Re: California: Los Angeles Court Defends Red Light Cameras

If individuals took the time to fight these tickets revenue would drop below the cost of persecuting and the cameras would go away. But few want to "take time off work" to do so. They would rather pay the fine than defend against agression.

The cameras photograph license plates, not drivers. How can the persecutor prove who was driving the vehicle?

On 03/23/2011 10:53 AM, MJ wrote:

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")

Amendment I is a prohibition against Congress -- not the State legislature. :)

Most studies concluded that these cameras CAUSED more accidents than they curtailed.

I want to know how one 'cross examines' a camera.

Regard$,
--MJ

"We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality" -- Alyssa Rosenbaum

--
Never, ever interact with a government official without having a recorder running.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft