[00:00.000 --> 00:04.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[00:04.000 --> 00:11.000]  Activists in Texas Monday blockaded six buses carrying soldiers deploying from Fort Hood to Iraq.
[00:11.000 --> 00:16.000]  The action was organized by Iraq and Afghan veterans and aimed at preventing the deployment
[00:16.000 --> 00:23.000]  of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment to Iraq, where Barack Obama claims combat operations have ended.
[00:23.000 --> 00:30.000]  On Sunday, motorcyclists decksing Patriot paraphernalia headed to Lower Manhattan to protest
[00:30.000 --> 00:33.000]  an Islamic Center opening near Ground Zero.
[00:33.000 --> 00:37.000]  Defenders of the Islamic Center also staged a protest nearby.
[00:37.000 --> 00:40.000]  Police isolated the two groups.
[00:40.000 --> 00:43.000]  In Pakistan, 36 people were killed Monday.
[00:43.000 --> 00:49.000]  The deadliest blast was a suicide attack at a mosque inside a religious school in South Waziristan
[00:49.000 --> 00:53.000]  that killed 26 people and injured 40.
[00:53.000 --> 00:58.000]  An attack on the outskirts of Peshawar killed the leader of an anti-Taliban militia,
[00:58.000 --> 01:02.000]  Ishwar Khan, and two aides as he passed through a market.
[01:02.000 --> 01:06.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:06.000 --> 01:11.000]  Citizen states across the nation are selling and leasing everything from airports to zoos,
[01:11.000 --> 01:17.000]  a fire sale that's helping plug budget holes now but worsening their financial woes in the long run.
[01:17.000 --> 01:20.000]  California is looking to shed office buildings.
[01:20.000 --> 01:26.000]  Milwaukee has proposed selling its water supply, and in Louisiana and Georgia, airports are up for grabs.
[01:26.000 --> 01:34.000]  Royal Bank of Scotland says about 35 deals are in the pipeline with a market value of about $45 billion.
[01:34.000 --> 01:37.000]  Analysts say hundreds more deals are being considered,
[01:37.000 --> 01:41.000]  illustrating the increasingly tight financial squeeze gripping communities.
[01:41.000 --> 01:49.000]  Many citizen states are also using asset sales to balance budgets ravaged by declines in tax revenues and unfunded pensions.
[01:49.000 --> 01:57.000]  Millionaire investor Warren Buffett said he worried about how municipalities will pay for public workers' retirement and health benefits,
[01:57.000 --> 02:03.000]  saying the federal government may be compelled to bail out states.
[02:03.000 --> 02:10.000]  A new study has found dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah,
[02:10.000 --> 02:20.000]  which was bombarded by U.S. Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
[02:20.000 --> 02:26.000]  Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukemia, a 10-fold increase in breast cancer,
[02:26.000 --> 02:30.000]  and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumors in adults.
[02:30.000 --> 02:40.000]  Doctors' claims have been supported by a survey showing a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in under-14s.
[02:40.000 --> 02:48.000]  U.S. Marines bombarded Fallujah in April 2004 after four Blackwater employees were killed and their bodies burned.
[02:48.000 --> 02:52.000]  In retaliation, Marines stormed the city with artillery and bombs.
[02:52.000 --> 02:56.000]  U.S. military later admitted they had used white phosphorus.
[02:56.000 --> 03:01.000]  This news brief was brought to you by the International News Network.
[03:26.000 --> 03:32.000]  Bad boys, what you want, what you want, what you gonna do
[03:32.000 --> 03:37.000]  When the mission don't come for you
[03:37.000 --> 03:44.000]  Tell me, what you wanna do, what you gonna do
[03:44.000 --> 03:51.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you
[03:51.000 --> 03:56.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you
[03:56.000 --> 03:59.000]  When you are eight and your head betrayed
[03:59.000 --> 04:02.000]  Then you go to school and learn the golden rule
[04:02.000 --> 04:05.000]  So why are you acting like a bloody brute
[04:05.000 --> 04:07.300]  If you get high and mustered through
[04:07.300 --> 04:13.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you
[04:13.000 --> 04:19.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you
[04:19.000 --> 04:30.000]  You chuck it on that one, you chuck it on this one, you chuck it on your mother and you chuck it on your father, you chuck it on your brother and you chuck it on your sister, you chuck it on that one and you chuck it on me.
[04:30.000 --> 04:33.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do?
[04:33.000 --> 04:41.000]  All right, bad boys and bad girls, what are you gonna do when we come for you with The Rule of Law?
[04:41.000 --> 04:57.000]  Here on ruleoflawradio.com, Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig and Deborah Stevens. Tonight is traffic night and we are going to be discussing red light cameras, specifically the red light camera issue here in Austin, Texas.
[04:57.000 --> 05:01.000]  We have a very special guest attorney, Bill Davis.
[05:01.000 --> 05:02.000]  Hello.
[05:02.000 --> 05:11.000]  Hello Bill, thank you for joining us tonight. We want to thank Russell Mortlund for passing the tip along to us to have attorney Bill Davis on the air.
[05:11.000 --> 05:25.000]  Attorney Bill Davis has won some cases concerning these traffic red light cameras and Bill, we're going to be talking about that a little bit later, but first I want to just ask you, how did you get involved in this?
[05:25.000 --> 05:31.000]  What made you, what inspired you with this passion to want to fight the red light cameras?
[05:31.000 --> 05:36.000]  Well, very briefly, I never even heard of them until I got this mysterious letter in the mail one day.
[05:36.000 --> 05:44.000]  I was one of the recipients of one of these communications supposedly from the city of Austin and that's what started it.
[05:44.000 --> 05:56.000]  And then a friend of mine was also victim at a later point in time and then a relative of mine in another state, same company involved, same Australian company.
[05:56.000 --> 06:03.000]  And you know, you can see what, you can very quickly see what a problem it is all over the place.
[06:03.000 --> 06:13.000]  But I was angered by the way the city of Austin implemented it, the legislation and the whole process.
[06:13.000 --> 06:16.000]  All right, so you got one of these in the mail.
[06:16.000 --> 06:23.000]  You never even heard of it before and so it started you down this path and tell us what you found.
[06:23.000 --> 06:34.000]  You wanted to talk to us about the Implementing Act, which is the act passed by the state legislature that brought these red light cameras into existence here in the state of Texas.
[06:34.000 --> 06:42.000]  And then you're also going to clue us in on the city ordinances here in Austin concerning these red light cameras.
[06:42.000 --> 06:44.000]  Sure.
[06:44.000 --> 06:53.000]  Basically a few cities tried implementing these. You have to understand they're often approached by these red light camera vendors.
[06:53.000 --> 06:57.000]  Most of the red light camera vendors aren't even in the United States.
[06:57.000 --> 07:02.000]  They're actually Australian or England or from other countries.
[07:02.000 --> 07:08.000]  They have operations in the United States, but they're not even, you know, U.S. companies typically.
[07:08.000 --> 07:17.000]  They approach these cities promising this utopian, you know, claim that they're going to solve traffic accidents,
[07:17.000 --> 07:24.000]  cut down on traffic accidents and generate tons of revenue for the city and they're going to take a small part of it for compensation.
[07:24.000 --> 07:31.000]  And this started a few years before 2007, but the Attorney General had rendered an opinion saying,
[07:31.000 --> 07:39.000]  hey, the state of Texas Department of Transportation, you know, traffic controls are regulated by the state
[07:39.000 --> 07:41.000]  and cities do not have the authority to do this.
[07:41.000 --> 07:51.000]  And in fact, it's a criminal citation or criminal offense and cities don't have the right to create their own civil offense.
[07:51.000 --> 07:58.000]  And in 2007, Senator Corona, who's known for other privatization efforts,
[07:58.000 --> 08:03.000]  authored a bill that looks like it was written for the benefit of Red Flex and the vendors
[08:03.000 --> 08:07.000]  and basically anybody except for a driver or taxpayer.
[08:07.000 --> 08:12.000]  That was Senate Bill 1191 that became law in 2007.
[08:12.000 --> 08:19.000]  And basically cities had to write ordinances in order to implement red light cameras.
[08:19.000 --> 08:36.000]  They had to adopt ordinances that were compliant with the Senate Bill, which became law, which is actually implemented in Chapter 707 of the Transportation Code.
[08:36.000 --> 08:39.000]  And what year was this that they did this?
[08:39.000 --> 08:40.000]  2007.
[08:40.000 --> 08:41.000]  Okay.
[08:41.000 --> 08:56.000]  2007 is when Senate Bill 1191 became the enabling legislation and it was the photographic traffic signals were implemented as Chapter 707 of the Texas Transportation Code.
[08:56.000 --> 09:01.000]  And then the City of Austin immediately adopted an ordinance.
[09:01.000 --> 09:10.000]  It's Article 6, Section 12, which deals with automated red light enforcement.
[09:10.000 --> 09:12.000]  And where would you like to go from there?
[09:12.000 --> 09:13.000]  Okay.
[09:13.000 --> 09:16.000]  So when did you get your ticket?
[09:16.000 --> 09:18.000]  Oh, I got one last year.
[09:18.000 --> 09:23.000]  I can't remember the exact month, but it was very troubling.
[09:23.000 --> 09:24.000]  You get this thing in the mail.
[09:24.000 --> 09:28.000]  You look at it and you go, when did this happen?
[09:28.000 --> 09:29.000]  I don't remember this.
[09:29.000 --> 09:37.000]  And the citation is sent to the registered owner of the vehicle who is presumed to be the responsible party.
[09:37.000 --> 09:38.000]  That's the default presumption.
[09:38.000 --> 09:46.000]  And if you don't challenge it, there will be a default ruling against you or you're presumed to simply be liable.
[09:46.000 --> 09:53.000]  And the more troubling things, you couldn't tell from the picture exactly where the intersection was.
[09:53.000 --> 10:03.000]  And I mean there were just so many problems with the document, not the least of which was the metered part of the envelope.
[10:03.000 --> 10:05.000]  People ought to save the envelopes when they get these things.
[10:05.000 --> 10:12.000]  If you look carefully, you'll see that the metered stamp, like people are familiar with postal meters,
[10:12.000 --> 10:17.000]  or private postal meters, is actually a zip code out of Arizona.
[10:17.000 --> 10:22.000]  So I was quite shocked to find out that the city of Austin apparently had a branch somewhere in Arizona
[10:22.000 --> 10:26.000]  that was using city letterhead, city envelopes, and shipping these things out.
[10:26.000 --> 10:33.000]  That's what led me down this rabbit trail and learned that the city of Austin is the dog,
[10:33.000 --> 10:39.000]  the tail wagging the dog is Red Flex, and every aspect of this is outsourced.
[10:39.000 --> 10:42.000]  I mean the city of Austin is just there for appearances.
[10:42.000 --> 10:46.000]  It's all run by Red Flex in this area.
[10:46.000 --> 10:49.000]  Does the city of Austin even get anything from this?
[10:49.000 --> 10:55.000]  Well, according to their contract, they have, I would call it an unlawful fee-splitting provision
[10:55.000 --> 11:01.000]  according to the enabling legislation.
[11:01.000 --> 11:05.000]  They have what Red Flex calls revenue neutral provisions,
[11:05.000 --> 11:08.000]  but yes, the city of Austin does get something from this,
[11:08.000 --> 11:14.000]  and the city of Austin is supposed to split part of it with an area regional promise center.
[11:14.000 --> 11:16.000]  I have no idea if they're complying with that.
[11:16.000 --> 11:24.000]  But based upon the city of Austin's contract, and given that the statute,
[11:24.000 --> 11:31.000]  Chapter 707 of the transportation code prohibits the fee-splitting arrangement,
[11:31.000 --> 11:37.000]  it would appear that the way Austin is doing it and the contract is in violation of the statute.
[11:37.000 --> 11:42.000]  In other states like the state of California, similar provisions that Red Flex has
[11:42.000 --> 11:48.000]  have been found to be in violation of law.
[11:48.000 --> 11:52.000]  Okay, explain specifically how it's in violation of law.
[11:52.000 --> 11:57.000]  Well, if you want the exact citation,
[11:57.000 --> 12:08.000]  there is a Chapter 707 of the transportation code in Section 707.003b
[12:08.000 --> 12:13.000]  provides that a local authority that contracts for the administration and enforcement
[12:13.000 --> 12:16.000]  of a photographic traffic signal enforcement system
[12:16.000 --> 12:22.000]  may not agree to pay the contractor a specified percentage of or a dollar amount
[12:22.000 --> 12:25.000]  from each civil penalty collected.
[12:25.000 --> 12:30.000]  Well, the agreement that they have with the city of Austin is that below a certain amount,
[12:30.000 --> 12:32.000]  they call it the revenue neutral system.
[12:32.000 --> 12:40.000]  Austin is not liable for any amount that it doesn't collect until it exceeds, well,
[12:40.000 --> 12:44.000]  Red Flex is supposed to get something close to $5,000 a month per camera.
[12:44.000 --> 12:47.000]  If Austin doesn't collect an amount per camera,
[12:47.000 --> 12:52.000]  then Austin does not have to pay Red Flex at that time,
[12:52.000 --> 12:54.000]  but if it exceeds that amount the next month,
[12:54.000 --> 13:00.000]  it's sort of like it's accruing balance that Red Flex is going to collect to the extent money comes in.
[13:00.000 --> 13:02.000]  It's supposed to be a revenue neutral situation.
[13:02.000 --> 13:08.000]  But if you look at it to the extent that it exceeds $5,000 a month,
[13:08.000 --> 13:10.000]  the city of Austin gets to keep it.
[13:10.000 --> 13:16.000]  What you really have is a fee splitting arrangement where Red Flex gets 100% below,
[13:16.000 --> 13:23.000]  gets one percentage if it's below $5,000 and a different percentage if it's above $5,000 a month.
[13:23.000 --> 13:30.000]  And agreements like that were designed to try and get around the fee splitting arrangement,
[13:30.000 --> 13:32.000]  but at least in other states,
[13:32.000 --> 13:39.000]  those attempts to avoid the fee splitting provisions have been found to be unlawful,
[13:39.000 --> 13:42.000]  at least in the state of California, for example.
[13:42.000 --> 13:47.000]  Well, it sounds like it's unlawful here, too, and it sounds like it's time for a lawsuit.
