J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles,
California
June
19, 2007
______________________________________________________
The Battle
Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L.
versus The Foreign Power
A Power Foreign to Our
Constitution
Red Light Cameras
Declared Unconstitutional
By
Ron Branson - National J.A.I.L. CIC
[email protected]
Finally,
the courts are catching up with what most everyone already suspected, that is,
that those red light cameras placed at intersections are unconstitutional. The
problem is, it is such a money-maker for cities that, like drugs, it is
hard to get off their addiction. Some years ago a judge in San Diego County
California declared the cameras a violation of the Constitution, yet such
violation seemed to continue unabated in California.
Throughout
this country, local governments have reaped untold hundreds of millions of
dollars for years from the people, but there appears to be no mass voluntary
offer to pay it all back to everyone from whom they took it. The message
conveyed is that it is alright to steal if you can get away with it,
and if you get caught, you have only to restore the booty taken
from the victim - provided he has the money to hire an attorney and go
to court and sue for the return of his stolen
money.
While the
three below articles will be a delight to the ears and eyes of millions who have
been victimized, the problem is much more immense than described. Back in 1968
the California legislature decided that California could make a lot more money
if they totally eliminated jury trials in all traffic cases, and so, effective
January 1, 1969, they "eradicated" the U.S. Constitutional provision of Article
III, Section 2, Clause 3 that specifically provides, "The trial of all crimes,
except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." Since California was able to
pull off this heist and reap hundreds of millions of dollars, the enticement was
too great for other states to resist. They, like bank robbers, likewise
decided to participate in the heist, and enjoy the booty of stolen money
without consideration that they were in direct violation of their sworn
Oaths of Office and the Constitution. Indeed, "Stolen waters are sweet, and
bread eaten in secret is pleasant." Proverbs 9:17.
As the
author of J.A.I.L. I have afore-considered how ironic it will be
if the downfall of evil and corrupt government is found in parking
tickets, cameras and traffic citations. By no stretch of anyone's imagination
can red light cameras fit the constitutional jury trial exception of "except in
cases of impeachment." I have been castigated in the media for my position
saying, "If Mr. Branson has his way, there will be a jury trial for not having a
dog license." My response has been, "I did not write the Constitution, I am
only interested in seeing it is adhered to by those who have sworn to obey it."
Do we not constantly hear the mantra, "You will obey the law!"? I can think of
no greater poetic justice than obedience to the standards
established for those who love to impose standards on us. "For
they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's
shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."
Matthew 23:4. "For with
what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." Matthew 7:2. With the passage
of J.A.I.L. in this country, the Frankenstein they have created will come home
to roost.
-Ron
Branson
Minnesota Supreme Court
Strikes Down Red Light Cameras
The Minnesota Supreme Court delivers a unanimous decision striking down the legality of red light cameras.
The Minnesota Supreme Court today delivered the highest-level court rebuke to photo enforcement to date with a unanimous decision against the Minneapolis red light camera program. The high court upheld last September's Court of Appeals decision that found the city's program had violated state law (read opinion).
The supreme court found that Minneapolis had disregarded a
state law imposing uniformity of traffic laws across the state. The city's photo
ticket program offered the accused fewer due process protections than available
to motorists prosecuted for the same offense in the conventional way after
having been pulled over by a policeman. The court argued that Minneapolis had,
in effect, created a new type of crime: "owner liability for red-light
violations where the owner neither required nor knowingly permitted the
violation."
"We emphasized in Duffy that a driver must be able to
travel throughout the state without the risk of violating an ordinance with
which he is not familiar," the court wrote. "The same concerns apply to owners.
But taking the state's argument to its logical conclusion, a city could extend
liability to owners for any number of traffic offenses as to which the Act
places liability only on drivers. Allowing each municipality to impose different
liabilities would render the Act's uniformity requirement meaningless. Such a
result demonstrates that [the Minneapolis ordinance] conflicts with state
law."
The court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine
that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the
country.
"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver
is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of
proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court
concluded. "Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a
person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged
with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act
and is invalid."
Article Excerpt:
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN SUPREME
COURT
A06-568
Filed: April 5, 2022
Hanson, J.
State of
Minnesota, Appellant,
vs.
Daniel Alan Kuhlman,
Respondent.
Red Light Cameras on Trial in
South Dakota, New Mexico
Class action lawsuits against photo enforcement systems in Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Albuquerque, New Mexico moved forward this week.
Class action lawsuits against photo enforcement systems in
Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Albuquerque, New Mexico moved forward this week.
