[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

How Republicans in Key Senate Races Are Flip-Flopping on Abortion Idaho bar sparks fury for declaring June 'Heterosexual Awesomeness Month' and giving free beers and 15% discounts to straight men Son of Buc-ee’s co-owner indicted for filming guests in the shower and having sex. He says the law makes it OK. South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel Today I turned 50! San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport! Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next' Will it ever end? Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar? Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception. Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam Terrorists shut down Park Avenue. Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala. The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear? France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England. George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed. Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus. In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past? Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues [FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Corrupt Government See other Corrupt Government Articles Title: CORRUPT CITY GOVERNMENT: LT Carol Johnson, Dayton Ohio Police Officer Helps To Enforce Fines Without Trials Source: [None] URL Source: [None] Published: Jan 8, 2014 Author: A K A Stone Post Date: 2014-01-08 14:15:52 by A K A Stone Keywords: None Views: 28981 Comments: 32 I received a letter in the mail claiming that I was speeding. One of those speed cameras. They want me to send them $110.00 to them. They say I have to do that in order to go to receive a trial. I called this Lieutenant Carol Johnson. She said she would waive part of the money and that I needed to pay them $85.00 to receive a court hearing. She called this bond. This isn't right you all know that. Her phone number at Dayton Police headquarters is 937-333-1084. How do you fine folks suggest fighting this. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: nolu chan (#0) Any suggestions? A K A Stone  posted on  2014-01-08   14:16:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: nolu chan (#0) he Mansfield News Journal reports that seven attorneys with clients challenging $100 speeding citations have combined their cases into a single lawsuit. The more than 60 plaintiffs include nearby residents, out-of-state drivers and three businesses. The lawsuit charges that camera speeding ticket enforcement is unconstitutional because of lack of due process; that the village didn't follow state public notice requirements, and that rules governing Ohio mayor's courts weren't followed. Some drivers claim they were ticketed when they weren't even speeding since the cameras went into operation in March. "There is no indication as to how these cameras are kept up or how they are calibrated," said attorney Cassandra Mayer, who added that the system makes it difficult to appeal the citations. The village has denied any wrongdoing and said those suing don't have legal standing. Mayer said the Lucas lawsuit is similar to one against the Cincinnati-area village of Elmwood Place that led to a judge's order against camera use there this year. Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman ruled in March that Elmwood Place's camera ordinance was unconstitutional and unenforceable, and blasted speeding camera enforcement as "a scam" that was stacked against the motorists. A similar lawsuit was filed against the village of New Miami near Hamilton in southwest Ohio. Other Ohio courts, including the state Supreme Court, have upheld use of the cameras. Supporters of traffic cameras say they are tools for stretching law enforcement resources to make communities safer. Read more: http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/drivers-sue-second-ohio-village-over-speed-camera-tickets/-/9837878/22448602/-/14ols5bz/-/index.html#ixzz2ppvkS5nl Do you have any idea where to get a copy of these lawsuits. So I can cut and paste.? A K A Stone  posted on  2014-01-08   14:24:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: A K A Stone (#2) Link Judge orders Elmwood Place speed cameras confiscated Village, camera maker found in contempt By Andrew Setters WLWT News UPDATED 11:43 AM EDT Jun 28, 2013 Drivers in Elmwood Place can say goodbye to the speed cameras. Not only have they been shut down for good by Judge Robert Ruehlman, but he’s ordered them to be hauled off the street and impounded. Both sides in the contentious legal battle over the speed cameras were back before Ruehlman for a contempt hearing Thursday, where the judge ruled that Elmwood Place and the speed camera contractor Optotraffic were in contempt of court. Back in March, Ruehlman found the speed cameras unconstitutional. He essentially ordered the cameras shut down, the speed camera ticketing program shut down, and ordered that the outstanding tickets did not have to be paid. On Thursday, Ruehlman found that his order was violated in several ways. First, the cameras were turned back on, although Elmwood Place Police Chief Bill Peskin testified that they were only used to collect speed and traffic data -- not to collect license plate information or issue new tickets. Peskin also testified that he told people that they did not have to pay their tickets when they came to the police station. “Many people did show up, trying to pay their citation to us,” Peskin said, “and we told them that the program was to be suspended and they didn’t have to pay the citation.” But tickets were never meant to be paid to the village. The traffic camera company collected the citations, and apparently continued to collect money sent in after the judge’s March order. There was testimony in court that some $48,000 was collected, with a percentage of that money passed on to the village per the speed camera contract. Optotraffic did not have a representative in court Thursday. Attorney Mike Allen, who is part of the team fighting the speed cameras, called the cameras a “money grab.” “This offends me as a citizen, it offends me as a lawyer, it offends me on behalf of my clients,” said Allen. To make sure his order was not violated further, Ruehlman ordered the Hamilton County Sheriff to seize the traffic cameras and all equipment that is part of the program and store it at the village’s expense. The equipment will be released when the $48,000 in improperly collected ticket money is returned. Another victory in court for the lawyers fighting the cameras came when the topic moved to a class action lawsuit. The judge allowed the lawyers to move forward with a class action suit that Mike Allen says would involve anyone who was given a ticket by the speed cameras back to the first day of operations in Elmwood Place. “We’re going to do everything in our power to get some money back in those people’s pockets because it’s just not right,” Allen said. The class action suit could take quite a bit of time to move through the courts. Hearings were scheduled out several months from now during today’s hearing. But with the Ohio House approving a ban on speed cameras earlier this week, Allen says, “I think the days of speed cameras in the village of Elmwood and in the state of Ohio are numbered. http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2013/11/13/Supporters-rally-behind-traffic-cameras-Ohio-considering-ban.html