[13:47.000 --> 13:51.000]  I think anybody that gets one of these should challenge it, and I sincerely mean that.
[13:51.000 --> 13:53.000]  This is really about the money.
[13:53.000 --> 13:54.000]  This is not about safety.
[13:54.000 --> 13:56.000]  It was never about safety.
[13:56.000 --> 14:01.000]  You know, red light running was a criminal offense, and it still is a criminal offense,
[14:01.000 --> 14:06.000]  but this is adding a layer of a civil offense for two reasons.
[14:06.000 --> 14:11.000]  One, making it a civil offense reduces the burden of proof that the prosecution has, okay?
[14:11.000 --> 14:16.000]  And then on top of that, they created presumptions that you could never have in criminal law,
[14:16.000 --> 14:19.000]  so you're presumed to be responsible, okay?
[14:19.000 --> 14:25.000]  And all they have to do to prove their point is by preponderance of the evidence
[14:25.000 --> 14:27.000]  as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt.
[14:27.000 --> 14:30.000]  So this was really about money.
[14:30.000 --> 14:36.000]  And I mean, if it was such a safety issue, why is it suddenly, you know, if it was a crime,
[14:36.000 --> 14:39.000]  why is it suddenly now a civil offense?
[14:39.000 --> 14:41.000]  I mean, it's...
[14:41.000 --> 14:42.000]  Yeah, that doesn't make any sense.
[14:42.000 --> 14:44.000]  It really doesn't make sense.
[14:44.000 --> 14:46.000]  And I mean, there's still a crime out there,
[14:46.000 --> 14:50.000]  but suddenly it's okay to just make it a civil offense if you're caught on camera.
[14:50.000 --> 14:55.000]  I mean, one of the other things I ran into when I started looking into this
[14:55.000 --> 14:59.000]  is how several different layers of government have just bought into this,
[14:59.000 --> 15:01.000]  and they've turned their head.
[15:01.000 --> 15:06.000]  It seems like the Constitution, the statute, and virtually everything else.
[15:06.000 --> 15:09.000]  A few years ago, and I believe this is still true,
[15:09.000 --> 15:12.000]  and I believe this case is still pending,
[15:12.000 --> 15:17.000]  an attorney, Lloyd Ward, up in the Dallas area, it's against a different vendor,
[15:17.000 --> 15:25.000]  and it's true that this happened just before Senate Bill 1191 became law,
[15:25.000 --> 15:30.000]  that he challenged the ATS, which is a different vendor.
[15:30.000 --> 15:31.000]  We don't have ATS here.
[15:31.000 --> 15:32.000]  We have Red Flex.
[15:32.000 --> 15:36.000]  But he challenged a different vendor claiming that they did not have
[15:36.000 --> 15:40.000]  a private investigator's license, okay, which is required by law
[15:40.000 --> 15:43.000]  for entities that are collecting information for use in court
[15:43.000 --> 15:45.000]  or administrative proceedings.
[15:45.000 --> 15:47.000]  Well, gosh, I can't remember.
[15:47.000 --> 15:51.000]  The Texas agency responsible for this took the position,
[15:51.000 --> 15:54.000]  took an official position that these red light cameras,
[15:54.000 --> 15:59.000]  the vendors didn't have to do that because the cities operated every bit of this.
[15:59.000 --> 16:01.000]  But that's not true at all.
[16:01.000 --> 16:05.000]  In Austin, Red Flex has what's called the build, operate, own, and maintain.
[16:05.000 --> 16:10.000]  The city has virtually nothing to do with it.
[16:10.000 --> 16:12.000]  Red Flex builds it.
[16:12.000 --> 16:13.000]  Red Flex owns it.
[16:13.000 --> 16:15.000]  Red Flex operates it.
[16:15.000 --> 16:17.000]  And they maintain it.
[16:17.000 --> 16:24.000]  It's a completely outsourced enforcement, if you want to call it that.
[16:24.000 --> 16:27.000]  So they should have to have a private investigator's license then?
[16:27.000 --> 16:29.000]  They should have to have a private investigator's license.
[16:29.000 --> 16:30.000]  They don't have that.
[16:30.000 --> 16:35.000]  And the state agency responsible for those private investigator's licenses
[16:35.000 --> 16:39.000]  takes the position that they shouldn't have to because the cities control all of it,
[16:39.000 --> 16:41.000]  which is simply not even true.
[16:41.000 --> 16:42.000]  It's Texas DPS.
[16:42.000 --> 16:46.000]  So it sounds like it's time for some criminal charges to get filed.
[16:46.000 --> 16:50.000]  Well, I think it's time to challenge this agency for not doing its job.
[16:50.000 --> 16:51.000]  Okay.
[16:51.000 --> 16:52.000]  We'll be right back.
[16:52.000 --> 16:53.000]  We're heading into break.
[16:53.000 --> 16:55.000]  And it sounds like Eddie's got some comments as well.
[16:55.000 --> 16:57.000]  We'll take Eddie's comments on the other side.
[16:57.000 --> 17:03.000]  This is a rule of law.
[17:03.000 --> 17:07.000]  Capital Coin and Bullion is your local source for rare coins, precious metals,
[17:07.000 --> 17:10.000]  and coin supplies in the Austin metro area.
[17:10.000 --> 17:12.000]  We also ship worldwide.
[17:12.000 --> 17:16.000]  We are a family-owned and operated business that offers competitive prices
[17:16.000 --> 17:18.000]  on your coin and metals purchases.
[17:18.000 --> 17:23.000]  We buy, sell, trade, and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections,
[17:23.000 --> 17:25.000]  precious metals, and scrap gold.
[17:25.000 --> 17:29.000]  We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well.
[17:29.000 --> 17:31.000]  We offer daily specials on coins and bullion.
[17:31.000 --> 17:35.000]  We're located at 5448 Barnett Road, Suite 3,
[17:35.000 --> 17:41.000]  and we're open Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturdays, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
[17:41.000 --> 17:44.000]  You are welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours
[17:44.000 --> 17:50.000]  or call 512-646-6440 with any questions.
[17:50.000 --> 17:55.000]  Ask for Chad and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM.
[17:55.000 --> 18:00.000]  That's Capital Coin and Bullion, 512-646-6440.
[18:00.000 --> 18:25.000]  We'll be right back.
[18:25.000 --> 18:26.000]  Okay.
[18:26.000 --> 18:30.000]  We were talking on break a little bit about what seems to be selective enforcement
[18:30.000 --> 18:35.000]  of the law here concerning the need for a private investigator's license
[18:35.000 --> 18:41.000]  or the requirements for a private investigator's license in these types of situations.
[18:41.000 --> 18:45.000]  Bill, tell us what you were telling about the data recovery people.
[18:45.000 --> 18:55.000]  Well, Texas DPS, the Private Security Bureau, is the entity responsible for licensing
[18:55.000 --> 19:00.000]  for various licenses like private investigator's license and things of this nature,
[19:00.000 --> 19:05.000]  and they've gone after small guys who've done data recovery operations
[19:05.000 --> 19:08.000]  trying to get information off of hard drives,
[19:08.000 --> 19:14.000]  claiming that they're committing a criminal act because they're doing this without a license.
[19:14.000 --> 19:21.000]  But with respect to these red light camera vendors, they claim that what they say
[19:21.000 --> 19:25.000]  is the photographic traffic signal enforcement systems that they're familiar with
[19:25.000 --> 19:28.000]  are operated and overseen by the municipalities, not the contractors,
[19:28.000 --> 19:32.000]  and that simply is not the truth, it's not the case.
[19:32.000 --> 19:37.000]  I mean, it's just a complete avoidance of the issue.
[19:37.000 --> 19:42.000]  Reflex actually calls this system BOOM for build, operate, own, and maintain.
[19:42.000 --> 19:44.000]  If you go into the courtroom with one of these systems,
[19:44.000 --> 19:48.000]  the only thing the prosecutor knows is Reflex hands them a packet.
[19:48.000 --> 19:53.000]  I mean, it is the most, I don't know what else you want to call it,
[19:53.000 --> 20:00.000]  but it's just this completely packaged turnkey system that Reflex runs for the city of Austin.
[20:00.000 --> 20:04.000]  And the city of Austin has, they don't even maintain the data.
[20:04.000 --> 20:07.000]  Every aspect of this is controlled by Reflex.
[20:07.000 --> 20:13.000]  So how do we go after this agency that deals with the licenses?
[20:13.000 --> 20:17.000]  Well, pressure should be put on the agency to go after them,
[20:17.000 --> 20:23.000]  not only for the private violation of the lack of an investigator's license,
[20:23.000 --> 20:32.000]  which by the way, it's the Amanda Ward versus ACS state and local solutions out of Dallas case
[20:32.000 --> 20:39.000]  where the judge, Judge Smith, made the determination that they were in violation of the Texas Occupations Code.
[20:39.000 --> 20:45.000]  There are other provisions of the Texas Occupations Code that require you to have a,
[20:45.000 --> 20:51.000]  you could argue that for ordinance enforcement that there's different things
[20:51.000 --> 20:54.000]  that allow collection of data for ordinance enforcement,
[20:54.000 --> 20:58.000]  but you have to have a code enforcement license to do that or be a city employee.
[20:58.000 --> 20:59.000]  They're not.
[20:59.000 --> 21:03.000]  This is a completely outside private contractor that's collecting this stuff.
[21:03.000 --> 21:06.000]  So there's multiple bases for going after them,
[21:06.000 --> 21:13.000]  but you've got a state that's making money off of hooking people with these red light cameras
[21:13.000 --> 21:16.000]  and they don't want to stop.
[21:16.000 --> 21:20.000]  I would like to encourage just about everyone out there to challenge if they have one of these.
[21:20.000 --> 21:23.000]  There's numerous bases to challenge them.
[21:23.000 --> 21:27.000]  And I want to point out that in about a 12-month period,
[21:27.000 --> 21:32.000]  the top 40 or so cities collected $100 million worth of citations.
[21:32.000 --> 21:38.000]  And if you don't think about the money, I mean, that's exactly what this is about.
[21:38.000 --> 21:46.000]  One, at Duncanville, which is, I think it's around 70 in terms of the size of the city,
[21:46.000 --> 21:50.000]  70 is the largest city in the state of Texas,
[21:50.000 --> 21:56.000]  they had one intersection alone generated 25,000 tickets,
[21:56.000 --> 22:00.000]  almost 26,000 tickets worth almost $2 million.
[22:00.000 --> 22:02.000]  They're not interested in taking this stuff down.
[22:02.000 --> 22:07.000]  They won't take it down until they're forced to by law, until they're challenged.
[22:07.000 --> 22:12.000]  But there's numerous bases for challenging these things.
[22:12.000 --> 22:20.000]  And they've gotten caught doing things like shortening yellow light times in order to increase revenues,
[22:20.000 --> 22:22.000]  because if you have a shorter yellow light time,
[22:22.000 --> 22:26.000]  the greater the chance that you're going to run a red light, which generates revenue for them.
[22:26.000 --> 22:29.000]  And there's a number of cities around the state of Texas that have gotten caught doing that,
[22:29.000 --> 22:31.000]  the city of Dallas, the city of Lubbock.
[22:31.000 --> 22:38.000]  Earlier this year, League City, they got challenged, and over 1,700 tickets they had to refund to people,
[22:38.000 --> 22:42.000]  because they were using shortened yellow light times, or amber light, actually,
[22:42.000 --> 22:46.000]  is what they're called in the transportation industry.
[22:46.000 --> 22:52.000]  But I'd be happy to talk about whatever methods of challenging or whatever else you want to talk to about this.
[22:52.000 --> 22:53.000]  Yes, absolutely.
[22:53.000 --> 22:56.000]  But first, Eddie, did you have some comments you wanted to make?
[22:56.000 --> 22:58.000]  Well, actually, yes.
[22:58.000 --> 23:01.000]  Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, which I don't believe I am,
[23:01.000 --> 23:11.000]  but these enforcement provisions are set forth in ordinances that the municipalities themselves create, correct?
[23:11.000 --> 23:18.000]  Well, the ordinances are only permitted if they're done in accordance with the Texas Transportation Code provisions,
[23:18.000 --> 23:20.000]  but I believe you are correct.
[23:20.000 --> 23:21.000]  Okay.
[23:21.000 --> 23:22.000]  I mean, there's two implementing things.
[23:22.000 --> 23:24.000]  You've got a Texas Transportation Code and the ordinance.
[23:24.000 --> 23:29.000]  You have to have, you know, the ordinance can only be implemented in the courts with that,
[23:29.000 --> 23:31.000]  and without an ordinance, they can't do this at all.
[23:31.000 --> 23:35.000]  But in this case, we are saying that for the creation of an ordinance,
[23:35.000 --> 23:41.000]  the legislature has attempted to bequeath the municipality with lawmaking authority, right?
[23:41.000 --> 23:45.000]  Yes, with the ordinance-making authority, yes.
[23:45.000 --> 23:46.000]  Okay.
[23:46.000 --> 23:51.000]  Now, there's a severe constitutional conflict with that ability.
[23:51.000 --> 24:00.000]  First one is nowhere in the Texas Constitution did we allow the legislature to delegate lawmaking authority to any other agency.
[24:00.000 --> 24:07.000]  On top of that, you have Article 3, Section 29, which specifically states the enacting clause of laws.
[24:07.000 --> 24:14.000]  The enacting clause of all laws shall be being enacted by the legislature of the state of Texas.
[24:14.000 --> 24:23.000]  Based upon that, constitutional mandate and ordinance upon its face cannot possibly be law.
[24:23.000 --> 24:31.000]  And as it cannot be law, it cannot be applied to the people of Texas for enforcement capability.
[24:31.000 --> 24:35.000]  It's not a law that we're required to abide by.
[24:35.000 --> 24:46.000]  It is simply nothing more than a rule created by a municipality which can apply only to those entities over which the municipality itself has legal authority.
[24:46.000 --> 24:49.000]  That would be its employees and its contractors.
[24:49.000 --> 24:57.000]  But it most certainly is not the people of Texas, especially through city ordinance.
[24:57.000 --> 24:59.000]  What do you think about that, Bill?
[24:59.000 --> 25:06.000]  Well, I don't know, because they've got quite a few other city ordinances out there, and I don't know if anyone's challenged on that basis.
