Court Decisions

http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-news/ci_23201752/las-cruces-drivers-red-light-challenge-upheld

Las Cruces driver's red-light challenge upheld

By Steve Ramirez / This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Posted:   05/08/2013 05:42:26 PM MDT

LAS CRUCES —A successful legal challenge to a controversial Las Cruces ordinance that governs red-light cameras has been upheld by state District Judge Manuel Arrieta of Las Cruces.

In the challenge, filed by Las Crucen Cristobal Rodriguez, Arrieta issued a 31-page decision May 2 saying, among other things, Rodriguez's rights to due process were denied; the city and a hearing officer who found that Rodriguez's vehicle was apparently guilty of speeding through a red-light enforcement camera in 2009 acted outside their scopes of authority; and the city had no authority to alter or enact rules of evidence for its administrative hearings.

The city will challenge Arrieta's decision after determining which court their appeal will be made, officials said.

"The city plans to proceed to the (New Mexico) Court of Appeals or to another court for reversal of the judge's opinion," city attorney Harry "Pete" Connelly said. "The city may seek a writ with the state Supreme Court."

In Arrieta's decision, the judge wrote: "It is hereby ordered that the action of the city was otherwise, not in accordance with law and therefore the decision of the hearing officer in finding a violation is reversed," Arrieta's written opinion said. The city must refund the $100 fine Rodriguez paid, and the violation must be removed from his records.

Rodriguez, an assistant professor in NMSU's College of Education, did not immediately return calls at his home or his office seeking comment on Arrieta's ruling.

But Anthony Avallone, a trustee for the Due Process Foundation, a Las Cruces grassroots organization that is challenging the constitutionality of the city's Safe Traffic Operations Program (STOP) ordinance, is pleased with Arrieta's decision. Avallone, a retired attorney, said the ruling could help efforts to ultimately get the ordinance struck down.

"Judge Arrieta did a good job," Avallone said. "He (Rodriguez) took all of the arguments we've been making about the ordinance and presented them to Arrieta — and he accepted them. ...We want the courts to declare the ordinance unconstitutional."

Las Crucen Diane Brock, said she considered Arrieta's decision a victory for city motorists.

"There's been too many arguments about the benefits of those cameras that have been way too argumentative," said Brock, of the enforcement cameras. "I keep seeing more of these news reports on TV talking about the unconstitutionality of these cameras, and it's got me wondering more and more if they're not right and these cameras should just be turned off. I think the city needs to take a long look at whether they want to keep these cameras around much more. Good for Mr. Rodriguez, I'm glad he was able to prove his point."

Steve Ramirez can be reached at 575-541-5452. Follow him on Twitter @SteveRamirez6

Red light

— State District Judge Manuel Arrieta has ruled that as a result of the effects of multiple errors, Cristobal Rodriguez — who appealed a hearing officer's ruling that he allegedly violated the city of Las Cruces' Safe Traffic Operations Program (STOP) ordinance — was denied due process.

— Arrieta's ruling also said the city acted outside its scope of authority; the city had no authority to alter or to enact the Rules of Evidence for its administrative hearings; and the hearing officer acted outside of his authority.

— As a result, Rodriguez's conviction of the STOP ordinance is reversed, and the city is required to refund the $100 fine Rodriguez paid.

— City attorneys intend to appeal Arrieta's ruling, either to the state Court of Appeals or possibly to the New Mexico Supreme Court.

— The city has until June 2 to file its appeal with the appropriate court.
 

How to Beat a Ticket From a Red-Light Camera and Win in Court.  Florida Statute Section 90.504

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2013/03/how_to_beat_a_ticket_from_a_re.php

How to Beat a Ticket From a Red-Light Camera and Win in Court

By Deirdra Funcheon Mon., Mar. 18 2013 at 6:39 AM

Our intrepid former editor Eric Barton has left New Times' gulag-like cubicle farm gilded corner office, but he continues to blog over on his own site, Barefoot Mailman. http://www.barefootmailman.org/

Missing his wit, we sneak a lil looksee over there once in a while to read his musings about Fort Lauderdale and the world.

Lo and behold, last week he revealed the secret for how to beat a traffic ticket received for a red-light camera violation.
There are a lot of brains in the Barton household, and the larger chunk of 'em belong to Eric's wife, Jill, who is a lawyer (and law professor).

Seems the generous and gracious Jill helped Eric with his research of various obscure laws, applicable Supreme Court rulings, and one Florida Statute Section 90.504, which refers to what is commonly known as "spousal privilege."

Long story short -- Eric blamed his wife for driving the car http://www.barefootmailman.org/heres-how-a-somewhat-obscure-law-blows-a-big-fat-hole-in-floridas-red-light-camera-law/ when it was filmed blowing a stoplight, and because they're married, he's under no legal obligation to tattle on her.  (If you blame such a violation on someone other than a spouse, you may have to sign an affidavit identifying the person.) The judge dismissed his case.

So, there ya go, fellas. Another reason to put a ring on it.

excerpt of Defense:  http://www.barefootmailman.org/heres-how-a-somewhat-obscure-law-blows-a-big-fat-hole-in-floridas-red-light-camera-law/

He turned to me with eyebrows raised skeptically and asked, “What’s your defense?”

The speech I read was an impassioned plea the wife, a law school professor, helped prepare (the full speech is copied below, and if it applies to you, you should damn well use it in court too). I gave the judge copies of the Florida Statute I cited and offered him copies of Florida Supreme Court rulings that were applicable.

The judge was reluctant at first. “If you weren’t driving the car, you need to tell me who was,” he said.

“You can’t ask me that, your honor,” I replied, and immediately I regretted the answer.

“I can ask you anything I want,” he said, and I knew he was right.

“Sorry, your honor, what I meant to say was that Florida law allows me to decline to answer that question.”

There was some more back and forth, and he spent a couple minutes studying the statute. As he did, a couple cops sitting next to me as I stood at the podium started whispering, “You can’t claim spousal privilege. It only works in civil court.”

“That’s not right,” I whispered back at them.

“You’re wrong,” one of them said, shaking her head with a smile.

Finally, the judge asked, “So, were you driving the car?”

“No, your honor.”

“Okay, case dismissed.”

BREAKING NEWS:  REDFLEX BRIBERY SCANDAL SUBPOENA ARE BEING DELIVERED!!!!!!!!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-redflex-federal-investigation-20130317,0,5439564.story

Federal Redflex probe casts speed camera initiative in an unfavorable light

Beleaguered firm had been major contender for Emanuel's new program before scandal broke

By David Kidwell, Chicago Tribune reporter
12:48 a.m. CDT, March 16, 2013
 
The first evidence of a federal criminal probe into Chicago's red-light camera program is focusing attention on bribery allegations at City Hall just as Mayor Rahm Emanuel is trying to launch his controversial speed camera initiative.

 Both the company and a former city official at the center of the red-light scandal were also involved in efforts to legalize speed cameras, which the mayor plans to use to catch speeders near schools and parks around the city.

 When Emanuel was first pushing his plan in 2011, the now-beleaguered Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. was positioned as a leading contender after 10 successful years as the city's red-light vendor. But Emanuel scuttled those hopes after Tribune reports last year questioned ties between the company and the former city official who oversaw its contract.

 Now federal authorities are probing the personal finances of John Bills, the former managing deputy commissioner of transportation, following an internal Redflex investigation that found evidence that its largest North American program was likely built on a $2 million bribery scheme involving Bills and a longtime friend hired as the company's Chicago consultant.

 Both Bills and his friend, Marty O'Malley, have denied any wrongdoing.

 A subpoena signed by an assistant U.S. attorney was delivered recently to Bills' ex-wife, his attorney Nishay Sanan said Friday. Sanan said he sent a letter to federal prosecutors asking that all further requests for records come to him.

 The U.S. attorney's office declined to comment.

 Emanuel moved quickly to separate his administration from the scandal after the first Tribune report in October, banning Redflex from competing for the speed camera contract and calling for an inquiry by city Inspector General Joseph Ferguson. He later barred the company from renewing its red-light contract when it expires in June. But before the scandal broke, the Tribune disclosed that the interests of Redflex, Bills and a key Emanuel political ally had converged around the mayor's speed camera push.

