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.

 

Federal judge gives voters the middle finger, orders red light cameras to stay up in Houston

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

A federal judge on Friday ordered that the city of Houston's red-light cameras not be taken down while litigation involving the devices works through the courts.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes issued an injunction ordering the city to continue collecting fines for tickets issued through Nov. 15, when Mayor Annise Parker announced that the cameras had been turned off.
Houston voters rejected the devices in a referendum earlier this month, prompting the city to file a lawsuit seeking a federal judge's blessing for its efforts to unwind the contract still in effect with American Traffic Solutions, the operator of the cameras.

The contract, which covers the use of 70 devices at 50 intersections, was scheduled to run until 2014. In the event of a cancellation, ATS had 45 days to take the cameras down.

The order issued on Friday halts the removal of the cameras until the matter is resolved in federal court.
The devices issued more than 800,000 tickets since 2006, generating more than $44 million in fines that was shared among the Houston Police Department, Texas hospitals and the Arizona-based camera company.

The city and ATS will brief the validity of the referendum under municipal, state and national laws by next Friday, according to Hughes' order.


Story

Yet again we see this is all about money and has absolutely nothing to do with "safety".

edit on 28-11-2010 by BigTimeCheater because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


What is funny about these things where I live is the one fact that they have more accidents at these intersections with red light cameras. More people get rear ended or somebody will get t-boned trying to make the light before it turns red.

We have a law in Georgia that you can take "command" of an intersection if you are turning. So even if the light turns red and you are turning left you have essentially taken command of the intersection, just as long you were in the turning lane when it was green or yellow. Meanwhile they try to write people tickets for this stuff and if you go to court they will throw them out.

I agree that they are just another form of cash for the local governments. They did not do anything around here besides make accidents rates go up at intersections equipped with the cameras.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Traditionally, if the government does not follow the mandate of the populous there is something to pay...



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


The cameras are wrong to begin with. Having a private corporation operate them ... that's criminal. I would never pay a traffic fine to a corporation.

Perhaps citizens should tear down the cameras?



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
This ruling is screwed -

this judge is practicing fascist dictation

What is the point of f-ing voting?

They should declare war on the cameras - a couple hundred folks pulling them down one by one



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
exactly,this is another form of taxation,and has nothing to to with safety,also,they want to review the validity of a referendum????wtf? plain and simple the people dont want it,We have the same issue in our community same company
when u go to pay they do not accept cash,instead of court you go to an arbitrator,a hired attorney probably
and if u fail to pay you are turned in to the credit bureau.essentially you have a private company doing law enforcement ,on public property.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
No one should ever pay an invoice sent by a government on behalf of a corporation like this.

People simply tearing down the cameras would solve this problem and show the judge she is simply a pile of crap dressed in a black robe.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 
I do not believe in violence in any form, but now, its official. This federal Judge has declared war on the people. I wouldn't want to be a red light camera in Texas!

It would be funny to find a pile of red light cameras outside city limits, tared and feathered LOL LOL



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
The only reason he wants teh cameras to stay is so he can continue to get free webcam porn



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
In most states, when being cited for a violation, the victim must be " served " in accordance with law. When being served, the serving must be administered by a law enforcement official. Whether it be an officer, constable or other, it must be an official of some sort.

Example: you get a speeding ticket, the cop issues you a ticket, that's considered being served.

I can't speak for all states, but that's what I've read at least.

The state of AZ., also had the cameras, they were removed due to the fact that many issued tickets were mailed, and not considered lawfully served. Even worse, the public found out that the company that owned and operated the camera systems were based out of Canada. A very small portion of any issued fines were remaining in AZ., the rest of the lump sum found its way back to the Canadian Corporation.

Articles for case in point:
source: www.thetruthaboutcars.com...
source: blog.photoenforced.com...
source: www.thenewspaper.com...

Once again suggesting that its all about the money, and not for public safety~



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
What is it about this entire thing that people clearly do not get?

Since you are in a motor vehicle on a public road you have no guarantee and expectation of privacy! The only place where laws cannot ever be passed that regulates conduct is that of your private residence. As in your home you have an expectation of privacy but the second you step out your front door for any reason privacy expectation is eliminated.

Employees do not even have an expectation of privacy while at work because the parcel your job sits on is considered to be a public area. No privacy when it pertains to shopping malls/centres, food stores, trasportation of any kind (personal auto, public tax dollar financed bus' and asssociated transit centres).

