No Mayor Shall be a Judge in His Own Cause

We've been screaming about the Red Light Scam-era program for sometime now (read about it here and here). One of our first and most important observations was that the "hearing" system set up to "judge" STOP violation appeals was inherently biased towards the state (Mayor Marty and Co.). In other words, how can someone's due process rights be observed when they cannot appear before a fair and unbiased arbiter?

In addition to the class action suit that has been filed by the Branch Law Firm, attorney Paul Livingston contacted us with information about a client he is representing in one of Almighty Marty's kangaroo courts. The defendant in the case (or rather the person whose irresponsible vehicle became a "nuisance" in one of Mayor Marty's Money Makin' Movies) is Mary Patrick.

Ms. Patrick retained attorney Paul Livingston to represent her (and her no-good vehicle) at her "hearing." As part of the defense Mr. Livingston moved to disqualify hearing officer Marty Esquivel for conflict of interest; a point that should be patently clear to anyone above a single-celled organism.

Hearing officer Esquivel ordered Ms. Patrick's attorney, Mr. Livingston to prepare a brief supporting his motion for disqualification, and to have it back in 24 hours. (Read the full brief here.) In our opinion, the brief provides more than enough support for disqualification. Further, Mr. Livingston's argument would apply to each and every "hearing officer" employed by the City of Albuquerque.

According to the disqualification brief, "no man shall be a judge in his own cause" is the first principle when determining whether or not a "hearing officer" holds a fundamental bias towards one of the parties involved. In another case, the court found that "no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome." Yet a third case established that hearing officers "cannot be blind to the interest in that issue of the party which selected him or her and pays the fee..."

We don't believe that any sane person would argue against the principle of having an impartial judge. Mr. Livingston's brief establishes that the very fact that the hearing officer is in the employ of the mayor whose interest in the case dictates a finding of "guilty," precludes the hearing officer from rendering a fair and impartial decision. Therefore, the accused (and their dastardly Dodge, Chevy, Pontiac, Ford, or import of your choice) is "deprived of [his or her] constitutional due process right to a fair hearing conducted by an impartial hearing officer."

Naturally, Hearing Officer Esquivel refused to consider the brief because he didn't receive it within exactly 24 hours, which to Mr. Esquivel's esteemed legal mind meant the morning after the original hearing not end of the day. Of course, he didn't make that clear... could it have been intentional?

Our government requires the consent of the governed. Our consent should only be given when we have faith in those that run it; faith in their wisdom and faith in their impartiality. When those governing lose our trust, our consent for their continued governance in any capacity, should be rescinded. That's what elections are for.

The red light scam-era program and its attendant shadow court are proof that we should not trust those who continue to support it. Their arguments for public safety ring hollow when heard with the echo of partiality and bias. "No man shall be a judge in his own cause," and no mayor should be allowed to be judge, jury and prosecutor.