Judge orders Houston red light cameras to stay, may be turned back on

[Anti Federalist]

Foolish Mundanes, who the hell do you think you are?


Judge issues injunction, leaving red light cams up

Saturday, November 27, 2010

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7812241

HOUSTON (KTRK) -- The saga over Houston's red light cameras is not finished. A judge has ordered the cameras stay in place -- for now.

But in the battle over thousands of dollars, you could be paying in the future. Voters chose to do away with the red light cameras in the election earlier this month. But the fight between the city of Houston and the company that makes the cameras is being taken to court.

These cameras may not only stay up, our legal analyst says this federal lawsuit means they could be turned back on -- sooner than you think.

On November 15, we told you the city of Houston filed a federal lawsuit against American Traffic Solutions, the red light company vendor. Three days ago, ATS, filed a counterclaim, saying the city broke its contract and that the election is invalid.

"If the court rules in favor of the red light contractor, we may have these red light cameras up and running again. That's why the court didn't ask they be taken down," KTRK Legal Analyst Joel Androphy said. "The court issued an injunction, saying don't take these cameras down until I determine whether or not this referendum was constitutional and whether or not these contracts can be challenged."

The city entered its contract with phoenix-based ATS in 2006. Their deal was supposed to extend into the year 2014 with an out providing 120-day notice. But when Houston citizens petitioned to get the red light camera issue on the November ballot, then voted them down, the city was forced into a corner -- listen to voters and get rid of the cameras or break its contract and pay ATS the remainder.

"The city doesn't want to have to pay damages, so this could be a concerted effort on the part of the city with the contractor to avoid shutting down these cameras," Androphy said.

ATS claims the city broke the law when it allowed Proposition 3 to be placed on the ballot and even violated the US Constitution when it adopted a law that went against a pre-existing contract.

"Bottom line is that these red light cameras may be up and running again," Androphy said.

From out of town, leaders opposing red light cameras call the ordeal a political conspiracy and say invalidating the election would be best for everyone -- except Houston voters.

"Do I think they conspired? Absolutely. Do I think that they're talking all the time? Absolutely. Do I think it's a friendly lawsuit? Absolutely," said Paul Kubosh with Citizens against Red Light Cameras. "I see the city and I see ATS both wanting the same thing, and that's the election thrown out."

A judge has ordered the cameras stay up for now while all this is hammered out in court, but they will not record. And the judge is moving quickly. He ordered both sides, the city and ATS, to brief whether the referendum is in fact valid under city, state and federal law. That has to be done by Friday.

A hearing will follow, and the outcome will be key to learning whether these cameras will stay or go.

[Kotin]

In other words: " YOUR VOTE MEANS NOTHING, LAY DOWN AND TAKE IT, YOU ARE A SLAVE AND WE LAUGH AT YOUR REFERENDUM!"



:mad:

[Anti Federalist]

In other words: " YOUR VOTE MEANS NOTHING, LAY DOWN AND TAKE IT, YOU ARE A SLAVE AND WE LAUGH AT YOUR REFERENDUM!"



:mad:

You forgot, "NOW, FUCK OFF!!! BEFORE I DECIDE TO ARREST YOU!"

:mad:

[Dr.3D]

Doesn't mean the police or the courts have to do anything with the data the cameras turn out.

[TNforPaul45]

Soap Box -> Ballot Box -> Jury Box -> Ammo Box

[Anti Federalist]

Soap Box -> Ballot Box -> Jury Box -> Ammo Box

That ^^^ :mad:

[sailingaway]

Nonsense. Breaking a contract is entirely separate from whether they may be used. If they can't legally be used there is such a thing as being 'void as against public policy' if the subject matter of a contract is or becomes illegal. Even if the city has to pay damages, it doesn't give them a right to keep them up if they were voted down. The city can't 'contract around' the constitution.