Published: Wednesday, 11/13/2013 Supporters rally behind traffic cameras; Ohio considering ban DAYTON DAILY NEWS COLUMBUS — Red light and speed camera supporters today urged state lawmakers against passing a bill that would ban the cameras in Ohio, and Sen. Kevin Bacon, R-Columbus, said he plans to introduce legislation to regulate camera use. House Bill 69, which would ban traffic cameras except in school zones with an officer present, passed the Ohio House in June in a bipartisan vote, 61-32. It’s been held up in the Senate State Government Oversight and Reform Committee, of which Bacon is a member. Bill sponsor Rep. Ron Maag, R-Lebanon, said the ban was inspired by cameras in Elmwood Place, north of Cincinnati, that a judge deemed “a scam motorists can’t win.” Bacon said his bill would set statewide standards for traffic cameras where there are none, loosely based on the city of Columbus’ method. Bacon said communities would have to conduct safety studies before installing cameras, inform the public of the cameras’ locations and purpose and provide safety data for intersections with cameras. Law enforcement officials and the Traffic Safety Coalition, an advocacy group funded in part by traffic camera companies, insist the cameras primary goal is safety and released an online video calling for reforms instead of a ban. Opponents say the cameras, which issue civil citations to the owner of the offending vehicle, infringe on Ohioans’ right to due process and presume guilt instead of innocence. Bacon said his bill will require local law enforcement to review citations and allow Ohioans to appeal them. Currently, cities contract with out-of-state camera companies to issue citations by mail. Dayton officials say cameras have reduced the number of crashes, citywide, 50 percent since 2003. Red light and speed cameras generated $3.7 million in revenue for the city in 2012. Springfield issued 6,638 citations in 2012 and generated $287,784 from paid tickets. Springfield Police Sgt. Brett Bauer said Tuesday the cameras improve safety and removing them would result in more crashes. “Hundreds die on Ohio roadways every year,” Bauer said. “There’s technology that allows us to reduce those crashes — technology that’s working. There’s no reason to ban them in our state.” http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=130_HB_69 As Passed by the House 130th General Assembly Regular Session 2013-2014 Am. H. B. No. 69 Representatives Maag, Mallory Cosponsors: Representatives Adams, J., Becker, Blessing, Buchy, Dovilla, Hood, Huffman, Milkovich, Ramos, Burkley, Conditt, Johnson, Lynch, Reece, Retherford, Roegner, Terhar, Thompson, Young Speaker Batchelder A BILL To enact section 4511.095 and to repeal sections 4511.092 and 4511.094 of the Revised Code to prohibit the use of traffic law photo-monitoring devices by municipal corporations, counties, townships, and the State Highway Patrol to detect traffic signal light and speed limit violations, except in certain circumstances. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO: Section 1. That section 4511.095 of the Revised Code be enacted to read as follows: Sec. 4511.095. (A) Section 34 of Article II, Ohio Constitution, provides that laws may be passed providing for the comfort, health, safety and general welfare of all employees. The general assembly finds these ends will be served by enacting legislation that prohibits the use of traffic law photo-monitoring devices. Therefore, in furtherance of the ends provided in Section 34 of Article II, Ohio Constitution, the general assembly hereby enacts this section of the Revised Code. (B) As used in this section: (1) "Local authority" means a municipal corporation, county, or township. (2) "Traffic law photo-monitoring device" means an electronic system consisting of a photographic, video, or electronic camera and a means of sensing the presence of a motor vehicle that automatically produces photographs, videotape, or digital images of the vehicle or its license plate. (C) (1) Except as provided in division (C)(2) of this section, no local authority or the state highway patrol, utilizing either its own employees, those of another public entity, or those of a private entity, shall use a traffic law photo-monitoring device to determine compliance with, or to detect a violation of, section 4511.13 or 4511.21 of the Revised Code or a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance or county or township resolution. (2) A local authority may use a traffic law photo-monitoring device to determine compliance with, or to detect a violation of, section 4511.21 of the Revised Code or a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance or county or township resolution within a school zone during school recess and while children are going to or leaving school during opening or closing hours only if a law enforcement officer employed by the local authority is present at the location of the traffic law photo-monitoring device. Section 2. That sections 4511.092 and 4511.094 of the Revised Code are hereby repealed. http://www.the-daily-record.com/local%20news/2013/10/09/ohio-senate-deliberating-over-red-light-camera-ban Ohio Senate deliberating over red light camera ban By MARC KOVAC Dix Capital Bureau Published: October 9, 2013 4:00AM COLUMBUS -- The Ohio Senate began its deliberations Tuesday on legislation that would ban the use of most monitoring cameras to catch drivers running red lights or speeding. House Bill 69 would allow cameras in school zones when an officer is present but would block cities, counties, townships and the state highway patrol from installing them to issue tickets to other unsuspecting motorists. Reps. Ron Maag (R-Lebanon) and Dale Mallory (D-Cincinnati), the primary sponsors of the legislation, said local governments are taking advantage of residents, using the cameras as a means to fill their coffers while providing inadequate legal recourse for appeals. "Localities have created a scheme that circumvents the criminal justice system and causes serious due process concerns in order to generate revenue quickly," Maag said. HB 69 passed the Ohio House on a bipartisan vote of 64-32 shortly before lawmakers left town for their summer recess. The Senate's State Government Oversight and Reform Committee had its first hearing on the bill Tuesday morning. Law enforcement and other groups are opposing the legislation, saying red light cameras have cut down on traffic accidents. They say local communities should have discretion in determining whether to use the monitoring systems. "The basic tenants of home rule provide cities the right to use them to enforce traffic safety laws if they choose," the Ohio Municipal League, the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio and other groups said in a released statement after the House's vote on the bill. "We are committed to defeating this bill and hope senators and the governor will join us." Senators on Tuesday asked whether HB 69 would block law enforcement from using cameras as part of other criminal investigations, whether the sponsors would be open to more regulation of the cameras rather than an outright ban and whether the cameras should be allowed at intersections with high accident rates. But Maag and Mallory said the existing system is too flawed to salvage. "No amount of regulation can change the fact