During the July 14 meeting of the Governing Body, the City Attorney's Office fought to suppress the appeal process of a Santa Fe Citizen who was seeking to a re-assessment of his STR permit violation. The following is part of that exchange:
Councilor Renee Villareal: "How do you determine when a community member receives a letter? When they get certified mail, do they have to sign off?"
City Attorney Michael Prinz: "We do get the return receipt because it's required to be mailed by certified mail. The process by the postal service is that they deliver the letter and you do sign the letter."
Jason Kluck: "I can add insight if you like. I have the return receipt. I'm holding it right now. Mr. LaCalle signed it on 5/26/2021."
The above statements by Michael Prinz and by Jason Kluck were misinformation and tainted the proceeding. The victims of the revocation never signed receipt of any letter on May 26, 2021. In fact, they did not receive the letter until many days later.
The victims of the permit revocation could not believe that Land Use Director Kluck and the City Attorney's Office were fabricating information to sway the Governing Body to vote against their appeal.
Director Kluck claimed he held the letter in his hands and saw the signature with his own eyes during the July 14 Governing Body meeting. The victims knew this to be a lie.
To prove that Director Kluck and the City Attorney's Office had fabricated evidence, the victims of the permit revocation requested the return receipt from the Land Use Director after the July 14 meeting.
"We weren't even home at the time to have signed the letter," stated the victim of the revocation. "We could not believe what Director Kluck was claiming. And afterward, he seemed intent on blocking us from seeing the return receipt. He actually made us file an IPRA request to get our own return receipt, which seemed very strange."
Ultimately, under New Mexico law, Director Kluck was forced to turn over the return receipt.
As suspected, the certified mail receipt did not contain a signature, as claimed by Director Kluck. The slip was signed by a postal worker who wrote something about Covid-19 in the signature field.
"We were not even given an opportunity to speak during this proceeding to offer any corrections," stated the victims of the permit revocation. "We felt like this was a major violation of due process and it caused us to question the ethics and motivations of Land Use Director Kluck and Attorney Erin McSherry's Office."
Intentional Lies or Plain Error by Attorney McSherry's Office?
Since the proceeding was primarily about when the victim of the permit revocation received notice, the errors by Attorney Erin McSherry, Michael Prinz, and Jason Kluck were extremely significant.
"The City Attorney's Office claimed that it was standard procedure to send out a revocation via USPS Certified Mail on one day and then send out an email notice of the revocation on a different day," stated a victim of the permit revocation.
"Attorney McSherry made claimed during the proceeding about this being a normal process, but they did not even seem to understand how Certified Mail works. They claimed that we were required to sign to confirm receipt, but with Certified Mail, the postal worker simply signs to stating that he dropped something into a mailbox, not that someone is in possession of the mail."
Despite making such a serious error and seeming to be unprepared with facts for the presentation in front of the Governing Body, Attorney McSherry, Michael Prinz, and Jason Kluck never attempted to rectify their mistake. After the July 14 meeting, they even went to court to fight to suppress the victims' right to an appeal hearing in front of the Board of Adjustment.
"We do not understand why Attorney McSherry chose to dedicate so many resources to fighting our simple request to get a hearing in front of the Board of Adjustment. We have a strong opinion that Attorney McSherry does not want the facts of our case to be part of the public record."
Since the recipients of the revocation were never given an opportunity for an appeal hearing, they decided to lay out all the public materials about their case on this website.
Note: The victims of the permit revocation have yet to hear a single clarification or apology for the mishandling of their case in the Governing Body meeting on July 14.
Comments