| |
  
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
Legal challenge to intersection cameras by Judge driver
I read in the paper (St Louis Post-Dispatch, Sunday Aug 23, 2009 - "Red lights on the docket") that there was due to be a case in Missouri where a judge got a ticket from a red light camera, and he was going to fight it. I don't know how it came out, but you could try contacting him, Robert Dierker, or the journalist Jake Wagman 314-622-3580.
Here's the important part of the article:
"Missouri law does not sanction the cameras. For now, at least, vehicle owners who ignore tickets in St Louis just get warning letters. ... The legal ambiguity continues. While a federal judge last month threw out a challenge of Arnold's cameras, Robert H Dierker has appealed his ticket to the St Louis Circuit Court, where he has been a judge for more than 20 years. A visiting judge has been assigned to hear the case Sept. 28."
He might have some good legal arguments for you!
Due process rights
One more relevant sentence in the article:
"Dierker contends, among other things, that the cameras violate due process rights."
College Station Cameras Are Still Around
I'm currently living in College Station, Texas, where we recently passed a city ordinance, by petition onto the ballot, to make evidence submitted by red light cameras illegal for use in court, and to remove these red light cameras. The vote passed 52-48%. Anyway, in addition to the arguments I've read thus far, the main, and most persausive, argument used during the election was based on some studies that were done that showed red light cameras actually increase accidents at the intersections in which they're implemented. The study also showed that safety could be better improved by lengthening yellow light times, which, in this particular case, is important because many cities have shortened yellow light times at these same intersections. In College Station, Keep College Station Safe, the PAC supporting red light cameras, was only supported by sources outside of College Station, whereas the other side was totally funded by local sources. This got a lot of people riled up and increased media coverage on the subject. So, even though American Traffic Solutions, the company who implemented the cameras, had much more monetary support from sources outside of College Station, the people voted in favor of the ordinance. My recommendation, as a resident activist, would be to get the local papers on your side. In many cases, the city will have undertaken actions which will help your argument, but only if you can submit reports of it to local media.
Anyway, I'd also like to note that College Station is yet to get rid of its red light camera program, as some lawyers from Austin were hired by Keep College Station Safe to challenge the results of the election on the basis that the petition was filed against the city charter's rules on recall, referendum and intiative, as a recall election, rather than as an initiative (because of time limitations on filing petitions for recall, referendum, or intiative). At any rate, a judge provided for a temporary restraining order, so the cameras are still in place. People are so angry that there have been calls of recalling the entire city council, city manager, city attorney, and mayor. The city knows this, and, as such, they've saved face and stated that they will cancel their contract with American Traffic Solutions if election is overturned. I'm betting that this is what will occur -- and its corrupt. You see, the contract with American Traffic Solutions stipulates that there will be a period of 60 days following cancellation in which cameras will remain operable. They are wasting time -- one last opportunity to generate illicit revenues out of the program the people rejected. Wasting our tax dollars on defending itself against Keep College Station Safe's challenge seems just to be a cost in doing so. Hopefully, the entire city government will be ousted for this non-sense.
Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.
That's exactly my argument
"I've read thus far, the main, and most persausive, argument used during the election was based on some studies that were done that showed red light cameras actually increase accidents at the intersections in which they're implemented. The study also showed that safety could be better improved by lengthening yellow light times, which, in this particular case, is important because many cities have shortened yellow light times at these same intersections."
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
They don't fight back, break them off with a sledgehammer.
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine
The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!
that is much easier than trying to get these politicians to listen to us.
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine
The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!
If you REALLY want to be successful
1. Get a few like minded people together who are against the unconstitutional use of cameras, so that you can split up the duties of fighting back and enjoy the mutual benefits of victory. Then have your team work on the following simple steps.
2. Research the unconstitutionality of the cameras as they relate to due process, right to face your accuser, etc. (with regard to both your state and the federal constitution)
3. Find out which legislators helped initiate the camera fraud.
4. File open records requests for the oaths of office of these legislators along with any public officials who support or enforce the codes or statutes that institute and/or regulate the camera fraud.
