Attorney Dan Stanley has filed on behalf of motorists Chris Cawood and Jonathan Kelly Proffitt a $6 million proposed class-action lawsuit against Bluff City and its mayor, Irene Wells, and the Arizona-based traffic camera firm American Traffic Solutions Inc. The lawsuit alleges Bluff City dropped the speed on the section of Highway 11E that is subject to the speed camera enforcement program without performing "an engineering and traffic investigation pursuant to statute and, therefore, was negligent in assessing the need for (a) speed reduction on Highway 11E. Such reduction was much lower than required, thus creating a 'speed trap.'"
Where have I heard that argument before?
Dan Stanley worked in my family's law firm where I once worked as an investigator, after having to sue the TN Bar Assn just to get get his "license" to practice law after passing the bar exam. Seems a traffic ticket for "reckless driving" was all it took to allegedly bar him for a career as a lawyer.
Dan's cousin Cole Smith went to college with me 30 years ago, when I was VP of the freshman class and Cole was president. Cole sued the cops and won $30,000 for false arrest and false imprisonment, after being framed and jailed 3 months for his dad's suspected dope biz. Apparently, Cole won the civil case pro se, from what I saw in the courtroom.
Dan's condo building burned down on Gay Street in what I suspect was another of the rampant arsons for police-approved insurance fraud, that nearly incinerated me and my family 10 years previously. A KFD supervisor threatened me with arrest for daring to give him photos of the arsonist setting the fire with a flame in his hand -- complete with diabolical grin. That billion-dollar gbmint contractor then burned down its own HQ 6 months later, getting a new free one from the insurance company (wink wink nudge nudge).
Dan was my lawyer when I sued the cops for stealing my 2 cars with their mafia towtrucker chopshop copkillers, since my brother and dad refused to appear in court for hearings due to threats or extortion (that was one of Dan's first cases -- "voluntarily dismissed" 2 months after my dad got 2 guns put to his head by a gang of 4 "muggers").
I worked as unpaid paralegal for Dan's case of a woman murdered by cops in a TN jail, by denial of all food, water and medical case in a diabetic coma. She had not been convicted of any crime, just too poor to afford bail or a real lawyer. I believe he won that case for her family.
So is Dan getting tired of being kicked around by a pack of gangbangers in uniform? Will the gangbangers play dirty? Will Dan kick a$$?
Bluff City faces $6 million class-action lawsuit over speed camera enforcement program
By Associated Press
October 15th, 2011
An Upper East Tennessee town's already troubled traffic camera enforcement program has hit another speed bump — a federal proposed class-action lawsuit.
Attorney Dan Stanley has filed on behalf of motorists Chris Cawood and Jonathan Kelly Proffitt a $6 million proposed class-action lawsuit against Bluff City and its mayor, Irene Wells, and the Arizona-based traffic camera firm American Traffic Solutions Inc. Cawood is a Kingston attorney.
The lawsuit alleges the city and the firm are conspiring to violate the Fair Debt Collections Act, state law and the city's own ordinances by imposing an administrative fee of $40 on top of the $50 fine imposed for motorists allegedly captured on the city's two speed enforcement cameras on Highway 11E. The plaintiffs further allege the city and firm are "threatening criminal prosecution for contempt of court and suspension of driver's licenses" if the fees and fines aren't paid.
The action also alleges the city created a "speed trap" on the section of Highway 11E under enforcement by the city's cameras by dropping the speed limit from 55 mph to 45 mph less than a mile from where the cameras are posted.
The city's traffic enforcement program was already embroiled in controversy in two separate instances involving a new law that took effect in July and imposes limitations on red light and speed camera enforcement programs.
In the first incident, the Bluff City Police Department fired an officer who allowed a reserve officer to review and approve hundreds of tickets after the law took effect. The law requires potential violations captured on camera to be reviewed and approved by an officer who is certified under the state's Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission.
The city estimated it would have to refund some $12,000 in collections as a result.
The second incident came when the city was hit with complaints, similar to those in the lawsuit, that one of its two cameras was positioned less than a mile from a sign that signaled a drop in the speed limit from 55 mph to 45 mph. The new state law bars the placement of speed cameras within a mile of any 10-mph drop in the speed limit.
City officials have said they believed their program was grandfathered, giving them until 2015 — when the contract with American Traffic Solutions expires — to make the change. However, an August state Attorney General's opinion opined that no such grandfather provision was included in the new law.
Bluff City last month shut down the offending camera and began the process of tallying refunds. Records showed that more than 1,300 tickets had been issued by that camera, which monitors the southbound side of the section of Highway 11E. Of those, 640 had already been paid.
The lawsuit alleges Bluff City dropped the speed on the section of Highway 11E that is subject to the speed camera enforcement program without performing "an engineering and traffic investigation pursuant to statute and, therefore, was negligent in assessing the need for (a) speed reduction on Highway 11E. Such reduction was much lower than required, thus creating a 'speed trap.'"
Bluff City and American Traffic Solutions have until Oct. 27 to file a formal response to the lawsuit. Neither attorney J. Paul Frye, who represents Bluff City, and attorney C. Crews Townsend, who represents American Traffic Solutions, responded to requests for comment Thursday.
See also:
2011 law bans 95% of redlight camera tickets in Tennessee, allows ignoring of the other 5%
"It is extremely easy to beat this type of ticket in court. Your easiest defense is to simply throw the ticket away. If it does not come with a return receipt that requires a signature, there is no proof that you actually got the ticket and they cannot prosecute you on that."
-Norman G. Fernandez, attorney at law, free ebook How to Beat a Speeding Ticket - Photo RADAR
75% of AZ Drivers Refuse to Pay Photo Traffic Tickets
85% of TX Drivers Refuse to Pay Photo Traffic Tickets
No comments:
Post a Comment