 Emanuel political consultant Greg Goldner, working for the Redflex-funded Traffic Safety Coalition, hired Bills just after he left his job overseeing the red-light program in September 2011. Goldner said Bills was hired to bolster the group's efforts to legalize speed cameras statewide.

 At that time, Emanuel's proposal for speed camera legislation was already quietly under review in Springfield. Assisting that effort was Redflex's Springfield lobbyist Michael Kasper, a Chicago lawyer who had also represented Emanuel in a residency dispute during his campaign for mayor.

 Goldner told the newspaper last year that he did not know about the mayor's own push for speed cameras until it became public and only then joined forces with the administration. He said he probably would not have hired Bills had he known there would be new city business for his client to pursue.

 Goldner, who managed Emanuel's 2002 election to Congress, directed a political fund that helped elect pro-Emanuel aldermen to the City Council in 2011. Kasper helped set up the fund.

 The Emanuel administration has repeatedly denied Tribune requests for public records related to the speed camera push, which the mayor has pitched as a way to cut down on accidents involving schoolchildren. Critics say it is a money grab for a cash-starved city and note that Emanuel is counting on $30 million in revenue from speed cameras this year.

 Now the mayor faces the challenge of finding a new operator for the red-light system while trying to launch his speed camera program.

 The allegations are centered on Bills' role overseeing the red-light program from its inception in 2003 under Mayor Richard Daley until Bills' retirement in 2011. The program generated about $100 million for Redflex and more than $300 million for the city.

 In October the newspaper disclosed a Redflex whistle-blower letter alleging an inappropriate relationship with Bills. The 2010 letter detailed lavish vacations for Bills and illegal transfer of commissions from Redflex consultant O'Malley, saying "the level of this insider fraud would take down the contract and most likely the company."

 Company executives told the Tribune and City Hall last year they discounted the allegations after an internal investigation, but a second company-initiated probe conducted by former federal prosecutor and city Inspector General David Hoffman reached starkly different conclusions.

 Hoffman found that the company paid $2.03 million to its Chicago consultant with some of the money intended for Bills, who allegedly proposed the arrangement. The company also plied Bills with 17 company-paid trips from 2003 through 2010, including airfare, hotels, golf outings, rental cars and meals, according to a summary of Hoffman's findings released March 4 on the Australian Securities Exchange.

 "The arrangement between the city program manager, the consultant, and Redflex will likely be considered bribery by the authorities," the filing said. It also said company officials misled the Emanuel administration and the newspaper about the extent of the problem.

 The evolving scandal has left Redflex reeling. The chairman of the Australian company and the top executives of its Phoenix-based subsidiary have all left, and company stock is trading at less than a dollar a share.

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 

FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICE ACT.  DO YOU THINK SCAMERA VENDORS SHOULD BE GIVEN A FREE PASS whose employees bribe???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act

Exerpt:

Foreign Corrupt Practices ActFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA) (15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1, et seq.) is a United States federal law known primarily for two of its main provisions, one that addresses accounting transparency requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and another concerning bribery of foreign officials.[1]

Provisions and scope

The FCPA applies to any person who has a certain degree of connection to the United States and engages in foreign corrupt practices. The Act also applies to any act by U.S. businesses, foreign corporations trading securities in the United States, American nationals, citizens, and residents acting in furtherance of a foreign corrupt practice whether or not they are physically present in the United States. In the case of foreign natural and legal persons, the Act covers their actions if they are in the United States at the time of the corrupt conduct. Further, the Act governs not only payments to foreign officials, candidates, and parties, but any other recipient if part of the bribe is ultimately attributable to a foreign official, candidate, or party. These payments are not restricted to just monetary forms and may include anything of value.[2]

Persons subject to the FCPA

Issuers
Includes any U.S. or foreign corporation that has a class of securities registered, or that is required to file reports under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934

Domestic concerns
Refers to any individual who is a citizen, national, or resident of the United States and any corporation and other business entity organized under the laws of the United States or of any individual US State, or having its principal place of business in the United States

Any person
covers both enterprises and individuals

History
As a result of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigations in the mid-1970s, over 400 U.S. companies admitted making questionable or illegal payments in excess of $300 million to foreign government officials, politicians, and political parties. The abuses ran the gamut from bribery of high foreign officials to secure some type of favorable action by a foreign government to so-called facilitating payments that were made to ensure that government functionaries discharged certain ministerial or clerical duties. One major example was the Lockheed bribery scandals, in which officials of aerospace company Lockheed paid foreign officials to favor their company's products.[3] Another was the Bananagate scandal in which Chiquita Brands had bribed the President of Honduras to lower taxes. Congress enacted the FCPA to bring a halt to the bribery of foreign officials and to restore public confidence in the integrity of the American business system.

The Act was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on December 19, 1977, and amended in 1998 by the International Anti-Bribery Act of 1998 which was designed to implement the anti-bribery conventions of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Requirements
The anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA make it unlawful for a U.S. person, and certain foreign issuers of securities, to make a payment to a foreign official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person. Since 1998, they also apply to foreign firms and persons who take any act in furtherance of such a corrupt payment while in the United States. The meaning of foreign official is broad. For example, an owner of a bank who is also the minister of finance would count as a foreign official according to the U.S. government. Doctors at government-owned or managed hospitals are also considered to be foreign officials under the FCPA, as is anyone working for a government-owned or managed institution or enterprise. Employees of international organizations such as the United Nations are also considered to be foreign officials under the FCPA. There is no materiality to this act, making it illegal to offer anything of value as a bribe, including cash or non-cash items. The government focuses on the intent of the bribery rather than on the amount.

The FCPA also requires companies whose securities are listed in the United States to meet its accounting provisions. See 15 U.S.C. § 78m. These accounting provisions, which were designed to operate in tandem with the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA, require corporations covered by the provisions to make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect the transactions of the corporation and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. An increasing number of corporations are taking additional steps to protect their reputation and reducing exposure by employing the services of due diligence companies. Identifying government-owned companies in an effort to identify easily overlooked government officials is rapidly becoming a critical component of more advanced anti-corruption programs.

Regarding payments to foreign officials, the act draws a distinction between bribery and facilitation or "grease payments", which may be permissible under the FCPA but may still violate local laws. The primary distinction is that grease payments are made to an official to expedite his performance of the duties he is already bound to perform. Payments to foreign officials may be legal under the FCPA if the payments are permitted under the written laws of the host country. Certain payments or reimbursements relating to product promotion may also be permitted under the FCPA.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4038.asp

Patent Troll Goes After Red Light Camera Company
Webcam patent holder goes after American Traffic Solutions for patent infringement for streaming video.

The country's largest photo enforcement company is being sued for patent infringement. American Traffic Solutions (ATS) was served earlier this month by Joao Control and Monitoring Systems LLC, a company that has no customers and offers no products other than lawsuits. On Wednesday, the case was assigned to Judge Christopher J. Burke in the US District Court for the District of Delaware.

ATS may have come to the attention of Joao after the Arizona-based firm filed a patent lawsuit against a competing photo ticketing firm, http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4000.asp B and W Sensors. Joao owns US patent number 6,587,046 and 7,277,010, which were granted in 2003 and 2007. These patents describe a system to remotely monitor a car or home security system over the Internet.

"Upon information and belief, defendant has intentionally... caused its customers to use the accused systems to monitor video obtained by one or more video cameras and/or video recording devices located at a premises or vehicle, said accused systems having been provided by defendant to its customers," Joao attorney Stamatios Stamoulis wrote in the complaint.

ATS spokesman Charles Territo blasted the lawsuit in a prepared statement provided to TheNewspaper.

"Non-practicing entities or NPE's like Joao have been rebuffed by the courts time and time again in their attempts to make outlandish patent claims," Territo said. "We have every expectation that the outcome of this attempt at patent trolling will be no different. As the founder of photo enforcement in North America, ATS holds several dozen patents, the notion that we infringed on anything patented by Joao Control is beyond absurd."

