I suspect City of Knoxville Muni Corp is conspiring with Commie Chinese Lasercraft/ATS to lose this case on purpose, as an end run around the state law banning 100% of redlight scamera tickets. Notice how KNS always censors the actual facts and law from its adverts, er, so-called news?
"Lasercraft is a member of the Public Safety Equipment PSE group of companies. Public Safety Equipment (Intl) Ltd, Registered Office, Yeadon, Leeds, England. Beijing Mag Science & Technology Development Corp, Beijing, China."
http://www.lasercraftinc.com
http://www.pse-intl.com
http://www.maggroup.org
"Redflex Group is based in South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Redflex Holdings Limited was listed on the Australian Stock Exchange in January 1997. Redflex Traffic Systems Inc has contracts with more then 130 USA cities, and is the largest provider of digital red light and speed enforcement services in North America."
—Redflex.com
$500,000 Knoxville Redflex invoice paid to National Australia Bank
COP.
2. to steal; filch. 3. to buy (narcotics). 4. cop out, a. to avoid one's responsibility, the fulfillment of a promise, etc.; renege; back out. 5. cop a plea, a. to plead guilty or confess in return for receiving a lighter sentence. b. to plead guilty to a lesser charge; plea-bargain.
—Random House Unabridged Dictionary
"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."
-Norman G. Fernandez, attorney, BikerLawBlog.com, free ebook How to Beat a Speeding Ticket - Photo RADAR
"You've got all these speed cameras here. In L.A. people would say, 'Why don't you just shoot them out?'"
-Jay Leno, BBC Top Gear (crowd cheers wildly)
Tennessee: ATS Sues City Over Right Turn Ticket Money
Knoxville News Sentinel
11/11/11
Red light camera company sues a city because it is losing money without right on red citations.
Automated ticketing vendor American Traffic Solutions (ATS) filed suit Tuesday against Knoxville, Tennessee for its failure to issue tickets for turning right on a red light -- and that is costing the company a lot of money. A state law took effect in July banning the controversial turning tickets, but the Arizona-based firm contends the law should not apply to their legal agreement with the city, which anticipated the bulk of the money to come from this type of tickets.
Municipalities were disappointed in August when Attorney General Robert J. Cooper Jr shot down the argument that this statute somehow did not apply to existing contracts, writing that "the parties have no vested right in a particular level of revenue" (view opinion). ATS disagrees.
"Because of the uncertainty caused by the attorney general's opinion, Knoxville has been compelled to cease issuing citations to the owners of vehicles detected making illegal 'right turns on red' by traffic cameras based on the attorney general's opinion," ATS attorney C. Crews Townsend wrote. "In 2010, right-turn-on-red violations accounted for substantial fines collected by Knoxville pursuant to their respective ordinances. A portion of these fines were remitted to ATS pursuant to the agreement. This was a critical component of the agreement's consideration supporting the parties' contractual rights and obligations."
ATS bases its argument on the "legislative history" of the new law. Many friendly state lawmakers assured the company that a grandfather clause would be slipped into the bill. The final, adopted version contained no such language exempting existing photo enforcement programs from the law's provisions. ATS insists the lack of this provision is hurting the company's bottom line.
"Without a court order clarifying that Public Act 425 does not impact the agreement, the injury to ATS will remain significant, immediate and continuing," Townsend wrote. "If, as the attorney general has opined, Public Act 425 applies to existing contracts, including the agreement, then Public Act 425 has substantially impaired the agreement. Indeed, Knoxville has ceased prosecuting certain violations as required under the otherwise existing, valid, and enforceable agreement, and is causing ATS to lose substantial revenue."
ATS asked the Chancery Court for Knox County to declare the right turn law unconstitutional because it discriminates against traffic camera companies.
Lawsuit seeks to resume Knoxville red light camera citations -- Suit claims right-on-red ticket ban invalid
The vendor providing equipment for Knoxville's red-light camera enforcement program is suing the city because it no longer issues citations for improper right turns on red.
American Traffic Solutions Inc., based in Scottsdale, Ariz., filed the lawsuit Tuesday in Knox County Chancery Court. ATS has a five-year contract with Knoxville that was signed in 2009.
Tennessee lawmakers enacted Public Acts 425 this year, which since July 1 has banned issuing citations for an improper right turn on red if the only evidence is traffic camera video. While there were discussions among legislators about exempting existing contracts from the prohibition, that amendment did not make it into the final law.
Without that amendment, all cities across the state that had a contract with a red-light camera vendor had to cease issuing right-turn-on-red violations. The state attorney general in August issued an opinion stating the new law was constitutional and did not unlawfully impact existing contracts.
