Purging American Traffic Solutions from CSTX

My goal is to see this happen around the State of Texas.  The red light camera interest should know that the State of Texas is full of people that long to be free.  Enforcement without due process is not something that will stand in Texas.    We will watch the court proceedings closely, but I believe that once the red light camera interest force the city to pay for the cost of election, some where between 70,000 and 80,000 they will all move on to oppress other people and other cities.

The End

The End Close Up

Cams Come Down

Thank you to the more than four thousand people that came out to the polls to support our cause and the idea that you can “Take Back Your City.”

The Mayor, City Council Members and Powerful City Staff all thought that the election would go the other way.  I was reminded of the Truman effect.  Once all the dust settles and the campaign finance reports are submitted I believe the total spending on this simple issue will be more than the sum of all campaign spending of any College Station election in history.  As of the reports that are required by state law eight days prior to Election Day total spending in round numbers was more than 100,000.  71K from the camera fans, 20K for city “voter education”, and 16K by the petitioners.

Cities considering entering into a photo enforcement contract should look to College Station as an example to what will happen to their citizens if they ever question a cities decision to use red light cameras.  I am a citizen exercising initiative rights reserved for citizens within our city charter.  The political action group that was exclusively funded by the camera vendor and their subcontractors went on a personal attack against me.  This attempt to turn me into a villain was effective to some extent.  Near the end of the campaign when trying to explain why NO ONE in College Station had donated money to their efforts the PAC explained:  they had been offered funding many time from College Station citizens but had refused the funding out of fear for the person safety.  That was so far fetched that it turned away people from the PAC cause.

Voters have never approved red light ticketing cameras in the many times the question has been resolved on Election Day.  If the vendors can sell exclusively to the persons receiving benefit for the contracted enforcement they win.  When the citizens speak they overturn the contracts.

Citizens understand the problems of privatizing law enforcement and the danger it brings to the citizens.  As a result of this election law enforcement in our city will return to a traditional model where citizens are allowed to defend themselves from criminal charges.  In this case the citizens gathered their courage and have run the hired gun out of town.  I pray that peace may now return to our city.

May God bless you and may God bless the USA.

The Truth – Both Sides

We say there is no appeal to a red light camera ticket- they say there is?

What is an appeal?  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appeal if you can’t agree that Webster is a place for an objective opinion on the English language then stop reading now and vote with your emotions.

the city ordinance 3017 describes a hearing process; all administered within the jurisdiction of one court.  The College Station Municipal Court is the first court to hear the case and the last court to hear a red light camera case.  I believe that means according to Webster that there is no appeal.  The other side says that your meeting with the judges assistant is your first trial and then going before the municipal court judge for the first time is your appeal.  I would encourage you to trust Webster and not the red light camera company’s advertising machine.

I offer a letter from the College Station Municipal court as further evidence that the City of College Station agrees with us that there is no appeal.

No Appeal Letter

When I received my RLC ticket in Oct. of 2008, I was (and remain) happily married, raising our kids, paying the mortgage and enjoying suburban anonymity.  You most likely would have never known of me had I not read the back of the RLC ticket while filling out a seventy-five dollar check for my fine.  The notice states that “it has been determined”, using the past tense, that I had broken the law.  “Failure to pay seventy-five dollars by the due date is an admission of liability” and will result in an additional twenty-five dollar fee.  Was this from our government?  Are we found guilty before a trial?  The City asks us to come prove our innocence?  Sadly the answer is: yes. Breaking the law is wrong; obeying traffic signals is a good thing.  Despite being labeled as a law breaker (and worse) for my opposition to the RLC program, I am for all practical purposes a law abiding citizen.  I requested my complete driving history from the Texas DPS and it reveals one citation for speeding in 34 years behind the wheel.  The answers to two popular questions: 1. Yes, I have paid the seventy-five dollar fine 2. No, I was not driving the car while it was photographed by the RLC system.  read more->

Why all the fuss?

When I received my RLC ticket in Oct. of 2008, I was (and remain) happily married, raising our kids, paying the mortgage and enjoying suburban anonymity.  You most likely would have never known of me had I not read the back of the RLC ticket while filling out a seventy-five dollar check for my fine.  The notice states that “it has been determined”, using the past tense, that I had broken the law.  “Failure to pay seventy-five dollars by the due date is an admission of liability” and will result in an additional twenty-five dollar fee.  Was this from our government?  Are we found guilty before a trial?  The City asks us to come prove our innocence?  Sadly the answer is: yes.

Breaking the law is wrong; obeying traffic signals is a good thing.  Despite being labeled as a law breaker (and worse) for my opposition to the RLC program, I am for all practical purposes a law abiding citizen.  I requested my complete driving history from the Texas DPS and it reveals one citation for speeding in 34 years behind the wheel.  The answers to two popular questions: 1. Yes, I have paid the seventy-five dollar fine 2. No, I was not driving the car while it was photographed by the RLC system.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  I am opposed to the RLC system in Texas because it is wrong for the government to:

• Determine a citizen’s guilt prior to his or her day in court.
• Deny citizens the right to appeal.
• Deny citizens the right to a jury trial.
• Deny equal protection under the law by charging one citizen as a criminal and another under civil law for the same act.

Why should one citizen be charged a civil fine of $75 and another citizen assessed a higher criminal fine for the same red light infraction?  The RLC laws of Texas deny the rights above and a criminal violator retains his rights.

So why would a local government do this?  The cities say it is a safety program.  I have evidence that one City Council Member even expected to see rear end accidents increase and still went ahead with the program.  I, along with many others, have concluded the RLC program is more about the money than anything else.