Saturday, June 18, 2011

Sorry, stupid-assed judges.

If there is a greater violation of Constitutional "due process" than red-light cameras, I'd like to know what it is.

Wait. I probably don't. Some damned judge will be jumping through hoops like a circus poodle to defend it.

Case in point: A federal robed Emperor over-ruled the Houston city council's vote to not only do away with the red-light cameras they (stupidly) purchased and put into place, but ruled they had to keep them.

Even though over 180,000 Houstonians, THROUGH THE BALLOT BOX/PETITION BOX, said they didn't want them. Federal judge invalidates vote ending Houston's red light system

It's one of those rare instances in which elected officials and government officials actually LISTEN to the people they are paid to SERVE, and then some goddamn federal judge swings his gavel and in essence says, the People do not matter.

Down in Houston, the city numbnuts let themselves get bumfoozled by a group of the biggest scheisters on Planet Earth--which would be any communist, bed-wetting, pinko bunch of nerdlike ilk who build, maintain, sell and promote red-light cameras.

For any of you who still live in either Free America or in a cave and do not know what red-light cameras are, I'll explain.

If you run a red light, this camera takes a picture of your license tag. Then some municipal bureaucrap mails you a citation in the mail. You pay the fine or you get a warrant issued for your arrest.

Basically, it's that simple.

Except for one thing: How does the bureaucrap who mails you the citation know that YOU were operating the motor vehicle that allegedly cruised through the red light?

They don't. Some police chief and city manager type a-holes claim that the camera can also take a picture through the windshield or a side window (how the HELL can it do that?) in order to positively identify the driver.

Bull. Shit.

Given the angle of sun, time of day, tinted windows, etc etc., there is no proof-positive way to know who was driving your vehicle and who allegedly blew through a red light. Due process is just that, DUE PROCESS. You cannot give my car a ticket for an operational (moving) violation--that is the OPERATOR'S responsibility. Yet, these red-light cameras only take pictures of the license tag, and based upon registration, the OWNER of the vehicle is sent the citation.

Go ahead, take it to court. You have to prove that you were NOT in the car that allegedly ran the red light.

Our Constitution says it is the GOVERNMENT'S responsibility to prove that we are guilty (in the car that allegedly ran the red light).

One more example of how our rights are not just slowly slipping away from us--they're eroding like top soil during a raging flood.

When your last line of defense, the courts, side with revenue (red-light camera company) rather than reason-of-law, you've got problems.

And thanks to federal assholes like this judge, we have problems.

Thank God we have the Second Amendment. Tyranny is a lot closer than we think.


FreedomYankee said...

One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

Deuteronomy 19:15

Red-light camera conviction. you would no doubt recoil in Horror if one was to point out the current judicial concept you are so adamantly opposed to.

Don't ask questions if the answers don't fit the paradigm.

Hint: Moses Mordecai Levy

kx59 said...

so the federal judge says the red light cameras have to go back in? Suppose the mayor and city council decide not to do so. Are they now in contempt of court? They were the individuals that instituted them in the first place. If they do put them back into use, this ought to make for some good political kabuki theater in the next election.

FreedomYankee said...

kx 59, poses the simple, yet critical question of the ultimate discernment of the 10th amendment.

What was that former Speaker of the House "Tip" O'Neill said ?, all politics is Local.

There is the key, the question, are willing to turn the lock ?.