that localities have manipulated the system to generate revenue," Maag said. "The camera program in this state is an egregious violation of due process and has far overreached its intended purpose." Marc Kovac is the Dix Capital Bureau Chief. Email him at mkovac@dixcom.com or on Twitter at OhioCapitalBlog. link PDF GARY PRUIETT, et al., Plaintiffs v. VILLAGE OF ELMWOOD, et al. Defendants COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO Case Number: A1209235 Judge Robert P. Ruehlman DECISION 7 pages [Excerpt at pp. 5-7] [5] DECISION The Court finds that the ordinance fails 10 provide due process guarantees to any person receiving a Notice of Liability, from The Village of Elmwood Place. Revised Code 4511.094 requires that traffic law photo-monitoring devices to enforce traffic laws cannot be used in a village, unless a sign is erected within that village, warning motorists that such a monitoring device is operating. The Chief of the Elmwood Place Police Department testified that it was possible for a motorist to enter the village and go through a speed enforcement area without ever passing a warning sign. Furthermore, when a speed monitoring device records a violation, a motorist is mailed a Notice of Liability. The violation is based on a report and a photograph from the speed monitoring unit. The report contains the speed of the vehicle indicating that the vehicle was traveling faster than the speed limit. The photograph shows the car and its license plate number. The owner of the vehicle is then sent a Notice of Liability and is told to pay a civil penalty of $105.00. If the owner of the vehicle wants to contest the liability, he or she must pay $25.00 to the Village of Elmwood and request a hearing before a hearing officer and there is no assurance that the fee will be returned if the appeal is successful. However, the hearing is nothing more than a sham! The so called witness for Elmwood Place testifies from a report produced by the company that owns the speed monitoring unit. This witness has no personal knowledge of the speeding violation and therefore, their testimony is based solely on hearsay. The accused motorist has no ability to cross-examine the witness because the witness was not present when - - - [6] the violation occurred. There is no opportunity to obtain any discovery about the device or to subpoena any witnesses that may have knowledge of the device. In fact, the device is calibrated once a year; even though it may have been subjected to 12 months of varying amounts of rain, snow, sun, storms, ice, wind and lightning. Moreover, the device was not calibrated by a certified Police Officer, but rather it was calibrated by Optotraffic, the corporation that owns the device. Remember, Optotraffic has a financial stake in this game. I used the term "game" because Elmwood Place is engaged in nothing more than a high-tech game of 3 CARD MONTY. It is a scam that the motorists can't win. The entire case against the motorist is stacked because the speed monitoring device is calibrated and controlled by Optotraffic. Remember, Optotraffic had already received approximately $500,000.00 at the time of the January 9tll, 2013 hearing, before this court. To compound this total disregard for due process, Elmwood Place has another scheme up its sleeve. If a motorist tries to convince a hearing officer that he or she was not the driver of the offending vehicle, the ordinance requires that the owner making such a claim provide the name and address of the driver of the vehicle. If the driver was the owner's spouse, the ordinance requires the owner to testify against his or her spouse, in violation of the spousal immunity statute Revised Code 2917.02 (D). The Court renders Judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and finds that the ordinance is invalid and unenforceable. A pennanent injunction is granted to the Plaintiffs prohibiting further enforcement of the ordinance, by the Defendants. Court costs, other reasonable expenses and attorney fees are to be assessed against the Defendants. - - - [7] BOND Civil Rule 65 ( C ) provides that an injunction is not operative until the Plaintiffs post a bond to cover any potential damages that may be sustained by the Defendants, if it is finally decided that the injunction should not have been granted. Since the Defendants have stated that the goal of the ordinance was not to raise revenue, but rather to increase compliance with speed limits, the generation of revenue is not an issue for the Defendants. Therefore, the surety is set in the nominal amount 0[$1.00. JUDGE ROBERT P. RUEHLMAN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO nolu chan  posted on  2014-01-08   17:55:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: A K A Stone (#2) I would try calling the office of attorney Michael K. Allen. His office has litigated the specific issue and won. I have no knowledge of Michael K. Allen other than what I have read in looking at this speed camera issue. You appear to describe the same process (or lack of due process) which has been held unlawful. FWIW, my opinion is that Judge Ruehlman has it correctly decided. Michael K. Allen & Associates Michael K. Allen & Associates 810 Sycamore Street Floor 5 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-334-0209 Toll Free: 800-590-6537 Fax: 513-338-1828 Cincinnati Law Office Map Suburban North Office: 5181 Natorp Blvd, Suite 210 Mason, OH 45040 Phone: 513-445-9600 Map and Directions Columbus Office: 222 East Town Street, 2nd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Map and Directions Visit our blog for updated information on the speeding tickets for Elmwood Place. If you have paid a citation and wish to receive additional information about the Elmwood Place Speed Camera Litigation, you can contact us at 513-549-0320 or at elmwood@mkallenlaw.com. Please be provide your name, address, phone number, email address, and citation number. If you need immediate assistance, please contact our regular office numbers. (Please note: the use of this number or email address does not create an attorney-client relationship, and confidential or time sensitive information should not be sent through this phone number or email address.) News: Michaal K. Allen & Associates has opened a new office in Mason to better serve clients in Warren County and Butler County. Associate attorneys Thomas Longano, Kip Guinan, and Philip Heimlich in our Main Office each served as Assistant Hamilton County Prosecutors before joining our firm. Associate attorney Bryan R. Perkins served as a police officer and Hamilton County Public Defender before joining our firm. In the Suburban North Office, J. Adam Engel, Of Counsel, is a former Felony Prosecutor who established the appellate division in the Warren County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. Together, we offer our clients more than 100 years of combined experience in the practice of criminal law. We have defended thousands of clients against criminal charges, and we handle each case with the same professionalism and determined resolve. We believe that every person who is accused of a crime has a right to a zealous defense, and that is exactly what we provide for each client we serve. For a strong defense, contact one of our law offices in Cincinnati, Ohio or in Mason, Ohio. http://www.mkallenlaw.com/Criminal-Defense/Traffic-Violations/ Traffic Violations Providing A Strong Defense