5. File open records requests for the bonds of the same people in #4. Since the bond is nothing more than an insurance policy that they will abide by their oath, the records will indicate who the bond holding (insurance) company is.
6. Send the public officials a notice (just type out a letter sent certified mail) that you accept their oath as a lawfully binding contract, and that they have violated their contract via the camera fraud using the research in #2.
7. You can now file a claim against the insurance company. DON'T file it personally against the public official, as this can get you in hot water. One claim against their bond may be enough to put them out of a job, opening the door for more honest constitutionally aware people to take their position (or better yet even get rid of the position altogether).
I'm pretty sure I've stated this all correctly. There may be a second and third notice required with #6 to make the whole process lawfully binding. Contact the guys at www.agenda21talk.com for more info, and HAVE FUN FIGHTING TYRANNY!!!
************
Are you a person?
Do you really control your own affairs?
What he said!
http://www.tragedyandhope.com
http://www.im2moro.com
Personally...
I'm a fan of 5.56mm.
However for a much more spectacular impact, .308 Winchester can't be beat!
LOL I was thinking of that kind of ammo too!
What are you fightin' for?
Caught in the middle?
Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it!
What are you fightin' for?
Caught in the middle?
Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it!
There are many ways to remedy this opportunity.
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
Thanks to all of you!
Here is the email I sent to the local Board of Mayor and Aldermen:
Good evening lady and gentlemen, I have been reading in the Kingsport Times-News about the discussions of lowering the fines for the tickets, The analysis that I have been able to gather show the cameras in various cities and states, actually increase accidents. On the surface, placing cameras at intersections seemed like a great idea. Maybe it's time to re-evaluate the entire issue of whether the cameras are working as advertised. I am including some links in this email of an analysis done in FL, VA and Los Angeles that show the cameras are making the roads MORE hazardous NOT less. I know some will argue that right angle crashes are more dangerous but at cost of more rear-end crashes at a ratio of 2-1 or even as high as 3-1. This has me asking one question. Are we putting money before public safety? I am also collecting commitments from state representatives and senators to ban these cameras state-wide as 14 other states have already done. As one senator told me, when one judge declares the cameras unconstitutional, lawyers will file a class action lawsuit and the cities will be responsible for returning all the money to the citizens, I don't know about the Redflex contract but the cities could be responsible for the money sent to that company. Can the city legally recover that money? I am also including a spreadsheet of the data I have been able to collect after hours of research. Why is this data so hard to find if the cameras are such a success at lowering accidents? I will make every effort to be at the next BMA meeting on these cameras. Please take time to read these documents. I'm sure you will reach the same conclusion a lot of other city officials have reached, these cameras ARE a public hazard. It looks like ultimately, if safety is the major concern increasing yellow light times and the all red interval is the best methods to reduce crashes.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1844.asp
http://tnliberty.org/?page_id=40
http://hsc.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/C1702850-8716-4C2D-8EEB-15A2...
http://cbs2.com/goldstein/Red.Light.Cameras.2.1301941.html
Thanks
JB
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
cities use them to make
cities use them to make money, not to prevent harm to the citizens.
case in point.
as soon as people learn about the cameras, they adjust their driving, drive more conservatively, which results in no one being "caught" anymore, so the cameras are then adjusted so they have ridiculously short yellow lights to "catch" more people again, people adjust to the new timings by driving even more conservatively, traffic bogs down, no funds are coming in to pay for the camera contracts, no funds are going to the city.
In the end they pull the equipment out, as it's a money loser.
it's a lose, lose, lose situation.
the city doesn't give two shits about the people.
it's usually a handful of people who are pushing their pet projects, making it look like their "getting stuff done", they can put another feather in their cap, and get promoted or elected or get some backroom deal.
it's all bullcrap.
talk about the unseen. what happens when you add 10 minutes to a commute for 30,000 drivers on a specific city street route? Well people will just drive faster on the highway to make up for those 10 minutes. And police rarely give out tickets during rush hour. And if you add cameras to the highways, they're only going to do it in places where the centralist bureaucrats believe they can make money. So again, you squeeze the balloon, in one or two places, it still pops out somewhere else.