Besides, cameras will go up in places where as it is deemed unsafe to cross and intersection, any facility whereas large groups of people are known to either gather or frequent, uncontrolled/unmanagable intersections and any high crime area.
edit on 29-11-2010 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Considering the " public road " as you claim is owned by the tax payer, that would suggest that a person has a rightful claim to partial ownership further suggesting the ability to rightfully claim the 4th Amendment right. With your logic, ( which is obviously lacking true knowledge of the 4th ), the 4th Amendment would need to be re-written to specifically identify the precise location in which a person must be to utilize the 4th Amendment.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
We have these same cameras here in Plano, TX. I hate the idea of them; however, it HAS prevented me from running the red lights that I use to ignore. Also, traffic accidents have been reduced dramatically at these locations.

Like them or not, they are productive....and a red light citation is cheaper when caught by camera than it is when caught by a cop.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by freeradical1
 


I got a parking ticket in a spot I had a permit for, I happened to be walking back to my car when the lady was writing my ticket.. I pointed out my permit which was "on the wrong side of the car", the passenger side dash, wtf ever, anyways, I refused to pay the ticket so I got sent to Oregon's treasury .. when I agreed to pay in tiny little payments spread over several months (I had to get back at them some how!) I noticed the person I first spoke to wasn't a Oregon treasury employee, she didn't even work in Oregon! It was an office outside Tacoma Washington...

It's amazing how governments contract out even their own methods of taxation .. and parking, traffic and violation such as them are nothing more than taxes.. they serve no purpose other than revenue generation.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
It's amazing how governments contract out even their own methods of taxation .. and parking, traffic and violation such as them are nothing more than taxes.. they serve no purpose other than revenue generation.


I wonder....perhaps this 3rd party collector bought your citation "debt" at a reduced cost, thus turning your debt to the city into debt to the 3rd party. I know there are companies that do this sort of thing with banks...buying late/defaulted debt at a reduced price and then try to turn a profit on their collection of the full amount owed + penalties + fees.

Absolutely, they are revenue generators. Here in Dallas, it was recently reported on the local news that officers were writing citations to fill quotas (like we never knew that previously). Apparently, the quota practice is illegal and DPD is now under investigation. But we know how these investigations go....no wrong doing will be the outcome.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Considering the " public road " as you claim is owned by the tax payer, that would suggest that a person has a rightful claim to partial ownership further suggesting the ability to rightfully claim the 4th Amendment right. With your logic, ( which is obviously lacking true knowledge of the 4th ), the 4th Amendment would need to be re-written to specifically identify the precise location in which a person must be to utilize the 4th Amendment.


The way the 4th is written is that it is to only apply whereas in cases where you have a total and complete expectation of privacy. Private home is the only area where the 4th is in full effect hence why you can be stopped and searched anytime by a LEO qhile outside and he does not require a warrant to search you. That is why a warrant signed by a judge is required before LE can entre your front door. The taxpayer may've financed the street and sidewalk but the legal jurisdiction it is covered under is the local law enforcement agency which has final say in all matters pertaining to it. This is the way it is currently written. Hence how the 4th ties directly in with the 3rd which says that if a soldier asks you if they can stay for the night in your home you can tell him to flip off and not get in trouble but if that same soldier were to stop you in the middle of the street they can detain you. But for that link to be legal we must be engaged in war domestically for which currently we are not.

To read he overall Constitution with either a Left or Right viewponint will give you an incorrect reading as the true way to read the doc itself is that from the centre because by utilizing the "Left-v-Right" paradigm instantly clouds the view and distorts the meaning and intent of the founding fathers. Do not try and school me on the Constitution because you will lose.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Again, wrong. the 4th protects you regardless.

4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


source: www.usconstitution.net...

please take note of the phrase: " to be secure in their persons".


On a side note: Why the fiasco with the TSA " pat downs"? Because its being viewed as a breach of the Fourth Amendment. Same holds true to this topic. Please feel free to re-read the above reference point.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


You're wrong... A police officer cannot simply come and search you. He has to have probable cause IE: He's aware of a crime that was committed or has a feasible reason to believe that you are committing a crime. He can't just simply stop and search you looking for evidence to put a crime on you.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I'm in Houston. The company that the city contracts with is American Traffic Solutions in Scottsdale AZ.
The city has begun to announce furlows and such. Yet the mayor is in China prompting gay rights at this very moment. She just got back from a green schools summit in out of state with Robert Redford ,and the city controls no part of our schools. Oh, and did I mention the city funded farmers market? Well, it has live music and the person who was recently hired to run it was hired from San Fran.
Yeah, its all about saving lives. Thats why when they do not get the expected revenue they lessen the yellow light times.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


Can you honestly believe this person's thought process? to suggest a cop can just walk up and detain/arrest you is ludicrous!

This guy/gal really needs to educate themselves before making a complete ass out of themselves~




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join