Against Traffic Violations Under Ohio law, each traffic violation is assigned a certain point value depending on the severity of the offense. The accumulation of too many points on your driving record can ultimately lead to the suspension of your driver's license. The loss of your right to drive can have a serious impact on your personal life, your job and your parental responsibilities. If you have received a citation, don't think that your only option is to pay the fine and take the points. At the Cincinnati based law firm of Michael K. Allen & Associates, we have helped clients throughout Southwest Ohio to successfully challenge a wide variety of traffic violations from running a red light to vehicular felonies. [...] Speak to a Lawyer 24/7 If you are concerned about a traffic charge, or multiple traffic violations, contact our office today. You can speak to an attorney at any time, day or night, for sound advice about your legal issue. For assistance in Hamilton County, call the Cincinnati Office at 513-334-0209 or contact us toll free at 800-590-6537. You may also contact us by e-mail. For assistance in Warren County, Butler County, Clermont County, or elsewhere in Ohio, call the Mason office at 513-445-9600. You may also contact the office by email. http://www.mkallenlaw.com/Disclaimer.shtml Disclaimer The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established. nolu chan  posted on  2014-01-08   17:57:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: nolu chan (#4) You're the best. Thanks a million. I will read over this more carefully. One thing though. Why do you think this police officer "LT Carol Johnson" is allowed to waive "fees". I didn't know that the police were part of the judical branch. If I get pulled over by a regular cop. Do you think his supervisor or the officer themselves can amend requirements having to do with "duties" to the "court". A K A Stone  posted on  2014-01-08   18:54:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: A K A Stone (#5) You said the fine or fee was $110.00 and Lt. Johnson said she could waive part of the fee if you sent $85.00 and this was bond. The difference is $25.00 which just happens to be the amount to request a hearing cited in the court decision. See from the court decision (hearing was on January 9, 2013 - a year ago) The owner of the vehicle is then sent a Notice of Liability and is told to pay a civil penalty of $105.00 If the owner of the vehicle wants to contest the liability, he or she must pay $25.00 to the Village of Elmwood and request a hearing before a hearing officer and there is no assurance that the fee will be returned if the appeal is successful. I am inclined to believe there was a slight misunderstanding, either in the explanation or your understanding of it. I don't think the officer can waive anything, but I would not jump to the conclusion that is what was offered. The precise civil ordinance applicable to your case may vary somewhat from the case of the court decision. It is the civil ordinance of the town or village where the alleged infraction occurred. Possibly, the ordinance could contain some provision providing for a $25 reduction if the penalty is paid within 30 days or some such. Note that this is just a civil ordinance of a village or town and this is not a criminal matter. The reference in the decision is to a hearing before a hearing officer, not to a trial in court. The hearing is an administrative proceeding. It is a creature of the executive branch, not the judicial branch. nolu chan  posted on  2014-01-08   21:18:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: A K A Stone (#0) (Edited) How do you fine folks suggest fighting this. Bend over and smile. And quit speeding! You should know better. p.s. I hate those cameras likely installed by a contractor to the city/town/village to enhance revenues. Buy a can of black spray paint and an over-sized hoodie to hide your ugly mug from detection. Fred Mertz  posted on  2014-01-08   22:19:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: A K A Stone, Fred Mertz, nolu chan (#7) Bend over and smile. And quit speeding! Stone, I don't care what Fred suggests to help you out of the jam you placed yourself within in O-HI-O. It is fairely cold there right now and I want to help you out of your jam. As a mere poster of LF, I want you to know that I recommend that you burn the official issued paper ticket for human safety reasons (warmth) and demand the state of O-HI-O provide you with adequate safety and self-preservation capabilities that exclude state oversite sanctioned cameras upon your being. As a back up appeal, tell them that you believe in God. That will save your first born. buckeroo  posted on  2014-01-08   22:37:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: A K A Stone (#0) I need more details. How fast were you speeding and what was the speed limit? And don't say you weren't. Cameras and motion detectors don't lie. You're doomed! Fred Mertz  posted on  2014-01-08   23:00:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: Fred Mertz (#9) You're doomed! Fred - the poor chap is planning to go to heaven. He might be offended by your forecast. buckeroo  posted on  2014-01-08   23:11:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: A K A Stone, Fred Mertz (#9) I need more details. How fast were you speeding and what was the speed limit? Absolutely not. They must prove how fast you were going -- unless you want to post it on the internet for them. Cameras and motion detectors don't lie. Absent a documented, timely calibration by a certified and impartial person, the report provided by the equipment is legally nothing. As Judge Ruehlman found in Pruiett, "the device was not calibrated by a certified Police Officer, but rather it was calibrated by Optotraffic, the corporation that owns the device. Remember, Optotraffic has a financial stake in this game. I used the term 'game' because Elmwood Place is engaged in nothing more than a high-tech game of 3 CARD MONTY. It is a scam that the motorists can't win. The entire case against the motorist is stacked because the speed monitoring device is calibrated and controlled by Optotraffic. Remember, Optotraffic had already received approximately $500,000.00 at the time of the January 9th, 2013 hearing, before this court." In Pruiett, the judge also found, "The so called witness for Elmwood Place testifies from a report produced by the company that owns the speed monitoring unit. This witness has no personal knowledge of the speeding violation and therefore, their testimony is based solely on hearsay." And, "The Court renders Judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and finds that the ordinance is invalid and unenforceable." nolu chan  posted on  2014-01-09   0:01:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: A K A Stone (#0) How do you fine folks suggest fighting this. Were you speeding? If you were, just pay your fine, and slow down. Jameson  posted on  2014-01-09   7:41:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: A K A Stone (#5) Pruiett v Village of Elmwood, Speed Lights (CASE LINKS) http://tinyurl.com/o3c5lh2 Pruiett v Village of Elmwood, Elmwood Notice of Appeal (11 Mar 2013) = = = = = = = = = = http://tinyurl.com/qaaodwy http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp?type=3&year=2013&number=1234&myPage=searchbycasenumber.asp Supreme Court of Ohio, Pruiett v Village of