Traffic cameras are not owned by the municipalities.
A private "Camera Corporation" owns and operates the cameras for a fee.
The "Camera Corporation" captures 'evidence' to create a traffic ticket.
Their fee is a based on a fraction of any ticket that you pay the "Court".
When you go to Court, simply ask one question:
"Are all parties to this case present in the Court room?"
If the Camera Corporation representative is not there; case dismissed!
Interesting. I guess it depends on how the law was written. In North Carolina, when they started traffic cameras (which have since been done away with because they were too expensive -- which shows why they were put in place in the first place), the law was written that you were guilty when the company took your picture, period. You could only appeal your guilty verdict by paying a fee to appeal -- which happened to be exactly the amount you would have to pay if you lost. The best part -- which I tried to let people know -- was that since the fee was due the camera company, the ONLY recourse against someone who didn't pay was that the company could get a $50 judgment against you in a court. And yes, it would have cost the company more than $50 to get that judgment. So the most effective way, in that case, to fight these was just not to pay them. It wasn't worth the company's time to track you down, so if you just didn't pay, nothing happened. And yes, that's what I did, and nothing was ever on my driving record or anything.
I guess if you're going to play the game, just make sure you know the rules.
Quote from: Ogre on February 09, 2010, 12:24 PM NHFT
Interesting. I guess it depends on how the law was written. In North Carolina, when they started traffic cameras (which have since been done away with because they were too expensive -- which shows why they were put in place in the first place), the law was written that you were guilty when the company took your picture, period. You could only appeal your guilty verdict by paying a fee to appeal -- which happened to be exactly the amount you would have to pay if you lost. The best part -- which I tried to let people know -- was that since the fee was due the camera company, the ONLY recourse against someone who didn't pay was that the company could get a $50 judgment against you in a court. And yes, it would have cost the company more than $50 to get that judgment. So the most effective way, in that case, to fight these was just not to pay them. It wasn't worth the company's time to track you down, so if you just didn't pay, nothing happened. And yes, that's what I did, and nothing was ever on my driving record or anything.
I guess if you're going to play the game, just make sure you know the rules.
We have to get back to basics.
If the Camera Company is part of the action, they are required by common law to be at the hearing.
Traffic cameras that generate tickets are the tools of a business partnership between the gubmint and the Corp.
Want FREEDOM? Fight the bastards.
Quote from: BoyntonStu on February 08, 2010, 06:55 PM NHFT
Their fee is a based on a fraction of any ticket that you pay the "Court".
Some contracts are written differently. KCMO pays American Traffic Solutions $4500/mo per camera and the city government keeps everything above that amount.
Quote from: Lance on February 09, 2010, 10:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: BoyntonStu on February 08, 2010, 06:55 PM NHFT
Their fee is a based on a fraction of any ticket that you pay the "Court".
Some contracts are written differently. KCMO pays American Traffic Solutions $4500/mo per camera and the city government keeps everything above that amount.
Thanks for this information.
However, the camera is like the cop who holds and who reads a radar gun.
Who will introduce the evidence?
Was the camera aimed properly?
Did it capture your plate or a car whose number is close to yours?
etc.
IMO The Company is a party to the trial.
Make sure you ask for the source code for the traffic cam. Your ticket might be due to a software bug.
Here is a website (http://www.highwayrobbery.net/) for fighting CA tickets,
i thought the solution was bbguns
Read it here: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsAppSantaAnaMustaphaRecd2010Feb3.pdf (http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsAppSantaAnaMustaphaRecd2010Feb3.pdf)
Boiled down:
The Camera Corporation is a third party.
No officer witnessed the alleged violation.
The Officer is bringing 3rd party hearsay evidence which is not admissible.
Case dismissed!
The easiest way is to live in NH. Only drive in NH or other places, like MA as of this post, that don't have traffic cameras with the ability to ticket. And if someone tells you about an upcoming bill to allow such cameras in NH, work to prevent the bill from becoming law.
Quote from: Fluff and Stuff on February 11, 2010, 09:44 AM NHFT
The easiest way is to live in NH. Only drive in NH or other places, like MA as of this post, that don't have traffic cameras with the ability to ticket. And if someone tells you about an upcoming bill to allow such cameras in NH, work to prevent the bill from becoming law.
Running away from unjust laws and thieves dos not help us gain freedom.
Confrontation and sharing information is much more effective.
Quote from: BoyntonStu on February 11, 2010, 11:30 AM NHFT
Running away from unjust laws and thieves dos not help us gain freedom.
Confrontation and sharing information is much more effective.
Unless many people do it from all over the place to one central location, at the same time.
Where I'm from, a place with traffic cameras all over the place, I saw 3 different methods to deal with traffic cameras implemented.
1. Figure out where they are and avoid them.
2. Drive slow, break hard.
3. Buy special covers for a plate that are supposed to prevent the plate from being seen.
While all of those methods were interesting. I decided that I was tired of doing methods 1 and 2 and moved to NH. Now I pay attention to upcoming bills so that maybe folks in NH won't even worry about this potential problem.
