Quo Warranto - update

[CanItakeThe5th]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
LOUISIANA

QUO WARRANTO? - By what authority do you do this?

I live in Marrero, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.

Situation - Redflex Camera Red Light Ticket And I Wasn't Driving Or Even In The Vehicle !
Two Registered Owners - Only One Person Charged - At Random.

O.K. Just a little background to let you know my situation. I'm a retired cop and disabled. My car is registered to BOTH me and my wife.
I never received the first notice in the mail, only a second notice telling me I was in default on paying my fine in 30 days or contesting the violation which I never even knew I had incurred. It further said my failure to respond in 30 days constituted a waiver of my right to contest the violation.
I called the "Customer Service Center" (strange name huh?) and explained to the lady who answered that I had never gotten a 1st notice or summons for a traffic violation and had no Idea who was driving, as our son and daughter in-law both drive also from time to time getting things from the store for us as both my wife and I are disabled and have trouble getting around at times.
The woman was nice, but insisted that since the car was registered to me, blah,blah,blah. She sent me out a copy of the original which I got in the mail day before yesterday.
The problem I have is as follows:

1)

Section 36-313
Effect of liability.
The imposition of a penalty under this ordinance constitutes an alternative method of detecting and deterring red-light violations. No fine imposed hereunder for such violations will result in notification to the Louisiana Department of Motor Vehicles, to the vehicle owner's insurance company or to the insurance company of any person on whom a fine is imposed under this article. An owner who fails to pay the fine and/or enforcement costs imposed under this article or to timely contest liability for said fines and/or costs shall be considered to have admitted liability for the full amount of the fines and costs stated in the notice of violation mailed to the person and the matter will be turned over to the district attorney's office for further prosecution and collection. (Ord. No. 23083, § 1, 6-20-07)

As a retired cop, I am totally outraged that I have been deemed to have "admitted liability" to anything. I admit nothing! Have these people never heard of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments?

2)

I received NO PERSONAL SERVICE of the threatening violation notice sent by a PRIVATE COMPANY (Redflex). The first notice was alleged to have been sent by mail. I never received it. The second letter, claiming I was in default, which I did receive was neither registered nor certified. This was a video taken of our vehicle running a red light. I do not contest that, but it wasn't as though I got pulled over and personally served at the time. What about proof that I was in actual physical control of the vehicle? The violation occurred in January. It's now over half way through March. I don't know who was driving. That was not shown in the video. The vehicle is registered to two separate people, my wife and I. What formula was used to determine whom to cite?

3)

Section 36-313
Exoneration of registered owner.
The registered owner of a vehicle that proceeds into an intersection when the traffic signal for that vehicle's direction of travel is emitting a steady red signal who alleges that he was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the violation has the responsibility through sworn statement to prove that someone else other than the vehicle owner was driving the vehicle at the time the violation occurred. The vehicle owner's sworn statement must provide the name, address, and contact phone number for the person whom the vehicle owner alleges was driving the vehicle. Failure to file a statement with the proper information will result in owner's continued liability for any fines and costs assessed for the violation. In addition, failure of the person alleged by the vehicle owner to have been driving the vehicle at the time of the violation to pay any and all fines or costs assessed for said violation shall result in the continued liability of the vehicle owner for said fines and costs. (Ord. No. 23083, § 1, 6-20-07)

O.K Here is the problem with the above "Exoneration".
This sounds like some type of Kangaroo Court.
What? I have to prove my innocence? I thought the burden of proof was on the prosecutor, not the accused. Do they think this is France?
If I wasn't driving, I am forced to testify (by signing a sworn affidavit) against my wife as the co-owner or anyone else whom she or I may have given permission to operate the vehicle?
Since I was not driving, I am required to name another offender for THEM? I don't work for them; it’s not my job to testify against anyone else, especially since I have no idea who was driving.
Why was I identified as the offender? Our vehicle registration clearly list both myself AND my wife as the owners.
Did someone just flip a coin and decide to cite me instead of my wife?
The JP Sheriff’s deputy, badge number 116090 signed a sworn affidavit that he saw the pictures and that a violation had occurred.
I note that he did NOT say that I was the one who was driving.