Elmwood, Case history and docs = = = = = = = = = = http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=731481.pdf [08/05/2013] Complaint in mandamus/prohibition of Village of Elmwood Place, Ohio (by Elmwood) 208 pp [08/05/2013] And memorandum in support of issuance of emergency alternative writ in prohibition Ptf Ex 1: Ordinance No 09-12 (11 pp) Ptf Ex 2: Minutes of Village of Elmwood Place Council Meeting, Tuesday, July 10, 2012 -- Ordinance 09-12 adopted (3 pp) Ptf Ex 3: Service Agreement By and Between Village of Elmwood Place and Optotraffic, LLC (12 pp) Ptf Ex 4: Ordinance No 12-12 -- Adopting a Fee for Administering Review Hearings for Notices of Liability Resulting from the Village of Elmwood P;ace Automated Speed Enforcement Program by Adding Section 77.07 (d) to CHAPTER 77 (1 pp) Ptf Ex 5: Village of Elmwood Place, Notice of Liability = = = = = = = = = = http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=196066.pdf [08/07/2013] DECISION: Order; the request for emergency relief is denied. The merits of the case will be considered in the ordinary course. = = = = = = = = = = http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=196719.pdf [10/23/2013] DECISION: In light of this court's decision to decline jurisdiction in Case No.. 2013-1087, Gary Pruiett et al. v. Village of Elmwood Place et al., it is ordered, sua sponte, that this case is dismissed as moot. = = = = = = = = = = http://tinyurl.com/qagwga6 http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp?type=3&year=2013&number=1087&myPage=searchbyentityname.asp Docket Report Optotraffic Appeal http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=730166.pdf OPTOTRAFFIC LLC, Memorandum in support of jurisdiction http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=196677.pdf [10/23/2013] DECISION: Jurisdiction declined. = = = = = = = = = = nolu chan  posted on  2014-01-09   11:38:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: A K A Stone (#5) http://www.scribd.com/doc/197786547/Ordinance-09-12-Village-of-Elmwood-Place-Ohio-10-Jul-2012-SPEED-CAMERAS nolu chan  posted on  2014-01-09   12:11:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: A K A Stone (#5) http://www.scribd.com/doc/197786560/Ordinance-12-12-Village-of-Elmwood-Place-Ohio-22-Oct-2012 nolu chan  posted on  2014-01-09   12:11:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: A K A Stone (#5) http://www.scribd.com/doc/197786623/Service-Agreement-by-and-Between-Village-of-Elmwood-Place-and-OPTOTRAFFIC-LLC-14-Jul-2012-SPEED-CAMERAS nolu chan  posted on  2014-01-09   12:12:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: A K A Stone (#5) http://www.scribd.com/doc/197870342/Dayton-City-Ordinance-Sec-70-121-Civil-Penalties-for-Automated-Traffic-Control-Photographic-System nolu chan  posted on  2014-01-09   15:24:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: A K A Stone (#5) http://tinyurl.com/ow38ccp Bradley Walker v City of Toledo, In the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth Appellate District, Lucas County, No L-12-1056 [28 Jun 2013] DECISION AND JUDGMENT = = = = = = = = = = Bradley Walker v City of Toledo, Ohio SUPREME COURT, DOCKET and Document Links http://tinyurl.com/ptyrd2j http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp?type=3&year=2013&number=1277&myPage=searchbypartyname.asp Case Number 2013-1277 The Supreme Court of Ohio Case is open. - - - http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=731884.pdf [08/09/2013] Memorandum in support of jurisdiction of of Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. Filed by: Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. - - - http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=732012.pdf [08/12/2013] Jurisdictional memorandum of amicus curiae Optotraffic, LLC, in support of appellant Filed by: Optotraffic, LLC - - - http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=732023.pdf [08/12/2013] Jurisdictional memorandum of amici curiae The Ohio Municipal League, City of Columbus, and City of Dayton in support of appellant Filed by: City of Columbus Filed by: City of Dayton Filed by: The Ohio Municipal League - - - http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=733373.pdf [09/13/2013] Memorandum in response to jurisdiction Filed by: Walker, Bradley - - - http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=197155.pdf [12/04/2013] DECISION: Appeal of Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. and City of Toledo accepted - - - Note: the above decision is only the Ohio Supreme Court's decision to hear the case. nolu chan  posted on  2014-01-09   15:26:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: nolu chan (#18) You're a goldmine of information. It is much appreciated. Now I will have to figure out what all this means. Thank You. A K A Stone  posted on  2014-01-09   15:52:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: A K A Stone (#19) The Ohio Constitution [The 1851 Constitution with Amendments to 2011] http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.cfm?Part=4&Section=04 § 4.04 Common pleas court (A) There shall be a court of common pleas and such divisions thereof as may be established by law serving each county of the state. Any judge of a court of common pleas or a division thereof may temporarily hold court in any county. In the interests of the fair, impartial, speedy, and sure administration of justice, each county shall have one or more resident judges, or two or more counties may be combined into districts having one or more judges resident in the district and serving the common pleas courts of all counties in the district, as may be provided by law. Judges serving a district shall sit in each county in the district as the business of the court requires. In counties or districts having more than one judge of the court of common pleas, the judges shall select one of their number to act as presiding judge, to serve at their pleasure. If the judges are unable because of equal division of the vote to make such selection, the judge having the longest total service on the court of common pleas shall serve as presiding judge until selection is made by vote. The presiding judge shall have such duties and exercise such powers as are prescribed by rule of the Supreme Court. (B) The courts of common pleas and divisions thereof shall have such original jurisdiction over all justiciable matters and such powers of review of proceedings of administrative officers and agencies as may be provided by law. (C) Unless otherwise provided by law, there shall be a probate division and such other divisions of the courts of common pleas as may be provided by law. Judges shall be elected specifically to such probate division and to such other divisions. The judges of the probate division shall be empowered to employ and control the clerks, employees, deputies, and referees of such probate division of the common pleas courts. (Amended, effective Nov. 6, 1973; SJR No.30. Adopted May 7, 1968. Former § 4 repealed.) http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.cfm?Part=4&Section=18 § 4.18 Powers and jurisdiction The several judges of the Supreme Court, of the common pleas, and of such other courts as may be created, shall, respectively, have and exercise such power and jurisdiction, at chambers, or otherwise, as may be directed by law. http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.cfm?Part=18&Section=03 § 18.03 