[25:06.000 --> 25:16.000]  Well, at least under this law, the way it works is they say we are going to, you know, the state of Texas, we're going to allow this,
[25:16.000 --> 25:21.000]  and any city can take advantage of this by simply having an ordinance that does these things.
[25:21.000 --> 25:25.000]  Well, but in this case, what are we calling the state of Texas?
[25:25.000 --> 25:30.000]  The legislature cannot allow something that violates the state constitution.
[25:30.000 --> 25:37.000]  And it is very clear in Article 3, Section 29, that their attempt to do so is unconstitutional on its face.
[25:37.000 --> 25:41.000]  That would be the argument that I would make.
[25:41.000 --> 25:56.000]  So it sounds like the implementation law, the implementation act itself could be challenged on a constitutional basis and hopefully get the Supreme Court to strike it down as unconstitutional,
[25:56.000 --> 25:59.000]  because yeah, Eddie, that's a really good point.
[25:59.000 --> 26:02.000]  I mean, ordinances are not law.
[26:02.000 --> 26:14.000]  So how can the state legislature authorize such a thing through law when the Constitution does not authorize the legislature to do it in the first place?
[26:14.000 --> 26:23.000]  Well, I have yet to find an answer to that question, and I have yet to find a single case in Texas where that issue has ever been adjudicated.
[26:23.000 --> 26:32.000]  Or maybe the question has never been raised yet, because, Bill, like you said, there are lots of ordinances that attempt to enforce some kind of a law.
[26:32.000 --> 26:44.000]  I mean, I was driving down Lamar the other day, and I saw a sign that said something about this is a zone, no cell phone zone.
[26:44.000 --> 26:48.000]  And I'm like, what is this, no cell phone zone?
[26:48.000 --> 26:54.000]  And apparently you can't use a cell phone while you're driving in the car, and it's under city ordinance.
[26:54.000 --> 26:56.000]  It's not under transportation code.
[26:56.000 --> 27:04.000]  And I'm like, well, they can just try and enforce that one, because I'm not a city employee.
[27:04.000 --> 27:05.000]  Yeah.
[27:05.000 --> 27:11.000]  Now, there's another aspect of this as well, and that is Article 1, Section 29 of the Texas Constitution,
[27:11.000 --> 27:20.000]  which specifically states that all the things in the Bill of Rights, as a matter of fact, let me pull it up here and I'll give it to you verbatim.
[27:20.000 --> 27:33.000]  But under this fact alone, the fact that the legislatures created municipalities under Article 16, which is the general provisions portion of the state Constitution.
[27:33.000 --> 27:37.000]  Well, Article 3, Section 29 gives them a real problem.
[27:37.000 --> 27:42.000]  Provisions of Bill of Rights accepted from powers of government to forever remain inviolent.
[27:42.000 --> 27:46.000]  To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated,
[27:46.000 --> 27:54.000]  we declare that everything in this Bill of Rights is accepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolent.
[27:54.000 --> 28:02.000]  And all laws contrary thereto or to the following provisions shall be void.
[28:02.000 --> 28:05.000]  Now, that's going to be real hard to get around.
[28:05.000 --> 28:08.000]  Does it say in there?
[28:08.000 --> 28:13.000]  Does it say in the Bill of Rights that the city can't adopt ordinances?
[28:13.000 --> 28:21.000]  No, but the problem with that analogy is that the Constitution says what the government can and cannot do.
[28:21.000 --> 28:30.000]  And the specific reason for a Constitution is they can do anything that is ancillary to the necessity of the powers that are granted,
[28:30.000 --> 28:36.000]  but they cannot do anything for which there is no power granted.
[28:36.000 --> 28:43.000]  And any attempt to do so is a usurpation of authority that we the people did not give them.
[28:43.000 --> 28:50.000]  Well, I would agree with you that the legislature on probably more frequently than people realize,
[28:50.000 --> 28:55.000]  tries to implement unconstitutional laws and succeeds in doing so.
[28:55.000 --> 28:59.000]  The legislature has a cesspool of special interests that have paid for those laws.
[28:59.000 --> 29:01.000]  This transportation code is a perfect example.
[29:01.000 --> 29:08.000]  I mean, it's right out of Red Flex's playbook and you'll see very similar legislation in a number of other states.
[29:08.000 --> 29:15.000]  But I think the constitutional argument is a difficult one to try and challenge them on.
[29:15.000 --> 29:18.000]  This is all about the money and that's where you need to hit them.
[29:18.000 --> 29:20.000]  You need to make it expensive for them to do this.
[29:20.000 --> 29:22.000]  You need to challenge every one of these.
[29:22.000 --> 29:25.000]  Encourage people to challenge them because when they're pressed for it,
[29:25.000 --> 29:28.000]  they don't follow the procedures that are set forth in the statute.
[29:28.000 --> 29:31.000]  And often this hearing is a sham.
[29:31.000 --> 29:32.000]  It's a complete sham.
[29:32.000 --> 29:38.000]  It's designed to force you to pay because the amount's set and most people can't hire an attorney.
[29:38.000 --> 29:41.000]  Well, we'll come back to it in a minute I suppose.
[29:41.000 --> 29:42.000]  Yeah, yeah.
[29:42.000 --> 29:48.000]  I want to hear, you know, some of your strategies that you feel are pertinent in order to fight these things
[29:48.000 --> 29:53.000]  and give us some of the strategies you've used and some of the strategies you've found to be successful.
[29:53.000 --> 29:56.000]  He has a winning track record here, folks.
[29:56.000 --> 29:58.000]  We'll be right back.
[30:02.000 --> 30:05.000]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM,
[30:05.000 --> 30:08.000]  but finding things on the Internet isn't so easy,
[30:08.000 --> 30:11.000]  and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[30:11.000 --> 30:14.000]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books, then.
[30:14.000 --> 30:15.000]  Brave New Books?
[30:15.000 --> 30:16.000]  Yes.
[30:16.000 --> 30:22.000]  Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and G. Edward Griffin.
[30:22.000 --> 30:26.000]  They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps.
[30:26.000 --> 30:28.000]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[30:28.000 --> 30:30.000]  Go check it out for yourself.
[30:30.000 --> 30:34.000]  It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street just south of UT.
[30:34.000 --> 30:38.000]  By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there.
[30:38.000 --> 30:46.000]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility just behind the bookstore.
[30:46.000 --> 30:49.000]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[30:49.000 --> 30:54.000]  Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM, and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays.
[30:54.000 --> 31:02.000]  So give them a call at 512-480-2503, or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[31:02.000 --> 31:06.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[31:06.000 --> 31:09.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary,
[31:09.000 --> 31:17.000]  the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[31:17.000 --> 31:21.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[31:21.000 --> 31:25.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[31:25.000 --> 31:30.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[31:30.000 --> 31:36.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[31:36.000 --> 31:45.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[31:45.000 --> 31:54.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[31:54.000 --> 32:03.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[32:03.000 --> 32:16.000]  Yeah, I got a warrant, and I'm gonna solve them, to the head government them, prosecute them.
[32:16.000 --> 32:20.000]  Okay.
[32:20.000 --> 32:37.000]  I need a prosecutor to come and help me prosecute them wicked leader, you see.
[32:37.000 --> 33:03.000]  Okay, we are back with our guest, Bill Davis, and listeners, if you would like to call in and ask our guest a question,
[33:03.000 --> 33:08.000]  512-646-1984 is the number.
[33:08.000 --> 33:13.000]  You can listen to us at ruleoflawradio.com.
[33:13.000 --> 33:14.000]  We're streaming live.
[33:14.000 --> 33:24.000]  You can also listen to us on one of our various AM and FM affiliates throughout the country, one of them right here in Austin, 90.1 FM here in Austin.
[33:24.000 --> 33:34.000]  If you don't have Internet or if you're not in a place where you can pick up the Internet stream or the AM or FM broadcast,
[33:34.000 --> 33:41.000]  then you can listen on the listener line, 512-485-9010.
[33:41.000 --> 33:43.000]  That is the listener line.
[33:43.000 --> 33:50.000]  So if you just want to listen and you don't have those other options, call the listener line number, 512-485-9010.
[33:50.000 --> 33:56.000]  The caller line, 512-646-1984 for folks who want to call and ask a question.
[33:56.000 --> 34:00.000]  Okay, Bill, so give us some of your strategies.
[34:00.000 --> 34:06.000]  Eddie's laid out one strategy, challenging the constitutional basis of the Implementation Act,
[34:06.000 --> 34:11.000]  and I have to agree that the Implementation Act is entirely unconstitutional.
[34:11.000 --> 34:24.000]  The legislature is not authorized to pass such legislation, enabling the municipalities to write ordinances that carry the force and effect of legislative law.
[34:24.000 --> 34:30.000]  So that is one option that you said could be a difficult road to take.
[34:30.000 --> 34:31.000]  So what are some other options?
[34:31.000 --> 34:34.000]  What are some other strategies for people to fight this?
[34:34.000 --> 34:39.000]  Well, it's my opinion that about the money has always been about the money.
[34:39.000 --> 34:44.000]  And that's where you have to target this, is you make it less profitable for them to do this.
[34:44.000 --> 34:52.000]  The way this system is set up, the owner of the vehicle is going to have to go to a hearing in the city of Austin.
[34:52.000 --> 34:59.000]  Although the police can show up with an affidavit and attest to certain things about the equipment, they're not going to show up.
[34:59.000 --> 35:01.000]  The prosecutors are going to show up.
[35:01.000 --> 35:04.000]  The hearing isn't due process.
[35:04.000 --> 35:07.000]  It's an absolute sham, okay?
[35:07.000 --> 35:12.000]  They're going to make a declaration without any other evidence, without affidavits, without anything else.
[35:12.000 --> 35:15.000]  They're going to make a declaration of liability.
[35:15.000 --> 35:21.000]  So you've already lost time going to the courthouse for the hearing.
[35:21.000 --> 35:23.000]  So now you're going to have to request an appeal.
[35:23.000 --> 35:25.000]  And people shouldn't be scared of this.
[35:25.000 --> 35:27.000]  They should realize that they're going to challenge it.
[35:27.000 --> 35:28.000]  This is exactly what's going to happen.
[35:28.000 --> 35:29.000]  Again, it's a sham.
[35:29.000 --> 35:42.000]  It's designed to discourage you from challenging it by creating a penalty of approximately $75 so that many people will have to take off work one or two days in order to challenge it.
[35:42.000 --> 35:48.000]  It's also kind of hard to hire an attorney because you're at the point, well, you know, do you challenge it or not?
[35:48.000 --> 35:52.000]  And it's more expensive to challenge it than to just pay it.
[35:52.000 --> 35:58.000]  But unless more people, unless more drivers challenge it and they can do so effectively, they're going to keep doing this.
[35:58.000 --> 36:01.000]  It's worth too much money to them to stop.
[36:01.000 --> 36:10.000]  So at any rate, so you're going to go to this hearing before an officer in Austin, and I'm speaking as to how the process was about a year ago.
[36:10.000 --> 36:12.000]  He's going to make a finding of liability.
[36:12.000 --> 36:13.000]  He doesn't care.
[36:13.000 --> 36:17.000]  The whole conversation with him is going to be recorded.
[36:17.000 --> 36:21.000]  You can ask him for where the affidavit is from the police.
[36:21.000 --> 36:23.000]  He's going to ignore you.
[36:23.000 --> 36:25.000]  You can ask him where the affidavit is from Red Flex.
[36:25.000 --> 36:27.000]  He's going to ignore you.
[36:27.000 --> 36:32.000]  And he's going to make a finding of liability despite a lack of that evidence.
[36:32.000 --> 36:39.000]  There are only choices to now go right around the corner to the clerk and request a date for an appeal.
[36:39.000 --> 36:40.000]  Okay?
[36:40.000 --> 36:42.000]  So they'll give you an appeal date.
[36:42.000 --> 36:51.000]  The municipal court in Austin is required, by the way, these types of cases can only be heard in the court of record.
[36:51.000 --> 36:53.000]  That means there's got to be a court reporter.
[36:53.000 --> 36:54.000]  Okay?
[36:54.000 --> 37:02.000]  And what I found on a couple of cases is that the court's simply not prepared or not going to have one.
[37:02.000 --> 37:04.000]  That's in violation of your rights.
[37:04.000 --> 37:08.000]  But when they do that, it also forces you to make a decision.
[37:08.000 --> 37:16.000]  Do I want to challenge this again or do I want to just accept my fate with the court without having any ability to appeal because they didn't preserve the record?
[37:16.000 --> 37:26.000]  But you can start seeing how at each step of the process, the City of Austin is designing to make it un- what's the word I'm looking for here?
[37:26.000 --> 37:35.000]  Make it economically unfeasible for people to challenge it because they'll have to take off too many days of work even though the owner of the vehicle is in the right.
[37:35.000 --> 37:46.000]  But if you get to the appellate court for the municipal court before the judge, the judge will probably ask you if you want to have a court reporter.
[37:46.000 --> 37:49.000]  And you should say yes because that's the only way to preserve the record.
[37:49.000 --> 37:54.000]  And you can't challenge these things unless there's a record on which to challenge them on.
[37:54.000 --> 38:08.000]  Now right off the bat, you should challenge the admissibility of the motion picture that Red Flex is going to put up.
[38:08.000 --> 38:11.000]  There's several grounds for this.
[38:11.000 --> 38:18.000]  And I found that in one case the prosecutor didn't show up, just wanted the judge to run the show.
[38:18.000 --> 38:22.000]  Now does that sound like an actual trial or does that sound like a kangaroo court?
[38:22.000 --> 38:25.000]  The prosecutor, you know, this is supposed to be an actual trial.
[38:25.000 --> 38:30.000]  The prosecutor actually called in the court, said she didn't need to be there, and told the judge to go ahead.
[38:30.000 --> 38:33.000]  You're kind of insinuating that there's a difference in Texas these days.
[38:33.000 --> 38:38.000]  There is. It's pretty egregious.
[38:38.000 --> 38:45.000]  The next time we went, there was no court reporter and we had to make the decision to go ahead and proceed.
[38:45.000 --> 38:52.000]  But unfortunately, if we didn't win, there was no record to appeal on, and you're going to lose another day of work,
[38:52.000 --> 38:54.000]  or at least several hours of work.