"Knoxville's decision has not been made in bad faith but is the result of the difficult position in which Knoxville has been placed in order to comply with Public Act 425," states the lawsuit.
"The statute inhibits Knoxville's ability to comply with the Agreement, a valid and enforceable contract and has caused ATS harm."
ATS's lawsuit basically asks the court to either declare Public Acts 425 to be unconstitutional because it impacts existing legal contracts with cities or to clarify that the law does not apply to existing agreements.
The legal filing also argues that the new law "irrationally disallows the use of photographic evidence to prosecute drivers who run red lights when turning right while allowing the use of photographic evidence to prosecute drivers who run red lights and continue straight through the intersection."
For Knoxville, the restriction on red-light violations for right turns on red has resulted in a nearly 90 percent drop in citations at the 14 intersections recording violations.
In Farragut, the new law has resulted in a nearly 50 percent reduction in citations, according to Ben Harkins, traffic enforcement manager for the town. Harkins said red-light camera citations have dropped from 2,812 issued in July, August, September and October of 2010 to 1,399 citations in the same time period this year,
Farragut has red-light cameras at four intersections. Those devices are supplied by RedFlex Traffic Systems.
Knoxville Police Department Capt. Gordon Catlett, who oversees the red-light camera enforcement program for the city, said red-light camera citations from August, September and October of 2010 totaled 30,078. For the same period this year, KPD has issued 3,224 citations based on the video evidence of a red-light camera.
"The big winners are the people who don't want to obey the law," Catlett said. "The big loser is the city of Knoxville, which loses its 50 percent margin."
The ATS contract with Knoxville does not specify a quota of monthly tickets, but includes a formula for sharing revenue from paid citations. Each violation carries a $50 fine. ATS gets 80 percent of all revenues up to $4,500 per camera per month. After revenues exceed $4,500, the money is split 50-50.
Knoxville has seen a significant reduction in revenues since passage of the law, according to Jim York, Knoxville finance director.
York said revenue for July, August and September from the red-light cameras has declined from $486,000 during that period in 2010 to $138,000 for the same months this year.
Catlett said that from Jan. 1, 2010, through Sept. 30, 2010, the city collected $1,417,020 in red-light camera revenues, but has seen collections drop to $740,689 for the same period this year. ATS' portion of red-light camera revenue for the same period has dropped from $2.085 million in 2010 to about $1.380 million this year.
Comments
Mr. Jacobs, You may want to recheck your facts. In the contract, with LaserCraft, (LaserCraft was purchased by A.T.S. last year), that was executed by then Mayor Haslam on February 3, 2009, in Exhibit “C” Titled “Maintenance”, In item # 12, it states; “At minimum, LaserCraft warrants and represents that seventy-five (75%) of all Potential Violations must be made available for prosecution.” Mr. Jacobs, that kind of looks like a quota requirement to me, what do you think? It does not say it’s a quota, but effectively it is a quota. It says that 75% of all violations that the system records, “must be made available for prosecution”, as in, a minimum of 75% of events recorded must receive citations according to the Contract.
Agreed, I talked with "Officer" Catlett and he is hands down one of the most ignorant and condescending people I've had the displeasure of dealing with. The man is nothing but a paid stooge for ATS. I don't mind paying a fine if I do something wrong but in my case ATS was mailing to the wrong address (One I've never even lived at!) and then charged me a $100 fine on top of the ticket and would refuse to drop it because of their mistake. Catlett and ATS are out for nothing but money and this lawsuit proves it. Personally, I got more choice words for Catlett but I'd rather not have my post removed.
I think the "must come to a complete stop" on a red turn actually makes things more danagerous. For example, you slow and are able to clearly see that you can safely go, but the gap is closing. Legally you have to stop completely while the gap continues to close, and when you are able go again, your gap in traffic is now much less. I know, you can come to a complete stop and wait for another gap, but the way people are, they will usually just try to go in the existing gap anyway, and thus the fact that they had to come to a complete stop (which they really have to do if it is a red light camera in which they ticket you if you don't) really makes it more dangerous because they are more likely to be hit by oncomming traffic. Of course, if someone doesn't bother to slow and make sure the coast is clear and just pulls out, that would be very dangerous. It seems to me that turning right on red should be a yield situation, not a complete stop situation.