ATS is in good company, as Joao has also sued a number of automakers and streaming media companies in the past two years, including: Chrysler, Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Playboy Enterprises, the city of Yonkers, Sling Media, Digital Playground Inc, Smartvue Corporation, Liquid Cash, Xanboo, ACTI Corporation, Ahava, GSMC, Game Link and Webcamnow.

Joao's patent claim dates to 1996, but software engineer Jacques Mattheij offered a webcam system with streaming access in 1995. Mattheij condemned Joao in an open letter published last September.

"I've never harped on public recognition for coming up with a way to stream live video to the browser (as far as I know it's not mentioned in places like wikipedia) because as far as I'm concerned it was a rather trivial affair software wise," Mattheij wrote. "Some of the stuff I have built was several orders of magnitude more work and vastly more complex than this. To register a patent for something like that to me is abuse of the patent system."

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4038.asp

Patent Troll Goes After Red Light Camera Company
Webcam patent holder goes after American Traffic Solutions for patent infringement for streaming video.

The country's largest photo enforcement company is being sued for patent infringement. American Traffic Solutions (ATS) was served earlier this month by Joao Control and Monitoring Systems LLC, a company that has no customers and offers no products other than lawsuits. On Wednesday, the case was assigned to Judge Christopher J. Burke in the US District Court for the District of Delaware.

ATS may have come to the attention of Joao after the Arizona-based firm filed a patent lawsuit against a competing photo ticketing firm, http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4000.asp B and W Sensors. Joao owns US patent number 6,587,046 and 7,277,010, which were granted in 2003 and 2007. These patents describe a system to remotely monitor a car or home security system over the Internet.

"Upon information and belief, defendant has intentionally... caused its customers to use the accused systems to monitor video obtained by one or more video cameras and/or video recording devices located at a premises or vehicle, said accused systems having been provided by defendant to its customers," Joao attorney Stamatios Stamoulis wrote in the complaint.

ATS spokesman Charles Territo blasted the lawsuit in a prepared statement provided to TheNewspaper.

"Non-practicing entities or NPE's like Joao have been rebuffed by the courts time and time again in their attempts to make outlandish patent claims," Territo said. "We have every expectation that the outcome of this attempt at patent trolling will be no different. As the founder of photo enforcement in North America, ATS holds several dozen patents, the notion that we infringed on anything patented by Joao Control is beyond absurd."

ATS is in good company, as Joao has also sued a number of automakers and streaming media companies in the past two years, including: Chrysler, Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Playboy Enterprises, the city of Yonkers, Sling Media, Digital Playground Inc, Smartvue Corporation, Liquid Cash, Xanboo, ACTI Corporation, Ahava, GSMC, Game Link and Webcamnow.

Joao's patent claim dates to 1996, but software engineer Jacques Mattheij offered a webcam system with streaming access in 1995. Mattheij condemned Joao in an open letter published last September.

"I've never harped on public recognition for coming up with a way to stream live video to the browser (as far as I know it's not mentioned in places like wikipedia) because as far as I'm concerned it was a rather trivial affair software wise," Mattheij wrote. "Some of the stuff I have built was several orders of magnitude more work and vastly more complex than this. To register a patent for something like that to me is abuse of the patent system."

Kangaroo Appeals Court "outlaws" OPINIONS OF VOTERS ON TRAFFIC CAMERA BANS!!

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4036.asp

Washington Appeals Court Bans Advisory Votes On Traffic Cameras
Appellate court decision in Washington state outlaws advisory votes on use of traffic cameras.

Washington state's second highest court supports red light cameras and speed cameras to such a degree that it ruled on Monday that voters are not even entitled to a non-binding ballot question to see whether the public supports a city's policy. The ruling took a step further than a decision handed down last week allowing a city clerk to reject a valid petition, despite a state law mandating it be processed (view decision http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4031.asp). The court ruled the very subject matter of photo ticketing is off-limits.

"Section 3 of proposed Initiative No. 1 mandating that any ordinance authorizing the use of automated traffic safety cameras be put to an advisory vote has as its subject matter automated traffic safety cameras," Judge C. Kenneth Grosse wrote in the unpublished opinion. "Accordingly Section 3 of proposed Initiative No. 1 is invalid as beyond the scope of the local initiative power."

In January 2011, the group Seeds of Liberty began circulating a petition to put the issue of camera use on the ballot in Monroe, a city about 30 miles outside of Seattle. Though the initiative petition was valid, city leaders filed a lawsuit against the residents who circulated petitions and refused to put it on the ballot. The vote took place in November, and 68 percent of Monroe voters said no to cameras http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3634.asp. In January 2012, Snohomish County Superior Court judge ruled a non-binding advisory vote should be allowed and sanctions imposed on those attempting to block the public process (view ruling http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3696.asp). The Court of Appeals vacated that ruling.

Initiative co-sponsor Tim Eyman called the decision "frightening" and said it amounted to outlawing citizens from expressing an opinion. Eyman plans to beat the judges in November with a measure overturning their decision which has already qualified for the statewide ballot.

"We may have lost the battle, but we're winning the war," Eyman told TheNewspaper.

Washington voters will be asked to approve I-517, a measure that deters interference in signature gathering and guarantees a public vote on initiatives that qualify for the ballot, regardless of the initiative's topic.

"Any state or local initiative for which sufficient valid voter signatures are submitted within the time period required must be submitted to a vote of the people at the next election date," Section 4 of I-517 states (view full initiative http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3962.asp). "For local initiatives, government officials must, in all circumstances, strictly comply with the requirements of this act for any initiative regardless of its subject matter."

A copy of the decision is available in a 350k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Monroe v. Seeds of Liberty (Court of Appeals, State of Washington, 2/25/2013 http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2013/wa-monroecoa.pdf)

WA COURTS DENY DEMOCRACY IN MONROE, WA  (TRAFFIC SCAMERAS STLLL GONE!)  Mayor feels "vindicated".  Eyman blast ruling!

Ban the Cams note:  These attempts by the scamera side to DENY DEMOCRACY will not really work long term.  In many cases might even spark people taking matters into their own hands as has been demonstrated in many parts of Europe with Scamera attacks.   Just do a search on www.thenewspaper.com on camera destruction if you don't believe us.

We still encourage people to FORCE votes, whether legal or "not".  Even forcing this in a non binding referendum is a POWERFUL method to force change.  Not even Moneroe could ignore their voters on this!  They will not renew the traffic scameras.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130225/NEWS01/702259890

Court rules in Monroe's favor on red-light cameras
By Rikki King, Herald Writer
Monroe ruling 02-25-2013 

 MONROE -- Local votes on traffic-enforcement cameras in Monroe might be no more.

The state Court of Appeals on Monday ruled in Monroe's favor in the city's lengthy legal battle with Tim Eyman and other red-light camera opponents.

The court ruled that mandatory advisory votes regarding the city's use of the cameras overstep the legal powers of the local initiative process.

State law gives local legislatures -- think city councils -- the power to make rules regarding traffic-enforcement cameras, the court determined. The court said initiatives can't be used to override those powers, specifically granted to local legislatures under state law.

Monday's ruling also threw out a fine the city faced for allegedly using litigation to thwart public participation. The city also no longer has to pay attorney fees for the other side of the lawsuit, a Monroe-based group called "Seeds of Liberty" for which Eyman has served as spokesman.

Mayor Robert Zimmerman released a prepared statement about the ruling late Monday afternoon.

"The ruling is a complete vindication of the city's position throughout this litigation and a total rejection of the numerous arguments that have been asserted by Seeds of Liberty and its supporters," he said.

In the statement, the mayor wrote that the ruling "reiterates that outside parties cannot co-opt or hijack the city's legislative process in disregard of the law."

Eyman on Monday told The Herald he was disappointed with the ruling.

"It's really frightening," he said.

Eyman now is concentrating his efforts on Initiative Measure No. 517, he said. The piece seeks to bolster the laws guiding initiatives to make measures supported by voters immune from similar court actions by local governments before an election.