[specsaregood]

Nonsense. Breaking a contract is entirely separate from whether they may be used. If they can't legally be used there is such a thing as being 'void as against public policy' if the subject matter of a contract is or becomes illegal. Even if the city has to pay damages, it doesn't give them a right to keep them up if they were voted down. The city can't 'contract around' the constitution.

i also wonder if the contract says anything about an unobstructed view. or the angle they are pointed at. I think you get where I'm going...

[malkusm]

The city entered its contract with phoenix-based ATS in 2006. Their deal was supposed to extend into the year 2014 with an out providing 120-day notice.

Am I missing something?

When you elect a Representative, he doesn't take office for about 2 months. So there is a delay involved.

Exactly what is the issue with the city of Houston calling up ATS the day after the election and saying "We'd like to issue you our agreed-upon 120-day notice of cancellation." :confused: Why was this not done? Why has it now become a legal issue? It's almost like the city WANTED to get sued in order to have an excuse to keep the contract in force.

[HOLLYWOOD]

American Traffic Solutions, the red light company vendor
ATS claims the city broke the law when it allowed Proposition 3 to be placed on the ballot and even violated the US Constitution when it adopted a law that went against a pre-existing contract.Don't you love the conspiring profiteers between corporations and government... have the crone judicial branch of government protect the fascist game plan all for themselves against the people's demands.

ATS can claim all they want... did the people vote to have the RED LIGHT CAMS installed? NO... that is where it should be UNCONSTITUTIONAL if anywhere in this political shell game.

[james1906]

Pimp: Yo bitch, you be hookin' for me, yo ass needa be signin' dis contrak

Ho: Aight then (signs contract)

Police: (Breaking down the door of the brothel) Everybody freeze!

Pimp: Yo yo yo, we gots a contrak, da law be invalid!

Police: I see, well if there's a contract, then the law does not apply. Play on player.

[EvilEngineer]

Lol... the joke is on ATS then. Apparently they haven't noticed that the Red Light cameras since the vote passed and they were turned off have become the victim of theft and vandalism.

In a town where thieves are stealing the copper out of highway street lights... how long do you think un-monitored expensive camera equipment lasts on the side of a road?

[Anti Federalist]

Lol... the joke is on ATS then. Apparently they haven't noticed that the Red Light cameras since the vote passed and they were turned off have become the victim of theft and vandalism.

In a town where thieves are stealing the copper out of highway street lights... how long do you think un-monitored expensive camera equipment lasts on the side of a road?

May every one suffer this fate.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/5320262/2/istockphoto_5320262-burnt-out-speed-camera.jpg

[AGRP]

Does this mean we can fire the judge even though the majority voted him/her in?

[Rael]

Nonsense. Breaking a contract is entirely separate from whether they may be used. If they can't legally be used there is such a thing as being 'void as against public policy' if the subject matter of a contract is or becomes illegal. Even if the city has to pay damages, it doesn't give them a right to keep them up if they were voted down. The city can't 'contract around' the constitution.

Exactly. It's like if you sue your drug dealer for not given you the full amount of drugs you paid for. Illegal contracts are void and unenforceable.

[libertybrewcity]

I would definitely hope a referendum would overrule the contract..what if the contract was for forever? ATS would always have cashflow.

[nobody's_hero]

This is bull****.

If the city council in Houston didn't get permission from the people to install the cameras to begin with, the contract should already be null/void/toilet paper/etc.

[Slutter McGee]

Without the opt-out I thought this might be a neat issue for debate. But it really is political grandstanding.

Contracts vs Will of the Voters.

Maybe someday.

Slutter McGee

[Romulus]

Dont Pay the tickets - starve the beast.

[Philhelm]

As others have stated, technically (assuming the rule of law is followed...bwahahahaha!) the contract would be void, for being against the law or public policy.

[Promontorium]

This may turn out to be the city and the company working together, but at a minimum the citiy's financial burden should have been considered. Pay attention would-be bill or measure writers, give an out to the beast you're about to attack. The city losing its permanent money, and being stuck with a fat fine has put it in a corner, from where it may lash out.