4)

So I am deemed guilty without due process of law as required by the United States Constitution.
I am told that I can avoid a $110.00 fine plus $25.00 "late fee" plus who knows how much (on my experience as an officer for the court at least $100.00) more for "court cost" if I contest this "traffic violation"; if I will just accuse someone else of driving the vehicle. To compound this, if I could name the driver I am still liable if they refused to pay. So what is the point of swearing an affidavit?
The notice says It will be heard be a judge. What kind of "court" will hear this, and what kind of "judge"? It sure doesn't sound like it will be regular traffic court in Jefferson Parish, as I was not issued a traffic citation.
I am denied the right to confront my accusers because there are none.

In summation, I would sincerely like a bit of advice here. We are poor folk. I cannot afford an attorney, much less the cost of this so called "traffic violation" where I was not issued a ticket, there was no personal service to me of this notice, no witness to accuse me, only to accuse the vehicle.
I know this is 2009 and they have all kinds of high tech stuff like there like these red light videos, but since they can't put me behind the wheel it seems more like 1984. If I contest this, and am found "guilty" by a kangaroo court and cannot pay, will I go to jail?

QUO WARRANTO - By what authority do they do this? How can they take a CRIME and turn it into a civil matter, all done without personal service or due process? If a deputy stopped the vehicle for running a red light, it would be a crime - LA R.S. 32:42. At the deputy's discretion, a verbal warning could be issued. If not, a traffic citation would be issued and the driver would have the ability to confront his accuser in court to deny the violation if he was innocent.


UPDATE - It is now July 6th. Just received by regular mail (no personal service) a letter that claims to be from Jefferson Parish 2nd Parish Court demanding I appear on the 15th of this month for trial. I have no idea who sent it, as it is not signed nor a seal embossed. No name of sender. No signature. I could have created this on my PC and printed it. It states that a warrant for my arrest will be issued if I fail to appear.
Since I was not served and no name of sender appears at the bottom nor signature of sender as is customary, I am quite tempted to throw it in the trash can and let them come take me. Maybe they will do that by mail also.

Everything I have received as a demand from these people appears to violate my 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Any help or advice is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

 

[Maestro64]

Okay, I find it kind of funny a police officer that is sworn to up the laws of his state is outraged at this kind of ticket and the practice his state is using to suck money out of the citizens pockets....

Really, most all these laws are civil infraction and as you know there is no real due process is due to you in a civil matter. They basically say your guilty unless you can prove otherwise. They write the laws in such a way to allow them to issue a ticket/fine to the cars owner and that could be a business name with no proof or verification that owner actually did anything wrong. In some places they do not even have to prove you even knew your car was actually involved, as just happen to you. They are claiming they mailed you a ticket but they have no proof of that and in a civil issue many times that does not matter.

You do not even know if the lights are rigged, as has been well documented all over the place, they shorten the yellow that forces a higher ticket rate. Depending on how they wrote the law, they could also force you to tell them who was driving or you still have to pay.

As you probably figured you are in a no win situation, yes you are correct your right are being stomped all over, however they know they have they upper hand, you have way more to loose then them, you can ignore it and be within your rights, but the town will make sure it cost you way more than the cost of the ticket to come out ahead. If you really want to win, you could but they make it so costly to do so. You can go to court and point out all the things that are in violation of the law and your rights and mostly likely the court will not care.

The simple thing to do is demand to see the driver of the car, if they can not show it or it is someone else, deny responsibility and ask it to be dismissed. However, be prepared for redflex to issue another ticket to your wife since she is also a registered owner. Also, if there are other register drivers at the same address they could issue it to them if they have a photo of the driver and access to the DMV records.

Lastly, Louisiana laws are very different then the rest of the US, they follow old French Laws so what we assume is correct or wrong in one state does not apply in Louisiana, as noted by their use of words.