[38:54.000 --> 38:56.000]  So we went ahead and moved forward with it.
[38:56.000 --> 39:00.000]  But we objected to the introduction of the evidence, and there were multiple grounds for doing so.
[39:00.000 --> 39:05.000]  First of all, this is not run by the City of Austin.
[39:05.000 --> 39:13.000]  So the evidence itself is collected by Red Flex, but you won't have any representative of Red Flex show up.
[39:13.000 --> 39:18.000]  You're going to have a local police officer whose only information about this is what Red Flex provided him.
[39:18.000 --> 39:23.000]  You're going to have a prosecutor who has given a pre-prepared packet from Red Flex,
[39:23.000 --> 39:27.000]  who, by the way, even though they're obligated to give it to you the first time they'll give it to you,
[39:27.000 --> 39:29.000]  you were supposed to have it at your hearing.
[39:29.000 --> 39:32.000]  They won't give it to you at the hearing, okay?
[39:32.000 --> 39:36.000]  They will wait until minutes before the trial starts to give you that, and you'll have to demand it.
[39:36.000 --> 39:41.000]  It's another completely egregious situation with the City of Austin.
[39:41.000 --> 39:47.000]  But the documents they use, the affidavits, are not legitimate affidavits.
[39:47.000 --> 39:52.000]  They're not signed, they're not dated, and they're not notarized.
[39:52.000 --> 39:55.000]  They're not affidavits, okay?
[39:55.000 --> 39:59.000]  So that's the problem with their evidence hearing trial, because even under the transportation code,
[39:59.000 --> 40:05.000]  even though they can make these claims as to how the system works and its accuracy of records and things,
[40:05.000 --> 40:09.000]  the transportation, without being there and present for you to be able to cross-examine them,
[40:09.000 --> 40:14.000]  it seems that you'd like to shoot from behind rocks where you can't shoot back.
[40:14.000 --> 40:17.000]  But, you know, the manner of doing so is by an affidavit.
[40:17.000 --> 40:19.000]  However, an affidavit has certain requirements.
[40:19.000 --> 40:23.000]  It's got to be signed, it's got to be dated, and it has to have a notarization,
[40:23.000 --> 40:26.000]  which requires a signature-bind notary and a notarial seal.
[40:26.000 --> 40:30.000]  Now, for your listeners, Red Flex has already gotten caught in the past,
[40:30.000 --> 40:37.000]  and in fact notaries, at least one notary, has lost a license for fraudulently completing these affidavits.
[40:37.000 --> 40:42.000]  So the way they've apparently gotten around that is to simply provide a document that doesn't even comply
[40:42.000 --> 40:46.000]  with what can constitute an affidavit and call it an affidavit.
[40:46.000 --> 40:53.000]  So when the prosecutor puts that document up there in response to your objection to the introduction of the evidence,
[40:53.000 --> 40:57.000]  you challenge it and say, well, that's not an affidavit, Judge.
[40:57.000 --> 40:59.000]  It doesn't meet any requirements of an affidavit.
[40:59.000 --> 41:07.000]  Notarized, not signed, there's no date, and it won't be specific to the records at hand.
[41:07.000 --> 41:09.000]  It could have been prepared three years ago.
[41:09.000 --> 41:12.000]  So that's number one.
[41:12.000 --> 41:15.000]  Number two, they have an unlawful fee-splitting arrangement.
[41:15.000 --> 41:19.000]  Now, for this, people need to have a copy of the City of Austin agreement with Red Flex,
[41:19.000 --> 41:24.000]  and you can get that from the City of Austin Municipal Building.
[41:24.000 --> 41:26.000]  I think it costs about 20 bucks.
[41:26.000 --> 41:31.000]  And what I was thinking about doing was trying to put something together to where people could simply download it
[41:31.000 --> 41:36.000]  and challenge it because, you know, I mean, if you're talking about 75 bucks,
[41:36.000 --> 41:42.000]  pretty sooner or later you're faced with just paying it because the cost of defending it becomes too expensive,
[41:42.000 --> 41:44.000]  which was the City of Austin's goal.
[41:44.000 --> 41:49.000]  But it costs City of Austin money to have that appeal, to have a court reporter,
[41:49.000 --> 41:54.000]  and that's why more people need to challenge this or else City of Austin is not going to change its ways.
[41:54.000 --> 42:01.000]  Another thing that Red Flex does is in the contract with the City of Austin,
[42:01.000 --> 42:05.000]  they show the system they're going to provide.
[42:05.000 --> 42:10.000]  It's going to show the amber light time because under Texas law, under that enabling statute,
[42:10.000 --> 42:15.000]  the amber light time has to meet a minimum length time, okay?
[42:15.000 --> 42:18.000]  And in the contract that they provided with the City of Austin,
[42:18.000 --> 42:22.000]  they showed that they had that capability and they were selling that capability to the City of Austin.
[42:22.000 --> 42:28.000]  However, the document you will be provided masks out the amber light time so that you can't see it.
[42:28.000 --> 42:30.000]  Why would they do that?
[42:30.000 --> 42:35.000]  Well, because if it's too short, they're out the ticket money, they're out the citation money,
[42:35.000 --> 42:39.000]  and yet it's a legal requirement that they meet the minimum amber light time.
[42:39.000 --> 42:43.000]  So you have to ask why would the City of Austin be encouraging this practice?
[42:43.000 --> 42:45.000]  Why are they concealing the amber light time?
[42:45.000 --> 42:51.000]  And I think if you look at all the cities that have gotten caught shortening amber light times to increase revenue,
[42:51.000 --> 42:55.000]  maybe City of Austin's actions speak for itself.
[42:55.000 --> 42:58.000]  Certainly, Red Flex has every incentive to conceal that information
[42:58.000 --> 43:05.000]  because if it's not long enough, they just lost out on their cut of $75.
[43:05.000 --> 43:06.000]  Now, wait a minute, Bill.
[43:06.000 --> 43:15.000]  If the amber light time certainly would be a crucial piece of evidence in the defendant's behalf,
[43:15.000 --> 43:19.000]  shouldn't that information be able to be obtained through subpoena
[43:19.000 --> 43:23.000]  or maybe even through discovery with a counter-complaint?
[43:23.000 --> 43:29.000]  Well, the problem is, is you're dealing with a, you know, if it was a criminal complaint,
[43:29.000 --> 43:31.000]  the prosecutor is obligated to give you that information.
[43:31.000 --> 43:34.000]  But see, they make it a civil offense.
[43:34.000 --> 43:38.000]  So to get that information, you're going to have to go through a very expensive legal process.
[43:38.000 --> 43:42.000]  Or you'd have to, if you filed a counter-complaint, a civil counter-complaint,
[43:42.000 --> 43:45.000]  you could ask for discovery of that information.
[43:45.000 --> 43:50.000]  Yeah, it's going to have to occur outside of the photo traffic enforcement system that they set up.
[43:50.000 --> 43:54.000]  Somehow this doesn't seem to be legal.
[43:54.000 --> 43:56.000]  Okay, we'll be right back, folks.
[43:56.000 --> 44:02.000]  We're with attorney Bill Davis talking about red light cameras.
[44:02.000 --> 44:07.000]  Attention, an important product from hempusa.org, micro plant powder,
[44:07.000 --> 44:12.000]  will change your life by removing all types of positive toxins such as heavy metals,
[44:12.000 --> 44:16.000]  parasites, bacteria, viruses, and fungus from the digestive tract and stomach wall
[44:16.000 --> 44:18.000]  so you can absorb nutrients.
[44:18.000 --> 44:23.000]  Micro plant powder is 89% silica and packed with a negative charge
[44:23.000 --> 44:27.000]  that attracts positive toxins from the blood, organ, spine, and brain.
[44:27.000 --> 44:30.000]  This product has the ability to rebuild cartilage and bone,
[44:30.000 --> 44:33.000]  which allows synovial fluid to return to the joints.
[44:33.000 --> 44:39.000]  Silica is a precursor to calcium, meaning the body turns silica into calcium and is great for the heart.
[44:39.000 --> 44:44.000]  There is no better time than now to have micro plant powder on your shelf or in your storage shelter.
[44:44.000 --> 44:48.000]  And with an unlimited shelf life, you can store it anywhere.
[44:48.000 --> 44:53.000]  Call 908-691-2608 or visit hempusa.org.
[44:53.000 --> 44:55.000]  It's a great way to change your life.
[44:55.000 --> 45:22.000]  So call 908-691-2608 or visit us at hempusa.org today.
[45:22.000 --> 45:29.000]  Okay, we're going to back up here and go over this conversation that we're talking about on the break here.
[45:29.000 --> 45:33.000]  Eddie and I have determined that what this amounts to is a bill of attainder
[45:33.000 --> 45:40.000]  because it ends up being a determination of guilt and a fine through a legislative act
[45:40.000 --> 45:45.000]  or an administrative process without any kind of judicial review.
[45:45.000 --> 45:51.000]  And the reason we're saying this is because, Bill, you're talking about in the code,
[45:51.000 --> 45:55.000]  the text transportation code, there are all these presumptions that are set up.
[45:55.000 --> 46:00.000]  You're presumed to be guilty if they catch a picture of your car going through it.
[46:00.000 --> 46:05.000]  And so, you know, my main question was if they're going to accuse you of something
[46:05.000 --> 46:12.000]  and they have certain requirements upon them that they have to abide by in order to do these red light cameras,
[46:12.000 --> 46:17.000]  namely the amber or yellow light, whatever you want to call it, has to be a certain length of time,
[46:17.000 --> 46:23.000]  it would seem to me that they should have to come forth with that evidence
[46:23.000 --> 46:27.000]  to prove that they are abiding by the requirements
[46:27.000 --> 46:33.000]  because normally the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not the defendant.
[46:33.000 --> 46:39.000]  Okay, but because they've set this whole thing up as a civil deal instead of a criminal offense
[46:39.000 --> 46:42.000]  and because of these presumptions in the code,
[46:42.000 --> 46:48.000]  then they somehow are able to flip it around so that the burden of proof is on the defendant
[46:48.000 --> 46:54.000]  and now you have to challenge it and file counter lawsuits and hope your discovery gets granted
[46:54.000 --> 46:58.000]  so that you can somehow extract the information out of them,
[46:58.000 --> 47:02.000]  determining the length of time of the amber light.
[47:02.000 --> 47:07.000]  And so basically, folks, this ends up being a bill of attainder is along the shore of it.
[47:07.000 --> 47:09.000]  Bill, would you agree with that?
[47:09.000 --> 47:13.000]  Well, I have to admit my Texas constitutional law is a little fuzzy,
[47:13.000 --> 47:18.000]  but I do want to make a fine distinction here between guilt and liability
[47:18.000 --> 47:27.000]  because although the common vernacular would suggest that people are being claimed to be guilty
[47:27.000 --> 47:32.000]  or accused of being guilty of something, the way this is set up is a civil offense,
[47:32.000 --> 47:37.000]  so they're deemed liable, so it's an issue of liability.
[47:37.000 --> 47:41.000]  And it's almost like a statutory liability issue.
[47:41.000 --> 47:43.000]  You're the owner of the registered vehicle.
[47:43.000 --> 47:47.000]  A camera captures your vehicle going through the light.
[47:47.000 --> 47:50.000]  Therefore, you're liable.
[47:50.000 --> 47:55.000]  And you have to come up with a way to just challenge it.
[47:55.000 --> 47:58.000]  Okay, so continue on with the ways of challenging it.
[47:58.000 --> 48:03.000]  Okay, we were coming up to you were talking about the case,
[48:03.000 --> 48:07.000]  and now it's gotten to the point where you have to appeal.
[48:07.000 --> 48:15.000]  And one of my questions about this appeal is, are they trying to make people pay an appeal bond?
[48:15.000 --> 48:20.000]  Well, I believe that there's a provision to allow them to do that in the transportation code.
[48:20.000 --> 48:26.000]  As far as I know, at least as of a year ago, City of Austin wasn't requiring you to do that.
[48:26.000 --> 48:31.000]  Not for the civil offenses, but for normal traffic tickets,
[48:31.000 --> 48:38.000]  the City of Austin is absolutely in violation of the Texas Criminal Procedure Code 17.02,
[48:38.000 --> 48:44.000]  where it says that people have the right to what's called a bail bond,
[48:44.000 --> 48:48.000]  where they don't have to pay an appeal bond.
[48:48.000 --> 48:52.000]  In other words, what the City of Austin tries to do for normal traffic tickets,
[48:52.000 --> 48:59.000]  they want to make it extremely economically and time-wise unfeasible for you to fight these things.
[48:59.000 --> 49:05.000]  And so they try to force you to pay double the amount of the traffic ticket in order to file an appeal.
[49:05.000 --> 49:10.000]  Now, there is nothing in statute that authorizes them to do this.
[49:10.000 --> 49:18.000]  They can require an appeal bond, but under 17.02 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
[49:18.000 --> 49:23.000]  you can sign a document, and the form for the bail bond,
[49:23.000 --> 49:30.000]  the constitutional bail bond, used to even be printed in the statute, in the Code of Criminal Procedure under 17.02.
[49:30.000 --> 49:35.000]  It's not printed there anymore, but if you have an older copy of the code, it's there.
[49:35.000 --> 49:42.000]  And basically, it's an affidavit where you attest that your net worth is greater than
[49:42.000 --> 49:46.000]  or equal to the amount of double of the traffic ticket.
[49:46.000 --> 49:52.000]  Now, you can opt to pay a cash bond of that amount if you want to, but that's the defendant's option.
[49:52.000 --> 50:00.000]  The municipality or the court cannot require that of you, and that's exactly what's happening in the city of Austin.
[50:00.000 --> 50:07.000]  The municipal judges are trying to require the cash bond, and there is nothing in statute that authorizes that.
[50:07.000 --> 50:11.000]  And so now, in the situation that my friend is involved in,
[50:11.000 --> 50:15.000]  the next step is that now he's got to sue the mayor of Austin, the city manager,
[50:15.000 --> 50:20.000]  over this municipal judge who is trying to require the double cash bond.
[50:20.000 --> 50:26.000]  So I guess since that's a criminal situation, and with the red light cameras, it's the civil,
[50:26.000 --> 50:32.000]  you're saying that the city of Austin is not yet trying to require people to pay these appeal bonds.