Monday's ruling "puts a really bright spotlight on the need for 517," he said.

Monroe's traffic-enforcement camera contract is set to expire this fall. City officials have said they have no plans to renew the contract.

DEMOCRACY DENIED:  Divided WA Appeals courts Denies PUBLIC VOTING on SCAMERA BANS.  (City at center drops scameras regardless).

New Initiative will strike  courts ability to ban VOTERS VOTING ON BANNING SCAMERAS SOON!

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4031.asp

Washington Appeals Court Approves Blocking Of Anti-Camera Initiatives
Divided Washington Appeals Court upholds right of judges to block public vote on traffic camera bans.

Washington state's second highest court believes the public should never be allowed to vote on red light cameras or speed cameras. In a 2-1 decision handed down Tuesday, the Court of Appeals ruled a judge could decide on his own which issues should be presented to voters on a ballot.

In this case, Redmond city clerk Michelle McGehee decided in 2011 not to forward the 6050 signatures on a initiative petition banning photo enforcement to the county auditor for verification, even though state law explicitly required the signatures to be turned over. McGehee held back, knowing if the matter was put to voters, cameras would lose. Residents in Bellingham http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3634.asp, Longview, Monroe http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3634.asp and Mukilteo http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3311.asp have voted by as much as 71 percent to outlaw the use of automated ticketing machines. Tuesday's ruling found the clerk was improperly assuming the powers of a judge.

"By failing to transmit the petition, McGehee failed to comply with her mandatory legal duty," Judge Ronald E. Cox wrote for the majority. "As the trial court stated, the clerk's decision was necessarily an assumption of a judicial function. 'To make the decision she did, the clerk had to apply case law and interpret legislation as it relates to the facts at hand. This is a judicial function and is not a city clerk function.'"

The majority in this case, however, sided with Redmond in finding petition organizers is powerless to compel a clerk to do his duty. The majority followed the reasoning of a state Supreme Court ruling insisting camera bans were contrary to the state law placing the decision on whether to use cameras in the hands of the "governing body," not the people (view ruling http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/37/3735.asp).

"The initiative here would have required that the use of automated ticketing cameras be approved by both the Redmond City Council and the public," Judge Cox wrote. "It also would have limited the fines that could have been imposed... Redmond Proposition 1 is beyond the scope of the initiative power. Accordingly, the issuance of a writ would have been improper as a vain and useless act."

Judge Stephen J. Dwyer disagreed with his colleagues, noting the law says after the county auditor returns a valid petition to the city council, the council then has the option of either passing the initiative language directly or placing it on the ballot.

"A plain reading of the statute at issue discloses that the proper, lawful processing of this proposed initiative would not have been a useless act," Judge Dwyer wrote. "The city council can -- legally -- adopt 'as is' the ordinance proposed in the initiative. This would be perfectly proper. However, the wrongful acts of the Redmond city clerk deprived both the voters and their elected city council of this opportunity."

Though Redmond officials won the legal battle, they lost the political one. Thanks to public pressure the city stopped using cameras last June http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/38/3828.asp. Washington voters will also have a chance to vote on a statewide initiative, I-517, which would overturn the court precedent and force a vote on all properly qualified measures. Redmond initiative co-sponsor Scott Harlan expressed frustration in his testimony in support of I-517.

"As difficult as a municipal initiative is to get on the ballot, if I knew ahead of time that a city could quash the initiative after all of that hard work, I would never begin that campaign," Harlan wrote. "It's hard enough for one citizen to fight Goliath. I'd never do it again unless the rules of the fight are known to everybody and fair. I would bet that the city leaders would also, quietly, appreciate the same level of clarity."

A copy of the decision is available in a 800k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Eyman v. McGehee (Court of Appeals, State of Washington, 2/19/2013) http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2013/wa-novote13.pdf

Ban the Cams note:  IT should be noted that simply gathering the signatures helped convince the city of Redmond that the PUBLIC didn't want the scameras.  Regardless of what whether you can get a binding referendum or just a advisory, the POLICTAL ramifications of the public demanding a vote can bring down the traffic scameras just as much as a public vote.

Ban the Cams OPENLY ENCOURAGES CITIZENS WHO want to do a public vote TO FORCE THE ISSUE.  Gather those petitions and do so publicly. 

Nothing can be more fun than watching scamera politician squirm in the press as to why they agree with DENYING DEMOCRACY!

Don't believe us, read up on Houston, TX who tried to ignore a vote.  Tried is the word here.

Another Speed Camera Company Sues a Competitor
Speed camera maker Sensys sues competitor Brekford, claiming company is owed $260,000.

A Swedish speed camera firm is suing Maryland-based photo enforcement company Brekford claiming it has been ripped off. In 2011, Sensys cut a deal to sell automated ticketing machines and services to Brekford, a division of Sigma Space Corporation. According to the complaint filed with a federal district court in Florida, Brekford failed to provide services that were valued at $260,000 as required under a contractual arrangement.

When trying to convince local city councils to sign on to its automated ticketing services, Sensys, which is based in Jonkoping, Sweden, brands itself "Sensys America" to give the impression that the firm is based in Florida. The company's business kicked off its arrangement with Brekford in Europe.

"Mr. Brechin, the chief executive officer of Brekford, first met representatives of Sensys in the city of Amsterdam in the Netherlands," Brekford attorney W.L. Kirk wrote in a court filing.

That meeting set the stage for a deal struck on November 3, 2011 in which Brekford purchased 30 speed cameras at a cost of $42,000 each. The first $1 million of the total price was paid in cash, while the remaining $260,000 was to be paid through an exchange of services. Brekford agreed to use its access to the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS) to look up driving records of American motorists at a rate of between 59 and 95 cents per lookup on behalf of Sensys. At the maximum rate of lookups, the deal would have lasted for seventeen months, allowing Sensys to issue 374,000 tickets in Tennessee and elsewhere around the United States.

Brekford is currently trying to get out from under the lawsuit by claiming no court based in Florida -- federal or state -- has any jurisdiction because Brekford does not at present do business in the Sunshine State.

"Under these circumstances and the authorities cited above, it would be a violation of due process for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Brekford," Kirk wrote.

Brekford is, however, in the process of finalizing a deal to set up an automated ticketing contract in Riviera Beach (RLC). In the company's written proposal to convince city council members to approve the contract, Brekford boasted of the company's deep connections to the state.

"Brekford's Florida staff has extensive knowledge of Florida law enforcement and Governor's Office of Highway Safety communities," the proposal claimed. "To make this a reality, we have employed two most capable managers (one located minutes away in South Florida) to oversee the day-to-day operation of the program... In addition to our corporate offices in Hanover, Maryland, Brekford has two Florida locations (Palm Beach County and Pinellas County). These locations assure prompt response from in state employees."

Sensys insists this is evidence the court has jurisdiction in the matter and that it should go forward to trial.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4007.asp

Louisiana: Redflex Appeals Court Loss In Lawsuit Against Sheriff
Redflex appeals its $8 million lawsuit loss against former client Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.

Redflex Traffic Systems is appealing its failed effort to sue a former red light camera client for $8 million in federal court. Redflex last week asked the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Judge Eldon Fallon's December 20 ruling that dismissed the company's demand that Jefferson Parish, Louisiana Sheriff Newell Normand pay up.

Automated ticketing firms have a history of taking their claims to federal courts, sometimes even forum shopping to exploit personal connections for a favorable decision http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3511.asp. Here the standard tactics backfired, as Judge Fallon refused to allow the Australian company to argue Jefferson Parish and Sheriff Normand violated their automated ticketing contract.

Redflex became infuriated on January 27, 2010, when local officials decided to suspend the red light camera program after serious ethics concerns were raised about the company's practices. Documents revealed Redflex had paid a 3.2 percent cut of the firm's profit on each ticket to lobbyist Bryan Wagner, a former New Orleans city councilman, who in turn shared the funds with the wife of District Judge Robert Murphy. Wagner was set to earn an estimated $90,000 a year from this deal. Jay Morris Specter, the lobbyist who hired Wagner on behalf of Redflex, was released from federal prison on October 21, 2010 after serving time on unrelated fraud charges. The parish placed $4.7 million in payments to Redflex in a lockbox pending resolution of the ethics concerns.