 

[CanItakeThe5th]

Maestro67, thank you for your response. I'm sorry that you find it funny that a former, disabled-1995, police officer would be outraged at having his civil rights violated. I presume from this that you assume that just because we have had a few bad apples in all departments and probably always will, that I was one of those type. Or maybe because I had a traffic citation book, which I did use occasionally, that this is some type of poetic justice or karma. Sorry if you have had a bad experience with a peace officer in the past, but that's not my fault.
You know the old saying about the what happens when you "assume" anything, I presume. Shure, I wrote many traffic citations in my carreer, but you should be aware that I gave more verbal warnings than written citations. The same was true for most of the other officers I worked with. It is a concept known as "officer's discretion". Believe it or not, there really are some folks in uniform out there who truly believe and practice the concept of "To Protect and To Serve".
You are correct about the "civil matter". That is the entire point. Under Louisiana law, R.S. 32:42 , running a red light is a crime, not a "civil matter. The main point of my posting was the legal question of Quo Warranto - by what authority do you do this? The Jefferson Parish Council appears to have decided by fiat that they have the authority to change a crime into a violation of a Parish Ordinance. Gee that sounds great for the Parish Deputies, huh? Why not enact similar edicts for another "Traffic Violation" like DWI. I'm sure all the drunk drivers in Jefferson Parish would love that. My point is that whil that may seem an extreme example, the point is how can you take a crime and turn it into a civil matter? Just because it is "traffic" related does not mean it is not a crime. As noted, it is indeed a crime. That is what the fine print on a traffic ticket says to you, including the fact yhat you can be arrested for the crime if you do not pay or show up for trial.
Redlex, a privately owned company mails out a letter, threatening you with arrest if you do not pay. What the @#&*@?
While I'm aware of the historical nature of French influence in Louisiana, the point is that NO Parish can pass a law which violates either the La. State Constitution, nor a law that violates the US Constitution.

 

[Maestro64]

My comment was not a personal one towards yo, nor have I had any bad experience with police, others might tell a different story. I\t more from the point of view that most people in law enforcement tend to have the feeling it is the law and you should just pay the fine.

I agree with your assessment of the situation, but face it they did exactly what you said they are not allow to do and they are using scare tactics to make sure people pay. If they were truly interested in doing what was right the they make make sure lights were timed properly and intersection were built properly.

Anyway, if this is State law and not town ordinance and still criminal and not civil you might have hope at winning since all criminal rules and procedures apply, like you have a right to confront your accuser in this case a camera, they have to prove it was you and not someone else, and you are not required to legally identify someone.

However, if it some local ordinance, it up to them on the level of burden that must provide, some location treat red light cameras like parking ticket, the ticket goes to the owner and it is a civil matter.

 

[CanItakeThe5th]

Maestro64, thanks again for your take on this and responding. No, I wasn't taking it personally. In fact, you are certainly correct in most resprcts. However, what I was trying to get at was that as a former LEO, I still remember most of my law. Strongly on US Constitutional rights of Citizens. Yes, some of those Citizens I came in contact with had, in my true and actual belief or eye witness, had committed some type of criminal act. That covers anything from traffic violations to major state felonies; I even had the pleasure of apprehending and making sure that quite a few illegal aliens got deported in my time. That was '77 to '95. Long time ago, not PC to do that now
Back to the main issue though. In 18 years of service, I do not believe that I EVER violated a suspect's civil rights. In that time I made THOUSANDS of arrests, and issued God alone knows how many traffic citations. I was strict, but fair. In an unknown number of my professional contact with people though, after talking to the person and hearing explanations or excuses that sounded legitimate; I LET THEM OFF WITH A WARNING.
Please don't take that to mean I think I should simply be let off the hook here. It's not that at all. My point is the violators had a real, live, judicious HUMAN BEING whom was a sworn police officer making a sworn affidavit that some type of offence had occured. NOT some da%@ MACHINE. As a real, live person, the violators whom had the pleasure of having contact with me could beg for mercy or whatever, and I could exercise my legal authority to exercise DISCRETION to cite or not; to arrest or not.
These machines don't give a rat's rear end about right or wrong, your Constitutional Rights or anything else.
OOH, yeah.... The Deputy who "revieved the video" is sitting there doing that and only that. There is a reason why people in a police department get assigned to certain duties where they NEVER go out on the street and deal with you, the public. It is never talked about openly, but all policemen know it to be a fact that it is places like that where you put the idiots and the outright A@@holes that are only there because they "know somebody".
Know of an idiot or moron that you can't fire for political reasons? Just make him a turnkey at the lockup or some desk job like watching videos all day. They swear an affidavit that a violation has occured, but do not say who committed the violation.
Some folks need a lesson on what their rights are in this country.
I'll list here the main ones that are involved in this situation and let others see for themselves what my beef with this so called citation and threat of arrest is all about.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
________________________________________

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

What say you?