[50:32.000 --> 50:38.000]  I'm not aware, at least my last involvement with this, that it appeared that they had the ability to,
[50:38.000 --> 50:40.000]  but they had not.
[50:40.000 --> 50:42.000]  As far as I know, I actually was the very first appeal.
[50:42.000 --> 50:48.000]  No one else had ever challenged them before, and they were trying to figure out the process at that time.
[50:48.000 --> 50:57.000]  But they were not charging a fee to appeal it, which, frankly, it's a trial de novo.
[50:57.000 --> 51:06.000]  Although it is a, quote, appeal, in the transportation code, it's a trial de novo.
[51:06.000 --> 51:08.000]  It's really the first time you had a trial.
[51:08.000 --> 51:12.000]  And frankly, the underlying hearing is an absolute sham.
[51:12.000 --> 51:18.000]  It is nothing but a barrier to encourage you to simply pay the money and give up.
[51:18.000 --> 51:19.000]  Okay.
[51:19.000 --> 51:21.000]  Well, if I can interject for just a second.
[51:21.000 --> 51:25.000]  Deborah, there is a section that allows them to do that,
[51:25.000 --> 51:31.000]  and it is specifically 1517 subsection B of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[51:31.000 --> 51:37.000]  The problem with that, however, is it creates a separate, distinct application of law
[51:37.000 --> 51:43.000]  that separates Class C misdemeanors from all other criminal cases in such a way
[51:43.000 --> 51:51.000]  as to deprive you of the right to your appeal under those particular types of charges,
[51:51.000 --> 51:58.000]  because nobody else is required to pay double any fines in order to receive an appeal.
[51:58.000 --> 52:06.000]  Only Class C misdemeanors by fine only must pay this double bond in order to get their appeal.
[52:06.000 --> 52:12.000]  That on its face is unconstitutional because it is not equal protection of the laws,
[52:12.000 --> 52:16.000]  and it creates a separate distinction without any proper authority
[52:16.000 --> 52:20.000]  for Class Cs versus any other classification of crime.
[52:20.000 --> 52:25.000]  It's the same way they deprive you of all of your other due process rights simply by stating,
[52:25.000 --> 52:30.000]  oh, well, because it doesn't involve jail, you're not entitled to assistance of counsel.
[52:30.000 --> 52:32.000]  You're not entitled to discovery.
[52:32.000 --> 52:35.000]  You're not entitled to due process.
[52:35.000 --> 52:39.000]  All of that is completely bogus,
[52:39.000 --> 52:46.000]  and that is exactly the reason why I have yet to meet a public official that I wouldn't hang.
[52:46.000 --> 52:48.000]  All right.
[52:48.000 --> 52:50.000]  Well, yeah, that's right.
[52:50.000 --> 52:52.000]  Good explanation, Eddie.
[52:52.000 --> 52:55.000]  Okay, now, Bill, back to this appeal thing.
[52:55.000 --> 53:00.000]  In the lower-level trial court, I guess there was a second hearing,
[53:00.000 --> 53:04.000]  or was this the first hearing where they didn't bring a court reporter
[53:04.000 --> 53:05.000]  and you decided to proceed?
[53:05.000 --> 53:08.000]  So how were you able to appeal?
[53:08.000 --> 53:11.000]  You know, the way this is set up in the Transportation Code,
[53:11.000 --> 53:20.000]  first of all, to my knowledge, all traffic violations are set forth in the Transportation Code, okay?
[53:20.000 --> 53:23.000]  And what's really weird is the Transportation Code is the civil code,
[53:23.000 --> 53:30.000]  and to my knowledge, it's the only area where criminal sanctions and provisions
[53:30.000 --> 53:35.000]  are placed inside of a civil code for everything else.
[53:35.000 --> 53:39.000]  To the best of my knowledge, you know, violations of criminal law are set forth
[53:39.000 --> 53:43.000]  in the Penal Code as opposed to the Transportation Code.
[53:43.000 --> 53:50.000]  However, even though the red light camera code is set forth in the Transportation Code,
[53:50.000 --> 53:55.000]  and even though it's related to transportation and traffic control, it is a civil offense.
[53:55.000 --> 54:02.000]  But what happens under the statute is the city's process, they can give,
[54:02.000 --> 54:06.000]  instead of going directly to the municipal court,
[54:06.000 --> 54:14.000]  they can set up a subsidiary hearing process, which is what the City of Austin has done.
[54:14.000 --> 54:16.000]  You have an administrative hearing, okay?
[54:16.000 --> 54:19.000]  The point is to make you have to go through the process twice,
[54:19.000 --> 54:21.000]  is to discourage you from challenging anything,
[54:21.000 --> 54:24.000]  because the hearing is going to be an absolute sham.
[54:24.000 --> 54:28.000]  They're going to claim liability without affidavits, without a prosecutor,
[54:28.000 --> 54:30.000]  without the police or anything else.
[54:30.000 --> 54:33.000]  They're simply going to proclaim you to be liable.
[54:33.000 --> 54:36.000]  So now, in accordance with the Transportation Code,
[54:36.000 --> 54:38.000]  you have the right to appeal that decision,
[54:38.000 --> 54:42.000]  and you're going to appeal it to the municipal court, okay?
[54:42.000 --> 54:44.000]  And it has to be a municipal court of record.
[54:44.000 --> 54:47.000]  Is this the same court that finds you liable?
[54:47.000 --> 54:49.000]  You appeal back to the same court?
[54:49.000 --> 54:50.000]  No, no, no, no, no.
[54:50.000 --> 54:54.000]  Well, it's the court that creates the administrative hearing process
[54:54.000 --> 54:57.000]  and sets up an administrative hearing officer.
[54:57.000 --> 55:04.000]  However, it's sort of like you're delegating some of your authority to a hearing officer,
[55:04.000 --> 55:10.000]  but you have the right to appeal that officer's decision to an actual court, okay?
[55:10.000 --> 55:17.000]  In the municipal court, it will be just the judge and you, the prosecutor, probably a police officer,
[55:17.000 --> 55:19.000]  and you have a right to a court reporter.
[55:19.000 --> 55:22.000]  And if they don't provide one, insist upon it.
[55:22.000 --> 55:27.000]  And more people need to challenge this because, again, it's about the money.
[55:27.000 --> 55:30.000]  And unless you make it economically unfeasible for them to do this,
[55:30.000 --> 55:32.000]  they're going to continue doing this.
[55:32.000 --> 55:36.000]  And if everybody challenged, they could not keep doing this.
[55:36.000 --> 55:38.000]  And people can challenge on the same grounds I did,
[55:38.000 --> 55:42.000]  because the evidence that they're being confronted with is not consistent
[55:42.000 --> 55:44.000]  with what the Transportation Code requires,
[55:44.000 --> 55:48.000]  and it's not even consistent with the rules of evidence in the state of Texas.
[55:48.000 --> 55:51.000]  Well, now, Bill, one of the other arguments that I make is this.
[55:51.000 --> 55:58.000]  There is no jurisdictional authority in either a justice or a municipal court
[55:58.000 --> 56:05.000]  to maintain jurisdiction in a suit where a constitutional challenge has been raised.
[56:05.000 --> 56:10.000]  They don't have the authority to determine cases that have constitutional challenges to them,
[56:10.000 --> 56:14.000]  anywhere that I can find in any statute.
[56:14.000 --> 56:20.000]  Well, if what you're saying is your only recourse on the constitutional issue
[56:20.000 --> 56:27.000]  is to challenge this outside of the whole photographic enforcement system scheme,
[56:27.000 --> 56:28.000]  I agree with you.
[56:28.000 --> 56:33.000]  I mean, you have to – you can't really – it's difficult to raise those issues.
[56:33.000 --> 56:39.000]  In fact, I tell you what, it's really funny, because in my second case,
[56:39.000 --> 56:45.000]  the prosecutor actually said, it sounds like he's making a constitutional argument,
[56:45.000 --> 56:49.000]  and the rebuttal back to the prosecutor was, well, as far as I know,
[56:49.000 --> 56:52.000]  the Constitution applies even in the city of Austin.
[56:52.000 --> 56:59.000]  And because they were – they didn't like the fact that the judge was looking at
[56:59.000 --> 57:03.000]  simply eliminating their evidence, because if their evidence is not admitted,
[57:03.000 --> 57:05.000]  there's nothing to proceed on.
[57:05.000 --> 57:10.000]  Everything depends upon that picture of your vehicle going through the –
[57:10.000 --> 57:11.000]  going through the light.
[57:11.000 --> 57:13.000]  Right.
[57:13.000 --> 57:17.000]  But you are correct, and you could otherwise only make those types of challenges
[57:17.000 --> 57:21.000]  in a separate suit outside of this process.
[57:21.000 --> 57:26.000]  So you can't make those types of challenges in the suit against you?
[57:26.000 --> 57:28.000]  You can raise them.
[57:28.000 --> 57:36.000]  The problem is the court has a hard time – the court's going to have a hard time
[57:36.000 --> 57:41.000]  dealing with much outside of the specific parameters of the photographic red light
[57:41.000 --> 57:42.000]  enforcement system.
[57:42.000 --> 57:45.000]  Okay, so if you wanted to file a counter lawsuit against them,
[57:45.000 --> 57:49.000]  a counter complaint, would this be filed in the municipal court,
[57:49.000 --> 57:52.000]  or would this be filed in the county court or the state district court?
[57:52.000 --> 57:58.000]  Well, probably district court, because you can appeal – I mean,
[57:58.000 --> 58:02.000]  you would have to file – you're catching me off guard here,
[58:02.000 --> 58:05.000]  because I mean, my whole deal was I was sucked into this,
[58:05.000 --> 58:09.000]  and I just got angry and decided to challenge it and encourage people to do the same.
[58:09.000 --> 58:12.000]  But I believe that the first opportunity to do that is going to come up
[58:12.000 --> 58:15.000]  in a district court, because you can appeal a municipal court decision
[58:15.000 --> 58:16.000]  to a district court.
[58:16.000 --> 58:17.000]  Okay.
[58:17.000 --> 58:20.000]  But you can only do that – you can only do that if there's a record.
[58:20.000 --> 58:21.000]  Right.
[58:21.000 --> 58:23.000]  So you see, that's why there has to be a court reporter.
[58:23.000 --> 58:24.000]  Right, right.
[58:24.000 --> 58:26.000]  Okay, listen, we're about to go to break.
[58:26.000 --> 58:28.000]  Bill, can you stay with us a little while longer to finish up?
[58:28.000 --> 58:29.000]  Sure.
[58:29.000 --> 58:30.000]  Okay, excellent.
[58:30.000 --> 58:32.000]  This is really incredible information,
[58:32.000 --> 58:36.000]  and I do want to discuss more about what happened with your case,
[58:36.000 --> 58:41.000]  because I guess on the – you know, you had a court reporter at one point,
[58:41.000 --> 58:44.000]  but then when you went back, there was no court reporter,
[58:44.000 --> 58:48.000]  and so I want to know what happened with that and how you were able to appeal
[58:48.000 --> 58:53.000]  and how the appeal went and the nature of how you won your case.
[58:53.000 --> 58:55.000]  This is excellent stuff here.
[58:55.000 --> 58:57.000]  We'll be right back on the other side of the top of the hour news.
[58:57.000 --> 59:19.000]  This is the rule of law.
[59:27.000 --> 59:54.000]  Thank you.
[59:54.000 --> 01:00:06.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:00:06.000 --> 01:00:09.000]  Taliban and Afghan officials say a captured U.S. soldier
[01:00:09.000 --> 01:00:13.000]  is training Taliban fighters in bomb-making.
[01:00:13.000 --> 01:00:18.000]  They say Private Bergdahl has converted to Islam and is now called Abdullah.
[01:00:18.000 --> 01:00:23.000]  The Taliban spokesman, Haji Nadim, said Bergdahl had taught him
[01:00:23.000 --> 01:00:29.000]  how to dismantle a mobile phone and turn it into remote control for a roadside bomb.
[01:00:29.000 --> 01:00:33.000]  WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said Sunday he believes the Pentagon
[01:00:33.000 --> 01:00:38.000]  could be behind the rape accusation against him that was later dropped by Swedish prosecutors.
[01:00:38.000 --> 01:00:42.000]  Assange said he had been warned previously that groups such as the Pentagon
[01:00:42.000 --> 01:00:45.000]  could use dirty tricks to destroy WikiLeaks,
[01:00:45.000 --> 01:00:51.000]  adding that he had been particularly warned against being entrapped by sex scandals.
[01:00:51.000 --> 01:00:55.000]  Afghan President Hamid Karzai urged U.S. taxpayers Sunday
[01:00:55.000 --> 01:00:59.000]  to stop paying for private security contractors in Afghanistan
[01:00:59.000 --> 01:01:03.000]  who were in contact with mafia-like groups and possibly insurgents.
[01:01:03.000 --> 01:01:07.000]  Karzai said the high pay foreign security firms offer
[01:01:07.000 --> 01:01:14.000]  is keeping Afghans from joining the country's police and security forces.
[01:01:14.000 --> 01:01:18.000]  Britain's Attorney General Dominic Grieve will examine important new evidence
[01:01:18.000 --> 01:01:22.000]  about the death of weapons inspector David Kelly after the pathologist
[01:01:22.000 --> 01:01:25.000]  who examined his body Sunday called for a full inquest.
[01:01:25.000 --> 01:01:29.000]  Nicholas Hunt declared that a full and open hearing into Kelly's death
[01:01:29.000 --> 01:01:33.000]  was necessary to clear up whether he actually did commit suicide,
[01:01:33.000 --> 01:01:35.000]  as the official report ruled.
[01:01:35.000 --> 01:01:38.000]  Grieve said last week he would consider requesting a hearing
[01:01:38.000 --> 01:01:42.000]  if new evidence were presented to give the public reassurance.
[01:01:42.000 --> 01:01:45.000]  Some government officials also hope a deal can be reached
[01:01:45.000 --> 01:01:48.000]  between Grieve and Justice Secretary Ken Clarke
[01:01:48.000 --> 01:01:50.000]  to release the post-mortem examination,
[01:01:50.000 --> 01:01:54.000]  which has until now been banned from publication for 70 years.