To allow a FOR profit company to police a supposedly Free society goes against every fiber in my body. Supporters of this financial rape of citizens wrap their agenda up in a nice little box and cram it down our throats in the name of safety. I call BS
In most of these contracts around the country, municipalities have the right to “Terminate for Cause”, if the State of Federal Law changes, affecting the execution of the contracts. In the LaserCraft (ATS), contract with the City, from Article 4., titled “Termination”, section 4.1 “Termination for Cause”, it states; “Either party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the other if (i) federal or state statues are amended to prohibit or substantially change the operation of photo red light enforcement systems;......” With this provision being part of the contract, why is ATS suing the City?
Mr. Jacobs, Exhibit "C", page 29 of the contract is titled 'Maintenance", but it does not say anything about "Vehicle Owner information" or anything like it. What it does say, is: “11. LaserCraft warrants and represents that fewer than ten present (10%) of all Potential Violations will be rejected due to LaserCraft’s Photo Red Light Enforcement Program’s inability to identify the registered owner of the vehicle, the state the vehicle is from, or the tag number on the license plate.” “12. At minimum, LaserCraft warrants and represents that seventy-five (75%) of all Potential Violations must be made available for prosecution.” This is the only reference to a Vehicle owner’s information on the entire page. If you couple this contract information with LaserCraft’s “Prosecutable Image Rates” claim in their proposals, a different meaning starts to become clear. “LaserCraft is aware that a few proposals submitted to the City will suggest that some Red Light Camera systems issue a low percentage of citations vs. actual violations. LaserCraft designed our system to capture the highest number of violations and issue the highest number of citations. As demonstrated by the table below, our issuance rate is better that 95% with the system we propose to Knoxville.” So LaserCraft claims that they have better than a 95% issuance rate for citations, and in the City of Knoxville they guarantee that at a minimum, 75% of all recorded violations will result in a prosecution, or issuance of a Violation. Call it what you want, the people of Knoxville know what it actually is.
The language in the LaserCraft contract, and its proposals, fits the very definition of Quota. Maybe you should read the definition of quota:
QUOTA
1: a proportional part or share; especially : the share or proportion assigned to each in a division or to each member of a body
2: the number or amount constituting a proportional share
3: a fixed number or percentage of minority group members or women needed to meet the requirements of affirmative action"
-Websters Dictionary
QUOTA
1.the share or proportional part of a total that is required from, or is due or belongs to, a particular district, state, person, group, etc.
2.a proportional part or share of a fixed total amount or quantity.
3.the number or percentage of persons of a specified kind permitted to enroll in a college, join a club, immigrate to a country, etc.
-Dictionary.com
I figured you for a mindless pig, and whaddya know? I was right. No one mentioned anything about school zones and no one is believing your fairy tale about 10-15 tix a day with little kids being bounced all over Knoxville with you being there to save them from certain disaster. By the way, the difference between turning right, merging into traffic and blasting straight through multiple lanes is obvious to anyone who doesn't have his over inflated head up his own self-serving rear end. I'll let you get back to saving the world now, Clark Kent.
"Boy I'm sure ats is upset at loosing a potential $2,679,900.00 year.
It breaks down ats gets $40 local gov. get $10 out of the $50 ticket with ats up to $4500 then it splits the $50 50/50 $25 each.
Now the numbers "I rounded a little".
30,000+ tickets for three months.
Ats $4500/$40= 113 tickets"rounded up"
Local gov 113 tickets X$10 = $1,300
That takes care of the first part of the money contract per month.
Now the 10,000tickets-113tickets=9887tickets.
9887ticketsX$25=$247,175.00 each per month.
Take ats $4500+$247,175.00=$251,675.00
3monthsX$251,675.00=$755,025.00
for the year $3,020,100.00
----
local
same 113 tickets X $10=$1,300.00
9887tickets X$25=247,175.00
$1,300X$247,175.00=$248,475.00
3 months X $248,475.00=$745,425.00
for the year $2,981,700.00
---
Grand total fleeced from the driver
$6,001,800.00 Just for the right on red.
NOT counting the red light scamers
or the speed trap scamers
JUST RIGHT ON RED.
Tell me the scamera's are not a money maker."
Reality Check
"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."
-Norman G. Fernandez, attorney, BikerLawBlog.com, free ebook How to Beat a Speeding Ticket - Photo RADAR
http://bikerlawblog.com
Only the DUMB pay Photo Radar Tickets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8b0K6YIGFc
"Your photo radar defense: Ignoring The Letter. When you receive a general post letter advising you of your photo radar citation, you have the option of just ignoring it. All states have guidelines on how the citation must be served. In effect, your payment or appearance at the courthouse is your acceptance of service. By not responding to the letter, you are refusing acceptance of service. In addition, none of the departments are making personal service to anyone that lists a PO Box as their mailing address on their vehicle registrations."
