Special Guest Attorney Bill Davis from Austin discusses his recent victories concerning red-light cameras in Austin.
Related Posts
05-20-10 Rule Of Law
ROL_2010-05-20_128k.mp3 ROL_2010-05-20_16k.mp310-14-10 Rule of Law
Show on Due Process. ROL_2010-09-03_128k_Hr1&2.mp3 ROL_2010-09-03_16k_Hr1&2.mp3 ROL_2010-09-03_128k_...
Randy has the night off. Special Guest Attorney Bill Davis of Austin, TX discusses his two wins against the red-light camera racket. Although his professional specialty is in patent law, he became involved in fighting red-light traffic tickets when he first received one in the mail. He had never heard of them before. He fought it. He learned that a contracting company in Australia(!) was the party responsible for operating the cameras and mailing out the tickets (on the city’s letterhead). Bill discusses many other disturbing aspects of these tickets, including the gross amount of revenue (theft) generated by them, the almost complete lack of due process, the corrupt judicial officers presiding over their adjudicating over hearings related to them, etc.
[For more information on this topic of red-light cameras, see also ROL show dated 20100701 with guests Jim Ash, Mike Kubosh, and Mike’s attorney brother Paul Kubosh (www.nocamerashouston.com). See also the ROL show dated 20100723, Hour 1, at 0hr52m30s for ROL’s response to a question about what to do with a red light camera ticket.]
HOUR 1 & 2
Traffic night discussing red light cameras. Guest is patent attorney Bill Davis.
Bill has won cases against red light cameras. He got involved after receiving red light ticket in the mail from Austin.
Most camera vendors are non-USA. Companies approach try to sell camera systems to cities.
Senate Bill “implementing act” is legislation in Texas that authorized the cameras in 2007 to allow cities to implement. Allowed cities to implement ordinances complying with chapter 707 of Texas transportation code.
Owner of vehicle is presumed to be responsible party. Lack of response is default judgment against vehicle owner.
When receiving envelopes, save the envelope. Austin uses a company from Arizona and the letters are mailed form Arizona. Austin splits fees with camera company.
Running red light was criminal. It was changed to civil and has become a tool for revenue collection.
Describes how another attorney in a different jurisdiction challenged vendor ATS because they did not have an investigator license.
Texas DPS licenses private investigators and have gone after many companies including computer data recovery companies. DPS claims red light camera vendors do not need a license.
In one year, top 40 collection cities collected $100 million on these tickets.
Suggests everyone challenge the red light tickets. A basis for challenge may be shortened yellow “amber” light times.
Eddie discusses problems with the local ordinances, such as lack of enacting clause.
Municipalities created under constitution Article 16.
When going to court, get a court reporter so the record can be preserved for appeal. Demand affidavits that are signed, dated, and notarized.
Difference between guilt and liability. Case outcome will be either liable or not liable.
Do not sign a document that makes you the “driver”. You may be the owner of the vehicle.
In Austin, amber light time information is concealed. It apparently is collected.
Eddie suggests discovery for 48 hours of camera footage to show they are doing ongoing monitoring.
84:08
Paul from Texas.
Can you hire your own court reporter for court trial?
Bill says no.
87:27
Dennis in Texas.
Will call back on another day.
87:57
Kevin in Colorado.
Assaulted by State Highway Patrol.
Deborah asks Bill how to proceed.
Bills says to challenge the ticket. Go to legislator and ask for it to change. Go to city council and tell them to remove the red light cameras.
97:09
Michael in Maryland.
Getting run-around about his red light camera ticket. How to proceed?
Bill says to consider challenging if there is not a liability amount.
Is mailing red light ticket sufficient service?
Eddie says in Texas a summons can only be served by office in judicial branch.
Deborah says do not ignore a summons. Bill agrees.
114:13
Danny in Illinois.
Red light notice of violation in Missouri.
Bill says it may be criminal. Recalls an AG opinion that the cameras are not legal. Apparent case law that a turn on red may be different than going through a red light. In Missouri they may need an information from a grand jury before issuing a summons.
Dear Jon from Colorado,
Wow. I just show that someone else had posted to the ROL archives. I LOVE your work! Not just the detail, I mean the format. It is very readable I will be copying it (if you don’t mind).
I have a proposition for you. As I am sure you are aware, these postings are time-consuming. At the moment I am unable to devote the amount of time to ROL archive posting. I’ve been putting in 10-hour days working on my own lawsuit. Would it be possible for you to take over the postings for awhile? I can make it up to you in time.
I will email Deborah and let her know that I would like to contact you by email about these matters.
Nescience