[01:01:54.000 --> 01:01:58.000]  The official reason for this restriction was to protect the Kelly family
[01:01:58.000 --> 01:02:01.000]  from further distress, but Clarke has the power
[01:02:01.000 --> 01:02:05.000]  to publish the hitherto classified documents.
[01:02:05.000 --> 01:02:10.000]  Ken Feinberg, the new administrator for damage claims from BP oil spill victims,
[01:02:10.000 --> 01:02:13.000]  said Sunday it was his idea, not BP's,
[01:02:13.000 --> 01:02:16.000]  to require that anyone who receives a final settlement
[01:02:16.000 --> 01:02:21.000]  from the $20 billion compensation fund give up the right to sue.
[01:02:21.000 --> 01:02:25.000]  Feinberg said he hadn't decided whether the no-sue requirement
[01:02:25.000 --> 01:02:28.000]  would extend to other companies that may be responsible
[01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:31.000]  for the worst offshore oil spill in US history.
[01:02:31.000 --> 01:02:34.000]  Feinberg insisted payouts from his claims facility
[01:02:34.000 --> 01:02:38.000]  would be more generous than those from any court.
[01:02:38.000 --> 01:02:41.000]  Any individual or business that receives a short-term emergency payment
[01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:45.000]  from the oil spill claims facility that opens Monday
[01:02:45.000 --> 01:02:47.000]  will still be able to sue BP.
[01:02:47.000 --> 01:02:51.000]  Hundreds of lawsuits have already been filed by spill victims.
[01:02:51.000 --> 01:02:55.000]  Feinberg said BP, which had been handling claims up until this point,
[01:02:55.000 --> 01:02:58.000]  has paid out roughly $375 million in claims
[01:02:58.000 --> 01:03:22.000]  since the April 20th rig explosion.
[01:03:22.000 --> 01:03:27.000]  music
[01:03:27.000 --> 01:03:34.000]  It's all according to the will of the Almighty
[01:03:34.000 --> 01:03:41.000]  I read his book and it says he cares not for the unsightly
[01:03:41.000 --> 01:03:50.000]  These warm hungers come by that term rightly
[01:03:50.000 --> 01:03:53.000]  I won't pay for the war with my body
[01:03:53.000 --> 01:03:56.000]  Ain't gonna pay for the car with my money
[01:03:56.000 --> 01:03:59.000]  I won't pay for the fun with my body
[01:03:59.000 --> 01:04:03.000]  Their plans wicked and their logic shoddy
[01:04:03.000 --> 01:04:06.000]  Ain't gonna pay for the oil with my body
[01:04:06.000 --> 01:04:09.000]  Okay, we are back with our guest Bill Davis,
[01:04:09.000 --> 01:04:12.000]  attorney Bill Davis, fighting red light cameras here in Austin,
[01:04:12.000 --> 01:04:14.000]  and he knows how to win.
[01:04:14.000 --> 01:04:18.000]  So, okay, let's walk through your case a little bit, Bill,
[01:04:18.000 --> 01:04:22.000]  and the evidence and how you won this case.
[01:04:22.000 --> 01:04:25.000]  You went to the initial administrative hearing,
[01:04:25.000 --> 01:04:27.000]  which is the sham process.
[01:04:27.000 --> 01:04:30.000]  It's basically run by Red Flex, you were telling us, on the break.
[01:04:30.000 --> 01:04:33.000]  So why don't you tell us what happened there
[01:04:33.000 --> 01:04:35.000]  and then the appeal and then how you won
[01:04:35.000 --> 01:04:39.000]  and the questions that you raised and all these sorts of things.
[01:04:39.000 --> 01:04:45.000]  Okay, there are two cases, so we'll try to keep them straight.
[01:04:45.000 --> 01:04:50.000]  The first case, in both cases,
[01:04:50.000 --> 01:04:53.000]  you go to the administrative hearing officer
[01:04:53.000 --> 01:04:58.000]  and you ask, they're gonna review the video provided by Red Flex
[01:04:58.000 --> 01:05:02.000]  without any challenge to evidentiary rules or anything else.
[01:05:02.000 --> 01:05:06.000]  You're going to ask them, where's the police officer?
[01:05:06.000 --> 01:05:08.000]  Where's the prosecutor?
[01:05:08.000 --> 01:05:11.000]  Do you have an affidavit regarding this equipment?
[01:05:11.000 --> 01:05:17.000]  That's one of the things that can be challenged in the courtroom.
[01:05:17.000 --> 01:05:21.000]  Was there a traffic engineering study done?
[01:05:21.000 --> 01:05:23.000]  And what about the amberlight times?
[01:05:23.000 --> 01:05:25.000]  And the experience in the first case was,
[01:05:25.000 --> 01:05:28.000]  keep in mind, during the administrative hearing,
[01:05:28.000 --> 01:05:31.000]  your conversations are being recorded
[01:05:31.000 --> 01:05:34.000]  and they can use them against you at trial.
[01:05:34.000 --> 01:05:42.000]  So make sure you ask the right questions and don't admit squat.
[01:05:42.000 --> 01:05:44.000]  It's their job.
[01:05:44.000 --> 01:05:46.000]  They're supposed to have to prove this stuff.
[01:05:46.000 --> 01:05:49.000]  But he would simply turn off the recorder
[01:05:49.000 --> 01:05:52.000]  and just claim, I'm gonna find you liable.
[01:05:52.000 --> 01:05:56.000]  And yet, truly, I had never even heard of these things for the first one.
[01:05:56.000 --> 01:05:58.000]  It was the strangest thing.
[01:05:58.000 --> 01:06:01.000]  I'd never heard of a red light camera until the first case.
[01:06:01.000 --> 01:06:04.000]  That case was appealed.
[01:06:04.000 --> 01:06:08.000]  It was the very first red light camera case in Austin
[01:06:08.000 --> 01:06:11.000]  where it went up to appeal to the municipal court.
[01:06:11.000 --> 01:06:17.000]  And the prosecutor actually refused to show up.
[01:06:17.000 --> 01:06:20.000]  It wasn't quite as simple as a police officer not showing up
[01:06:20.000 --> 01:06:22.000]  at a regular traffic ticket case.
[01:06:22.000 --> 01:06:27.000]  The prosecutor actually took the position that she did not need to be there.
[01:06:27.000 --> 01:06:32.000]  The judge could take care of this all on his own.
[01:06:32.000 --> 01:06:34.000]  Now, keep in mind, this is a trial.
[01:06:34.000 --> 01:06:38.000]  There's supposed to be a prosecution, a defense, and an impartial judge.
[01:06:38.000 --> 01:06:42.000]  And the prosecutor actually took the position that she did not need to be there.
[01:06:42.000 --> 01:06:44.000]  The judge can handle this all on his own.
[01:06:44.000 --> 01:06:49.000]  Well, the judge reprimanded her and told her he wasn't going to operate a kangaroo court.
[01:06:49.000 --> 01:06:51.000]  Thank goodness for that judge.
[01:06:51.000 --> 01:06:57.000]  After the hearing process, it was really quite appalling.
[01:06:57.000 --> 01:07:01.000]  Basically, we waited an hour and a half for the prosecutor to show up.
[01:07:01.000 --> 01:07:02.000]  She didn't.
[01:07:02.000 --> 01:07:07.000]  And during that timeframe, we had an opportunity to kind of discuss
[01:07:07.000 --> 01:07:13.000]  generally the whole Red Flex scheme and the City of Austin contract.
[01:07:13.000 --> 01:07:17.000]  Basically, the first one, there was no finding of liability
[01:07:17.000 --> 01:07:22.000]  because the city refused to fail to prove its case.
[01:07:22.000 --> 01:07:26.000]  So the prosecutor just never showed up in the first case?
[01:07:26.000 --> 01:07:28.000]  The prosecutor actually refused to show up
[01:07:28.000 --> 01:07:30.000]  and said that the judge could take care of this on his own.
[01:07:30.000 --> 01:07:33.000]  So did you file a motion to dismiss?
[01:07:33.000 --> 01:07:34.000]  No.
[01:07:34.000 --> 01:07:36.000]  What happened then?
[01:07:36.000 --> 01:07:40.000]  No, well, they're supposed to prove their case by preponderance of the evidence.
[01:07:40.000 --> 01:07:43.000]  But, you know, they're not there,
[01:07:43.000 --> 01:07:46.000]  and they failed to prove their case by preponderance of the evidence.
[01:07:46.000 --> 01:07:49.000]  And that's what I asked the judge to rule, and that's what the judge ruled,
[01:07:49.000 --> 01:07:52.000]  that he ruled in my favor because they failed.
[01:07:52.000 --> 01:07:57.000]  He had a final disposition of not liable.
[01:07:57.000 --> 01:08:00.000]  Remember, the outcome in these cases is liable or not liable.
[01:08:00.000 --> 01:08:06.000]  So he had a finding of not liable because the prosecution failed to prove its case
[01:08:06.000 --> 01:08:08.000]  by preponderance of the evidence.
[01:08:08.000 --> 01:08:10.000]  But again, since this was the first one,
[01:08:10.000 --> 01:08:13.000]  it wasn't quite as simple as people might think in a traffic case
[01:08:13.000 --> 01:08:15.000]  where the police officer didn't show up.
[01:08:15.000 --> 01:08:18.000]  Actually, it was actually a little more complicated than that.
[01:08:18.000 --> 01:08:21.000]  The second case, I represented somebody else.
[01:08:21.000 --> 01:08:28.000]  In the second case, at the administrative hearing process,
[01:08:28.000 --> 01:08:32.000]  the accused may ask the similar questions.
[01:08:32.000 --> 01:08:36.000]  You know, can you provide me with an affidavit from Red Flex?
[01:08:36.000 --> 01:08:39.000]  Can you provide me an affidavit from the police officer?
[01:08:39.000 --> 01:08:42.000]  Can you show me anything that the traffic engineering study was done?
[01:08:42.000 --> 01:08:44.000]  What about the amber light times?
[01:08:44.000 --> 01:08:51.000]  Are there all prerequisites for finding liability under the transportation code?
[01:08:51.000 --> 01:08:55.000]  Well, of course, the hearing officer turned it off in the middle,
[01:08:55.000 --> 01:08:59.000]  refused to allow the accused to continue to speak,
[01:08:59.000 --> 01:09:02.000]  and said he was going to find him liable.
[01:09:02.000 --> 01:09:10.000]  And so now this person has no choice but to appeal to the municipal court itself.
[01:09:10.000 --> 01:09:11.000]  That's why I got involved.
[01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:15.000]  They called me up and said, hey, I did what you said, and you were right.
[01:09:15.000 --> 01:09:18.000]  It's a sham hearing, and now I'm going to the municipal court.
[01:09:18.000 --> 01:09:19.000]  Can you help me out?
[01:09:19.000 --> 01:09:26.000]  So I went to this hearing, and this time there was a prosecutor,
[01:09:26.000 --> 01:09:31.000]  and the affidavits and things of that nature I referred to were first provided
[01:09:31.000 --> 01:09:35.000]  to the defendant at the inception of trial.
[01:09:35.000 --> 01:09:37.000]  It's the first time you get to see this stuff.
[01:09:37.000 --> 01:09:45.000]  So we looked through it real carefully and noticed a number of flaws right off the bat.
[01:09:45.000 --> 01:09:49.000]  First of all, the affidavits that they claim are affidavits are not affidavits.
[01:09:49.000 --> 01:09:51.000]  They're not signed.
[01:09:51.000 --> 01:09:53.000]  I mean, they're not really signed.
[01:09:53.000 --> 01:09:54.000]  They're not notarized.
[01:09:54.000 --> 01:09:56.000]  There's no notarial seal.
[01:09:56.000 --> 01:09:57.000]  They're not dated.
[01:09:57.000 --> 01:10:00.000]  It creates a big problem for their evidence.
[01:10:00.000 --> 01:10:06.000]  The police officer, he was a nice guy, but he cannot attest to Red Flex's records.
[01:10:06.000 --> 01:10:10.000]  Red Flex is the one that collects all that information and creates it,
[01:10:10.000 --> 01:10:13.000]  and they only show the police what they want to show the police,
[01:10:13.000 --> 01:10:16.000]  and they only show the court what they want to show the court.
[01:10:16.000 --> 01:10:19.000]  They won't show the court the amber light time, for example.
[01:10:19.000 --> 01:10:24.000]  So I think we have the court as beginning with objecting to the admissibility of the evidence
[01:10:24.000 --> 01:10:29.000]  and then based on those affidavits or the lack of affidavits,
[01:10:29.000 --> 01:10:32.000]  and then everything else was just icing on the cake.
[01:10:32.000 --> 01:10:34.000]  Why are you considering the amber light times?
[01:10:34.000 --> 01:10:36.000]  Where's your traffic engineering study?
[01:10:36.000 --> 01:10:40.000]  You know, just going down the list of things.
[01:10:40.000 --> 01:10:43.000]  And fortunately, that municipal judge also ruled in our favor.
[01:10:43.000 --> 01:10:48.000]  However, it was that second case where there was no court reporter.
[01:10:48.000 --> 01:10:53.000]  In the first case referred to a minute ago, there was not initially a court reporter.
[01:10:53.000 --> 01:10:55.000]  We searched around and found one, and she showed up.
[01:10:55.000 --> 01:10:57.000]  But again, the prosecutor never showed up.
[01:10:57.000 --> 01:11:00.000]  It wasted everybody's time, the judge, mine.
[01:11:00.000 --> 01:11:03.000]  Well, at least I got a positive ruling on it, the judge, mine, and the court reporters.
[01:11:03.000 --> 01:11:09.000]  The second case, there was they didn't have a court reporter available,
[01:11:09.000 --> 01:11:12.000]  and yet we had shown up and we had gone through, you know,
[01:11:12.000 --> 01:11:14.000]  it was the court that scheduled these things.
[01:11:14.000 --> 01:11:17.000]  You can't say, oh, I wanted on such and such date.
[01:11:17.000 --> 01:11:23.000]  They may give you a little flexibility on the trial, but, you know, you're ready for trial.
[01:11:23.000 --> 01:11:25.000]  You set up the date.
[01:11:25.000 --> 01:11:27.000]  Then they didn't have a court reporter ready, which leaves you in a quandary
[01:11:27.000 --> 01:11:35.000]  because if you decide to proceed, you will really not have any ability to appeal
[01:11:35.000 --> 01:11:38.000]  because there's no record.
