The cameras have been shut down and now if we can dismantle our unconstitutional code enforcement system things my start getting better;
At 2:30 p.m., Police Chief Doug Barthel announced that the automated system would be shut down indefinitely while the city awaits a final ruling in a 2006 lawsuit filed by Sioux Falls businessman I.L. Wiedermann.
This is a MASSIVE constitutional victory for the citizens of SF. Remember, this isn’t about running red lights and safety, this is about due process and your rights. You should be able to face your accuser in a court of law.
While I.L. Wiedermann is a little rough around the edges, I have defended him before, a week after he almost got thrown out of a council meeting, I showed up to the meeting and chastised the mayor about first amendment rights and told him and the council if they can’t take criticism they should resign. When I sat down, a plain clothes PO hovered over me, I turned around and gave him a dirty look, and he walked off. I.L. and Dan Daily have sacrificed a lot for our rights, and they deserve a big ‘Thank You’. Whether you agree or not, the US Constitution is there to protect you from big brother.
Mr. Wiederman stood up for your constitutional rights. Most people sit silent while a few patriots protect their freedom.
This case continues seeking camera tickets reimbursement and (hopefully) punitive damages.
Home Rule Charter is how the city has become tyrannical. Munson made himself dictator and regularly tormented people with absurd civil procedures. This can be you and there doesn’t have to be an offense. They ‘make up’ something then not allow you appeal into circuit court. The best you can do is contest constitutionally.
It costs about $50,000 to fight. FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
In 2014, $100,000 can get a mayor elected who will REPEAL HOME RULE. Meanwhile, everyone is guilty of something you’re not aware of yet.
How sad two guys had to spend $90,000 between them to prove something that should be guaranteed by the US Constitution.
This is a great video of it;
http://www.KSFY.com/global/category.asp?c=185294&clipId=4917060&autostart=true
This video is interesting, Mike thinks the camera’s will be turned back on. Funny how he forgot about his oath to the US Constitution.
http://www.kdlt.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=1&Itemid=57#video
He never said they would be turned on under the same rules or with the exact same program.
It wouldn’t be all that difficult to tweak the appeals process and have the cameras back up and running in a short time frame.
Oh well – I guess we can go back to assuming four cars will try to squeeze through every yellow light and at 5:00pm we can fully expect that intersection to be blocked by commuters who don’t care if they inconvenience anyone provided they can get home a full 20 seconds sooner.
Costner – If this was about ‘public safety’ we would have these at every light in town. It is about Redflex boondoggling the city of SF to make money. Last I checked they are a ‘for profit foreign (Aussie’s)’ company.
Enough already. People fucking run red lights. Duh. Shit happens. But is pissing on the constitution worth it. No.
I think it is pretty easy to say it is about public safety. That particular intersection is the only one I’m aware of that has not only had someone killed walking across it, but has also had several other people hit by cars who lived to tell the tale.
I dare say there isn’t another intersection in town that has had the number of incidents that one has… but if you know of one by all means speak up.
If it really was about profit – then that would be even more reason to put those cameras at every intersection in town… but yet that hasn’t happened. Do you honestly think they wouldn’t get more revenue from 41st and Louise? Fact is if they were all about the money, they could setup cameras at a half dozen other intersections in town and probably bring in far more revenue than they do at the one location they do monitor.
That said I have never approved of the Redflex contract as I feel any fines should go back into the city funds to help with road repair and infrastructure improvements. By allowing a private company to profit from the number of violations there is too much incentive for them to manipulate the system.
As to the constitutional argument I have said numerous times I support a clean easy appeals process. That is fine… but the cameras themselves aren’t the problem – the problem is just the idiotic process that surrounds them. If the city can clean up their mess and tweak the system to allow for a legitimate appeals process I would have no issue with turning those cameras on again.
They may even need to seek a legislative bill to allow civil penalties to be assessed on a traffic (criminal) violation… but I’d support that too.
I guess I’m one of those jerks who has lived long enough to know a civilized society really only functions when people think someone else is watching. Make all the 1984 jokes you wish, but that fact has been proven for as long as humans have walked this Earth.
Costner,
When they turn it back on, get your picture taken and find out how unbelievable and unconstitutional the process is. The city should send you a ticket whether or not you were there. All they’re after is revenue. It’s guarranteed if there’s no appeal or even an offense.
Well PG if they ever do turn them back on, you would have to assume it would be AFTER they fixed the appeals process issue that resulted in them being shut off in the first place.
Thus I don’t think your test would really work so well. The only purpose it would serve would be to lighten my wallet by $87. I’m more than happy to drive through that light a few times, but it would be a lot more fun if I was driving a car “borrowed” from former Mayor Munson.