Powers Municipalities shall have authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws. (Adopted September 3, 1912.) = = = = = = = = = = http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/1901.20 Ohio Revised Code Title [19] XIX COURTS - MUNICIPAL - MAYOR'S - COUNTY Chapter 1901: MUNICIPAL COURT 1901.20 Criminal and traffic jurisdiction. (A) (1) The municipal court has jurisdiction of the violation of any ordinance of any municipal corporation within its territory, unless the violation is required to be handled by a parking violations bureau or joint parking violations bureau pursuant to Chapter 4521. of the Revised Code, and of the violation of any misdemeanor committed within the limits of its territory. The municipal court has jurisdiction of the violation of a vehicle parking or standing resolution or regulation if a local authority, as defined in division (D) of section 4521.01 of the Revised Code, has specified that it is not to be considered a criminal offense, if the violation is committed within the limits of the court's territory, and if the violation is not required to be handled by a parking violations bureau or joint parking violations bureau pursuant to Chapter 4521. of the Revised Code. The municipal court, if it has a housing or environmental division, has jurisdiction of any criminal action over which the housing or environmental division is given jurisdiction by section 1901.181 of the Revised Code, provided that, except as specified in division (B) of that section, no judge of the court other than the judge of the division shall hear or determine any action over which the division has jurisdiction. In all such prosecutions and cases, the court shall proceed to a final determination of the prosecution or case. (2) A judge of a municipal court does not have the authority to dismiss a criminal complaint, charge, information, or indictment solely at the request of the complaining witness and over the objection of the prosecuting attorney, village solicitor, city director of law, or other chief legal officer who is responsible for the prosecution of the case. (B) The municipal court has jurisdiction to hear felony cases committed within its territory. In all felony cases, the court may conduct preliminary hearings and other necessary hearings prior to the indictment of the defendant or prior to the court's finding that there is probable and reasonable cause to hold or recognize the defendant to appear before a court of common pleas and may discharge, recognize, or commit the defendant. (C) A municipal court has jurisdiction of an appeal from a judgment or default judgment entered pursuant to Chapter 4521. of the Revised Code, as authorized by division (D) of section 4521.08 of the Revised Code. The appeal shall be placed on the regular docket of the court and shall be determined by a judge of the court. Effective Date: 03-17-1998 nolu chan  posted on  2014-01-09   16:01:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: A K A Stone (#19) The primary constitutional issue on jurisdiction is set forth in a filing on behalf of Bradley Walker. I quoted cited matter at #20 above. Per the Ohio constitution, the courts have jurisdiction as may be directed by law. Per Ohio law, RC 1901.20, "The municipal court has jurisdiction of the violation of any ordinance of any municipal corporation within its territory, unless the violation is required to be handled by a parking violations bureau or joint parking violations bureau...." Speeding is not parking. The Appeals court found at 16: {¶ 36} It is clear that the legislature has vested the municipal court with the jurisdiction to adjudicate the violation of any municipal ordinance, including Toledo Municipal Code 313.12. The plain language of the ordinance also reveals that appellee city has attempted to divest the municipal court of some, or all, of its jurisdiction by establishing an administrative alternative without the express approval of the legislature. Such usurpation of jurisdiction violates Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 1, and is therefore a nullity. If that is upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court, the extra-judicial hearings before the appointed Hearing Officers will cease. http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=733373.pdf [09/13/2013] Memorandum in response to jurisdiction Filed by: Walker, Bradley [Excerpt at pp. 1-2] I. RedFlex's and Toledo's propositions of law do not involve a substantial-and unsettled-constitutional question. Under Article IV, Section 1, the General Assembly has the exclusive power to create courts and define their jurisdiction. State ex rel. Ramey v. Davis, 119 Ohio St. 596, 165 N.E. 298 (1929), syllabus. Thus, charter municipalities do not have home-rule power to regulate a court's jurisdiction. Cupps v. Toledo, 170 Ohio St. 144, 163 N.E.2d 384 (1959), paragraph one of syllabus. As of 1959, this issue is "settled by the decisions of this court." Id. at 149. Thus, if a court's jurisdiction would be different under an ordinance than it is under a statute enacted by the General Assembly, then the ordinance is unconstitutional. Here, under R.C. 1901.20(A)(1), the Toledo municipal court "has jurisdiction." But under Toledo's ordinance, that court does not have jurisdiction. Did the Sixth District correctly determine that Toledo's ordinance violates Article IV, Section 1? In a treatise published before this case, counsel for the Municipal League says "yes": Section 1, Article IV of the Ohio Constitution is a special provision dealing with the creation of courts and supersedes the general power of local self government granted in Section 3, Article XVIII. The sovereignty of the state, as to courts, extends over all the state, including municipalities, whether charter or noncharter, and municipalities thus have no power to create courts or regulate their jurisdiction. Ordinances and statutes enacted by the legislative bodies of the state or municipalities are enforced through judicial tribunals created by the state. There is no dual sovereignty between the state and municipal governments. Gotherman, Babbit, and, Lang Baldwin's Ohio Practice, Local Government Law—Municipal, §3:20 (First Edition). (emphasis added.) RedFlex, Toledo and their amici invite this court to change established Ohio law and hold that Article XVIII now supersedes Article IV. Remarkably, appellants extend their invitation to change Ohio law without ever once even mentioning Cupps and related precedent. This "ostrichlike tactic of pretending that potentially dispositive authority against a litigant's contention does [2] not exist is... pointless." Gonzalez-Servin v. Ford Motor Company, 662 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir. 2011). This court should decline appellants' invitation: the purported "debate" over the relationship between Article IV and Article XVIII is wholly nonexistent-any such "debate" has been well settled in this state for decades. Rather than candidly acknowledging settled law, the appellants' obvious hope is that this court accepts jurisdiction and — by judicial fiat — exempts "photo enforcement" ordinances from municipal-court jurisdiction, when the legislature did not create that exemption itself. Appellants offer no principled reason for this court to do this. And in fact, this court's precedent directly counsels otherwise. The Supreme Court is not to be a "willing