[01:11:38.000 --> 01:11:43.000]  And if you don't decide to proceed, well, then you got to take another morning
[01:11:43.000 --> 01:11:44.000]  or afternoon off of work.
[01:11:44.000 --> 01:11:46.000]  Exactly, continuance to another date.
[01:11:46.000 --> 01:11:51.000]  Now, is the court not required to provide a court reporter?
[01:11:51.000 --> 01:11:52.000]  They are.
[01:11:52.000 --> 01:11:58.000]  So can't we somehow, couldn't somehow a counter suit be filed against the court itself
[01:11:58.000 --> 01:12:04.000]  for not providing one because now you've just lost a certain number of hours of wages
[01:12:04.000 --> 01:12:08.000]  because now you have to come back and do it again, and it's not your fault.
[01:12:08.000 --> 01:12:10.000]  It's the court's fault.
[01:12:10.000 --> 01:12:12.000]  I think you have to do it through a separate process.
[01:12:12.000 --> 01:12:14.000]  You can't do it through this.
[01:12:14.000 --> 01:12:16.000]  Yeah, you'd have to file a counterclaim.
[01:12:16.000 --> 01:12:21.000]  Well, or it has to be a completely, like in a separate lawsuit, a completely independent claim.
[01:12:21.000 --> 01:12:27.000]  Now, technically, it's your discretion whether you want to have a court reporter or not.
[01:12:27.000 --> 01:12:30.000]  But you can't appeal if you don't have any record.
[01:12:30.000 --> 01:12:31.000]  You can't.
[01:12:31.000 --> 01:12:32.000]  I want to be careful.
[01:12:32.000 --> 01:12:33.000]  There's more than one appeal here.
[01:12:33.000 --> 01:12:36.000]  You did appeal from the no court reporter.
[01:12:36.000 --> 01:12:37.000]  The administrative.
[01:12:37.000 --> 01:12:40.000]  Right, that is an appeal to a trial court.
[01:12:40.000 --> 01:12:41.000]  Kind of strange, I realize.
[01:12:41.000 --> 01:12:42.000]  It's very strange.
[01:12:42.000 --> 01:12:46.000]  But you're appealing from a hearing process where they have a physical tape recorder
[01:12:46.000 --> 01:12:49.000]  to a trial court where they're supposed to have an actual court reporter
[01:12:49.000 --> 01:12:51.000]  if you choose for there to be one.
[01:12:51.000 --> 01:12:57.000]  And if you want to appeal higher than that, there has to be a court reporter at the municipal court.
[01:12:57.000 --> 01:12:58.000]  There has to be a record.
[01:12:58.000 --> 01:13:04.000]  Remember, these things can only even be heard in courts of record in the first place
[01:13:04.000 --> 01:13:09.000]  under the transportation code and under local government code.
[01:13:09.000 --> 01:13:14.000]  So if you don't have a court of record, they don't have authority to hear these cases.
[01:13:14.000 --> 01:13:20.000]  The city of Austin municipal court is a court of record, but there's no record
[01:13:20.000 --> 01:13:21.000]  if you don't have a court reporter.
[01:13:21.000 --> 01:13:24.000]  So you absolutely should have been a court reporter.
[01:13:24.000 --> 01:13:25.000]  It's crazy.
[01:13:25.000 --> 01:13:26.000]  It is.
[01:13:26.000 --> 01:13:32.000]  Bill, you mentioned something earlier about there's an issue with the motion picture,
[01:13:32.000 --> 01:13:35.000]  quote unquote, of what Red Flex tries to present.
[01:13:35.000 --> 01:13:36.000]  Oh, absolutely.
[01:13:36.000 --> 01:13:38.000]  Could you clarify what that is?
[01:13:38.000 --> 01:13:40.000]  Well, there are several things.
[01:13:40.000 --> 01:13:44.000]  Under the transportation code, I do want to address a couple of things.
[01:13:44.000 --> 01:13:49.000]  Under the transportation code, they cannot use these things for general monitoring.
[01:13:49.000 --> 01:13:58.000]  But if you look at the city of Austin contract, it requires quite a few seconds of elapsed time,
[01:13:58.000 --> 01:14:05.000]  which is really strange because if you look at the contract and compare it with the statute,
[01:14:05.000 --> 01:14:09.000]  the elapsed time before the incident, how are you going to...
[01:14:09.000 --> 01:14:14.000]  You only know that someone's going to run away if you catch them doing it.
[01:14:14.000 --> 01:14:21.000]  So how is it that you have all this elapsed time prior to them entering the intersection
[01:14:21.000 --> 01:14:24.000]  unless you're doing general monitoring?
[01:14:24.000 --> 01:14:28.000]  I can't say with certainty, but if you look at the city of Austin contract,
[01:14:28.000 --> 01:14:31.000]  I think they're not just monitoring.
[01:14:31.000 --> 01:14:38.000]  They're only presenting to the court an excerpt of what they're capturing on the video.
[01:14:38.000 --> 01:14:43.000]  But I think they do have these things running a lot more than just near the incident
[01:14:43.000 --> 01:14:45.000]  or the event that gave rise to the...
[01:14:45.000 --> 01:14:49.000]  Yeah, because how would they know when the incident is taking place otherwise?
[01:14:49.000 --> 01:14:50.000]  Right.
[01:14:50.000 --> 01:14:58.000]  And they have to have a certain number of seconds prior to the person entering the intersection.
[01:14:58.000 --> 01:15:01.000]  And if you look at the amount of time, and I apologize.
[01:15:01.000 --> 01:15:05.000]  I have the city of Austin contract here, but it's like 100 pages long,
[01:15:05.000 --> 01:15:08.000]  and I can't point to it right off the bat.
[01:15:08.000 --> 01:15:14.000]  But basically, they won't know to start capturing information
[01:15:14.000 --> 01:15:16.000]  until the person has already gone through.
[01:15:16.000 --> 01:15:21.000]  So in order to have an elapsed time period, including that event,
[01:15:21.000 --> 01:15:25.000]  they have to be capturing the information long before they know the person's going to go into the intersection,
[01:15:25.000 --> 01:15:29.000]  which raises the issue that they're using this for general monitoring.
[01:15:29.000 --> 01:15:31.000]  That's number one.
[01:15:31.000 --> 01:15:36.000]  Number two, the capture and collection of evidence like this that's used in a courtroom
[01:15:36.000 --> 01:15:40.000]  or an administrative proceeding, and in this case it was used in both.
[01:15:40.000 --> 01:15:51.000]  According to Texas law, they're supposed to have a private investigator's license, which they don't.
[01:15:51.000 --> 01:15:58.000]  The next point about these figures is the letter that people are going to get
[01:15:58.000 --> 01:16:02.000]  is going to mask out the amber light time,
[01:16:02.000 --> 01:16:05.000]  even though Red Flex is apparently collecting that information.
[01:16:05.000 --> 01:16:07.000]  That is absolutely unfair to the defendant,
[01:16:07.000 --> 01:16:13.000]  and I think it speaks plenty about what the city of Austin is doing with these things.
[01:16:13.000 --> 01:16:24.000]  Because without that information, a defendant does not have the potentially exculpatory evidence
[01:16:24.000 --> 01:16:27.000]  that they weren't in violation of the law.
[01:16:27.000 --> 01:16:29.000]  And the statute's pretty clear.
[01:16:29.000 --> 01:16:32.000]  They have to have a minimum light time.
[01:16:32.000 --> 01:16:35.000]  Let me see if I can pull this up real quick.
[01:16:35.000 --> 01:16:38.000]  Oh yeah, 707.005.
[01:16:38.000 --> 01:16:42.000]  The minimum change interval for a steady yellow light must be established in accordance
[01:16:42.000 --> 01:16:45.000]  with the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
[01:16:45.000 --> 01:16:51.000]  And they're being thrown out not just in different cities in Texas, but across the United States,
[01:16:51.000 --> 01:16:54.000]  because cities are actually shortening the yellow light times in order to generate revenue.
[01:16:54.000 --> 01:16:55.000]  Absolutely.
[01:16:55.000 --> 01:16:57.000]  Okay, hang on the line, Bill.
[01:16:57.000 --> 01:16:58.000]  We do have a caller as well.
[01:16:58.000 --> 01:17:02.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:02.000 --> 01:17:05.000]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM,
[01:17:05.000 --> 01:17:08.000]  but finding things on the Internet isn't so easy,
[01:17:08.000 --> 01:17:11.000]  and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[01:17:11.000 --> 01:17:14.000]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books, then.
[01:17:14.000 --> 01:17:15.000]  Brave New Books?
[01:17:15.000 --> 01:17:16.000]  Yes.
[01:17:16.000 --> 01:17:19.000]  Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors
[01:17:19.000 --> 01:17:22.000]  like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and G. Edward Griffin.
[01:17:22.000 --> 01:17:26.000]  They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps.
[01:17:26.000 --> 01:17:28.000]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[01:17:28.000 --> 01:17:30.000]  Go check it out for yourself.
[01:17:30.000 --> 01:17:34.000]  It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT.
[01:17:34.000 --> 01:17:37.000]  By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there.
[01:17:37.000 --> 01:17:41.000]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers
[01:17:41.000 --> 01:17:45.000]  at the 500 MLK parking facility, just behind the bookstore.
[01:17:45.000 --> 01:17:49.000]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[01:17:49.000 --> 01:17:53.000]  Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM, and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays.
[01:17:53.000 --> 01:17:57.000]  So get them a call at 512-480-2503,
[01:17:57.000 --> 01:18:20.000]  or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:18:27.000 --> 01:18:32.000]  I was blindsided but now I can see your plans
[01:18:32.000 --> 01:18:35.000]  You put the fear in my pocket
[01:18:35.000 --> 01:18:37.000]  Took the money from my hands
[01:18:37.000 --> 01:18:46.000]  Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again
[01:18:46.000 --> 01:18:59.000]  Ain't gonna fool me
[01:18:59.000 --> 01:19:02.000]  Okay, Paul from Texas, we're just about to go to you first,
[01:19:02.000 --> 01:19:06.000]  but we have a couple of points to finish up on here.
[01:19:06.000 --> 01:19:10.000]  Bill, you were making a point that the City of Austin,
[01:19:10.000 --> 01:19:14.000]  during this initial Kangaroo hearing, administrative hearing process,
[01:19:14.000 --> 01:19:19.000]  is going to get you to try to sign some kind of document.
[01:19:19.000 --> 01:19:23.000]  Now explain about this document and why people shouldn't sign it.
[01:19:23.000 --> 01:19:25.000]  Well, I'm not saying they shouldn't sign it.
[01:19:25.000 --> 01:19:27.000]  They need to correct the document.
[01:19:27.000 --> 01:19:31.000]  Remember that anything that's collected at this hearing
[01:19:31.000 --> 01:19:33.000]  can be used against you in the appeal process.
[01:19:33.000 --> 01:19:36.000]  What's really strange is the court seems to want to ignore
[01:19:36.000 --> 01:19:40.000]  anything that the administrative officer did or wouldn't do,
[01:19:40.000 --> 01:19:45.000]  and they're more than happy to use anything else to your detriment.
[01:19:45.000 --> 01:19:49.000]  Well, the form that I recall, it's been about a year,
[01:19:49.000 --> 01:19:53.000]  on the form that they ask you to sign,
[01:19:53.000 --> 01:19:55.000]  that you essentially attended the hearing
[01:19:55.000 --> 01:19:57.000]  and identify yourself and things of that nature,
[01:19:57.000 --> 01:19:59.000]  they identify you as the driver.
[01:19:59.000 --> 01:20:01.000]  You should absolutely cross that out.
[01:20:01.000 --> 01:20:04.000]  Do not sign a document where they're claiming you're the driver.
[01:20:04.000 --> 01:20:08.000]  Cross that out and put owner or accused or defendant.
[01:20:08.000 --> 01:20:12.000]  But don't sign off on a document where it says that you're the driver.
[01:20:12.000 --> 01:20:14.000]  Absolutely. Great point.
[01:20:14.000 --> 01:20:20.000]  Eddie can go off for hours on that definition right there.
[01:20:20.000 --> 01:20:23.000]  You've been pulled into this process because you're the owner,
[01:20:23.000 --> 01:20:25.000]  not because you're the driver.
[01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:27.000]  You may not have been the driver at all.
[01:20:27.000 --> 01:20:31.000]  If you're not a driver, but rather a traveler in your private conveyance,
[01:20:31.000 --> 01:20:33.000]  the transportation code doesn't apply anyway.
[01:20:33.000 --> 01:20:37.000]  It only applies to people engaged in commercial activity on the roadways,
[01:20:37.000 --> 01:20:41.000]  and that's the other biggest scam in the whole state of Texas
[01:20:41.000 --> 01:20:46.000]  concerning all these traffic tickets, but that's what we give a seminar on.
[01:20:46.000 --> 01:20:51.000]  At any rate, the other question that I have for you regarding these amber lights,
[01:20:51.000 --> 01:20:56.000]  does Red Flex run the traffic lights themselves?
[01:20:56.000 --> 01:21:03.000]  How would they be privy to information regarding the timers of the lights?
[01:21:03.000 --> 01:21:08.000]  Does the city actually run the traffic lights or does Red Flex run the traffic lights?
[01:21:08.000 --> 01:21:09.000]  What's the deal with that?
[01:21:09.000 --> 01:21:19.000]  The Red Flex system has access to receiving trigger points from the traffic signals themselves
[01:21:19.000 --> 01:21:26.000]  that indicate a change in intersection states like it's red or it's yellow or it's green,
[01:21:26.000 --> 01:21:30.000]  and they have their little timers, which again, by the way,
[01:21:30.000 --> 01:21:34.000]  that's why you need affidavits in order for them to establish the times
[01:21:34.000 --> 01:21:37.000]  that they're indicating on these things are accurate at all.
[01:21:37.000 --> 01:21:45.000]  But the City of Austin contract, they clearly indicate the capability of providing amber light time.
[01:21:45.000 --> 01:21:48.000]  Their examples show it.
[01:21:48.000 --> 01:21:52.000]  They obviously have this ability, and that's the system they sold the City of Austin.
