|
Title: Trial by Declaration - VICTORY Post by: Privateer on February 24, 2009, 08:13:55 PM On 11/13/2008 I was cited for violating CVC 21453(a) and received a photo enforcement citation from the City of Fullerton.
I filed my Trial by Declaration paperwork and as of 2/11/2009 my case was dismissed. Quote STATEMENT OF FACTS Defendant's Name: Privateer Case No.: FLXXXXXPE I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 21453(a). Automatic citations obtained from the City of Fullerton’s Automated Enforcement system are illegal under Vehicle Code 21455.5(g) because payments to the operator are tied to revenue generated by the system. This financial incentive to the operator creates an inappropriate bias and is in violation of the law. This is in line with the reasoning of County of Orange Superior Court case number 30-2008-93057, People vs Franco (Exhibit A), which states evidence obtained by the City of Fullerton Automated Enforcement System violates Vehicle Code section 21455.5(g) and is inadmissible. The City’s contract with the camera operator contains a provision tying payment to the operator to revenue generated by the system, violating CVC 21455.5(g). In the interest of justice, I respectfully request this case be dismissed. If the court does not find in my favor in this case, I request a Trial de Novo. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: Privateer, Defendant in Pro Per (http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/808/tbdvictory.jpg) (http://imageshack.us) Victory for the people. Title: Re: Trial by Declaration - VICTORY Post by: madmatt on February 24, 2009, 10:23:33 PM that shizzle is a piece of art.
I thought the one I wrote was good (decision pending). Yours makes me look like I'm an ESL student in remedial English. Well done. Title: Re: Trial by Declaration - VICTORY Post by: hbliam on February 24, 2009, 10:41:27 PM Good job. :)
Title: Re: Trial by Declaration - VICTORY Post by: erkishhorde on February 25, 2009, 12:35:18 AM Congrats. Where do you look to see that the camera people are getting "commission?"
Title: Re: Trial by Declaration - VICTORY Post by: Privateer on February 25, 2009, 07:32:28 AM I found out about it through an article in the OC Register. They don't really get a commission, but rather, the city has in their contract language that says "if revenue generated by the system doesn't equal the amount of the contract, The City can renegotiate the contract up or down."
Here's a link to the court decision http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2008/ca-franco.pdf (http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2008/ca-franco.pdf) If you go to ocregister.com and search around in the city of fullerton articles you'll find a couple more where they talk about it. At least 3 articles. Since that decision, the City actually stopped issuing tickets to violators. System is still running, but they're not issuing tickets. To find if the city contract has a that 'renegotiate' language, you'd have to get a copy of the contract, probably from the City. But I don't know what department would do that. City Hall records or something? andy Title: Re: Trial by Declaration - VICTORY Post by: lawbreaker on February 25, 2009, 07:32:59 AM [clap]
BRAVO...!!!!!! Title: Re: Trial by Declaration - VICTORY Post by: joekarati on February 26, 2009, 08:20:59 AM Congrats! I've fought 2 citations via TBD and won, very satisfying.
Title: Re: Trial by Declaration - VICTORY Post by: TiAvenger on February 26, 2009, 12:38:53 PM be careful from now on
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2699.asp (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2699.asp) Title: Re: Trial by Declaration - VICTORY Post by: Privateer on February 26, 2009, 09:15:39 PM this is a good article also
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2676.asp (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2676.asp) Quote "The city of Santa Ana was fundamentally denied notice and the opportunity to be heard on an issue that has severe consequences for the city of Santa Ana, as well as other cities throughout the state," Santa Ana City Attorney Joseph W. Fletcher argued in a brief to the Court of Appeal. "Deciding a case of this nature with briefing and oral argument by only a single party makes a sham of the adversarial system... The appellate division was robbed of the opportunity in this case to utilize the adversarial system to reach justice." The district attorney was properly served with all briefs and notices required during the course of the court's proceedings, but Fletcher insisted that the city attorney's office had sole jurisdiction over the matter. Neither party showed up for proceedings before the appellate division. In a pair of letters to defendant Thomas Fischetti prior to his trial, the city attorney's office denied that it had jurisdiction over his case. "The district attorney's office is charged with prosecution of California Vehicle Code violations," Deputy City Attorney Laura A. Rossini wrote on March 13, 2008. those folks don't know if they're coming or going, apparently. As expensive as these camera contracts are, there's no way they're saving money. Fullerton pays $30,000/month to operate cameras at three intersections. I could pay 6 officers to sit at those intersections during peak times and they would cost about the same and have a lower dismissal rate. Andy Title: Re: Trial by Declaration - VICTORY Post by: erkishhorde on March 01, 2009, 11:56:46 AM this is a good article also http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2676.asp (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2676.asp) those folks don't know if they're coming or going, apparently. As expensive as these camera contracts are, there's no way they're saving money. Fullerton pays $30,000/month to operate cameras at three intersections. I could pay 6 officers to sit at those intersections during peak times and they would cost about the same and have a lower dismissal rate. Andy Um... I got confused, care the summarize that for me? What's this about 30 day notice? Is it like a preliminary period where they have to setup the cameras and not use them for 30 days so that people can get used to them being there? And then what's the stuff that is being published? Title: Re: Trial by Declaration - VICTORY Post by: Privateer on March 01, 2009, 03:45:32 PM Um... I got confused, care the summarize that for me? What's this about 30 day notice? Is it like a preliminary period where they have to setup the cameras and not use them for 30 days so that people can get used to them being there? And then what's the stuff that is being published? my understanding is that the city has to disclose that they'll be using photo enforcement. How exactly they do it, I don't know. andy Title: Re: Trial by Declaration - VICTORY Post by: Loyalizer on April 19, 2009, 11:05:20 PM That is out-Frack'n-standing!
Im going to remember that one next time I'm in the OC. I got a ticket on the 405FWY heading to IBN last year around August or September. I did a Trial by Dec also. Last month I got a letter in the mail stating that my case was dismissed. If everyone fought their tickets the court would be in such a debacle, and people would win due to the time constraints alone. imagine the hundreds of thousands of tickets written in a year, now imagine all being fought by declaration...... [thumbsup] Title: Re: Trial by Declaration - VICTORY Post by: hbliam on April 20, 2009, 01:06:09 PM +1. I'm sick of going to court. I'd much rather take ten minutes and write a statement.
Sometimes I feel bad for the people that take me to court. They really should choose traffic court. For one, I have not lost a single case (written or in person) since I started this job (6 years). Second, I only write "good' tickets. If I see something that would cause me to lose a case I either give them the benefit of the doubt and a warning or don't even stop them at all. |