-Lt "Radar" Roy Reyer, Maricopa County Sheriff Office, Phoenix, Arizona, RadarBusters.com, Your Photo Radar Defense
75% of AZ Drivers Refuse to Pay Photo Traffic Tickets
85% of TX Drivers Refuse to Pay Photo Traffic Tickets
http://naturaltreasure.net/scameras/?p=224
"Starting tomorrow, photo-enforcement-violation notices must finally state the truth about what's going on -- namely, that you don't need to respond or identify the driver in the picture. Cities and, for a while, the state of Arizona, have for years employed something of a ruse to help get speeders and red-light runners caught by the machines to pay up. They sent an initial notice of violation that has no legal teeth, yet contained a passive threat that blowing off the notice might not be in the motorists' best interest. A few years ago, we caught the city of Scottsdale lying blatantly in its notices, which it falsely called a "summons." The notice stated that those who didn't respond would be subject to fines, fees and driver's license suspension. An Arizona Department of Public Safety notice of violation that we published two years ago shows the more-typical trick. Appearing below DPS insignia, the notice states simply that the motorist should fill out the form and sent it back by the "respond-by date." While the DPS freeway cameras were online, (that program ended last summer), thousands of people likely responded like sheep to those notices -- even though they didn't have to. As numerous articles in New Times and elsewhere have pointed out, ignoring those notices only meant the possibility of a ticket being served at the offender's home by a process server. True, having a server come out meant an additional $25 added to the fine. But if the server never comes, or the motorist doesn't appear to be home when the server comes -- always a distinct possibility -- then the photo enforcement ticket becomes invalid. Now, thanks to a bill that Governor Jan Brewer signed, notices of violation must confess that: (a) the notice is not a court issued document; (b) the recipient is under no obligation to identify the person or respond to the notice; and (c) failure to respond to the notice may result in official service that may result in an additionally levied fee. The new law also mandates that $13 of every ticket goes to the "GITEM" task force, which has a mission of "strict enforcement" of immigration and gang laws."
-Phoenix News Times, Arizona Photo-Enforcement Notices Must Now State the Truth: Motorists Have No Duty to Respond or Identify Driver, Jul. 19 2011
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/07/arizona_photo_enforcement_noti.php
Knoxville Code, Section 8-1, Issuance of process.
The city judge shall issue process on the complaint of any person when it appears to the city judge that any provision of this Code or other ordinance of the city has been violated. He shall try no case until process has been regularly sued out, served and returned.
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientid=11098
TN Rules of Civil Procedure
RULE 4. PROCESS
Rule 4.01: Summons; Issuance; By Whom Served; Sanction for Delay.
(1) Upon the filing of the complaint the clerk of the court wherein the complaint is filed shall forthwith issue the required summons and cause it, with necessary copies of the complaint and summons, to be delivered for service to any person authorized to serve process. This person shall serve the summons, and the return endorsed thereon shall be proof of the time and manner of service. A summons may be issued for service in any county against any defendant, and separate or additional summonses may be issued against any defendant upon request of plaintiff. Nothing in this rule shall affect existing laws with respect to venue.
(2) A summons and complaint may be served by any person who is not a party and is not less than 18 years of age. The process server must be identified by name and address on the return.
(3) If a plaintiff or counsel for plaintiff (including third-party plaintiffs) intentionally causes delay of prompt issuance of a summons or prompt service of a summons, filing of the complaint (or third-party complaint) is ineffective.
[Amended by order filed December 10, 2003; effective July 1, 2004.]
Rule 4.03: Summons; Return.
(1) The person serving the summons shall promptly make proof of service to the court and shall identify the person served and shall describe the manner of service. If a summons is not served within 90 days after its issuance, it shall be returned stating the reasons for failure to serve. The plaintiff may obtain new summonses from time to time, as provided in Rule 3, if any prior summons has been returned unserved or if any prior summons has not been served within 90 days of issuance.
(2) When process is served by mail, the original summons, endorsed as below; an affidavit of the person making service setting forth the person's compliance with the requirements of this rule; and, the return receipt shall be sent to and filed by the clerk. The person making service shall endorse over his or her signature on the original summons the date of mailing a certified copy of the summons and a copy of the complaint to the defendant and the date of receipt of return receipt from the defendant. If the return receipt is signed by the defendant, or by person designated by Rule 4.04 or by statute, service on the defendant shall be complete. If not, service by mail may be attempted again or other methods authorized by these rules or by statute may be used.
http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/courts/rules
No comments:
Post a Comment