[FrankRep]

Who was the Federal Judge?

[devil21]

Lol... the joke is on ATS then. Apparently they haven't noticed that the Red Light cameras since the vote passed and they were turned off have become the victim of theft and vandalism.


Got .22LR? A silenced .22 with scope would make quick work of those cameras.

[nobody's_hero]

Who was the Federal Judge?

This is why we have to stop taking our cases to the federal court system.

[LibForestPaul]

Pimp: Yo bitch, you be hookin' for me, yo ass needa be signin' dis contrak

Ho: Aight then (signs contract)

Police: (Breaking down the door of the brothel) Everybody freeze!

Pimp: Yo yo yo, we gots a contrak, da law be invalid!

Police: I see, well if there's a contract, then the law does not apply. Play on player.

I think you need to start commenting with this around the interwebs... :p LOL

[Nate-ForLiberty]

this makes me so angry....

[QueenB4Liberty]

Yeah I was talking to my co-worker today who was also very angry about this. I unfortunately couldn't vote on that issue since I don't live inside the city limits. But Yeah it pisses me off. But just goes to show ya that voting doesn't make a damn difference. Maybe we should make an example of this. It helps the whole "voting-is-worthless-because-they-will-do-what-they-want-anyhow" argument.

[jclay2]

Yeah I was talking to my co-worker today who was also very angry about this. I unfortunately couldn't vote on that issue since I don't live inside the city limits. But Yeah it pisses me off. But just goes to show ya that voting doesn't make a damn difference. Maybe we should make an example of this. It helps the whole "voting-is-worthless-because-they-will-do-what-they-want-anyhow" argument.

Exactly. You should see the look on peoples faces when I say that I didn't vote. They start to tweak and say how democracy is destroyed by people like myself.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Yeah I was talking to my co-worker today who was also very angry about this. I unfortunately couldn't vote on that issue since I don't live inside the city limits. But Yeah it pisses me off. But just goes to show ya that voting doesn't make a damn difference. Maybe we should make an example of this. It helps the whole "voting-is-worthless-because-they-will-do-what-they-want-anyhow" argument.

voting exposes these people for the despots that they are. it helps the waking process.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Exactly. You should see the look on peoples faces when I say that I didn't vote. They start to tweak and say how democracy is destroyed by people like myself.

haha yeah my co-worker said something about "that's why I vote, so I have a reason to complain" and I just changed the subject.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

the propaganda continues...

http://www.click2houston.com/news/26002112/detail.html


Data: Red-Light Runners Increase 27 Percent
ATS Released Stats From Red-Light Cameras
POSTED: Thursday, December 2, 2010
UPDATED: 6:34 pm CST December 2, 2010

HOUSTON -- More Houstonians are running red lights after red-light cameras were outlawed, according to new data released Thursday.

Dora Santana works at the intersection of Beechnut and the Southwest Freeway and she said she sees more people running red lights since the camera law was repealed on Nov. 2.
"Everybody's running them cause they figure, 'You know what? I'm not getting a ticket anymore so I'm blowing them off.' Everybody's going through," she said.
New data backs up Santana's theory.
According to American Traffic Solutions, the contractor providing the cameras, there's a big jump in potential violations. ATS said the data came from cameras that have recorded red-light runners in the past five days.
According to ATS, their computers recorded 9,758 motorists running red lights at intersections around the city between Nov. 26 and Dec. 1. That is a 27 percent increase over the same period last year.
Even though the cameras are still recording, tickets are not being issued because of the election results.
"I'm a little overwhelmed. I thought the number would go up, but this is a big number," said Gary Blankenship, the police union chief.
He opposed the red-light referendum and said it shows some motorists are taking more chances since voters pulled the plug.
"I think people are less attentive when they try to push it to get through that yellow light before it turns red, and clearly, by these numbers, they're not making it," Blankenship said.
Paul Kubosh said he doesn't buy it. He and his brothers led the successful campaign to repeal the red-light camera ordinance.
"Do you think that they're actually going to tell you the truth? I don't," Kubosh said. "You can't believe these numbers because American Traffic Solutions makes a ton of money here in the city of Houston and they're afraid they're about to lose the whole state of Texas."
American Traffic Solutions is suing to overturn the November proposition that shut the cameras down.
ATS has filed suit in federal court to have the vote nullified. The city filed a pre-emptive suit asking the court to enforce the election returns.
Mayor Annise Parker originally opposed shutting off the cameras, but said now that the people have spoken and the city is complying .
A federal judge has been asked to decide if the vote is binding and if it invalidates the city's contract with ATS.
Both sides have been told to submit their arguments in writing to Judge Lynn Hughes on Friday.