Redflex sued for that amount, plus damages, for breach of contract. Unfortunately for the firm, the same contract specifies that state courts, not federal courts, are the proper venue for a lawsuit.

"Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this agreement shall be submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the courts located in the Jefferson Parish, Louisiana and both parties specifically agree to be bound by the jurisdiction and venue thereof," Section 10.17 of the Redflex contract with Jefferson Parish stated.

Redflex argued that the language specifying "courts" included the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana because its jurisdiction includes Jefferson Parish. Redflex is only entitled to sue for $20,000 in a parish court. In his ruling, Judge Fallon suggested Redflex would not likely succeed in any appeal.

"The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is careful to distinguish the concepts of physical location and geographical extent of jurisdiction; where a clause defines the forum in terms of one, courts must not imply the other," Judge Fallon concluded. "Here, the cited language clearly refers to location, employing the phrase 'the courts located in the Jefferson Parish, Louisiana,' as opposed to geographical extent of jurisdiction. Therefore, the defendants' motion to dismiss is well-founded and must be granted."

A copy of the December ruling is available in a 90k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Redflex v. Normand (US District Court, Eastern District Louisiana, 12/20/2012) http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2013/us-nojurisdiction.pdf

Ban the Cams note:  Read here "The Corruption of Goverment Officials (and Police) by the Ticket Camera Industry"http://blog.motorists.org/corruption-of-government-police-officials-by-camera-industry/

This article below (in addition to the former New Orleans mayor Nagin), show the character of many of the players in the photo scam.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4004.asp

Louisiana: Red Light Camera Adjudicator Guilty of Taking Bribes
Assistant district attorney in Lafayette, Louisiana pleads guilty to taking bribes in DUI cases.

An assistant district attorney in Lafayette, Louisiana who served as an adjudicator for red light camera cases pleaded guilty to bribery charges on Thursday. Greg Williams, 44, admitted before a federal judge that he allowed individuals accused of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) to escape misdemeanor and felony convictions on behalf of a co-conspirator who has not yet been charged. The unnamed individual, in turn, provided gifts and cash to Williams and Williams' secretary, Denease Curry, along with others in the district attorney's office.

"Given the high degree of authority and discretion of any district attorney's office in resolving criminal charges and the associated impacts on victims, the FBI remains fully committed to rooting out corruption that obstructs that process in any way," Federal Bureau of Investigation, New Orleans Division, Special Agent in Charge Michael Anderson said in a statement.

Lafayette's district attorney had set up a program of "immediate 894 pleas" for those accused of DUI who had completed 32 hours of community service, substance abuse programs and driver safety classes. Participants in this generous program received a special session in a judge's chamber, outside the normal court process, where charges are dismissed as long as no other violation is committed during a probationary period. In 2008, the district attorney's secretary, Barna Haynes, realized she could set up these hearings and began arranging them for the co-conspirator, who represented clients even though he was not actually a lawyer. The unnamed man charged up to $5000 for each acquittal, out of which he paid Haynes $500 per case for her assistance. Haynes collected more than $70,000 in cash until she was caught. Clients had paid hundreds of thousands for the special treatment allowing them to keep their driver's licenses and retain a clean record.

Beginning in January 2010, Williams realized what was going on and decided to cut himself into the deals. He used his own secretary to set up "immediate 894 sessions" with a judge and the co-conspirator. Curry collected eight cash payments of $200 for her participation. The co-conspirator rewarded Williams with autographed New Orleans Saints items, bicycles for Williams and his family, business suits, shoes and $500 in cash.

Williams faces five years in jail and a $250,000 fine under the plea deal he made with federal prosecutors.

New Orleans SCAMERA MAYOR CHARGE IN  CORRUPTION!  (no longer in office)

Ban the Cams note:  Here is the article on Ray Nagin bring the scameras into New Orleans.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/17/1731.asp 

On top of that some cops in New Orleans created their own little LLC to PERSONALLY PROFIT on the SCAMERAS TOO:  http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/mendoza-from-new-orleans-rlc-scandal-is-fired-officer-side-business-anytime-solutions-llc.html or http://www.wdsu.com/r/28886370/detail.html

Quote:  Among those back on the job: former NOPD Eighth District Commander Ed Hosli, whose limited liability corporation, Anytime Solutions, employed dozens of off-duty officers to inspect and certify traffic camera citations.

http://www.wdsu.com/news/28742413/detail.html (link no longer working) PDF http://www.banthecams.org/attachments/1598_Suspended%20New%20Orleans%20cops%20over%20LLC%20Anytime%20Solutions..pdf

Quote:

The nine officers were accused of breaking department policy by forming side businesses -- LLCs -- and using them to manage police detail assignments. In a series of reports, the WDSU I-Team examined who was receiving lucrative detail work, which included the review of the citations issued by New Orleans' automated traffic camera program.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/18/16587058-former-new-orleans-mayor-ray-nagin-charged-with-katrina-related-corruption?lite

Former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin charged with Katrina-related corruption

Ray Nagin has been indicted on 21 counts of corruption.

NewsNation's Tamron Hall reports.

By Michael Kunzelman, The Associated Press

NEW ORLEANS -- Former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin was indicted Friday on charges that he used his office for personal gain, accepting payoffs, free trips and gratuities from contractors while the city was struggling to recover from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina.

The charges against Nagin are the outgrowth of a City Hall corruption investigation that already has resulted in guilty pleas by two former city officials and two businessmen and a prison sentence for a former city vendor.

The federal indictment accuses Nagin of accepting more than $160,000 in bribes and truckloads of free granite for his family business in exchange for promoting the interests of a local businessman who secured millions of dollars in city contract work after the 2005 hurricane. The businessman, Frank Fradella, pleaded guilty in June to bribery conspiracy and securities-fraud charges and has been cooperating with federal authorities.

Nagin, 56, also is charged with accepting at least $60,000 in payoffs from another businessman, Rodney Williams, for his help in securing city contracts for architectural, engineering and management services work. Williams, who was president of Three Fold Consultants LLC, pleaded guilty Dec. 5 to a conspiracy charge.

The indictment also accuses Nagin of getting free private jet and limousine services to New York from an unidentified businessman. Nagin is accused of agreeing to wave tax penalties that the businessman owed to the city on a delinquent tax bill in 2006.

In 2010, Greg Meffert, a former technology official and deputy mayor under Nagin, pleaded guilty to charges he took bribes and kickbacks in exchange for steering city contracts to businessman Mark St. Pierre. Anthony Jones, who served as the city's chief technology officer in Nagin's administration, also pleaded guilty to taking payoffs.

Meffert cooperated with the government in its case against St. Pierre, who was convicted in May 2011 of charges that include conspiracy, bribery and money laundering.

Nagin, a former cable television executive, was a political novice before being elected to his first term as mayor in 2002, buoyed by strong support from white voters. He cast himself a reform-minded progressive who wasn't bound by party affiliations, as he snubbed fellow Democrat Kathleen Blanco and endorsed Republican Bobby Jindal's unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign in 2003.

Katrina elevated Nagin to the national stage, where he gained a reputation for colorful and sometimes cringe-inducing rhetoric.

During a radio interview broadcast in the storm's early aftermath, he angrily pleaded with federal officials to "get every doggone Greyhound bus line in the country and get their asses moving to New Orleans." In January 2006, he apologized for a Martin Luther King Day speech in which he predicted New Orleans would be a "chocolate city" and asserted that "God was mad at America."

Strong support from black voters helped Nagin win re-election in 2006 despite widespread criticism of his post-Katrina leadership. But the glacial pace of rebuilding, a surge in violent crime and the budding City Hall corruption investigation chipped away at Nagin's popularity during his second term.

Nagin could not seek a third consecutive term because of term limits. Mitch Landrieu, who ran against Nagin in 2006, succeeded him in 2010.