Quote from: BoyntonStu on February 11, 2010, 09:40 AM NHFT
Read it here: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsAppSantaAnaMustaphaRecd2010Feb3.pdf (http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsAppSantaAnaMustaphaRecd2010Feb3.pdf)
Boiled down:
The Camera Corporation is a third party.
No officer witnessed the alleged violation.
The Officer is bringing 3rd party hearsay evidence which is not admissible.
Case dismissed!
You have a lot of misplaced faith that they'll follow their own rules. They won't.
Quote from: BoyntonStu on February 11, 2010, 11:30 AM NHFT
Running away from unjust laws and thieves do not help us gain freedom.
Confrontation and sharing information is much more effective.
Ok, let me share some information with you, and confront you:
NH doesn't have traffic cameras that can ticket. _We_ (folks who moved to NH for freedom) stopped that legislation from passing a few years back, and if it's brought up again, will work to stop it again. We aren't running, we're confronting, here in a place where we can make a difference. (And that including political/apolitical/etc/etc/etc/etc)
If you spent half the time you spent researching how to fight traffic cameras on researching how to get your butt moved to NH to help make a real difference, you'd be here already.
This is a New Hampshire forum - we don't have traffic camera tickets here - so there isn't even a reason for any CD, which is where you posted this.
If you want to gain freedom, move to NH and join the others who are glad they did so.
Quote from: BoyntonStu on February 11, 2010, 11:30 AM NHFT
Quote from: Fluff and Stuff on February 11, 2010, 09:44 AM NHFT
The easiest way is to live in NH.
Running away from unjust laws and thieves dos not help us gain freedom.
The very point of the FSP is to "run away" to NH, and to concentrate effort to gain freedom.
Are you sure you're reading the right forum?
Quote from: KBCraig on February 11, 2010, 01:25 PM NHFT
Quote from: BoyntonStu on February 11, 2010, 11:30 AM NHFT
Quote from: Fluff and Stuff on February 11, 2010, 09:44 AM NHFT
The easiest way is to live in NH.
Running away from unjust laws and thieves dos not help us gain freedom.
The very point of the FSP is to "run away" to NH, and to concentrate effort to gain freedom.
Are you sure you're reading the right forum?
An example of what is wrong in one state and the techniques used to combat it may be used in all states.
Jury duty, military service, traffic rules, etc. are faced by all people.
Quote from: BoyntonStu on February 11, 2010, 01:40 PM NHFT
An example of what is wrong in one state and the techniques used to combat it may be used in all states.
Except we don't have this problem in NH. At all.
Quote
Jury duty, military service, traffic rules, etc. are faced by all people.
We have lots of FIJA activists here in NH, and the last thing we want is discourage jurists, we want to educate them and get them seated.
Military service, last time I looked, was still voluntary. [Selective Service registration a sole exception, and with no real penalty for not registering, least as far as I can tell] If a draft starts, let us know.
Traffic Rules? Like it or not, there will always be 'rules', even if they are local privately run roads, even if merely to determine things like which side of the road to drive on. Penalties for noncompliance might vary. If you meant licensing, for example, or registration, or fighting tickets, we have folks doing all of these here, both within the system and out of the system. And again, that info doesn't scale, because what works here likely won't work elsewhere. Or do you have Porc411? And people willing to protest your arrest? And being held, etc etc? See, we have that here in NH.
Funny how you avoid answering my last post.
An example of what is wrong in one state and the techniques used to combat it may be used in all states.
Except we don't have this problem in NH. At all.
Perfect state?
Why a NH Underground?
My Jeopardy answer: What is snow?
Quote from: BoyntonStu on February 11, 2010, 11:30 AM NHFT
Running away from unjust laws and thieves dos not help us gain freedom.
Confrontation and sharing information is much more effective.
actually there is a long, wonderful tradition of good people running from injustice and voting with their feet. I would not fault anyone who would move away from thugs to a safer part of the world.
I also applaud those that stand and fight.
There is room on this forum to discuss how to do that here or there.
You do realize that you joined our forum, started a few threads instructing the rest of us on various subjects ... including this one that doesn't seem to apply to most of us, and are now getting some less that wonderful comments.
Maybe you could ease your way into our little world and join us as we all get used to each other.
I recommend newbies compliment us oldtimers constantly for the first month. You can compliment PatK on his photos, patmc on his research, friday on everything (look for the fist), little jimmy johnson on his pirate costumes (and incredible good looks), kb ... on his post count, kat on how well this forum works and so forth down the line of big time posters. Then watch out for the lurkers like the seth lord and always be mindful of the precarious mental state of all of our libertarian geeks. Otherwise your forum experience can be very unhappy.
oh and since you live a long ways away ..... send money, bacon, and positive karma
the NH Underground welcomes your constitutional scholars, teachers of the law, gun cleaners, and keyboard warriors .... send the wretched refuse of your teaming shores .... lady liberty stands to greet you .... or deal the fist of death on those who want a free lunch. :)
Quote from: BoyntonStu on February 11, 2010, 09:40 AM NHFT
...
The Officer is bringing 3rd party hearsay evidence which is not admissible.
...
Not really. The (absent) District Attorney is offering a Business record without a person from that business testifying about the record. (Government records do not need a person testifying in order to be admissable.)