Motorist I.L. Wiedermann and his attorney, Aaron Eiesland, argued yesterday
before Circuit Judge Kathleen Caldwell that Sioux Falls must refund $1.7 million
worth of red light camera tickets it has issued since May 2004. The city and its
red light camera vendor countered that anyone who paid $86 is not entitled to
his money back.
Wiedermann's attorney cited the recent Minnesota Supreme
Court decision striking down red light cameras as illegal (read opinion) as well as
a Minnehaha Circuit Court ruling that found it unconstitutional for a city to
provide no appeal from its rulings on the facts of a case. There is no appeal
allowed from a city hearing officer decision in a red light camera
case.
Albuquerque likewise may be forced to refund the $9.3 million worth
of tickets it has issued if it loses the class action lawsuit that District
Court Judge Valerie Huling recently certified. Plaintiffs argued that the city's
camera program created an unfair, city-controlled process to appeal citations
using a "nuisance" ordinance to bypass traditional due process
protections.
"They've essentially set up a parallel court that has no
legal standing," plaintiffs' attorney Rick Sandoval explained to the Albuquerque Tribune newspaper.
Australian red light camera vendor
Redflex (ASX:RDF) is in charge of
both ticketing programs.
Source: City seeks limits on red-light
lawsuit (Sioux Falls
Argus Leader (SD), 6/13/2007)
City seeks limits on
red-light lawsuit
Vehicle owners who paid $86 ticket
shouldn't be included, lawyer argues
By Josh Verges
Published: June 13, 2022
A judge heard arguments Tuesday in a class-action
lawsuit against the city of Sioux Falls and Redflex Traffic Systems, the company
contracted to photograph vehicles passing through red lights in downtown Sioux
Falls.
I.L. Wiedermann of Sioux Falls is fighting the camera enforcement
on behalf of himself and 20,000 vehicle owners who also have received $86
tickets since May 2004.
Circuit Judge Kathleen Caldwell listened to
lawyers for the city and Redflex who, respectively, wanted the case
significantly limited or thrown out altogether. She said she would rule on the
motions within two weeks.
Bill Garry, representing the city, said that when
the thousands who paid their fines did so, they waived their right to contest
their tickets. Only Wiedermann and one other man who took his appeal to an
administrative hearing officer and then to circuit court should be permitted to
fight their tickets, he said.
Richard Casey, a Redflex lawyer, said
Wiedermann's claims involve the city, not Redflex, so the company should be
removed as a defendant.
Wiedermann and Rapid City lawyer Aaron Eiesland
have accused the the city and Redflex of:
- Failing to enact an ordinance
prohibiting a right turn on red;
- Altering the timing of
stoplights;
- Illegally imposing civil penalties;
-
Denying due process.
Eiesland said in court Tuesday that the case is
all about money. With what Sioux Falls pays Redflex, the city could man the 10th
Street and Minnesota Avenue intersection with police officers 24 hours a
day.
In that case, however, Eiesland said the fine
money would be funneled through the state and be shared with the public schools.
The camera system allows the city an easy and sizeable revenue
source.
Part of Wiedermann's claim is that the city has no authority to
regulate traffic in a way not outlined by state law. That argument won over the
Minnesota Supreme Court, which in March struck down photo cops along Minneapolis
streets.
When Wiedermann filed his lawsuit last year, he argued that his
due process rights were stripped by a system that punishes a vehicle's owner,
not necessarily the driver.
An unrelated Minnehaha Circuit Court ruling since
then boosted the due process argument. Judge Bill Srstka in January ruled in
favor of Daniels Construction, which complained that the city's appeal system is
unconstitutional and gives them no opportunity to argue the facts of their case
on appeal.
Garry said Tuesday that because the $86 penalty is so small,
the city's hearing officer provides sufficient due process.
The 10th and Minnesota location was selected for
cameras because it has a large number of offenses and because a pedestrian was
killed at the intersection.
Edie Adams, 58, an Argus Leader employee, was
killed in April 2003 when she was struck by a car.
Reach Josh Verges at
605-331-2335.
J.A.I.L.
(Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org
To be automatically
added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe
in the subject line
and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
We are a ministry in great need of your
financial support. Please donate to
this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O.
Box 207, North Hollywood, CA 91603
J.A.I.L. is a unique
addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL
is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
E-Group sign on at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Visit our active flash
- http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
* *
*
He has combined with
others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to
our constitution,
and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to
their acts of
pretended legislation. - Declaration of
Independence
"..it does
not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set
brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a
thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the
root."
-- Henry David
Thoreau
><)))'>