Finally, Moore asserted "…the issues regarding Moore’s role in procuring the settlement were fully explored in the underlying action." (p10 Opposition Brief) Only an evidentiary hearing could have "fully explored" the issue.

                    THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
                CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED

          Petitioners’ argument in this Reply Brief does not concern "erroneous factual findings…" as referred to by Respondent. (p12 Opposition Brief) Petitioners raise the issue of Procedural Due Process. Decisions were made about conflicting facts, and all without evidentiary hearing.

          This Reply Brief asks this Court to consider that petitioners’ substantive Seventh Amendment right was removed without a hearing. This Court has said that "some kind of hearing is required…" before such a deprivation can be permitted. (Wolff, Warden, et.al. v. McDonnell 418 U.S. 557, 558).

          John V. Orth, in Due Process of Law (University Press of Kansas, 2003, p88), summarizes the definition of "hearing" in Goldberg v. Kelly (397 U.S. pp254-279): (1) adequate notice, (2) opportunity to be heard, (3) the right to present evidence, (4) confrontation of opposing witnesses, (5) cross-examination (6) disclosure of adverse evidence, (7), the right to an attorney, (8) decision based on the evidence, (9), reasons for the decision, (10) an impartial decision maker.

Click for Previous Page
Click for Next Page (10/12)
Click for Appeal to the United States Supreme Court
Click for Preface