Michael Kielsky

This was a photo radar case, CT2009-511612, in the West McDowell Justice Court, Maricopa County, Arizona. This is from the video recorded by the court for the trial on December 16, 2009, starting at about 9:00 am.

I'm the one on the left, the judge is facing the camera at the top, and the guy on the right is an employee of Redflex (not an attorney), who is appearing as the witness (or representative) for the state.

Right at the start (clipped), judge mentions that she saw me interviewed on TV the night before. The news clip that was broadcast can be viewed here:

http://www.kpho.com/video/21979630/

About the interview, the judge says "you were wrong about almost everything." I found that strange because I really didn't say much, and couched everything in typical legal equivocation -- "it might".

Later, judge says that due process does not apply, "either procedural or substantive".

Procedural due process means the right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings, and that the person or panel making the final decision over the proceedings be impartial in regards to the matter before them. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 (1970).

That makes me wonder if the judge meant that defendants in these hearings are not entitled to notice, to learn the allegations, to review the evidence, or to an impartial judge to decide.

The judge let me continue (reschedule) the case, and it was ultimately dismissed at the next hearing.

The judge's comments were noted and an element in Judicial Conduct Commission discipline.

https://www.azcourts.gov/portals/137/reports/2011/11-259.pdf (see pp. 15-16), quoted here:

'In 2010, Respondent [judge] stated during a hearing that "neither substantive nor procedural due process was applicable in these photo enforcement matters" and was unable to provide any authority for this comment other than declaring to the litigant that "there is a whole bunch of case law I guess you have not been able to find." Respondent was likewise unable to identify any legal authority for her assertion when asked by the Commission to do so in response to the complaint. On December 20, 2010, the Commission sent Respondent a private but strongly worded warning letter reminding Respondent of her obligations under the Code, and particularly of her obligation to remain patient, dignified, and courteous and to act consistently in a manner that promotes confidence in the judiciary.'

If you have photo radar cases in and around Maricopa County, Arizona, and you want help in fighting them, you can contact me -- see https://dot.cards/kielsky