participant in divesting the courts of judicial power." State ex. rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 86 Ohio St.3d 451, 501, 715 N.E.2d 1062, 1102 (1999). This case presents such a divestiture effort by Toledo and its business partner, RedFlex. Because this case merely involves application of settled law — law the Sixth District applied properly — there is no reason for this court to accept jurisdiction. The Sixth District has correctly told Toledo that it cannot impair or restrict a court's jurisdiction. There is nothing more to do here. nolu chan  posted on  2014-01-09   16:57:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: A K A Stone (#0) You are a serious idiot. Pay the ticket and slow down before your dumb ass kills someone. We used to be a land where we gave up our lives to protect our freedom. Now we give up our freedom to protect our lives. We The People  posted on  2014-01-11   0:27:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: We The People (#22) First off I don't speed. Secondly you don't support the constitution and innocent until proven guilty. You agree with the cunt pig that thinks you have to pay a fee to get a trial. A patriot you are apparently not. A K A Stone  posted on  2014-01-11   10:04:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: A K A Stone, We The People (#23) buckeroo  posted on  2014-01-11   10:56:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: A K A Stone, We The People, buckeroo (#23) Just a small selection form what is at the link. http://photoradarscam.com/malfunctions.php Malfunctions If you think photo enforcement equipment doesn't affect you because you adhere to traffic laws 100%, think again! There are numerous documented instances of camera malfunctions and program dishonesty that target and burden the innocent. Furthermore, it has been proven that camera operators are blatantly dishonest and will do anything to generate more revenue, including hiding evidence (case in point). If you get an erroneous ticket in the mail, or you are the victim of a dishonest camera operator, you can look forward to some or all of the following: Missing multiple days of work to appear in court, plus gas and other expenses to drive there (some tickets require multiple appearances) Several hundred to a thousand dollars or more for attorney representation if you so choose Missing a full day to attend traffic school in lieu of paying ticket (plus paying for the ticket) If you lose: paying the fine, court and other added fees, higher insurance rates, possibility of losing your license, etc. Many cities charge extra fees for you to fight your ticket or require you to pay before the hearing How far do you think your argument will go that the equipment malfunctioned and that you are innocent? How will you prove that the equipment malfunctioned? Will you even remember the details of that day since you weren't expecting a ticket and didn't know you got one until weeks later? Are you going to rely on the honesty of these companies at the risk of points on your license and higher insurance rates? Trouble persisted during Baltimore speed camera tests, records show Dec 21, 2013 Baltimore Sun - Article Excerpts: Defective radar. Wrong citation numbers. Error rates as high as 30 percent. Such problems persisted during months of testing aimed at fixing and restarting Baltimore's speed and red-light camera system, newly released documents show. Test results and other records obtained by The Baltimore Sun provide the first public look at persistent problems that led officials to cut ties last week with the system's contractor. Into October, the documents show, 10 percent of the mock speed camera tickets were showing errors judged to be within the vendor's control — double the error rate allowed by the city. [...] Speed camera system flags a parked car Nov 28, 2013 Chicago Tribune - Article Excerpts: On a Friday night in October, Megan Kasten parked her car for five minutes on Augusta Boulevard near Humboldt Park while she picked up a friend to go see a movie. A month later, Kasten said, she got a warning notice in the mail for speeding past the Northwest Side park at 37 miles per hour, a violation recorded by one of Mayor Rahm Emanuel's new speed cameras. Drivers' videos show Morningside speed-camera problems Nov 25, 2013 WTOP - Article Excerpts: "You see the camera in the video, you'll see my clock on the dashboard, you'll see my speedometer and you'll plainly see it's at 30 miles per hour. You'll also hear WTOP on in the background. And I got the ticket that said 44 miles per hour," says Weathersby. "But the video shows me going 30 miles per hour. How can you dispute it? It's video. It isn't edited; it just shows me going past the camera and it shows my speed on the speedometer." [...] DC red light cameras, not just catching red light runners Sep 24, 2013 MyFoxDC.com - Article Excerpts: WASHINGTON, DC - Red light cameras in the district are raking in millions of dollars, even when drivers don't run a red light. The city has 50 cameras at intersections across DC. Each ticket is $150. One camera at New York Avenue and Fourth Street Northwest caught Barbara Herbert's car going through the intersection, but it's not the way it looks. "I did nothing wrong," she told FOX 5. She showed FOX 5 the ticket that came in the mail. None of the three pictures shows her actually running a red light. In one, her car is in the left turn lane, stopped. [...] Pine Lawn drivers continue fighting speed camera tickets Aug 9, 2013 Fox2Now.com - Article Excerpts: PINE LAWN, MO (KTVI)– More drivers are questioning their speed camera tickets. Another crowd fought their tickets and drivers started to notice strange similarities in their alleged speed. After hundreds lined up outside of Pine Lawn yesterday, dozens showed up today in Country Club Hills. Then people started wondering how so many people could be clocked at the same speed. [...] Small refunds in red-light-camera settlement Aug 9, 2013 Philly.com - Article Excerpts: Some drivers caught by red-light cameras in Cherry Hill, Stratford, and three other municipalities will get small refunds from the cameras' operator under a tentative $2.1 million settlement announced Wednesday. The money, to be paid by Redflex Traffic Systems of Phoenix, will be divided among about 260,000 drivers and their lawyers. [...] Australia: Safety Official Seeks Refund Of 987 Speed Camera Tickets Aug 8, 2013 TheNewspaper.com - Article Excerpts: Gordon Lewis, the Road Safety Commissioner in Victoria, Australia, on Thursday recommended 987 vehicle owners receive a refund on speed camera tickets they received in the space of a little more than an hour on the Western Ring Road. A camera trap had been set on June 30 at the Keilor Park Drive Bridge. Ordinarily, the speed limit at the location is 100km/h (62 MPH), and few violations are issued. On June 28 and June 29 at the same location, for example, only 3 vehicle owners were mailed citations for speeding. The number of tickets issued jumped 32,930 percent on June 30, and after being questioned about the incident on talk radio, Lewis determined to get to the bottom of what happened. [...] The Netherlands: Government Investigates Inaccurate Photo Tickets Jun 24, 2013 TheNewspaper.com - Article Excerpts: Innocent motorists are getting tickets in The Netherlands from average speed cameras that are miscalculating the speed of some vehicles by as much