Archive for the ‘Traffic tickets’ Category
“The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it.” -John Hay (1872)
An increasing number of motorists in California are doing their research and challenging red-light camera tickets in court.
Many have been successful in fighting these tickets. Several of those who were convicted, have appealed their conviction and got it overturned based on the city’s failure to comply with the California vehicle code.
There are three basic defenses which motorists have used sucessfully to beat these tickets:
- Duration of the yellow light
- Legal Notification required to motorists
- Illegal Contigency Fee Contracts Used By Cities
The first is the legth of the yellow light at red light camera intersections. The law requires the yellow light to remain yellow for a certain number of seconds. Earlier this year, the City of San
Carlos, CA was forced by a court to refund nearly $157,000 to motorists who had gotten fraudulent camera tickets. The same thing hapened in Costa Mesa, CA in 2004, forcing the city to reverse 579 convictions and refund the money to those who had paid the fine.
Across the country, red light cameras have been shown to increase the number of traffic accidents. In 2002, City of San Diego’s own traffic engineers released an official report, concluding that “after photo enforcement, the average RE [rear end] accident rates increased by 62 percent”!
The second way people beat these tickets is holding the city accountable to the state law regarding waiting periods and notifications before tickets are issued.
The website HighwayRobbery.net covers everything you’d ever need to know about
red light camera tickets. They explain this issue in detail and post all the briefs and appelate rulings. In 2008, defendant Thomas Fischetti beat his second red light camera ticket, based on the requirement that a city must issue warning tickets for a period of 30 days for each camera it installs. The Appeals Court initially ruled that the decision be published, which would have
allowed the 12/18/08 ruling to be used as precedent in Orange County cases. However,
the city of Santa Ana filed a motion to prevent this from happening. They pled,
“The underlying issue in this case is not only of great concern to the CITY OF SANTA ANA, but also potentially affects the other cities operating such systems…
… “THE CITY OF SANTA ANA was fundamentally denied notice and the opportunity to be heard on an issue that has severe consequences for the CITY OF SANTA AN, as well as other cities throughout the state”.
The high court rejected Santa Ana’s request, certifying the decision for publication,
[See the court’s ruling HERE].
Santa Ana appealed the decision and the CA Supreme Court eventually ruled for the city, preventing Fischetti’s victory from becoming published case law.
Another defendant, Anna V., beat a Santa Ana red light camera ticket on appeal and had her conviction thrown out based on their lack of complying with the 30-day notice rule. which is covered in CA Vehicle Code Section 21455.5.
The third way motorists have beaten these tickets is challenging the cities illegal contracts.
One such notable case was in San Diego, CA in September 2001, when Judge Ronald Styn tossed out 290 camera tickets. In his ruling, Judge Styn stated
“In this case, the failure of the city to operate the system as required by
the legislature, combined with the contingent fee paid to Lockheed Martin
goes far beyond Adams or any of the cases which follow Adams. The Court
sees no difference between a contingent fee to a private corporation and a
contingent fee paid to an individual. Therefore, the Court’s ruling will stand. The evidence from the red light cameras will not be admitted. IT IS SO ORDERED.”
In November 2008, Orange County Superior Court Robert Moss ruled that the City of Fullerton violated state law based on the contingency fee they payed the red-light camera vendor.
Judge Moss ruled that the defendant Franco have his conviction reversed:
“Vehicle Code section 21455.5(g) provides that a contract between a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of an automated enforcement equipment may not include a provision for payment of compensation to the manufacturer or supplier based on the number of citations generated or percentage of revenue generated as a result of the use of the equipment. The purpose of the statute is to avoid an incentive to the camera operator, as a neutral evaluator of evidence, to increase the number of citations issued and paid through use of the equipment.”
In 2007, Judge Ken Schwartz dismissed the conviction of Nelson Nagai
in Los Alamitos, stating “this is a revenue driven pricing system, in direct violation of Vehicle Code section 21455.5(g)(1). Vehicle Code Section 21455.5 is to be strictly construed.The statutory requirements are intended to provide protection to the motorist public, and a conviction cannot result from a violation of its statutory provisions. Accordinbgly, the defendant… must be found not guilty”.
Cities have continued to violate the law regarding contracts, however, despite these numerous court rulings. To add insult to injury, some courts are blatantly ignoring the law and ruling against defendants in appeals which challenge the illegal contracts.
The excellent website HelpIGotATicket.com has a page on red light cameras, with a list of question to ask the witness (officer) in court.
I also have a red light camera page with information here..
I recently discussed fighting traffic tickets with Michael Badnarik on GCN; Here is the Show Notes page, with a lot of interesting and useful information.
Thanks to everyone who fights for liberty and righteousness. Keep the faith!
“Try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the fruitless works of darkness; rather expose them, for it is shameful even to mention the things done by them in secret;
but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light. Therefore, it says: “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light.” Ephesians 5:10-14
|Also on LibertyFight.com:
Charlie Sheen’s letter to Obama is covered on the 9-11-09 news broadcast on KFI Los Angeles at 430PM. Read the letter here: http://www.infowars.com/twenty-minutes-with-the-president/
Sept 14, The LA Times ran the following front page article. Infowars and Alex jones are not mentioned, but the photo that accompanied the story is that of a man holding an OBAMA JOKER/ INFOWARS sign.
