[WSBARP] NJP Making it a Federal Case

[Paul Neumiller]

Judge slammed the tenant for bringing the motion and for not identifying clear WA Supreme Court case.

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> on behalf of Jimmy Garg <jimmy at jimmygarg.com>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2023 7:49:57 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] NJP Making it a Federal Case


How did the hearing go?  Hopefully the Court saw 2.43.040 wasn’t at issue in this matter.



NJP is funded through Office of Civil Legal Aid (OCLA), which is governed under 2.53.030 to provide services for indigent Washingtonians.  2.43.040 along with 59.18.640 also state free help is available for indigent residents.  However, if financial position is irrelevant according to NJP, and also HJP for that matter, then aren’t they misappropriating public funds and tax dollars in order to get a larger budget and more funding for their organizations? I’m sure their budget and funding is determined on how many clients they take, so they have a personal and biased interest in taking more, even if costs the taxpayers more.  Which is probably why legislature stated in 59.18.640 that the Courts should decide who gets free help, similar to 2.43.040, and not leave it to NJP/HJP to do an intake to see if someone qualifies.  Anyone else see an issue?



From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2023 11:14 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] NJP Making it a Federal Case



Literally.  I represent LL in an unlawful detainer case.  Tenant is a non-English native tongue speaker and NJP demands the court provide an interpreter at the court’s cost.  But tenant doesn’t qualify for a free attorney (makes over $54K a year) and court says RCW 2.43.040 requires T to be indigent before court pays.  NJP argues that T’s financial position is irrelevant and, get this, RCW 2.43.040 violates federal due process and thus unconstitutional.  Is there no notice requirement to the WA Attorneys Office.  The hearing is this afternoon.  Any thoughts?





[cid:image001.jpg at 01D98509.CE831FC0]



IMPORTANT NOTICE:  This e-mail message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. E-mail messages to clients of Paul A. Neumiller presumptively contain information that is confidential and legally privileged; e-mail messages to non-clients are normally confidential and may also be legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward or store this message unless you are the intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it back to the sender and delete it completely from your computer system.



E-mail communication on the Internet may NOT be secure. There is a risk that this confidential communication may be intercepted illegally. There may also be a risk of waiving attorney-client and/or work-product privileges that may attach to this communication. DO NOT forward this message to a third party. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact the sender.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230515/c1465725/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14264 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230515/c1465725/image001.jpg>