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.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Decriminalization and What's Behind It

It will be busy over at the city's hearing office if The Mayer (Councilor Mayer) gets her way. The Mayer is leading the charge to decriminalize some 72 misdemeanor offenses. Things like violations of the noise ordinance, failure to obey a police officer, purchasing ephedrine (which is used to make meth), illegal wood burning, and of course The Mayer's very own HEART (not head) ordinance, just to mention a few.

We're sure that the reason for decriminalization of these dastardly deeds will be to take the burden off the court system. In fact, at first glance it seems like a pretty good idea. However, when you look deeper you'll find a few facts that are very disturbing.

The ordinance O-06-25 (scheduled to be heard Monday, April 16) if enacted, will make all of these criminal offenses civil offenses. If this sounds familiar to you it should. It's the exact theory that Albuquerque's photo enforcement program runs under. Running a red light in one of these intersections is a civil offense (apparently committed by your vehicle because the driver is unknown). The same will become true of the 70 plus offenses that are currently petty misdemeanors.

Like the red light camera program, you will be issued a civil citation that will require you to pay up or request an administrative hearing. The fine structure should also sound familiar, $100 for the first offense, $250 for the second, and $500 for the 3rd and all subsequent offenses for the rest of your life (and that of your children if they could get away with it).

This is where we really start to have problems, the first of which is that of due process. As we've already established, the complainant and the hearing officers both work for the administrative branch of government, in this case King Mighty Marty I. The opportunity for a fair and impartial hearing is immediately diminished by the very fact that the mayor is the hearing officer's boss.

In addition, by changing a criminal offense to a civil offense you also change the standard of judgment from beyond a reasonable doubt, to a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, a lower standard that leans towards guilt rather than innocence. A standard that favors the accuser. A standard that favors the city in these cases, even if they were heard before a judge, which they're not.

Finally, when you pay your fine (not if you pay), the money is then collected by the city. Let's see... control the accusing agencies, control the hearing officers, cut out the court system, and collect the money; motive and profit opportunity. Sounds like the perfect system for a banana republic or a tyrannical dictatorship; certainly a system where you are guilty until proven innocent.