Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: justice?

Expand Messages
  • Michael
    ... Steamed over what? The reality of the system? You do not state if you made any timely objections. If none, you have no basis for appeal. Did you know the
    Message 1 of 18 , May 28 9:13 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "suavae1st" <suavae1st@...> wrote:
      >
      > I AM STEAMED!

      Steamed over what? The reality of the system?

      You do not state if you made any timely objections.
      If none, you have no basis for appeal. Did you
      know the requirements of the administrative review?
      Did you have a plan of attack based upon what
      "evidence" you knew would be presented, and how
      you could object to it, evidence which may have
      been based on hearsay?

      It does not seem like you prepared for an appeal
      as the next step in your administrative hearing.
      Was there a fine or an assesssment? That would
      have been a good time to demand clarification as
      to what was being demanded of you.

      The burden of fighting the case was on you. Use
      it as a learning opportunity for your next fight.
    • Frog Farmer
      ... You should have objected on other grounds in addition, such that it cannot be verified and could have been digitally created or altered. The custodian of
      Message 2 of 18 , May 28 10:57 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        suavae1st wrote:

        > I AM STEAMED! Let me tell u what happened in court today re: my photo
        > enforced red lite ticket. The cop laid out his evidence. When my turn
        > came I motioned to exclude the camera evidence because it was
        > illegally obtained.

        You should have objected on other grounds in addition, such that it
        cannot be verified and could have been digitally created or altered.
        The custodian of the evidence and the chain of evidence were not
        challenged.

        > Judge, actually a commissioner, denied motion.

        Making a motion to a commissioner accepts the commissioner, while he
        should have been disqualified way earlier. People who want rights
        demand a real judge beforehand, while people willing to waive rights do
        so by entering into dialogue with commissioners.

        > told him the contract was a direct violation of the CVC 21544.5
        > (g)(which states "a contract with a red light camera supplier may not
        > include payment based on the number of citations generated, or as a
        > percentage of revenue generated)& against the law because my town has
        > signed a cost neutral contract with vendor Redflex. Didn't want to
        > hear it.

        You aren't a party to the contract and you did not subpoena anyone who
        was who could testify instead of hoping that everyone was privy to the
        same hearsay you are.

        > I told him his duty was to be fair & impartial, while still
        > enforcing the law & that he should (remove) himself from the case if
        > he couldn't do that; that he shouldn't be enforcing an illegal law in
        > the guise of enforcing the law. He wasn't moved.

        Right, because there are things you could and should have done if you
        didn't want to leave it in his hands to decide. You were not in control
        of your court.

        > I told him he was a
        > dictator in a kangaroo court.

        ...With your express permission via failure to (dis)qualify him despite
        the knowledge you claim to have about him.

        > I told him he would be over-ruled on
        > appeal. No dice.

        Right, he'll win on appeal to the Supremes because you lose via the
        Ashwander Rules.

        > Commish found me guilty & told me I could be sentenced now or w/i 5
        > days. I told him "I'll be back" next Tuesday. I'm either going to skip
        > his hearing, or else appear & ask to be tried by a real, honest (to
        > goodness) judge.

        That's part of your problem, asking instead of demanding. You really DO
        think everything is up to them, don't you? You naturally waive
        jurisdictional issues, like most people.

        > If I skip out, I'll have a warrant on me.

        If you had claimed all rights at all times never waiving any for any
        reason, it'd be all over by now with you the winner.

        > When I
        > finally get busted, maybe a REAL judge will throw the whole thing out
        > because it's bogus.

        No. You are one they will fleece as much as possible, because you never
        bleat or bite going into the shearing stall. And the record is on their
        side, due to your waivers of rights that you might have chosen to
        defend. They prefer cases where people are charged with infractions and
        then fail to appear making it into a misdemeanor they can then jail you
        over. Don't play into their hands any more than you already have.

        > This travesty of justice has got to be stopped!

        Really! What will get you to choose freedom over a warmer pizza getting
        home? When will you refuse to accept a ticket and demand to see a
        magistrate immediately, and be ready to disqualify him and his goon on
        the spot?!

        > I'm going to try
        > contacting the ACLU to see if they REALLY care about our civil
        > liberties, & would they be interested in a class action suit on behalf
        > of all citizen victims.
        > Any thoughts?

        Yes, see if they have classes educating people to the rights they were
        never informed they have, and how to avoid waiving them as a first
        course of action.

        You waived jurisdiction in this case, never objected properly and will
        not win on appeal.