as 18 MPH. Last Monday, National Ombudsman Alex Brenninkmeijer announced his office had opened an official investigation into the matter. [...] New speed cameras won't eliminate errors, radar experts say Feb 17, 2013 Baltimore Sun - Article Excerpts: Baltimore transportation officials have set high expectations for the city's new speed cameras, telling state lawmakers the devices won't be susceptible to errors that plagued the system over the past three years. But radar experts say tracking radar isn't necessarily the cure-all it might seem. They predict the new cameras will reduce — but not necessarily eliminate — the kinds of errors that have cast a shadow over the city's automated enforcement system. Those errors, many of which came to light in a Baltimore Sun investigation, have included generating excessively high speed readings and tagging the wrong vehicle as the speeder. Taxi Driver Beats Faulty Speed Camera In Court Jan 31, 2013 AOL Autos - Article Excerpts: Finding fault with speed cameras has recently been an easy task. Speed cameras installed throughout the city of Baltimore were found to be so inaccurate that officials are scrapping the entire system and spending $450,000 to replace them. One issued a ticket to a driver stopped at a red light. In one small Ohio town, speed cameras issued 20,000 tickets in two weeks. Turns out, they're a problem beyond America too. A taxi driver in England was fined 60 pounds, the equivalent of $94.61 for driving 50 miles per hour in a 30-mph zone by a speed camera. This week, he fought the ticket and won. Comparing two images taken by the speed camera, the lawyer for Andrew Constantine proved his speed was only 17.8 mph, according to the Daily Mail. Constantine may have simply paid the ticket and moved on, but he distinctly remembered that ride because he was driving an elderly passenger, and was careful to give her a gentle ride. [...] The 96mph right turn Oct 1, 2012 St Pete Cameras - Article Excerpts: After several months of public records requests, in June 2012 I finally received the raw American Traffic Solutions(ATS) red light camera data from the City of St. Petersburg for the first 6 months of their program. Right away there were dozens of citations that stood out as being suspect, so I gathered 121 of them in to a list and sent in another public records request to receive the videos of these. Over 3 months later and I finally received the videos to most of the violations that I had requested, they did not deliver 14 of them. This is the analysis of one example of just how bad the ATS equipment can malfunction, the "96 miles-per-hour" right turn on red. [...] Speed cameras nail the innocent, too Feb 12, 2012 Baltimore Sun - Article Excerpt: It seems everyone has a speed camera story, and here is mine. Just after Christmas I received a citation from Maryland Safe Zones Automated Speed Enforcement in the mail. It was not my car; I was not in the place at the time specified, and the picture of the license plate was virtually unreadable. I was offered the option of paying $40 or asking for a court date. I chose the latter and received a letter a couple of weeks later stating that I needed to appear in District Court in Towson at 9 a.m. on Jan. 31. Fortunately, I appeared before a judge who was full of good humor, compassion and common sense. After my name was called and I walked to the front of the courtroom, I was asked if it was my car in the picture. I replied in the negative. Next, the judge looked at the citation and without hesitation said, "Case dismissed. I cannot read this license plate. Not guilty." All of that took about 30 seconds, and I didn't need to present evidence in my defense. Interestingly enough, the same thing happened to the man who was called before me. To dispute this inaccurate citation, I had to drive 54 miles in morning traffic, which took me 90 minutes of drive time, and pay a $5 parking fee, not to mention the cost of gas and missing time off from work. [...] Bike 'going' 57 mph finishes Cheverly’s speed-camera deal Nov 8, 2011 Washington Times - Article Excerpt: The Prince George’s County town of Cheverly sent a letter in July to speed-camera vendor Optotraffic, informing the company that one of its cameras had caught a bicycle going 57 mph — just 26 mph off the world record for a flat surface. The obvious error, town officials wrote, was the latest in a pattern of inaccurate readings by the Optotraffic device, which had caught another bike going 38 mph and an "invisible vehicle" traveling 76 mph. [snip] nolu chan  posted on  2014-01-11   15:18:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: nolu chan (#25) buckeroo  posted on  2014-01-11   15:59:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: buckeroo (#26) . Fred Mertz  posted on  2014-01-14   6:58:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: buckeroo (#26) And furthermore, . Fred Mertz  posted on  2014-01-14   21:52:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: A K A Stone (#0) Dayton code 70.121 requires that speed cameras work in conjunction with an intersection with a traffic light. A camera not at a light does not meet the legal definition (section B) of an "automated traffic control photographic system" (ATCPS). It cannot not impose "monetary liability on the owner of a vehicle." (Section A 1) Even if they could get around that problem, any camera not at an intersection would not meet the requirements of a "notice of liability" in section D 1 d. They have 9 stand alone cameras that do not meet the legal definition of an ATCPS. Here are the locations: S. Smithville Rd. near Marimont, S. Smithville Rd. near E. Fourth St, W. Third St. near Hatfield, E. Third St. near Clinton, Stanley Ave. near Kuntz, S. Keowee near E. Fourth St., N. Keowee St. near Stanley Ave., N. Gettysburgh near Fairbanks, Salem Ave. near Otterbein Dayton also has mobile cameras that, depending on deployment, may also fail to be legal. Here is a link to the website they post their law, but it doesn't allow a direct link. The site is messy, but if you do a search for 70.121, it is the first link. library.municode.com/inde...stateId=35 &stateName=Ohio I don't have a ticket, but have been looking into it to try to help others after family got nailed. I spoke to some local attorneys on this and one wasn't ready to take it on because the Toledo case was further along. He I should represent myself since it's an arbitration type hearing and not a trial. I got it dropped over the phone just because it was my first ticket, and they were too busy to reschedule my hearing. Rob Scott said he has beat tickets on these grounds. Charles Rowland III said he'd love to take Dayton on over speed cameras. Both lost interest when I said I didn't have a current ticket. From what I've read and talking to others, it seems that Dayton knows they aren't on solid ground and refund rather easily if you just got to the hearing and politely state your case. I don't think they want it to get to the court system. johnqp1  posted on  2014-01-16   21:52:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: Fred Mertz (#28) buckeroo  posted on  2014-01-16   22:08:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: buckeroo (#30) Fred Mertz  posted on  2014-01-16   22:40:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: Fred Mertz (#31) buckeroo  posted on  2014-01-16   22:47:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com