ex post facto & qualified immunity

[makole]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Hawaii

I'm the plaintiff in a case against a number of government agencies who acted with malice against me by denying my application for a professional license resulting in my 19 year successful career being taken away. I have retained an attorney on a "limited-representation" basis. She is assisting with my case to get my license denial reversed and my license issued but refuses to continue with her representation after that for damages. I'm seeking damages because the public website has defamed my professional character by reporting the definition of "denied" for license as "has never been able to [practice in the profession]". This is a new license required and for the entire duration of my career I've practiced within legal requirements. Her reason for not assisting with going after damages is because she claims that the "State is immune". My research has uncovered some very similar cases to mine but they're all quite old. She further stated that ex post facto isn't a valid argument these days after the sex offender register law. My argument to her is that was an exception and the "no ex post facto law" language remains in the constitution unchanged. If anyone has any knowledge of some fairly recent cases concerning negligent license denial or cases that involved ex post facto & qualified immunity that could help my case, I'd be greatly appreciative.

 

[Proserpina]

I'd guess that your attorney knows more about this than you do and she evidently feels that you're tilting at windmills.

You should probably follow her advice.

Or, hire an attorney to represent you fully.

Your third option is to actually do the hard work yourself.

 

[FlyingRon]

While I'm lost in the muddled and absent details, the courts have held that additional restrictions placed on things like prior sex offenders, felons, DV, etc... are not "ex post facto laws." The act you were convicted on was a crime when it was committed and the fact that the implications of the conviction may change over time doesn't fit the definition.

Trying to claim consequential damages for this type of thing is indeed something that may well be denied hearing based on the state's immunity.

 

[makole]

My apologies, I tried to include enough details to paint a picture of my situation, but I apparently left some things out. My license was denied based on arbitrary reasons of character, of which the agency has no specific definition. It is a new law and a new license never before required. My attorney brought up the sex offender registration as part of her reasoning that ex post facto is an "old law". However, in my case, I have NEVER committed a crime. My case is very similar to Dent v. State of West Virginia in the sense that new requirements for license went into effect and my actions prior to the passage & implementation of this new law are now being used against me to prevent me from practicing in a profession which I have a proven track record of nearly 2 decades successfully, ethically & legally practicing in. The other case very similar to mine is Schware v. New Mexico State Board of Examiners. The problem she has is that the Dent case is from 1889 and the Schware case is from 1957. She is a good attorney but I'm having to do a lot of the work myself and my homework from her is to find more recent cases to support my claims of ex post facto. (Due to my unemployment, I have very little income/assets to pay her for large amounts of her time and she's not willing to take my case pro bono or on contingency.....)

 

[FlyingRon]

Sorry, but that's still not an ex post facto. Nor do I see how DENT helps your case at all. Schware may help, the question is not so much that the rules for practice changed, but whether you were afforded reasonable due process under the new rules.

 

[makole]

Dent mirrors my case......he was a physician who was denied his right to practice medicine when his license was denied. The reason his license was denied was a new license requirement that his diploma be from a "reputable" college and the state felt that where he had been educated wasn't reputable. Ex post facto was argued in his case and the courts determined that stripping him of his career was punishment and violated the 9th clause of the first article of the constitution because their license law was ex post facto. They further concluded that stripping one of their profession was punishment. In my case, the law was created in June 2010. My license was denied because I had some late payments on my credit report prior to that date. The language in the law is that the license applicant must show they are of sound financial character to evidence they are capable of commanding the confidence of the community. I have successfully practiced in my career for 19 years without a single complaint, violation or otherwise. The late payments on my credit report were due to a severe & unexpected drop in income and the emotional toll as I dealt with deteriorating health of my father who suffered a massive heart attack in 2007 and passed away April 2010. Now that my license has been denied and it's been published to the world, no one has any interest in hiring me, even employers who are exempt from licensing.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

I can certainly understand why you are appealing, however, I do not see that you have a case for financial compensation, due to a law being enforced.