        Better make all your hearings!

        You COULD have fun with payments and money issues, but from the sound of
        things, that's still a long way off for you. You most likely still use
        FRNS and a bank account. That's what they want out of you.

        Regards,

        FF
      • Jake
            I m going to try contacting the ACLU to see if they REALLY care about our civil liberties, & would they be interested in a class action suit on behalf
        Message 3 of 18 , May 29 2:58 AM
        • 0 Attachment

             > I'm going to try contacting the ACLU to see if they REALLY care about our civil liberties, & would they be interested in a class action suit on behalf of all citizen victims.


          Do you honestly believe the ACLU would be the least bit interested in an administrative red-light camera case?


             > I told him he was a dictator in a kangaroo court. I told him he would be over-ruled on appeal. No dice.
          Commish found me guilty & told me I could be sentenced now or w/i 5 days. I told him "I'll be back" next Tuesday. I'm either going to skip his hearing, or else appear & ask to be tried by a real, honest (to goodness) judge. If I skip out, I'll have a warrant on me.


          All-too-common actions, which will escalate a relatively simple procedural matter into a mess you don't want any part of - might get you an orange jumpsuit & an unwanted "vacation" too.  


          I've used this analogy 100 times - you don't referee a basketball game with football rules do you?  You're in THEIR ballpark & you WILL play by their rules, or you'll wish you had.  You may think you can make your own, but you can't & if you want to have any chance of "beating" the ticket, you'd darn well better learn what their rules / procedures are.  


          Or @ least hire a lawyer who knows them - as my Dad (business lawyer for nearly 50 years) said many years ago, "Lawyers don't know law, they just know procedure" & he was right.  But that's all a traffic ticket issue like this is - procedure.  And red-light tickets are not difficult to beat.


          1st of all, a "court" with a commissioner for a "judge" is an administrative tribunal & while your statutory argument about the red-light camera contract may very well be valid, such a "judge" doesn't have the authority to make a ruling on a statutory issue.  But a point that he could take into consideration & you evidently didn't raise is this - assuming the ticket was issued by mail because a red-light camera got the vehicle's license plate & the vehicle is registered to you, does that prove that you were the driver @ the time?  The burden of proof is on the State as to who the driver was @ the time of an infraction & I haven't seen red-light cameras which get a picture that includes the vehicle's license plate & the driver with sufficient detail to positively identify the driver.


          2nd, you can pretty much expect to lose @ the lowest level "court" & if anyone @ the ACLU would even talk to you, which I very seriously doubt, they'd tell you that's what appeals are for.  I don't know what State you're in or how the system there works, but typically, an appeal from an administrative "court" goes to a real court which can rule on statutory issues such as the one you mentioned, but by relying on that argument only, you've already admitted that you personally were guilty of the infraction.  So the intelligent thing to do would be to get a true copy of the actual photo used against you 1st & see if it positively identifies the driver - if it doesn't, make the State prove that you were driving & that the vehicle actually did run a red light - the photo can be used as "evidence", but I'd bet it's not conclusive proof.


          3rd, expect a statutory issue to go all the way up the court ladder & I'll give you a perfect example - end of last year & into this year, North Carolina cities quit renewing contracts for red-light cameras with the German company which owned/installed/maintained them because of a N.C. supreme court ruling that under the State's constitution, the revenue from red-light camera tickets MUST go to the school system ONLY, minus the expenses (contract payments), so that meant the towns / cities couldn't keep the revenue to use in their own budgets.  Since red-light cameras are only for revenue, have nothing to do with traffic "safety" & the towns / cities couldn't make a profit from them, there was no point in keeping them.  But the point is that the case which originally raised the issue about where the revenue from red-light camera tickets goes had to work its way up to the supreme court to get a final ruling.


          So if you want to go off on a tirade & let your emotions rule, expect a painful & expensive experience.  But if you can settle yourself down & take the time to learn what the rules / procedures are, then there's a very good chance you can "beat" the ticket.