 

[Maestro64]

There is no doubt you know your rights, and there is a group of people here who I fondly refer to as "Your Guilt" crowd should come by and learn a few things.

Anyway, you have one advantage everyone else who shows up here does not have. You are part of the brotherhood and if you walked in court and stated what you stated here and tell them your a retired officer they would give you more consideration then the rest of us trying the exact same thing.

I remember the time when you got pulled over and you showed the up most respect and if the officer felt it was an honest mistake and was not placing anyone in danger you would get a warning. However in this day and age governments are using the police to collect money for the budgets. Yes they do not uses words like Ticket quotas, however, they make it clear that department budgets and pay raises are directly related to how "busy" an officer is on the roads. This creates an ethical dilemma for most officers write tickets and keep the job or do what is right and possible loose your job,

It a shame it is like this and you are now dealing with current status quo

 

[CanItakeThe5th]

Maestro64 - There is no doubt you either know a LEO, or have gotten a very accurate description 2nd hand from someone who does, or perhaps lastly, are one of the few who bother to truly research a subject via the internet before posting. Whatever the case, I salute you Sir for your very descriptive and accurate observations of things that were not only common place, but were a requirement “back in the day” for any street police officer to not only remain employed, but to have any chance for promotion or pay increase.

There is one term here that I should have given a better initial definition and history of here. That is the title of this thread that I started here. I will do my best to correct that as follows:

Quo Warranto is Midieval Latin for "by what warrant?”. In the United States today, Quo Warranto usually arises in a civil case as a plaintiff’s claim (and thus a "cause of action" (instead of a writ) that some Governmental or corporate official was not validly elected to that office or is wrongfully exercising powers beyond (or Ultra Vires – Latin for “beyond the powers&#8221 those authorized by Statute or by the corporation's charter.
On reflection of the above, one can easily see what may have caused Shakespeare’s famous tome to include at one point, “First we kill all the lawyers”. Actually I think we need to just stop electing them to any type of public office where they always feel compelled to use Latin (which is a dead language) when writing American law, when our official language is and always has been English (current PC notwithstanding). The only excuse for this modern day BS to continue nolo contendere (or for us English speakers; “without contest&#8221 is that it perpetuates the need for lawyers because the average Joe can’t understand what is written in the law when they come across Latin words and phrases mixed in with clearly written and easily understandable English.

That said, I hope that this gives all readers of this thread a better understanding of where I’m coming from. I may be poor due to disability, but I’m not stupid.

In this instance we have a government entity, the Jefferson Parish Council; and a private corporation, Redflex, in contract and trough what amounts to governmental fiat; in a conspiracy to violate Civil Rights guaranteed by not only the State Constitution, but the U.S. Constitution. The Jefferson Parish Council passed an parish ordinance that takes an act (running a red light) which is a crime under state law (LRS 32:42), which it is impossible prove that the registered owner was operating, and by virtue of that ordinance decides that at intersections with Redflex traffic light system cameras and ONLY at said intersections, that criminal act is turned into a civil matter in a conspiracy to deny the REGISTERED OWNER of the vehicle their rights to their 5th, 6th, and 14th amendment protections (see previous post if some of you don’t know your basic civil rights), while at any intersection WITHOUT a Redflex camera, the person in actual, physical control of the vehicle who commits THE SAME ACT has committed a CRIME (see your rights posted previously regarding equal treatment under law and due process).

O.K. so a Federal class action law suit was recently thrown out basically because the judge said that she didn’t want to hear it (can you all say “HOPE, CHANGE”?). It has been re-filed in State court, and I, for one, definitely will be a plaintiff in it.

Redflex installed 18 cameras at 11 intersections in September throughout Jefferson Parish, which have resulted in 49,903 tickets issued through Jan. 16. At $110.00 a pop IF paid to REDFLEX before an arbitrarily set “late date”, you do the math....

It is a little disheartening to imagine that probably most of these “violations” will simply be paid by a bunch of sheep who don’t even have the guts to stand up and say, “NO”when their basic civil rights are being trampled on through a money making scam between a PRIVATE CORPORATION, Redflex, and the Parish of Jefferson.

Civil Rights is no longer a "Black" thing. They are now, and always have been an "American" thing - if we do what we must to keep them.

What say you?