Aaron Bennett, a businessman awaiting sentencing in a separate bribery case, told The Times-Picayune that he introduced Nagin to Fradella specifically to help the mayor get Home Depot granite installation work for a business that he and his sons founded. Fradella's company received millions of dollars in city contracts for repair work at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport and in the French Quarter after Katrina, the newspaper reported.

Some of the allegations in the indictment have been the subject of state ethics complaints. In April 2010, the Louisiana Board of Ethics charged Nagin with two possible violations of state ethics law.

One charge involves Nagin's "use of a credit card and/or gifts" from St. Pierre and his technology firm, NetMethods, while the company was working for the city. NetMethods paid for Nagin and his family to travel to Jamaica in 2005 and to Hawaii in 2004, according to newspaper reports.

In the other charge, the Ethics Board says Stone Age LLC, the Nagin family's business, was compensated for installation services provided to Home Depot while the home improvement retailer was negotiating tax breaks from the city.

Nagin has largely steered clear of the political arena since he left office. On his Twitter account, he describes his current occupations as author, public speaker and "green energy entrepreneur." He wrote a self-published memoir called "Katrina's Secrets: Storms After the Storm."

Nagin's attorney, Robert Jenkins, didn't immediately return cellphone calls seeking comment on the indictment.

DA Greg Williams, Redflex adjudicator for Lafayette scamera prgm, charged 1 count conspiracy in DWI

Four Citizens" Against Red Light Cameras  http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Four-Citizens-Against-Red-Light-Cameras/223394401005932
 

Breaking: Assisant District Attorney Greg Williams, the Redflex adjudicator for Lafayette Safe Light Safe Speed program, has been formally charged with one count of conspiracy in the investigation of the DWI - bribery investigation being brought by Federal Prosecutors.

http://theadvocate.com/home/4941613-125/two-more-charged-in-lafayette

Two more plead guilty in Lafayette court bribery case

By RICHARD BURGESS
 
Acadiana bureau

January 17, 2013

An assistant district attorney and his secretary pleaded guilty Thursday in an ongoing federal probe of bribery in the local court system.

The pleas come after 15th Judicial District Attorney Mike Harson’s longtime secretary and office administrator, Barna D. Haynes, pleaded guilty to a count of conspiracy on Monday in an investigation of bribes paid for favorable treatment, mainly in DWI case.

On Thursday, Greg Williams, an assistant prosecutor in Harson’s office, also pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy.

He admitted to accepting an autographed New Orleans Saints hat, bicycles, clothing and at least one cash payment of $500 for his role in the scheme, according to court filings by prosecutors.

His secretary, Denease Curry, pleaded guilty to one of misprision of a felony for allegedly not reporting the bribery scheme when she had knowledge of it.

Prosecutors also said in court filings that she received a total of about $1,600 for working with Haynes to coordinate the special plea deals that were arranged in return for the bribes.

Harson did not respond to an e-mail Thursday morning requesting comment on the new charges or the employment status of Williams and Curry.

Prosecutors wrote in court filings that the bribery scheme went on for about four years without Harson’s knowledge, in part because of a “lack of oversight and safeguards.”

All of the deals arranged by Haynes were approved by a judge in special court sessions handled by Williams and the same state judge, according to court filings from prosecutors.

Prosecutors did not identify the judge.

The person who allegedly paid the bribes has been identified by federal prosecutors only as “co-conspirator No. 1.” U.S. Attorney Stephanie Finley declined to say earlier this week whether that person is cooperating in the case.

Curry faces up to 3 years in prison.

Williams and Haynes face up to five years.

All three have agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and have been offered immunity for future statements given to investigators.
 

http://theexpiredmeter.com/2013/01/chicagoans-fight-back-against-red-light-speed-cameras/

Chicagoans Fight Back Against Red Light, Speed Cameras

January 15, 2013   

Stephen Hinton doesn’t like Chicago’s red light cameras.

Over the years, like the hundreds of thousands of other drivers who are issued RLC tickets every year, the 49-year old Chatham resident has received his share of those $100 tickets being photographed entering an intersection when the traffic light had turned red.

But Hinton says it was the third, and most recent RLC ticket he received at 95th and Stony Island about a month ago that was at least part of the inspiration for starting an online petition to rid Chicago of the cameras http://signon.org/sign/revoke-the-red-light.fb23?source=c.fb&r_by=5963213.

“I see the glaring disservice the red light cameras do to the citizens of Chicago,” said Hinton when asked why he started the petition. “It’s unfairly taking advantage of the citizens of Chicago.”

Because drivers can only fight their tickets in-person Monday through Friday, Hinton says it’s difficult for the typical working Chicagoan to take time away from work to try to contest these violations. According to Hinton, the difficulty in contesting these tickets forces drivers to pay the fines before they double to $200.

The Windy City is the red light camera capital of the U.S., with 384 cameras shooting video and still photographs at 191 separate intersections around the city while generating revenues exceeding $60 million in a typical year.

“It’s a just an added tax–this is another way to generate revenue,” says Hinton. What was it? $61 million in 2010? It’ s unreal for them to present it as a safety measure and reap the benefits of that revenue.”

But Hinton is not the only one working to rid the city of automated traffic camera enforcement.

Read more at DNA Info Chicago http://www.dnainfo.com//chicago/20130115/chicago/chicagoans-fight-back-against-red-light-speed-cameras.

As Chicago plans to bring speed cameras to city streets in 2013, Cook County Campaign for Liberty is planning the start of a long term campaign against the speed cams and red light cameras.

“Unsafe, unwanted and unconstitutional is our theme for 2013,” says Cook County Campaign for Liberty’s Scott Davis. “There was no public outcry for speed cameras. There’s no real proof it will make things safer.”

Of course, it’s no surprise Davis, a Lakeview resident, agrees with Hinton on the money aspect of traffic enforcement cameras.

“It’s obviously just another money grab–a tax on people who drive,” says Davis. “They say its about safety but its actually a revenue maneuver and against our civil liberties.”

Campaign for Liberty seems to have had some success against the expansion of red light camera enforcement in Cook County back in 2010, when County board members voted to install cameras on county roads http://theexpiredmeter.com/2010/06/cook-county-oks-30-red-light-camera-locations/.

Davis helped spearhead the group’s efforts against the cams, conducting a series of protests at intersections with RLCs located within Cook County, both inside and outside Chicago. The group passed out thousands of fliers targeting county board members in an election year. Ultimately, complaints from constituents combined with a backlash from many of the municipalities which didn’t want red light cameras http://theexpiredmeter.com/2010/06/board-passes-opt-out-amendment-to-county-red-light-camera-program/ installed within their town limits, forced the board to back off their plans.

But this time around Davis says Campaign for Liberty is taking a more long term approach.

“You can’t just do a few protests,” says Davis. “You need a sustained campaign to have success. We plan on keeping a scorecard on political officials and expose them if they make bad votes or reward them with support and awards if they vote the right way. We believe it’s a smarter way to do activism on this issue.”

To defeat speed cameras Davis says Campaign for Liberty will be targeting the weakest aldermen and distributing literature and pre-paid postcards in in their wards over the next two years leading up to city elections in 2015.

“This is going to have to be a two to three year campaign–a sustained campaign,” says Davis.

Hinton’s goal is to present a petition to Mayor Rahm Emanuel with 10,000 signatures of people who want the red light cameras removed.

It’s an achievable goal claims Hinton pointing to a Facebook page with 10,000 likes http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-HATE-Chicago-red-light-cameras/301364979737 opposed to the city’s red light cameras.

“This idea of getting 10,000 signatures is not that far fetched,” says Hinton. “It’s time to stand up and say ‘enough is enough’ “.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3994.asp

Redflex Traffic Systems Sued Over Anti-Australian Bias
Lawsuit alleges head of US operations for speed camera firm Redflex harbors bias against Australians.