          ~ ~ ~


          --- On Fri, 5/28/10, suavae1st <suavae1st@...> wrote:

          From: suavae1st <suavae1st@...>
          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] justice?
          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Friday, May 28, 2010, 10:31 PM

           

          I AM STEAMED! Let me tell u what happened in court today re: my photo enforced red lite ticket. The cop laid out his evidence. When my turn came I motioned to exclude the camera evidence because it was illegally obtained. Judge, actually a commissioner, denied motion. I told him the contract was a direct violation of the CVC 21544.5 (g)(which states "a contract with a red light camera supplier may not include payment based on the number of citations generated, or as a percentage of revenue generated)& against the law because my town has signed a cost neutral contract with vendor Redflex. Didn't want to hear it. I told him his duty was to be fair & impartial, while still enforcing the law & that he should (remove) himself from the case if he couldn't do that; that he shouldn't be enforcing an illegal law in the guise of enforcing the law. He wasn't moved. I told him he was a dictator in a kangaroo court. I told him he would be over-ruled on appeal. No dice.
          Commish found me guilty & told me I could be sentenced now or w/i 5 days. I told him "I'll be back" next Tuesday. I'm either going to skip his hearing, or else appear & ask to be tried by a real, honest (to goodness) judge. If I skip out, I'll have a warrant on me. When I finally get busted, maybe a REAL judge will throw the whole thing out because it's bogus.
          This travesty of justice has got to be stopped! I'm going to try contacting the ACLU to see if they REALLY care about our civil liberties, & would they be interested in a class action suit on behalf of all citizen victims.
          Any thoughts?
          Steve


        • Michael
          ... Good points made, however, this one will not always fly. I did not save the article, so I cannot give the authority, but one will not be released from the
          Message 4 of 18 , May 29 10:01 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Jake <jake_28079@...> wrote:

            > assuming the ticket was issued by mail because a
            >red-light camera got the vehicle's license plate &
            >the vehicle is registered to you, does that prove
            >that you were the driver @ the time?  The burden
            >of proof is on the State as to who the driver was
            >@ the time of an infraction

            Good points made, however, this one will not always fly.
            I did not save the article, so I cannot give the
            authority, but one will not be released from the
            responsibility of a red light ticket, claiming not to
            have been the driver, only if the owner signs a form
            stating and identifying who the driver was.
          • Jake
               one will not be released from the responsibility of a red light ticket, claiming not to have been the driver, only if the owner signs a form stating and
            Message 5 of 18 , May 29 12:51 PM
            • 0 Attachment
                 > one will not be released from the responsibility of a red light ticket, claiming not to have been the driver, only if the owner signs a form stating and identifying who the driver was.
              Haven't seen that trick before, but then again I've never gotten such a ticket & never would.  Nonetheless, that's just a trick to get you to relieve the State from its burden of proof & anybody who falls for it deserves the fine they get !!

              --- On Sat, 5/29/10, Michael <mn_chicago@...> wrote:

              From: Michael <mn_chicago@...>
              Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: justice?
              To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Saturday, May 29, 2010, 1:01 PM

               


              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Jake <jake_28079@...> wrote:

              > assuming the ticket was issued by mail because a
              >red-light camera got the vehicle's license plate &
              >the vehicle is registered to you, does that prove
              >that you were the driver @ the time?  The burden
              >of proof is on the State as to who the driver was
              >@ the time of an infraction

              Good points made, however, this one will not always fly.
              I did not save the article, so I cannot give the
              authority, but one will not be released from the
              responsibility of a red light ticket, claiming not to
              have been the driver, only if the owner signs a form
              stating and identifying who the driver was.


            • E Junker
              Could you subpoena the red-light camera?
              Message 6 of 18 , May 30 10:02 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Could you subpoena the red-light camera?
              • Michael
                ... Absolutely not! The question demonstrates a lack of knowing how to challenge such a ticket, if one intends to make a challenge. Go to the law library in
                Message 7 of 18 , May 31 9:10 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, E Junker <westernwit@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Could you subpoena the red-light camera?

                  Absolutely not!

                  The question demonstrates a lack of knowing
                  how to challenge such a ticket, if one intends
                  to make a challenge.

                  Go to the law library in your area and look
                  up hearsay evidence, how to challenge it, how
                  to object. See what the rules are for the use
                  of red light cameras.

                  Every administrative procedure has rules that
                  both sides must follow. Demand a first-hand
                  witness to question. All of this becomes more
                  apparent as one reads the rules. If one does
                  not make demands, one waives his/her rights and
                  stands no chance, whatsoever.

                  Due process is the right to be heard, and in a
                  meaningful manner. The administrative hearing
                  is one's right to be heard, and whatever one says
                  is the "meaningful manner." How meaningful is up
                  to each individual.

                  If one objects to the red light camera as hearsay
                  evidence and demands the right to question a
                  witness with the demand being refused, then there
                  is an issue of being denied due process for
                  appeals. To make the record, one has to have a
                  known plan ahead of time.

                  Read the rules.

