Scam-era Carnival

The circus came to Marty-roo court today when retired APD Captain Sonny Leeper decided to fight his scam-van citation. You see Captain Leeper decided to bring along a few friends from the local media and their video cameras.

Our Eyes tell us that channels 4, 7, and 13 showed up along with 770 KKOB and wanted to witness the proceedings. At first chief hearing officer Roberto Albertorio tried to deny access to the local media and relented after discussing whether or not the city has the authority to deny access to a public hearing.

Shortly after granting admission to the Marty-roo scam-era circus, APDs media goon John Walsh showed up with a number of police officers primed to defend Marty's scam-eras. The Eyes have it that the hearing was a short one as the presiding "judge" dismissed the citation without comment from the defendant.

Captain Leeper later told 770 KKOB radio that this was his second hearing over the citation for driving 42 MPH in a 40 MPH zone and that he fully expected to be found "guilty" by the sham court but things changed when the media showed up. Apparently, hearing officer Horata blamed the wind for the dismissal (and his dog for eating his homework).

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.

Red Light Cameras: Show Trial

A show trial is a trial where the outcome is widely known and predetermined. The "trial" itself is just for the benefit of the audience. It's like watching 24... No matter how much trouble Jack gets into you know that he'll make it out alive and save the world in the process. We told you here, about the pressure being put on hearing officers not to dismiss Red Light Camera citations. You see, Marty needs the Money and these red light money makers make a lot of it, over $6 MILLION so far.

Our Eyes on the inside are telling us that in order to fulfill the directive from the Almighty Marty, the city is playing fast and loose with the law itself. The city has an obligation to provide a hearing for everyone who decides to contest the citation. The hearing must be held within 90 days of the Effective Date. Due to the gerrymandering of this ordinance by it's sponsor Craig Loy, the Effective Date is either defined as:

§ 7-11-3 DEFINITIONS.
EFFECTIVE DATE. The date a STOP fine is mailed [emphasis added] to the recipient by the contractor as indicated on the face of the STOP Fine.

-Or-

§ 7-11-5 ENFORCEMENT.
(H) Fine. The date of a violation is the effective date. [emphasis added] If the registered owner or nominee requested a hearing and did not prevail, the date of the violation is the effective date. The fine for the first violation for running a red light is $100. The fine for a second violation for running a red light within two years from the date of the first violation is $250. The fine for a third or subsequent violation for running a red light within two years from the date of the first violation is $500.

According to the ordinance, the latest deadline for the city to hold a hearing is 90 days from the mailing of the citation. Our Eyes tell us that the city is "interpreting" the ordinance in a number of creative ways in order to give them a little more time to hold the mandated hearing due to their... well, popularity. In a recent hearing, Roberto Albertorio, the replacement hearing officer for Albert Chavez who resigned rather than be terminated for dismissing citations, ruled that the "effective date" is actually the date that the request for hearing was received.

Now... we're not a lawyer (and don't play one on TV), and the ordinance Chapter 7, Section 11 of the Albuquerque Code of Ordinances gives two definitions for the Effective Date but unless our eyes are deceiving us, neither one of the definitions given have anything to do with the date that a request for hearing is received by the city. As an attorney, Mr. Albertorio should know this... unless he is being less than an impartial judge in the matter.

Call it crooked, call it corrupt, or call it what it is... a show trial.