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

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place? "Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil" "New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris" "Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony" Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX) Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’ ‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist' Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away. No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say ! "Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ " "Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate" "The Teleprompter Campaign" Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh "Pagans in Paris" "Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election". "Enter Harris, Stage Lef"t Official describes the moment a Butler officer confronted the Trump shooter Jesse Watters: Don’t buy this excuse from the Secret Service Video shows Trump shooter crawling into position while folks point him out to law enforcement Eyewitness believes there was a 'noticeable' difference in security at Trump's rally Trump Assassination Attempt We screamed for 3 minutes at police and Secret Service. They couldn’t see him, so they did nothing. EYEWITNESS SPEAKS OUT — I SAW THE ASSASSIN CRAWLING ACROSS THE ROOF. Video showing the Trump Rally shooter dead on the rooftop Court Just Nailed Hillary in $6 Million FEC Violation Case, 45x Bigger Than Trump's $130k So-Called Violation 2024 Republican Platform Drops Gun-Rights Promises Why will Kamala Harris resign from her occupancy of the Office of Vice President of the USA? Scroll down for records/details Secret Negotiations! Jill Biden’s Demands for $2B Library, Legal Immunity, and $100M Book Deal to Protect Biden Family Before Joe’s Exit AI is exhausting the power grid. Tech firms are seeking a miracle solution. Rare Van Halen Leicestershire, Donnington Park August 18, 1984 Valerie Bertinelli Cameo If you need a Good Opening for black, use this. "Arrogant Hunter Biden has never been held accountable — until now" 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 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: 29364 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 Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 19. #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   Untrace   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   Untrace   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   Untrace   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   Untrace   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   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 19. #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   Untrace   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   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 19. 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