                  When a fine is levied or a judgment made, ask
                  for clarification on what is being demanded of
                  you in payment, if you know and understand the
                  dollar issue.
                • Jake
                       Could you subpoena the red-light camera? What ???   Demand that the city to bring the camera in, then hire an expert witness to argue over how it
                  Message 8 of 18 , May 31 9:25 AM
                  • 0 Attachment

                       > Could you subpoena the red-light camera?


                    What ???   Demand that the city to bring the camera in, then hire an expert witness to argue over how it works, etc.?  Who would do such a silly thing? And if you didn't hire an expert witness (unless you're a qualified engineer & can prove it), you'd be toast - even if you were able to get the camera brought in.


                    And if you argue over the camera itself, you've already admitted that you ran the red light.  The burden of proof is on the STATE regarding WHO drove thru a red light & what you're talking about puts the burden of proof on you that the equipment is somehow defective.


                    Why do people do that - take the burden of proof upon themselves ???  That's the last thing in the world you want to do.  And the State loves it when you do.


                    ~ ~ ~


                    --- On Mon, 5/31/10, E Junker <westernwit@...> wrote:

                    From: E Junker <westernwit@...>
                    Subject: [tips_and_tricks] red-light camera
                    To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Monday, May 31, 2010, 1:02 AM

                     

                    Could you subpoena the red-light camera?


                  • Frog Farmer
                    ... You could if you had the brains and the guts, but if you had those, how do you get so far down the slippery slope to conviction? A real defense of rights
                    Message 9 of 18 , May 31 4:01 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      E Junker asked:

                      > Could you subpoena the red-light camera?

                      You could if you had the brains and the guts, but if you had those, how
                      do you get so far down the slippery slope to conviction?

                      A real defense of rights starts a lot earlier, and people who do not
                      approach everything as a rights issue, or never think in terms of
                      rights, won't have any at the tine they are most necessary to use and
                      protect and defend. The urge to surrender rights for economic reasons
                      may once have been a valid consideration when gold and silver were in
                      the hands of the people no matter how "poor" they were (even including
                      children!) but when the imaginary-debt-mathematically-impossible
                      monetary base can be doubled or quadrupled with no input from anyone but
                      the creators, what fool would trade life, liberty and/or property for
                      it?! Just look around you!

                      Meanwhile, got silver?

                      Regards,

                      FF
                    • windandthestone
                      ... Steve - welcome to our group:) To bad you weren t here before your court experience. I know how frustrated and outraged you feel -- we all do. Which is
                      Message 10 of 18 , Jun 1, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "suavae1st" <suavae1st@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > I AM STEAMED! 
                        > Any thoughts?
                        > Steve
                        >
                        Steve - welcome to our group:)  

                        To bad you weren't here before your court experience.  
                        I know how frustrated and outraged you feel -- we all do.  
                        Which is why we are here :)  I too doubt that you have much of a leg left.
                        Depending on your situation, it might be worth it to  pay up and assign that cost to: Tuition.  
                        If you stay active here, you may learn far more than your "fees." 

                        Our lives are far more complex than those of our great-grandparents, 
                        which creates so many big pot holes we must avoid. 
                        It's impossible for one person to be cognizant of all the laws, 
                        and is WHY forums and blogs like ours are so important!
                        (Thank you Bear.)  

                        I am curious if we can put a handbook together for how to keep our rights in various court situations? 
                        (e.g. administrative, magistrate, small claims, landlord-tenant)  
                        The things that we all should do/not do generally.

                        I know I am not prepared for something like Steve's ticket, 
                        and even just an essay on maintaining my rights would be a lifesaver.

                        Ahhh... Would be lovely to have a high tech classroom get-together once a month.
                        Unlike some of our very learned members, I am still a sheep-ie but at least I know it and want to rectify it.
                        (BTW:  a sheep-IE is 2 steps smarter than a sheep-EL.  I am aware.)   :-s

                        Thanks to you all,
                        Melissa



                      • windandthestone
                        ... Am curious about that law. Can a law slide out of it s rules of evidence this way?Seems to me that this flips the presumption of innocence on it s
                        Message 11 of 18 , Jun 1, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <mn_chicago@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Jake jake_28079@ wrote:
                          >
                          > > assuming the ticket was issued by mail because a
                          > >red-light camera got the vehicle's license plate &
                          > >the vehicle is registered to you, does that prove
                          > >that you were the driver @ the time?  The burden
                          > >of proof is on the State as to who the driver was
                          > >@ the time of an infraction
                          >
                          > Good points made, however, this one will not always fly.
                          > I did not save the article, so I cannot give the
                          > authority, but one will not be released from the
                          > responsibility of a red light ticket, claiming not to
                          > have been the driver, only if the owner signs a form
                          > stating and identifying who the driver was.
                          >