[james1906]

People also aren't slamming on their brakes when it is safe to proceed.

[dizi24]

Am I the only one not seeing Houston's position on this? They are bound by the contract they signed with the contractors. A government can't vote to void a contract.

[Michigan11]

the propaganda continues...

http://www.click2houston.com/news/26002112/detail.html

That really does looks like propoganda. Is the CIA running Houston?

[payme_rick]

Am I the only one not seeing Houston's position on this? They are bound by the contract they signed with the contractors. A government can't vote to void a contract.



??????????????????????????????????????

[Dr.3D]

Am I the only one not seeing Houston's position on this? They are bound by the contract they signed with the contractors. A government can't vote to void a contract.

How about if the contract was never valid in the first place?

[HOLLYWOOD]

How about if the contract was never valid in the first place?
No problem for government to VOID our rights and give retroactive immunity to TELECO companies that illegally spied on Americans.

Government voided that contract on the people's rights... then gave corporate America pardons.

The whole game is rigged, so We The People can never rely on to protect us or our contracts that protect us from government.

[Bern]

Has the number of accidents, injuries or deaths in those intersections increased? You know, because the cameras are all about safety and all.

Also, I find the claims a bit perplexing seeing as how the great majority of tickets issued by the cameras are for supposedly not coming to comlpete stop when turning right on red.

It's all bogus crap to fleece the public.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Seems to me that at the red light intersections they reduced the yellow light time in order to increase red light runners and revenues. When the turned off the cameras they didn't increase the yellow light time.

[guitarlifter]

Doesn't mean the police or the courts have to do anything with the data the cameras turn out.

They will when they can siphon millions of dollars off the people for unconstitutional laws.

[Rael]

Am I the only one not seeing Houston's position on this? They are bound by the contract they signed with the contractors. A government can't vote to void a contract.

It is a well known principle of contract law that contracts for illegal purposes, or contracts that are contrary to public policy are void and unenforceable.

[dizi24]

It is a well known principle of contract law that contracts for illegal purposes, or contracts that are contrary to public policy are void and unenforceable.

Yes and no. This isn't the same as a contract that, when signed, is in conflict with an existing statute. There were stipulations in the contract as to what had to happen if Houston wanted to remove the cameras. Houston ignored them. They have committed a material breach of contract, no matter what the passed law says. You cannot terminate a contract by breaching it, which is what the city of Houston tried to do.

I'm sorry, but the city is wrong.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Yes and no. This isn't the same as a contract that, when signed, is in conflict with an existing statute. There were stipulations in the contract as to what had to happen if Houston wanted to remove the cameras. Houston ignored them. They have committed a material breach of contract, no matter what the passed law says. You cannot terminate a contract by breaching it, which is what the city of Houston tried to do.

I'm sorry, but the city is wrong.

I agree. The city was wrong to put he cameras up. The city is wrong in trying to breach the contract. Keep in mind the city preemptively sued the camera company. They are doing some legal maneuvering in order to keep the cameras in place. Likewise, the public is getting hit with pro-camera/anti-red light runner propaganda. The city and the company are in this together. (even though the city is suing the them)


On the flip side of this, those cameras do violate the 4th Amendment.

