It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Leaked Document From Mayor to Police: Your Paycheck Depends on How Many Tickets You Write

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: greencmp

And you completely missed the point of the analogy. Insert "reckless by speed" if it suits you better.

Or you ignored the point entirely.

Either way, the explanation stands and there is nothing nefarious behind the term "good tickets."

But don't let that stop you


So, if someone is driving recklessly, that should be a crime right?

Should not criminals be arrested?

The actual threshold for "reckless" is subjective but, we can certainly agree that it exists. At what point does a crime become not a crime?

I think we have a good debate here, I am not trying to shut you down if that was your impression.





posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: bullcat
a reply to: Daedal

So, write every ticket with the Mayors name on it




lol



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: greencmp

And you completely missed the point of the analogy. Insert "reckless by speed" if it suits you better.

Or you ignored the point entirely.

Either way, the explanation stands and there is nothing nefarious behind the term "good tickets."

But don't let that stop you


Do those "good tickets" include citing the mayor and other high-level city officials? Or is it just for the low-life (i.e. regular citizens) to bear that burden? Now those are stats I would like to see....and increased.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   
There actually is a simple way to put a stop to this, without changing laws. People need to go to court no matter what, even the most trivial fines. Log-jamming the legal system will make them change something. I can't say what that is, but they would have to rethink "fake tickets" policies, if the rate of court appearances for traffic violation went to 60%, maybe even as low as 40% (I doubt that its above 25% currently, perhaps even as low as 5%).

The idea is to clog up the system in the traffic camera office and the courts by drivers exercising their rights to remain innocent until proven guilty.

Someone needs to start a crowd-funding based non-profit that can pay peoples daily salary, so they can go to court, if they have no vacation time or savings. I imagine that just a 10% increase in court appearances over 6 months, for minor traffic violations, would push most local judicial system budgets into the red.

At the very least, the NEW mantra should be that regular people, need to start going to court for ALL traffic violations, even if it means they are losing money. Overloading the system is an easily attainable catalyst for influencing change of some kind.

Court, jail overload is putting true justice in doubt

Also, we should ALL be trying to de-fund police departments, instead of trying to prosecute their employees or change laws. Such measures have proven, overwhelming, to be ineffective. De-funding police departments is perfectly legal and solves the bad apple problem MUCH faster, than constitutional challenges in the court system.

Activists should be finding ways to, legally, cut the budget for NYPD and all the other PD's acting illegally. By forming their own opposing PAC's (Political Action Committee) focused on chipping away at this single Budget reduction issue, little by little, across the country. Cutting off the money supply will stop them dead, cold, in their tracks.

Defunding government is a sensible voter solution to reining in local government By Dave Duffy

This is the simplest answer that nearly everyone continues to ignore.

LEOs are in place to do the following and NOTHING MORE:

1. Protect themselves.
2. Maximize their total compensation.
3. Act as a source of revenue generation for the department currently employing them, the union they belong to and the local governments authorizing their activities.
4. Protecting the commercial interests of national corporations (with PAC's lobbying on the behalf of these big corps)
5. Protecting the private property of large, influential, land owners, residing within their jurisdiction, that are also contributing to and participate in local politics.
6. Controlling dissenting narratives that would interfere with 1-5.

They’ve been totally co-opted, insulated from consequences and the citizens are picking up the tab. Its that simple, but no one understands this, nor are many willing to accept these facts. Also most importantly, that’s how Fascism works and in turn uses domestic police forces.
edit on 16-4-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: boohoo

I sympathize completely with the sentiment and the concrete plan, local governance can and must be limited locally.

The problem with the litigative solution is that we fund the monster so any financial penalties are ultimately suffered by the taxpayers. It is in fact the very same argument against corporations which, in many cases, cities actually are.

So, if an officer is sued for a wrongful death, regardless of the criminal punishment to the offender, the city pays the settlement. If there is a shortfall in the budget, they borrow and raise taxes. The newly raised taxes never actually fall back down so, in fact, it actually pays for a town to have officers commit crimes and pay settlements in the long run from the financial point of view of the administrators.

All on the taxpayers dime.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
The problem with the litigative solution is that we fund the monster so any financial penalties are ultimately suffered by the taxpayers. It is in fact the very same argument against corporations which, in many cases, cities actually are.


I've heard others say this, but the problem is our system is designed to work with PAC's. So, activists that don't have their own PAC's backing them will NEVER make any progress. Sadly, its a core requirement that many think they can skip or avoid, so as not to "feed the system". Our government just doesn't work any other way, so its better to realize it now and start creating them, rather than throw away all upcomming efforts made without such backing (like many millennial activists have been doing since 2008). The USA needs more PAC's supporting the everyman and the only way that can be done is if Regular Joe's start creating them, with the goal of pounding the system to both overload it and log-jam its processes. We are sort of out of options at this point.