                          Am curious about that law.  Can a law slide out of it's rules of evidence this way?
                          Seems to me that this flips the presumption of innocence on it's head.
                          Wonder if this law will get kicked up and out.
                          MG
                        • lawfulzone
                          Normally one is considered innocent until proven guilty. In an administrative hearing (traffic court, parking violations bureau, camera ticket hearing) one is
                          Message 12 of 18 , Jun 1, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Normally one is considered innocent until proven guilty.
                            In an administrative hearing (traffic court, parking violations bureau, camera ticket hearing) one is considered guilty as charged and has the burden of moving forward.

                            Read the statute and/or ordinance that charges the motorist with the red light infraction.

                            You will most likely find that the charge ASSUMES that the driver is the owner of the vehicle and makes the owner liable for the infraction.

                            There should also be a section that provides the owner an opportunity to deny (through an affidavit or otherwise) that he was not the person driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction.

                            Red light camera tickets are in a class of strict liability offenses and ASSUME certain facts not in evidence.
                            Unless the assumptions/evidence are rebutted, they stand as acknowledged facts and evidence of the offense. (Burden of proof)

                            The vehicle owner must rebut the presumption (assumptions) according to the procedures outlined in the statute or ordinance. (Burden of moving forward.)

                            Once the vehicle owner has met the burden of going forward, the City/State then must prove the presumptions and assumptions of the statute/ordinance by preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt depending on the nature (civil or criminal) of the charged offense.
                          • lawfulzone
                            The presumption of innocence applies only in a court of law. When dealing with administrative law, the presumption of innocence is removed and replaced with
                            Message 13 of 18 , Jun 1, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              The presumption of innocence applies only in a court of law.

                              When dealing with administrative law, the presumption of innocence is removed and replaced with STATUTORY presumptions.

                              If charged with violating a statute/ordinance, you are considered and found guilty of the statutory presumptions unless you rebut the presumptions.
                            • Michael
                              ... Rules of evidence only apply if you demand them, otherwise, they get waived when there is no objection to hearsay evidence, and few ever object. As a
                              Message 14 of 18 , Jun 1, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "windandthestone" <mmgemmel@...> wrote:



                                > Can a law slide out of it's rules of evidence this way?
                                > Seems to me that this flips the presumption of
                                > innocence on it's head.

                                Rules of evidence only apply if you demand them,
                                otherwise, they get waived when there is no
                                objection to hearsay evidence, and few ever object.
                                As a consequence, there is no presumption of
                                innocence, only that of ignorance.
                              • Thomas
                                Thoughts: 1. You cannot think about law with your emotions. [Take a half-dozens Chill Pills and try to think.] 2. Of course, the Record will reflect that the
                                Message 15 of 18 , Jun 1, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Thoughts:

                                  1. You cannot think about law with your emotions. [Take a half-dozens Chill Pills and try to think.]

                                  2. Of course, the Record will reflect that the 'commissioner' has your WRITTEN permission to 'hear' your case? [Research the Penal Code, Code of Civil Procedure, and Rules of Court for authority of commissioners.]

                                  3. Unless you can affirmatively demonstrate [from information held by city or Redflex] that there a de facto quota on camera tickets, your 'argument' is 'frivilous' [BEcasue NO evidence].

                                  4. WHY was a cop there? Was he actually present when the red-light camera went off? What could he possibly 'testify' about?

                                  5. What facts/statutes/case-law lead you to believe that the evidence was illegally obtained? [A bare allegation is NOT gonna work for you.]