A former red light camera company sales manager is suing Redflex Traffic Systems claiming she was fired for having an Australian accent. Catherine Petzel was responsible for convincing small towns in the Ohio region to embrace the use of automated ticketing machines. Her plight is rather unusual, considering Redflex is based in Melbourne, Australia though its US operations are handled in Phoenix, Arizona under the direction of Redflex board member Karen Finley.

"Defendant Finley harbors a well-known anti-Australian bias, despite the fact that Reflex Traffic Systems North America is owned by an Australian parent company," Petzel argued in her complaint. "On numerous occasions, Finley has made derogatory comments to Redflex employees about 'the Australians.' ...Ms. Finley also questioned the propriety of having an Australian in Ms. Petzel's position, expressing a concern that potential customers might view Redflex as being too Australian."

Finley is a US citizen born in Dayton, Ohio with a bachelor's degree from the University of Phoenix.

Petzel is asking the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to hold a jury trial to weigh her claim that her January 1, 2012 firing was based on "national origin discrimination." In September, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sent Petzel a notice indicating her right to sue.

According to her complaint, Petzel was placed on a performance improvement plan in 2011 as a prelude to her termination. She insists Redflex Vice President Aaron Rosenberg refused to attend a sales presentation in Iowa that resulted in the loss of a significant sale. Instead, Petzel claims, Rosenberg sent male colleagues to conferences and gave them better sales territories.

"At least one, and perhaps both, of Ms. Petzel's male peers who were similarly on performance improvement plans failed to meet the sales goals provided in the performance improvement plans," the complaint asserts. "Neither of these two male colleagues was terminated by Redflex."

Petzel is seeking compensatory damages and coverage of her attorney's fees. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act offers judges a number of remedies for confirmed cases of discrimination. The fired employee can be reinstated, with or without back pay. The court could also require an affirmative action plan designed to combat anti-Australian bias.

“Since when in America is a defendant required to pay for the privilege of facing his accuser? 

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/12/22/2411977/tacoma-man-succeeds-in-fight-over.html

Tacoma man succeeds in fight over big fee for traffic-ticket testimony

If you want to fight a traffic-camera ticket in Tacoma, prepare to pay through the nose. That said, you might win.

SEAN ROBINSON; Staff writer
Published: Dec. 22, 2012 at 4:10 p.m. PST — Updated: Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:04 p.m. PST

  If you want to fight a traffic-camera ticket in Tacoma, prepare to pay through the nose.

That said, you might win. Kevin Schmadeka did, after arguing against a fat surcharge the city levied against him when he tried to defend himself.
Schmadeka, a South Hill resident, got a camera ticket in September. He contested the citation in Tacoma Municipal Court, asking for a hearing and the evidence against him. He wanted to call the camera technician to testify.

The paperwork came back. Schmadeka reeled from sticker shock.

The court provided a generic form. It said the defendant would pay all the costs to call the witness: travel time, meals, hotel accommodations. Total fee: $670.30, with a requirement to pay in full two weeks before the hearing. No mention of a refund.

“I was inquiring at the clerk’s office about chain-of-custody info,” Schmadeka said. “He happened to mention that there was a fee for subpoenaing somebody from the camera company. I requested more information about that.
They gave me that form.”

The fee dwarfs the $124 hit for a typical camera ticket. Proving your innocence in Tacoma costs more than five times as much as admitting guilt. The city’s form requires a dated signature from the defendant under a bold-faced, all-caps underlined statement:

“THE COSTS OF THE TECHNICIAN WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEFENDANT.”

“Oh, come on,” said Tacoma attorney Martin Duenhoelter. He has practiced law in the city for 22 years. He knows the local traffic courts. He has never met Schmadeka, and said he’d never heard of Tacoma’s pay-up-front scheme.
Duenhoelter mused over a potential legal analysis. (“Huge implications. What if you’re not guilty?”)

His instinctive reaction was sharper.

“It’s punitive,” he said. “Talk about a chilling effect on due process.”
Traffic court is an assembly line. Typically, contested hearings take minutes at most. Technically, cities treat camera tickets as parking tickets — a civil matter.

Defendants who contest tickets often represent themselves. Some tell sad stories. Others demand testimony from the cop who wrote the ticket and aimed the radar gun — or, in the 21st century, the technician who ran the traffic camera.

A few defendants — scholar types like Schmadeka — play clubhouse lawyer and launch long legal arguments.

That’s what Schmadeka did Nov. 16. His 23-page legal brief argued 37 points, handed to Municipal Court Commissioner Randy Hansen.

The hearing was quick. Hansen brushed off the 37 points and lingered over item 4: the business about paying an up-front $670 fee to call the camera technician as a witness.

Schmadeka hadn’t paid the fee. He argued it was unconstitutional.
“Since when in America is a defendant required to pay for the privilege of facing his accuser?” he wrote.

Hansen saw merit, Schmadeka said. The camera ticket evaporated. Case dismissed.

“He picked out that one issue,” Schmadeka said. “He agreed that that was improper, and he dismissed it on that basis.”

The up-front fee is Tacoma-centric, unique among Pierce County’s four camera-ticket cities. The other three — Lakewood, Puyallup and Fife — don’t charge it.

Lakewood contracts with Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. The same vendor supplies cameras in Tacoma and Fife. (Puyallup uses American Traffic Solutions Inc., a competing vendor.)

In Lakewood Municipal Court, a Redflex camera technician appears once a month for contested hearings, scheduled beforehand. Camera-ticket defendants don’t have to pay extra to ask the standard questions.

“No, we don’t do that,” said court administrator Deana Wright. “We subpoena the technician if people want to have him come. Nobody bears the cost of that but the court. He is here every month regardless. No defendant would bear the cost of that.”

The same goes for Fife and Puyallup municipal courts: There’s no charge to subpoena the camera technician, officials said.

Is something hidden in the fine print? Contracts among the three Redflex cities, including Tacoma, use similar wording: Redflex agrees to provide expert court testimony with proper notice.

The contracts say nothing about charging defendants an additional up-front fee. Tacoma charges it; Lakewood and Fife don’t.

Puyallup uses a different vendor, but the contract language is similar: the vendor agrees to provide expert testimony. No mention of additional fees.
How did Tacoma decide to charge a fee? Answers are murky. Mark Oldenburg, Municipal Court administrator, said he’d have to research the question. He’s new on the job, hired in October.

Oldenburg’s predecessor, Yvonne Pettus, now works in the Thurston County Superior Court clerk’s office. Pettus recalled receiving invoices from Redflex for expert testimony, which prompted consultation with the Tacoma City Attorney’s office.

“There really wasn’t some standard procedure to go by; we had to create what the process would be,” Pettus recalled. “Somebody wanted to subpoena. The prosecutor said it’s a civil case — the defendant should pay for the witness.”

Tacoma City Attorney Elizabeth Pauli said she wasn’t aware of the fee. She could not verify whether someone in her office provided the advice to court officials, though she said it wouldn’t be unusual.

“If the court asks us to help them take a look at that, certainly,” she said. She said she hadn’t looked closely at the issue of the fee.

“At first blush, it doesn’t appear to be inconsistent with the rules of discovery,” she added. “If the court is interested in taking another look at it, we’re certainly willing to help.”

As for Schmadeka, he intends to wage war against traffic cameras.

“I’m planning to continue running red lights and keep getting more tickets, to keep chipping away at the constitutional issues,” he said. “I’m planning on making a project out of this.”
Sean Robinson: 253-597-8486

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13478886-supreme-court-strikes-down-illinois-law-against-filming-cops

Supreme Court strikes down Illinois law against filming cops

Chicago : IL : USA | Nov 26, 2012 at 2:24 PM PST By Herbert Dyer, Jr.  

A guy receives a traffic ticket from the police department in the mail. It includes a picture of him at the wheel of his car as he ran a red light, his license plate, and an invoice demanding $250 or else. Sooo… our guy spreads out $250 on his kitchen table. Takes a picture of it … and sends the picture of $250 to the police department.” —Anonymous
 

In some Chicago neighborhoods, surveillance cameras sit high above almost every intersection. These are very sophisticated pieces of equipment, capable of zooming in close enough to identify what flavor of soft or not-so-soft drink a driver or pedestrian is drinking. Some can even read newsprint from 50 yards away. They also listen in on conversations on the street, inside your car, on your porch or stoop. They turn quickly in the direction of the sound of gunfire, zoom in, film and photograph the trigger man/woman.