Here is an example from Canada, but the concept can work here too:

Clogged traffic court system gives breaks to guilty drivers
edit on 16-4-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: boohoo

PAC's are good, Americans for Tax reform is a great taxpayer advocacy group.

I would call what you are describing "civil obedience", albeit disruptive to the presumed expectations of the smooth operation of the bureaucracy. That is also good.

The core issue though, in my opinion, is the size and scope of authority granted to monopoly power in government (in this case local). I believe that it should be limited, not opposed. If it does not serve us we shall bring it to heel through confined jurisdiction, personnel cuts and dramatically reduced "revenue".
edit on 16-4-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
a reply to: jtma508

No. They went to prison for racketeering, that's a felony.
Most of the teachers took a plea agreement and got probation. 11 of them thought they would try their luck in court and lost. The judge even warned them about the risk.
The cops are being told to enforce the law, not break the law.



Yeah. Racketeering is the charge. Thanks. I think RICO qualifies.

They are not enforcing law. They are enforcing contracts.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Here is a good example from another forum post:

If its just the pretrial you should go yourself and work with the assitant DA to reduce or drop. If they are unwilling to work with you plead not guilty and set a date for the real deal. Then sometime before the real trial go visit the DA and ask if they really want to waste everyones time going through jury trial over a minor offense. Odds are he/she will work with you. If not about a week before the trial date call in and tell them you need to reschedule. You can do this multiple times. I've pushed off a speeding ticket trial four times (over a year from the offense). It is likely that when you do show up for court the officer won't. It really shouldn't go this far though. The assistant DA will normally change and reduce the ticket to something very minor.

www.bogleheads.org...



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: boohoo

The practice is admirable and I am not patronizing.

But, it does not help everyone else and it does not address the problem.

We want law enforcement to prosecute criminals, not manage non-criminal behavior (nor systematize the illicit profit from) at the point of a spear.
edit on 16-4-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
But, it does not help everyone else and it does not address the problem.

We want law enforcement to prosecute criminals, not manage non-criminal behavior (nor systematize the illicit profit from) at the point of a spear.


They won't and never will, to believe otherwise is pure folly. So, the only remaining choice is to overload and log-jam the system. Just like, the recently removed, red-light cameras, if it costs more to give the ticket than they can actually collect, they will have to stop giving tickets.

Cities closing curtains on red-light cameras
edit on 16-4-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: boohoo

Florida town infamous for speed traps disbanding police force

"Koona t'chuta Solo?"

-Greedo



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: boohoo

Florida town infamous for speed traps disbanding police force

"Koona t'chuta Solo?"

-Greedo


I don't disagree, but did you read my earlier comment where I said to de-fund police departments?

De-funding is a lot easier and significantly more realistic to pull off than disbanding.
edit on 16-4-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: boohoo

Yes I did, I was trying hint that we were consistent.

I just have this one correction that we should be focusing on the problem rather than the symptom.

That is why defunding is not what I am proposing exclusively. I am additionally (and indeed preferentially) proposing the dissolution or, as close to it as possible, the ceremonialization thereof.

I fully expect to be forced into some compromise intellectually, philosophically and practically upon the realization of actual reform but, that is where I begin the negotiations.
edit on 16-4-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
I just have this one correction that we should be focusing on the problem rather than the symptom.


For example, citizens will never be able to disband the LAPD or the NYPD, so instead, if funding is significantly reduced to these organizations AND at the same time the courts system gets overloaded, government will be FORCED to change how they do business. That can happen a whole lot quicker than disbanding because the police unions will certainly drag a disbanding order all the way to the supreme court.

On a side note, there is also the PD versus Sheriff issue. De-funding PD's is a just first step because constitutionally a neighboring Sheriff will most likely take over the lost PD duties, but the side effect is that the absence of a PD will also be diluting the influence of the Sheriff's as well, that will be covering more areas than usual.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: boohoo

originally posted by: greencmp
I just have this one correction that we should be focusing on the problem rather than the symptom.


For example, citizens will never be able to disband the LAPD or the NYPD, so instead, if funding is significantly reduced to these organizations AND at the same time the courts system gets overloaded, government will be FORCED to change how they do business. That can happen a whole lot quicker than disbanding because the police unions will certainly drag a disbanding order all the way to the supreme court.

On a side note, there is also the PD versus Sheriff issue. De-funding PD's is a just first step because constitutionally a neighboring Sheriff will most likely take over the lost PD duties, but the side effect is that the absence of a PD will also be diluting the influence of the Sheriff's as well, that will be covering more areas than usual.


Yes, and you will create a catastrophic unanticipated failure in an unreformed bureaucratic apparatus. You would create no helpful legal precedent nor would anyone learn anything from the experience.

My way gives everyone a chance to get used to the idea and make the necessary adjustments.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: boohoo

Never mind.
edit on 16-4-2015 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join