                                  6. File motion to Reconsider all the denials of motions.

                                  7. Prepaare a Notice of Appeal. [issue is failure to recuse.]





                                  "suavae1st" <suavae1st@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > I AM STEAMED! Let me tell u what happened in court today re: my photo enforced red lite ticket. The cop laid out his evidence. When my turn came I motioned to exclude the camera evidence because it was illegally obtained. Judge, actually a commissioner, denied motion. I told him the contract was a direct violation of the CVC 21544.5 (g)(which states "a contract with a red light camera supplier may not include payment based on the number of citations generated, or as a percentage of revenue generated)& against the law because my town has signed a cost neutral contract with vendor Redflex. Didn't want to hear it. I told him his duty was to be fair & impartial, while still enforcing the law & that he should (remove) himself from the case if he couldn't do that; that he shouldn't be enforcing an illegal law in the guise of enforcing the law. He wasn't moved. I told him he was a dictator in a kangaroo court. I told him he would be over-ruled on appeal. No dice.
                                  > Commish found me guilty & told me I could be sentenced now or w/i 5 days. I told him "I'll be back" next Tuesday. I'm either going to skip his hearing, or else appear & ask to be tried by a real, honest (to goodness) judge. If I skip out, I'll have a warrant on me. When I finally get busted, maybe a REAL judge will throw the whole thing out because it's bogus.
                                  > This travesty of justice has got to be stopped! I'm going to try contacting the ACLU to see if they REALLY care about our civil liberties, & would they be interested in a class action suit on behalf of all citizen victims.
                                  > Any thoughts?
                                • Thomas
                                  Lost in all our answers so far is the simple fact: Most likely, within the Penal Code [or the Vehicle Code] are the procedures for the issuing agency to handle
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Jun 1, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Lost in all our answers so far is the simple fact:

                                    Most likely, within the Penal Code [or the Vehicle Code] are the procedures for the issuing agency to handle the tickets and for you to contest the ticket.

                                    Red-light camera cases are ADMINISTRATIVE [and that ADMINSITRATIVE has NOTHING To do with 'traffic court' or 'commissioners'; despite stupid Pay-triot myths].

                                    The administrative process is: YOU request a review [usually within ten days] of the ticket BY the POLICE DEPARTMENT which issued it [or its contractor].

                                    When you get the results of the Review [mailed to you], then you request an administrative Hearing [NEITHER of these steps take you anywhere NEAR a 'court']. The hearing is done by the head of the Police Department, his TRAINED delegate, or a company which contracts to conduct hearings. The Hearing produces a WRITTEN record and a WRITTEN Determination. You GET a copy by mail.

                                    If you were dissatisfied with the results of the Written Determination, YOU [in WRITING] request a judicial review of the Administrative RECORD [finally, you are 'in court'].

                                    I bet you did not DO either of these steps, did you? [I bet you just wandered into 'court' with an attitude [and NO clues], having ALREADY defaulted on the Hearing process.]



                                    Jake <jake_28079@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >    > Could you subpoena the red-light camera?
                                    > What ???   Demand that the city to bring the camera in, then hire an expert witness to argue over how it works, etc.?  Who would do such a silly thing? And if you didn't hire an expert witness (unless you're a qualified engineer & can prove it), you'd be toast - even if you were able to get the camera brought in.
                                    > And if you argue over the camera itself, you've already admitted that you ran the red light.  The burden of proof is on the STATE regarding WHO drove thru a red light & what you're talking about puts the burden of proof on you that the equipment is somehow defective.
                                    > Why do people do that - take the burden of proof upon themselves ???  That's the last thing in the world you want to do.  And the State loves it when you do.
                                    > ~ ~ ~
                                    >
                                    > --- On Mon, 5/31/10, E Junker <westernwit@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > From: E Junker <westernwit@...>
                                    > Subject: [tips_and_tricks] red-light camera
                                    > To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                    > Date: Monday, May 31, 2010, 1:02 AM
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >  
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Could you subpoena the red-light camera?
                                    >
                                  • esenter
                                    I ll tell you guys how I won a red light case in Garland, Tx. I got a ticket for allegedly running a red light. The only evidence was two pictures taken of a
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Jun 1, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I'll tell you guys how I won a red light case in Garland, Tx.
                                       
                                      I got  a ticket for allegedly running a red light.  The only evidence was two pictures taken of a vehicle registered in my name.  The first picture showed the vehicle in the intersection 0.3 seconds after the light turned red.  The second picture showed the vehicle leaving the intersection allegedly at 35mph.
                                       
                                      I followed the instructions on the ticket and went to a "hearing".  The "hearing officer" rubber stamped me guilty and fined me $75.00.  I followed the instructions on the paper the hearing officer gave me and filed an appeal to the Garland Municipal Court of Record after posting a $150.00 cash bond.
                                       
                                      I had a trial before the judge (no right to a jury).  The only evidence the prosecutor had was the two photos.  I argued that there was no way to tell from the photos where the vehicle was WHEN THE LIGHT TURNED RED.  The judge agreed, found me not guilty, and the clerk returned my bond about 6 weeks later.
                                       
                                       
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.