The cameras were initially set up a few years ago to only monitor traffic at busy or problematic intersections. As you can see, that idea has quickly escalated into a real Big Brother operation.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times http://www.suntimes.com/16633293-761/supreme-court-rejects-appeal-on-taping-illinois-cops.html, the US Supreme Court has rejected an Illinois prosecutor’s appeal to allow enforcement of a law which would stop ordinary citizens from recording police officers as they do their jobs. A lower federal court had found that Illinois’ anti-eavesdropping law violates free speech rights because it was being used by police and prosecutors against people who tape law enforcement officers. The law had some serious teeth. It carried a 15-year prison term.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had filed suit in 2010 against Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez to halt prosecution of ACLU staffers for recording cops in public spaces. This activity (filming of police) is done by the ACLU all over the country, usually with the full knowledge of the police departments and the individual cops being filmed. And so, when Illinois (read: Chicago) cops objected and got a law passed outlawing the filming of them, needless to say the ACLU was rather taken aback.

Upon learning of the ruling, though, Harvey Grossman, legal director of the Illinois ACLU, was “pleased” with the result. “The ACLU of Illinois continues to believe that in order to make the rights of free expression and petition effective, individuals and organizations must be able to freely gather and record information about the conduct of government and their agents—especially the police,” he said. “The advent and widespread accessibility of new technologies make the recording and dissemination of pictures and sound inexpensive, efficient and easy to accomplish.”

Opinion:

And so, it comes down to a question of fairness, doesn’t it? As noted above, the police can now get all up in your business without a warrant, without a request, without your consent, and even without your knowledge. Thus, it seems only fair that you ought to be able to film and photograph them even as they film and photograph you. This could make for interesting courtroom dramas—dueling videotapes, with Judge Judy as the final arbiter of which film gets produced and shown on Court TV.

References:

• http://hiphopwired.com/2012/11/26/supreme-court-rejects-plea-to-criminalize-recording-cops-in-illinois/#eQOmf7kgvzvuStfp.99
• http://jonathanturley.org/2012/05/10/seventh-circuit-bars-use-of-illinois-law-to-prosecute-citizens-for-videotaping-police-and-slams-cook-county-states-attorney-alvarez-for-extreme-views/
• http://www.theblaze.com/stories/illinois-man-faces-75-years-in-jail-for-filming-police/
• http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/5686435-Courts-side-with-ACLU-on-videotaping-police/
• http://www.webpronews.com/videotaping-police-is-easier-with-the-new-aclu-police-tape-app-2012-07
• http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/26-4
   

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/victory_court_grants_rutherford_institute_request_to_stop_texas_school_from

On The Front Lines

Victory: Court Grants Rutherford Institute Request to Stop Texas School from Kicking Student Out for Refusing to Wear “Smart ID” Tracking Badge

November 21, 2012

 SAN ANTONIO, Texas — A district court judge for Bexar County, Texas, has granted The Rutherford Institute’s request for a temporary restraining order to prevent Northside Independent School District from removing a San Antonio high school student from John Jay High School’s Science and Engineering Academy because she objected to wearing a name badge signifying participation in the school district’s new “Student Locator Project.” The badges include tiny Radio Frequency Identification (“RFID”) chips that produce a radio signal, enabling school officials to track students’ precise location on school property. For sophomore Andrea Hernandez, the badges pose a significant religious freedom concern in addition to the obvious privacy issues. In coming to Andrea’s defense, Rutherford attorneys filed a petition for a temporary restraining order and immediate injunctive and declaratory relief alleging that the school’s actions violate Andrea’s rights under Texas’ Religious Freedom Act and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. A hearing on the preliminary injunction will take place next week.
 
The Rutherford Institute’s petition in Hernandez v. Northside Independent School District is available at www.rutherford.org https://www.rutherford.org/files_images/general/11-21-2012_TRO-Petition_Hernandez.pdf.
 
“The court’s willingness to grant a temporary restraining order is a good first step, but there is still a long way to go—not just in this case, but dealing with the mindset, in general, that everyone needs to be monitored and controlled,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “Regimes in the past have always started with the schools, where they develop a compliant citizenry. These ‘Student Locator’ programs are ultimately aimed at getting students used to living in a total surveillance state where there will be no privacy, and wherever you go and whatever you text or email will be watched by the government.”
 
The Northside Independent School District in San Antonio, Texas, has launched a program, the “Student Locator Project,” aimed ostensibly at increasing public funding for the district by increasing student attendance rates. As part of the pilot program, roughly 4,200 students at Jay High School and Jones Middle School are being required to wear “SmartID” card badges embedded with an RFID tracking chip which will actively broadcast a signal at all times. Although the schools already boast 290 surveillance cameras, the cards will make it possible for school officials to track students’ whereabouts at all times. School officials hope to expand the program to the district’s 112 schools, with a student population of 100,000. Although implementation of the system will cost $500,000, school administrators are hoping that if the school district is able to increase attendance by tracking the students’ whereabouts, they will be rewarded with up to $1.7 million from the state government.
 
High school sophomore Andrea Hernandez, a Christian, expressed her sincere religious objections to being forced to participate in the RFID program. Reportedly, Hernandez was informed by school officials that “there will be consequences for refusal to wear an ID card.” For example, students who refuse to take part in the ID program won’t be able to access essential services like the cafeteria and library, nor will they be able to purchase tickets to extracurricular activities. Hernandez was prevented from voting for Homecoming King and Queen after school officials refused to verify her identity using her old, conventional student ID card. According to Hernandez, teachers are even requiring students to wear the IDs when they want to use the bathroom. School officials offered to quietly remove the tracking chip from Andrea’s card if the sophomore would agree to wear the new ID without the imbedded RFID chip so as to give the appearance of participation in the Student Locator Project. Andrea refused this offer. Andrea has also been prevented from distributing flyers to fellow students explaining her objections to the program.
 
Attorney Jerri Lynn Ward is assisting The Rutherford Institute with Andrea’s defense.
 
Press Contact:
 Nisha Whitehead
 (434) 978-3888 ext. 604
 (434) 466-6168 (cell)
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/11/court_rules_center_point_traff.html

Court rules Center Point traffic camera appeals are unconsitutional

By Kyle Whitmire | This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
on November 20, 2012 at 4:00 PM, updated November 20, 2012 at 4:01 PM

CENTER POINT, Alabama -- A Jefferson County judge has ruled formally that Center Point cannot direct appeals of traffic tickets to the county courts.

On Monday, Jefferson County District Judge David Lichtenstein entered the order affirming his ruling from the bench three weeks ago http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/11/center_point_traffic_camera_ap.html.

At issue was whether civil traffic citations in Center Point could be appealed to Jefferson County courts. Earlier this year, the city contracted with Arizona-based Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. to install and operate traffic cameras and issue citations to offenders.

But when three defendants there appealed their tickets to the county courts, neither the courts nor the clerks knew what to do with them.
 
Twice since then, Lichtenstein said that a law passed as a local law by the Alabama Legislature could not alter the jurisdiction of the courts, so the state courts had no jurisdiction to hear the appeals.

Since then, Center Point has suspended the traffic camera program http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/10/center_point_deactivates_red_l.html, but nothing in the court ruling said the city could not turn the cameras back on if it wanted.

The ruling could leave many defendants in limbo. While court said it had no jurisdiction, the ruling this week did not take issue with the city's right to implement its ordinance.

Alton Parker, an attorney for Center Point, said the city would review its options.

"While we disagree with his basic decision that the right of the individuals to appeal is unconstitutional, we were pleased that he confirmed that the balance of the statute and the ordinance were not at issue," Parker said.

A separate class action lawsuit http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/10/lawyers_amend_center_point_tra.html has accused Center Point of depriving apparent traffic offenders of their due process rights.