The Photo appeared on page A11 of the paper version. The text on the sign looks small in the internet version below, but “Infowars.com” is very clearly visible in the large newsper version of the photo.
Some fear GOP is being carried to the extreme
The Republican establishment hopes cooler heads will prevail over strongly anti-Obama parts of the conservative base.
My car was towed off a public street a while back by a local police dept., They claimed that they had put up temporary no parking signs because of a local event that was happening that day.
The problem was that that there had been no no parking signs where I was parked.
I pled not guilty to the parking ticket through the mail and had a write in ‘hearing’. When I recieved the ‘ruling’, decided by some anonymous group or person, it stated in bold that the “NO PARKING SIGNS WERE CLEARLY VISIBLE”, as if the ruling were written by the very revenue agent who wrote the ticket, instead of an impartial party.
I opted to get the written hearing bypassed for an in-person hearing, which is an option under CA law.
A few days before the in-person hearing trial date, I rescheduled the in-person hearing, postponing it another month or so, as allowed by law.
They rescheduled the hearing, which occured a few days ago. I showed up at 10AM for the hearing and the third party decider was not there. Unlike a traffic ticket hearing which is held at a court, this was held at the police dept which issued the ticket.
It was approaching 10AM so I went up to the counter. The young girl officer behind the counter at the front desk of the police dept said that the third party guy had not shown up. She did not know his name or what specific agency he represented. She told me that her department ‘has nothing to do with that’. I informed her that they indeed do, since her dept is the one that issued the ticket and that my summons to appear as required by law, if I opted for it, was at this police dept; and that this dept was the legal venue.
Nevertheless, at 10:01 AM I went to ask and was told that the parking ticket judge was still not there. I replied to her that I have appeared as promised at 10AM as required by law and that since neither the prosecuting party nor the judge were present, I was leaving, and that I do not consent to a postponement or reschduling of my trial. and that I will need from her a legal written proof that I appeared as required by law. She then left the room to speak with her supervisor. She returned and said that they had no standard form for such an instance, but she asked for my drivers license, made a copy of it, signed her name and badge number, and affixed a Police dept stamp, verifying that I had appeared at 10AM.
I then walked out and having beaten the ticket by default, I will also therefore collect the upwards of 300 dollars (in small claims if I have to) that they charged for this illegal tow & impound.
“Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground” -Frederick Douglass
Visit http://LibertyFight.com for full traffic ticket section including info on my previous 7 victories, red light camera section, as well as numerous other victories by friends who have also won in court after learning how from the great free website http://helpigotaticket.com
The following is an excellent audio interview covering the dangers of vaccines. Great to pass along to those new to this issue. I highly recommend distributing this 60 minute clip.
Alex Jones: Dr. Blaylock: Swine Flu Vaccines (08/18/09) (hour 3)
Alex welcomes back to the show Dr. Russell Blaylock, nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon, author and lecturer. Blaylock argues that aspartame, MSG, and other excitotoxins promote the growth of cancer
Santa Monica and Red Cross Promote ‘Free’ [Cancer-Causing] RFID Chips In Pets
The city of Santa Monica, CA issued a press release about an event they are holding this weekend: The American Red Cross of Santa Monica and the City of Santa Monica present:
Admission is free and children and pets are welcome!
The city of Santa Monica, CA issued a press release about an event they are holding this weekend:
The American Red Cross of Santa Monica and the City of Santa Monica present:
Admission is free and children and pets are welcome!
Animal experts and celebrities including:
All dogs must leashed and other pets such as cats or rabbits must be in a proper pet carrier.
For more information visit http://www.smgov.net/smoaid/
Although their press release mentions the acronym “AVID”, nothing is revealed about what AVID is, not even their name, although a quick search revealed it stands for “American Veterinary Identification Devices”.
Nearly two years ago in September 2007, mainstream media across the world reported that RFID
Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre wrote the best-seller
This “free” promotion of an increasingly unpopular big brother technology by Santa Monica and the Red Cross is nothing more than a propaganda push to promote this unhealthy and unnecessary
Politico pubished an article titled GOP headache: The birther issue in which 9/11 ‘conspiracy theories’ were discounted by elected reps and GOP pundits.
Collin Peterson later apologized for his 9/11 remark;
Peterson may be reached here: http://collinpeterson.house.gov/
Also interesting to note that politico misspelled the name of government apologist and Republican pollster Whit Ayres, who is profiled on their own site here.
Politico lists Sen. Lyndsey Graham among Ayres ‘political clients’.
A letter Ayres recently wrote and posted on his website gives insight to his attempted derision of 9/11 truth: “while harsh interrogation techniques of detainees should be used only rarely, they may be necessary in exceptional situations to protect the country. Those techniques are justified when they are the only way to stop the murder of another 3000 innocent Americans in another 9/11.”