[AGRP]

The measure would have never made the ballot if it wasn't legal right?

[ammorris]

Yes and no. This isn't the same as a contract that, when signed, is in conflict with an existing statute. There were stipulations in the contract as to what had to happen if Houston wanted to remove the cameras. Houston ignored them. They have committed a material breach of contract, no matter what the passed law says. You cannot terminate a contract by breaching it, which is what the city of Houston tried to do.

I'm sorry, but the city is wrong.

Yeah, but the government passes laws all the time that void or alter existing contracts. For example, when they pass new regulations on credit card companies, they alter the contract between the lender and the borrower without the consent of either. If a judge rules that the contract between the city government and the camera company overrides a duly passed law, they also have two acknowledge that existing contracts between private individuals or businesses cannot be altered by legislation. While I would welcome such a decision, it isn't going to happen. So in practice, what you have is a system in which contracts between private individuals and companies can be altered at the whim of the legislature, but contracts between the government and a company are untouchable, even if they are explicitly rejected by those the government claims to represent.

[bayb]

any government contract can be broken in the best interests of the public, the city didn't break the contract, the people did. The city is abiding by the will of the voters. ATS, the camera company, also knew that their contract and system had been voted out several times before, so they took a risk KNOWING that there may be voter action that would end their program. Here's is the part I like. This all would have been easier if Houston hadn't tried to sidestep the Texas Leg. Last year the leg was going to sunset red light cameras in Texas, that all existing contracts had to be allowed to expire. Well, Houston and several other cities didn't want to see their revenue program go away, so they rushed into signing extentions for 10 or 20 years. Evidently without reading it closely as the camera company put restrictions on the original contract that weren't there before, all to circumvent the people's legislature that was going to do away with the cameras, it shot them in the foot big time!

[bayb]

Also, this isn't just a contract dispute. The camera company is trying to get the judge to throw out our legal vote. To say that we never get to vote on this system, we don't have the power to do so. there is this part of the Texas constitution that is rather problematic for the camera company if they want to overturn the vote of the people;

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

[free1]

the propaganda continues...

http://www.click2houston.com/news/26002112/detail.html

"According to ATS, their computers recorded 9,758 motorists running red lights at intersections around the city between Nov. 26 and Dec. 1. That is a 27 percent increase over the same period last year."

9,758 X $200 each fine = $1.9 Million in SIX DAYS!!!!

Think of all that lost revenue!!! OH NO!!

That should keep the people safe!

The people put the company on notice, the contract will be canceled soon, 120 days and in the mean time put a bag over the cameras so the company doesn't have to spend money processing pictures, maintaining the cameras, powering them, and keeping STUPID statistics.

Plus, didn't the people also basically say they like their PRIVACY? Wouldn't that include them still taking pictures of people at the intersections?

Here's the law, gotta love this, should be in every State's constitution.


Also, this isn't just a contract dispute. The camera company is trying to get the judge to throw out our legal vote. To say that we never get to vote on this system, we don't have the power to do so. there is this part of the Texas constitution that is rather problematic for the camera company if they want to overturn the vote of the people;

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

"all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit." - that would include the federal government (known as the United States, are you people getting a clue yet?) since it is a creation of the State governments.

[bayb]

In Texas it is $75, but thats still a lot of change. Here is the thing, if you look at the increase they CLAIM, (assuming we take their numbers at face value even though they have lied over and over again) of about 2600 more violations detected over a 6 day period, divide that by 70 camera locations it comes to an increase of about 6 violations per camera per day. And that is supposed to tell us that there is some rash of red light running? The numbers are also meaningless unless you count the average daily traffice before and after, if there was a higher traffic volume on that BLACK FRIDAY WEEKEND (gee wonder why they cherry picked that week, the cameras had been off for 10 days) then the stat might actually indicate the opposite of what they claimed.