 

[makole]

The case for damages is based on several other facts:

1. The denial of my license was negligent and indivuous. I have documentation of a former competitor who was initially denied a license based on the exact same criteria. That person's denial was reversed by the agency after he pleaded with them. They re-reviewed the documents he originally submitted with his application and didn't require him to go through an appeal like me. While they were in this process, he was not to be found anywhere on the public website that reports license statuses. Additionally, I made repeated requests for the definition to be changed to something more accurate and requested an additional license status of "denied - on appeal" to be added & my status changed - they refused to take any action to fix these inaccuracies on the public website. They also failed to remove me from the website like they did my former competitor.
2. The public website reports my license as denied, which is defined as "never having been able to practice in the profession". This false definition has given cause to a lot of rumors and questions about my integrity and whether I was doing business legally prior to the requirement of this new license. I live in a small town of only 45,000 people and my business is entirely based on referrals.....the damage to my reputation is devastating.
3. Given that my license was denied, I have been unable to find employment in this field even with a bank or credit union. Banks & credit unions are exempt from licensing and could hire me. They have shown serious interest initially, but once they find out that my license was denied, that interest disappears. Additionally, most employers in this industry now have a requisite of a great personal credit history to qualify as a new employee. My credit has seriously suffered since I've been unemployed for 7 months (as a result of my license denial). My former employer isn't interested in doing business in this state any longer as a result of the denial of my license (I was their only employee in this state).

In summary, the negligent actions of the state in an attempt to enforce a law which, by their own admission, is subjective with no specific or measurable requirements, has destroyed my career and reputation to the point that the likelihood of ever returning successfully to this profession is nill. Had there been equal & fair treatment to all applicants, accurate definitions on the public website, etc. I would not be seeking damages, but that's not the case in this situation.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

If you were specific as to what the professional license is, someone might be able to help you more. Until you make that decision, it appears you are just expelling frustration. I gather it is a mortgage lender license.

Your post

The late payments on my credit report were due to a severe & unexpected drop in income and the emotional toll as I dealt with deteriorating health of my father who suffered a massive heart attack in 2007 and passed away April 2010.

The law

D) A pattern of seriously delinquent accounts within the past three years;

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol10_Ch0436-0474/HRS0454F/HRS_0454F-0005.htm

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

I suggest you try repackaging the presentation of your skills. I suspect you are presenting yourself as a victim of the system and turning off prospective employers. If you presented yourself as needing a chance to recover, from an unforeseen conflict with new regulations, you might find a more willing employer. You only need a few years to fix the problem.

 

[makole]

Correct, it is a mortgage loan originator license. I'm not just expelling frustration, I'm looking for answers. My constitutional rights have been violated and my life-long career taken away from me arbitrarily. I have attempted to find employment with every bank & credit union in town and very few have even replied. This is a small town so I'm stuck. I've never done anything other than banking.....I started in that career directly out of high school. Seeking legal action is my only choice. I'd like to get back to my initial question.....are there any recent cases for ex post facto which might be helpful in my case? Also, are there any suggestions on how to get the state to consent to a jury trial? Thank you for all of your help.

 

[HomeGuru]

The case for damages is based on several other facts:

1. The denial of my license was negligent and indivuous. I have documentation of a former competitor who was initially denied a license based on the exact same criteria. That person's denial was reversed by the agency after he pleaded with them. They re-reviewed the documents he originally submitted with his application and didn't require him to go through an appeal like me. While they were in this process, he was not to be found anywhere on the public website that reports license statuses. Additionally, I made repeated requests for the definition to be changed to something more accurate and requested an additional license status of "denied - on appeal" to be added & my status changed - they refused to take any action to fix these inaccuracies on the public website. They also failed to remove me from the website like they did my former competitor.
2. The public website reports my license as denied, which is defined as "never having been able to practice in the profession". This false definition has given cause to a lot of rumors and questions about my integrity and whether I was doing business legally prior to the requirement of this new license. I live in a small town of only 45,000 people and my business is entirely based on referrals.....the damage to my reputation is devastating.
3. Given that my license was denied, I have been unable to find employment in this field even with a bank or credit union. Banks & credit unions are exempt from licensing and could hire me. They have shown serious interest initially, but once they find out that my license was denied, that interest disappears. Additionally, most employers in this industry now have a requisite of a great personal credit history to qualify as a new employee. My credit has seriously suffered since I've been unemployed for 7 months (as a result of my license denial). My former employer isn't interested in doing business in this state any longer as a result of the denial of my license (I was their only employee in this state).

In summary, the negligent actions of the state in an attempt to enforce a law which, by their own admission, is subjective with no specific or measurable requirements, has destroyed my career and reputation to the point that the likelihood of ever returning successfully to this profession is nill. Had there been equal & fair treatment to all applicants, accurate definitions on the public website, etc. I would not be seeking damages, but that's not the case in this situation.

**A: based upon my review of your limited information posted, my opinion is that you have no case.

 

[makole]

I am a citizen of the United States of America with constitutional rights. I will win this case. Thank you all for your time.

 

[ecmst12]

Please point out where in the constitution it states you have the right to a mortgage lender license.

 

[!CuriousGeorge!]

Please point out where in the constitution it states you have the right to a mortgage lender license.

Its on the back...