People are already going with the fewest amount of hours of sleep they can get away with. They are already leaving as early as they can for the commute.
You have the seen and the unseen.
It's the same notion as put out every single small little fire you see in the forest. ALL OF THEM. It's easy. You see it, you extinguish it. 10 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD THE WHOLE GD COUNTRY SIDE IS ON FIRE, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES.
You see, Life is chess. And bureaucrats can see one move ahead. That's it. They solve problems on a 1st grade level.
.22 works just fine...
I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...
I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...
12Ga double 0
..............................................
personally
I like what they were doing in Briton to combat the cameras, destroy them late at night without revealing your identity. They had lots of people doing it, all over the country so if one person got caught for vandalism a lot more cameras would bite it soon after.
______
The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare
The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare
Here's the thread
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/93000
Good luck my man!!
I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees...
I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees...
I had the same problem..
I'll find the thread and post it for you I got a lot of information to fight thIs.
Currently our city commision has tabled the idea after i brought the info I got to the Mayor.
Can you believe they were gonna get the cameras and maintenance for free?As the company supplying them would get a large portion of the fines levied on the driver.Corrupt as can be.
I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees...
I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees...
Google Jim Ash & red light cameras
(My previous post is being delayed because I included the links.)
He's the guy who headed the campaign to rid College Station of red light cameras.
Lots of revenue generated by the cameras. Cameras were sold as safety, but most of the tickets were for LEGAL right on red.
Can't believe some DPers support the unconstitutional cameras!
Jim Ash has vowed to fight the cameras statewide.
College Station, Texas voted to eliminate red light cameras
but the vote is being challenged by the opposition.
Lots of revenue generated by the cameras. Cameras were sold as safety, but most of the tickets were for LEGAL right on red. Can't believe some DPers support the unconstitutional cameras! Jim Ash has vowed to fight the cameras statewide.
http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/69006022.html
http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/69752217.html
http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/69728592.html
http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/70240062.html
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=91306330681&ref=search
http://www.civilviolation.com/
Get elected to local office
then have the cameras removed. Quit whining and get directly involved.
IN YOUR HEADLINE...
Shoot them down!!!!
CameraFraud.com
has all the information you are looking for on the unconstitutional Scameras
Check out the Minneapolis case... State Court of Apeals said NO!
Pretty sure the city spent a large sum of money on them and got to spend a bunch more money after the state courts went off on them.
Check these stories out. I am sure you can find someone to look up the exact arguments in court. I don't trust the stribs reporting enough to use them for anything important.
http://www.startribune.com/local/11585516.html
http://www.startribune.com/local/19019954.html?location_refe...
Tennessee Liberty Alliance
http://tnliberty.org/?page_id=40
They cause rear-end collisions to increase and
Once the locals are accustomed to them, the revenue stream dries up big time. Also, the private company that maintains the cameras and adminsters the program ALWAYS figures out new and interesting ways to rip-off the jurisdiction and walk with the vast vast majority of the money.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
I like the red light enforcement
but don't like having my comings and goings recorded.
New Hampshire and Ecuador
If ever "caught" by one...
...demand a jury trial.
It's your right to trial by a jury of your peers, but the genius is that they can not produce a witness against you.
Machines are not human, and can't show up to testify against you in court.
This comes from a quite accomplished lawyer friend, who has successfully plead for hundreds of clients in this manner - but you can easily do it all yourself.
No matter what they say, no matter how many times they insist a jury trial isn't available, YOU must INSIST - always - in writing via Certified Return Receipt Mail for a jury trial.
Sooner, or later, they will issue you a dismissal, free of all charges.
Spread this far and wide.
wont work
its a civil action not a criminal...you have no right to jury trial.
That depends
on what state you are in. In California, you can't get a jury trial for a traffic offense. In Texas, you can. States vary on that.
It's not civil if you fight it then it's criminal
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
Tell that to my lawyer friend...
...who has won countless cases and earned the rep of "red light camera eliminator" in these parts (greater Atlanta).
It's not civil given the excessive "fees" (theft).