"According to ATS, their computers recorded 9,758 motorists running red lights at intersections around the city between Nov. 26 and Dec. 1. That is a 27 percent increase over the same period last year."

9,758 X $200 each fine = $1.9 Million in SIX DAYS!!!!

Think of all that lost revenue!!! OH NO!!

That should keep the people safe!

The people put the company on notice, the contract will be canceled soon, 120 days and in the mean time put a bag over the cameras so the company doesn't have to spend money processing pictures, maintaining the cameras, powering them, and keeping STUPID statistics.

Plus, didn't the people also basically say they like their PRIVACY? Wouldn't that include them still taking pictures of people at the intersections?

Here's the law, gotta love this, should be in every State's constitution.



"all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit." - that would include the federal government (known as the United States, are you people getting a clue yet?) since it is a creation of the State governments.

[Bern]

Was there an increase in accidents? Because, you know, these cameras are supposed to be all about safety and all.

[Bern]

A Houston federal judge today invalidated last November’s referendum that ended the red-light camera program, a ruling that has sent city leaders back to square one.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes ruled the city can not reverse an ordinance except by a referendum of voters held within 30 days of the passage of the ordinance. Opponents to the red light camera ordinance, which passed in 2004, mounted the last year challenge as an amendment to the city charter but Hughes said it was essentially the same thing.
...
“Judge Hughes’ ruling means that we have several options to consider,” the mayor said. “I will consult with City Attorney Dave Feldman and City Council members as we deliberate the future of the red light camera program in Houston. Right now the cameras continue to monitor intersections, but no tickets are being issued.”

Paul Kubush, a leading traffic ticket attorney who helped organized the last year’s referendum, said he was not surprised by Hughes ruling`

“We’re not surprised, we knew this was coming,” he said. “The city’s legal strategy was to file it in the federal court so they could get a more favorable venue to throw out the election. In state court, they would have had a harder time getting the election thrown out, I believe.”

Kubosh said he would not give up on the challenge to the red light camera system, saying he would not abandon “the 181,000 voters who stood with us on this.”

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7615284.html

[RileyE104]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7615284.html

such bullshit

[V4Vendetta]

Seriously I'm not surprised. These old status que idiots/judges don't care about the constitution, or their oath, or the principles that formed this country.

[Dr.3D]

Seriously I'm not surprised. These old status que idiots/judges don't care about the constitution, or their oath, or the principles that formed this country.

Seems obvious, we have the best legal system money can buy.

[AFPVet]

Pimp: Yo bitch, you be hookin' for me, yo ass needa be signin' dis contrak

Ho: Aight then (signs contract)

Police: (Breaking down the door of the brothel) Everybody freeze!

Pimp: Yo yo yo, we gots a contrak, da law be invalid!

Police: I see, well if there's a contract, then the law does not apply. Play on player.

Excellent analogy! This is basically what they are saying!

[Fredom101]

Just follow the money. The companies that make these red light cameras are making out like bandits, and the gov't will do what it takes to make them stay. It's simply the red light camera-industrial complex. Corporatism at it's finest.

[Anti Federalist]

Funny how it's always a "valid" plebiscite when it takes away freedom.

But it suddenly becomes "improper" when it restores freedom

[Pericles]

Funny how it's always a "valid" plebiscite when it takes away freedom.

But it suddenly becomes "improper" when it restores freedom

Like voting to join the EU. Countries keep voting until they get it "right", then you don't need to vote anymore.

[Anti Federalist]

Like voting to join the EU. Countries keep voting until they get it "right", then you don't need to vote anymore.

"It doesn't matter who votes. What matters is who counts the votes." - Josef Stalin

[mrsat_98]

They will just starting tracking us with the camera and gain more control.

[Pericles]

"It doesn't matter who votes. What matters is who counts the votes." - Josef Stalin
You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.