out.
In Massachusetts, we (they, dems) made law that says to challenge any
traffic ticket (magistrate OR court (trial)), it will cost you $75.
Win or lose, you still owe the 75.
Jesus H. I know I am not a constitutional professor like someone
else, but on face value from a software geek, this violates amendments
1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 14, at first glance. I gotta PAY for being
aquitted? WHAT??? Lets just start with 1, "redress of grievances")
Ah, but ya just knew they'd bag a lawyer, who knows the law, and take
it to court.
They are gonna beat the living shit out of the, "but it made us $450
million last year", bullshit out da friggin window!!!!
And when the liberals cry foul, this is the same court that gave gay
marriage rights to uis (and I agree!)
On Mar 23, 1:16 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> *I suspect what they are really defending is their $42.90 cut from the
> $440 tickets generated.
> *
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *
> California: Los Angeles Court Defends Red Light Cameras*
> /Appellate division in Los Angeles County, California stands against
> five counties to defend photo ticketing./
>
> LA County CourthouseA Los Angeles County, California court last month
> distanced itself from judicial colleagues in defending the use of red
> light cameras. A three-judge appellate division panel on February 14
> upheld the validity of photo ticketing despite the contrary holdings of
> the appellate division in Alameda, Kern
> <http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3373.asp>, Orange
> <http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3164.asp>, San Bernardino
> <http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3411.asp> and San Mateo
> <http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3166.asp> counties.
>
> "In affirming the judgment, we acknowledge the appellate division of the
> Orange County Superior Court has held that claims similar to those
> addressed in part III.A. warrant reversal of the judgment," Los Angeles
> County Judge Sanjay T. Kumar wrote. "We respectfully disagree with
> Khaled <http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3164.asp>. As explained
> below, it is our view that photographs taken by an Automated Traffic
> Enforcement System may be admissible even if the testifying officer was
> not a percipient witness to the violation and was not personally
> responsible for setting up the camera."
>
> The Orange County court's Khaled decision (view case
> <http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3164.asp#source>), whose
> publication was endorsed by the state's second highest court, argued
> that defendants were denied their right to cross-examine the evidence
> against them when the only live witness is a police officer who has no
> direct knowledge of anything related to the alleged offense. The US
> Supreme Court's Melendez-Diaz case
> <http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2854.asp> reiterated the importance
> of the Confrontation Clause when considering evidence in a criminal
> case. Without a sufficient foundation, the Orange County court found the
> evidence in a automated ticketing case to be inadmissible hearsay. The
> Los Angeles judges argued that it did not matter that the officer lacked
> direct knowledge.
>
> "The officer provided expert testimony regarding the operation of the
> ATES and the photographs it produces based on information he had from
> city traffic engineers and Redflex as well as his experience with images
> obtained from the cameras," Kumar wrote. "The data bar affixed to the
> bottom of the photographs was not hearsay, insofar as it was not
> inputted by a person but, rather, was generated by the ATES once the
> system's sensors were triggered by appellant. The purpose of the hearsay
> rule is to subject the declarant to cross-examination in order to bring
> to light any falsities, contradictions, or inaccuracies that may not be
> discernible in the declarant's out-of-court statement."
>
> The Los Angeles judges affirmed the conviction of the motorist who had
> challenged her ticket. Out of each $440 red light camera ticket
> collected, the Los Angeles County court system receives a $42.90 cut,
> generating millions a year in revenue.
>
> A copy of the decision, courtesy of highwayrobbery.net, is available in
> a 100k PDF file at the source link below.
>
> Source: PDF File California v. Goldsmith
> <http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/ca-inglewood.pdf> (California
> Superior Court, Appellate Divison, 2/14/2011)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Never, ever interact with a government official without having a
> recorder running.
>
> Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft
> <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment