Sign in to follow this  
Not_Gonna_Quit

Case Law Regarding Appearance via Video or Teleconference

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I am trying to get a motion together that will allow me to appear via teleconference for an arbitration hearing scheduled Feb 28th. It's regarding a lawsuit by PRA for credit card debt. 

I was told by the head arbitrator that I would need to provide case law in order to appear via telephone or video conference. I have cited PA Civil Code and Due Process.

But honestly I have no idea what I'm doing and I don't know if I'm on the right track or not. 

Any Additional help would be greatly appreciated!

 

Defendant has the right to be heard in any hearings and this is a fundamental right under due process

“a person may not constitutionally be deprived of "life, liberty or property" by governmental action without notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950), Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550 (1965), Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80 (1972) (noting that the "central meaning of procedural due process" is the "right to notice and an opportunity to be heard ... at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner"). See generally Martin H. Redish & Lawrence C. Marshall, Adjudicatory Independence and the Values of Procedural Due Process, 95 YALE L.J. 455, 475 (1986) ("The Supreme Court has often stated that the core rights of due process are notice and hearing.").

Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 171-72 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) ("No better instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than to give a person in jeopardy of serious loss notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it."). United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 55 (1993) (quoting McGrath, 341 U.S. at 171-72 (Frankfurter, J., concurring)); Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1, 12-14 (1991) (same); Fuentes, 407 U.S. at 81 (same).

Escoe v. Zerbst “‘the end and aim of an appearance before the court’ under the statute was to ‘enable an accused [parolee] to explain away the accusation,’ and this required ‘bringing the [parolee] into the presence of his judge.’”

Thus, the required elements of due process are those that "minimize substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations" by enabling persons to contest the basis upon which a State proposes to deprive them of protected interests. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 81 (1972).

 

…but by general provisions of law applicable to all those in like condition, he is not deprived of property without due process of law, even if he can be regarded as deprived of his property by an adverse result. Marchant v. Pennsylvania R.R., 153 U.S. 380, 386 (1894).

The core of these requirements is notice and a hearing before an impartial tribunal. Due process may also require an opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination, and for discovery; that a decision be made based on the record, and that a party be allowed to be represented by counsel.

"In almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses."  Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 269 (1970)

Although the subject of an administrative hearing has the right to give oral testimony, actual physical presence is not required. See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 268-69 (1970); Kansas City v. McCoy, 525 S.W.2d 336 (Mo. 1975).

Furthermore The demeanor of witnesses in telephonic hearings, despite the inability to observe the appearance of the witness, can still be judged by other factors, such as the inherent plausibility of the testimony, the tenor of the witness's voice, inconsistencies and contradictions in testimony and specificity of testimony. Babcock v. Unemployment Division, 696 P.2d 19, 21 (1985).

 

Thus, the notice of hearing and the opportunity to be heard "must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)

 

 Pennsylvania Code § 101.127-101.133 - Regarding Teleconferences

101.128 Section A and B

a)  The tribunal may schedule, on its own motion, testimony by telephone of a party or witness when it appears from the record that the party or witness is located at least 50 miles from the location at which the tribunal will conduct the hearing, without regard to State boundaries.

(b)  The tribunal may schedule testimony by telephone of a party or witness, at the request of one or more parties, when one of the following applies:

                                    (1)  The parties consent to the receipt of testimony by telephone.

(2)  The party or witness is reasonably unable to testify in person due to a compelling employment, transportation, or health reason, or other compelling problem.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are in Asia, then maybe the plaintiff should not have sued you in the United States.  Could this be  a  FDCPA violation?  

Maybe a better strategy than arbitration would have been to file a motion to dismiss, as an American court does not have personal jurisdiction over you.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Not_Gonna_Quit said:

I live and work in Asia. 

How were you served with the summons and complaint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this