[01:21:52.000 --> 01:21:59.000]  But what they will present at the trial, the hearing, and to the person on paper,
[01:21:59.000 --> 01:22:04.000]  what they're going to present is an imagery or moving pictures
[01:22:04.000 --> 01:22:10.000]  where the amber light time and the amber light information is conspicuously absent.
[01:22:10.000 --> 01:22:11.000]  Okay.
[01:22:11.000 --> 01:22:14.000]  Well, that kind of answers one of the questions we came up with before
[01:22:14.000 --> 01:22:20.000]  about how do we determine the length of time they're monitoring the intersection before the event occurs.
[01:22:20.000 --> 01:22:23.000]  If the system is actually tied into the changing of the lights,
[01:22:23.000 --> 01:22:30.000]  it is highly probable that the camera is activated upon the initialization of the amber.
[01:22:30.000 --> 01:22:35.000]  And so for whatever the time length of the amber would be, the camera would be running.
[01:22:35.000 --> 01:22:37.000]  Bill, you say no.
[01:22:37.000 --> 01:22:44.000]  No, because they have pictures of it before, long before you actually enter the intersection.
[01:22:44.000 --> 01:22:46.000]  They have it.
[01:22:46.000 --> 01:22:51.000]  They will provide a film clip
[01:22:51.000 --> 01:22:56.000]  that begins several seconds before the yellow or the red.
[01:22:56.000 --> 01:22:57.000]  Okay.
[01:22:57.000 --> 01:23:04.000]  And they're required under the contract to be able to monitor several seconds of activity prior to that event.
[01:23:04.000 --> 01:23:09.000]  It's just that you can't possibly know that someone's going to run a red light unless you're –
[01:23:09.000 --> 01:23:15.000]  and have that information – unless you're sort of capturing more than just the event.
[01:23:15.000 --> 01:23:17.000]  I mean, if that makes any sense at all,
[01:23:17.000 --> 01:23:21.000]  you can't know that someone traveling at, say, 60 miles an hour,
[01:23:21.000 --> 01:23:26.000]  you can't know 12 seconds before the event that they're going to run the red light.
[01:23:26.000 --> 01:23:34.000]  Yes, so they've kind of already incriminated themselves by turning over video of people
[01:23:34.000 --> 01:23:39.000]  or of the vehicles approaching the intersection several seconds in advance.
[01:23:39.000 --> 01:23:44.000]  They should have just like given you a two-second clip of the car going through the intersection.
[01:23:44.000 --> 01:23:48.000]  And it sounds like a suit needs to be filed with a pre-trial discovery motion
[01:23:48.000 --> 01:23:54.000]  demanding the entire set of footage for a 48-hour period from one of these cameras.
[01:23:54.000 --> 01:23:55.000]  Yeah, really.
[01:23:55.000 --> 01:24:00.000]  And then with time stamps to see how much of that actual footage was ongoing.
[01:24:00.000 --> 01:24:01.000]  Agreed.
[01:24:01.000 --> 01:24:03.000]  We need to take it into district court.
[01:24:03.000 --> 01:24:05.000]  This is getting out of hand.
[01:24:05.000 --> 01:24:07.000]  Okay, Bill, are you ready to take some calls?
[01:24:07.000 --> 01:24:08.000]  I can try.
[01:24:08.000 --> 01:24:09.000]  Okay.
[01:24:09.000 --> 01:24:11.000]  We've got a couple of calls, Paul and Dennis.
[01:24:11.000 --> 01:24:16.000]  Paul from Texas, what is your question for our special guest attorney Bill Davis?
[01:24:16.000 --> 01:24:20.000]  The issue of not having a court reporter, can you not just hire your own?
[01:24:20.000 --> 01:24:27.000]  No, a court reporter, the purpose of a court reporter is to basically record,
[01:24:27.000 --> 01:24:29.000]  you know, they're supposed to basically be independent.
[01:24:29.000 --> 01:24:37.000]  And the court's supposed to be an independent referee of the trial, okay?
[01:24:37.000 --> 01:24:41.000]  The court reporter is supposed to keep a record of the trial, and that is the state
[01:24:41.000 --> 01:24:43.000]  or city's record of the trial.
[01:24:43.000 --> 01:24:45.000]  So no, you can't hire your own.
[01:24:45.000 --> 01:24:47.000]  All right, thank you.
[01:24:47.000 --> 01:24:50.000]  What would be situations where people do hire their own transcriber
[01:24:50.000 --> 01:24:52.000]  or court reporter, Bill?
[01:24:52.000 --> 01:24:53.000]  Or is there?
[01:24:53.000 --> 01:24:56.000]  Well, I mean, maybe I misspoke a little bit.
[01:24:56.000 --> 01:25:02.000]  I mean, you can hire someone for a deposition when you're out of court, okay?
[01:25:02.000 --> 01:25:05.000]  But that's not the same thing we're talking about here.
[01:25:05.000 --> 01:25:10.000]  In a trial, you can't have a private court reporter and expect to introduce that.
[01:25:10.000 --> 01:25:13.000]  In fact, in most courts around here, you're going to see that the courts prohibit you
[01:25:13.000 --> 01:25:18.000]  from having your own recorders or any type of recording instrument at all.
[01:25:18.000 --> 01:25:22.000]  The official record is going to be kept by the court reporter.
[01:25:22.000 --> 01:25:26.000]  Okay, right, because I knew that people hire their own court reporters,
[01:25:26.000 --> 01:25:30.000]  but yeah, the only times that I had ever heard of that was for depositions.
[01:25:30.000 --> 01:25:31.000]  Okay.
[01:25:31.000 --> 01:25:35.000]  And I may have sort of clarified that with him, but I wasn't quite, you know,
[01:25:35.000 --> 01:25:38.000]  I thought he was talking specifically about after trial.
[01:25:38.000 --> 01:25:42.000]  Well, I want to see the City of Austin mail me a traffic ticket.
[01:25:42.000 --> 01:25:47.000]  Well, all you have to do is roll through one of those.
[01:25:47.000 --> 01:25:53.000]  I could roll through it 500 times and I will never, ever see that ticket.
[01:25:53.000 --> 01:26:00.000]  Well, what they will probably try to do to you is fix it up
[01:26:00.000 --> 01:26:02.000]  with DPS so you can't register your vehicle.
[01:26:02.000 --> 01:26:04.000]  He doesn't have his vehicle registered.
[01:26:04.000 --> 01:26:05.000]  I don't register my vehicle.
[01:26:05.000 --> 01:26:06.000]  He doesn't have a driver's license.
[01:26:06.000 --> 01:26:07.000]  No.
[01:26:07.000 --> 01:26:08.000]  I didn't know that.
[01:26:08.000 --> 01:26:09.000]  No license plates.
[01:26:09.000 --> 01:26:11.000]  No license tickets.
[01:26:11.000 --> 01:26:13.000]  It's a private automobile.
[01:26:13.000 --> 01:26:14.000]  It's a private automobile.
[01:26:14.000 --> 01:26:15.000]  Eddie walks the walk.
[01:26:15.000 --> 01:26:16.000]  He's not playing around.
[01:26:16.000 --> 01:26:21.000]  The Texas Transportation Code only applies to people engaged in commerce.
[01:26:21.000 --> 01:26:26.000]  You have to be transporting goods or passengers for hire on the public roadways
[01:26:26.000 --> 01:26:30.000]  in order for any of the Texas Transportation Codes to apply to you.
[01:26:30.000 --> 01:26:35.000]  And they totally have people fooled into thinking and going to work doesn't count.
[01:26:35.000 --> 01:26:39.000]  Even if you are a farmer bringing your produce to the farmer's market,
[01:26:39.000 --> 01:26:44.000]  that doesn't count because you're not in commerce until you get to the farmer's market.
[01:26:44.000 --> 01:26:46.000]  When you're going to work, you're not in commerce on the roadways.
[01:26:46.000 --> 01:26:50.000]  You don't engage in commerce until you get to work the whole nine yards.
[01:26:50.000 --> 01:26:54.000]  Eddie has been studying the Transportation Code for 14 years.
[01:26:54.000 --> 01:26:55.000]  Okay.
[01:26:55.000 --> 01:26:56.000]  And it is for sure.
[01:26:56.000 --> 01:27:00.000]  I would love to have a great discussion with you over just the driver's license aspect of it
[01:27:00.000 --> 01:27:02.000]  if we could get you on the show for that one night.
[01:27:02.000 --> 01:27:06.000]  I could give you Chapter 521 and 522 to study
[01:27:06.000 --> 01:27:11.000]  and tell me what arguments you could make versus the ones that I've got for it.
[01:27:11.000 --> 01:27:12.000]  Okay.
[01:27:12.000 --> 01:27:15.000]  Because it's very, very clear in the statute that you don't have to have it.
[01:27:15.000 --> 01:27:16.000]  Say it again.
[01:27:16.000 --> 01:27:18.000]  I would definitely have to prepare.
[01:27:18.000 --> 01:27:19.000]  You've got a leg up on me.
[01:27:19.000 --> 01:27:23.000]  I couldn't tell you the last time I read those sections.
[01:27:23.000 --> 01:27:24.000]  Okay.
[01:27:24.000 --> 01:27:26.000]  We're still on the call board, starting to light up here.
[01:27:26.000 --> 01:27:30.000]  We're lighting the town on fire here in Austin.
[01:27:30.000 --> 01:27:32.000]  We've got Dennis in Texas.
[01:27:32.000 --> 01:27:33.000]  Dennis, thanks for calling in.
[01:27:33.000 --> 01:27:35.000]  It looks like you've got an Austin area code.
[01:27:35.000 --> 01:27:37.000]  Are you listening to us on 90.1 tonight?
[01:27:37.000 --> 01:27:40.000]  Actually, I've just now picked up the phone to listen to you.
[01:27:40.000 --> 01:27:45.000]  Is this an appropriate time to be returning a call to Eddie that started last week?
[01:27:45.000 --> 01:27:50.000]  Well, we're talking with Attorney Bill Davis right now about red light cameras and traffic issues.
[01:27:50.000 --> 01:27:53.000]  And we've got some of the calls on the line, so if you don't have it about that,
[01:27:53.000 --> 01:27:57.000]  if you would like to wait on hold for a moment, we could get to you later.
[01:27:57.000 --> 01:27:58.000]  I'll wait.
[01:27:58.000 --> 01:27:59.000]  Okay.
[01:27:59.000 --> 01:28:00.000]  All right.
[01:28:00.000 --> 01:28:01.000]  We're going to go to Kevin in Colorado.
[01:28:01.000 --> 01:28:05.000]  Kevin, what is your question for Attorney Bill Davis?
[01:28:05.000 --> 01:28:06.000]  Hello.
[01:28:06.000 --> 01:28:07.000]  Are you there?
[01:28:07.000 --> 01:28:08.000]  Yes.
[01:28:08.000 --> 01:28:09.000]  Yes.
[01:28:09.000 --> 01:28:12.000]  What's your question for Attorney Bill Davis?
[01:28:12.000 --> 01:28:14.000]  Something happened.
[01:28:14.000 --> 01:28:16.000]  My question deals with this.
[01:28:16.000 --> 01:28:22.000]  I was assaulted by the Colorado State Patrol at a traffic stop.
[01:28:22.000 --> 01:28:23.000]  Hello?
[01:28:23.000 --> 01:28:24.000]  Okay, yeah.
[01:28:24.000 --> 01:28:27.000]  Well, we were talking about red light cameras, but go ahead.
[01:28:27.000 --> 01:28:28.000]  Sorry.
[01:28:28.000 --> 01:28:29.000]  Do you listen?
[01:28:29.000 --> 01:28:32.000]  Do you have the Internet access, Kevin?
[01:28:32.000 --> 01:28:37.000]  Or did you just now call in and you haven't been listening to the show up until this point?
[01:28:37.000 --> 01:28:39.000]  I've never listened to it.
[01:28:39.000 --> 01:28:42.000]  I didn't know about this program until a couple of days ago.
[01:28:42.000 --> 01:28:43.000]  Oh, wow.
[01:28:43.000 --> 01:28:47.000]  Somebody at Rule of Law Radio and they told me to call in,
[01:28:47.000 --> 01:28:52.000]  but we have a satellite phone because we live way out in the country.
[01:28:52.000 --> 01:28:55.000]  Do you have Internet access where you're at?
[01:28:55.000 --> 01:28:56.000]  Yes.
[01:28:56.000 --> 01:28:57.000]  I just, yes.
[01:28:57.000 --> 01:29:00.000]  Okay, so you know, well, yeah, and this is the caller line,
[01:29:00.000 --> 01:29:03.000]  and yeah, you're welcome to call and ask us questions,
[01:29:03.000 --> 01:29:09.000]  but this is just so folks understand, and I should repeat this information quite often.
[01:29:09.000 --> 01:29:15.000]  The caller line, 512-646-1984, is the caller line for people who want to call the show
[01:29:15.000 --> 01:29:17.000]  and ask us questions on the air,
[01:29:17.000 --> 01:29:20.000]  preferably after they've already been listening for a little while
[01:29:20.000 --> 01:29:22.000]  so they'll know what the topic of discussion is about.
[01:29:22.000 --> 01:29:29.000]  If you have Internet access, we encourage folks to listen online at ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:29:29.000 --> 01:29:32.000]  You can click on the radio and listen to the stream,
[01:29:32.000 --> 01:29:34.000]  and there's a schedule of all the shows on the website.
[01:29:34.000 --> 01:29:37.000]  And if you don't have Internet access or if you're not in a place
[01:29:37.000 --> 01:29:40.000]  where one of the AM or FM affiliates are carrying this network,
[01:29:40.000 --> 01:29:46.000]  you can listen at 512-485-9010.
[01:29:46.000 --> 01:29:49.000]  That's the listener line to listen only.
[01:29:49.000 --> 01:29:52.000]  And so if you don't have Internet or if you don't have AM or FM,
[01:29:52.000 --> 01:29:55.000]  we encourage people to call the listener line and listen for a while first
[01:29:55.000 --> 01:29:57.000]  before you call and ask a question.
[01:29:57.000 --> 01:30:03.000]  When we get back, Kevin, we will take your question.
[01:30:03.000 --> 01:30:06.000]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM,
[01:30:06.000 --> 01:30:08.000]  but finding things on the Internet isn't so easy,
[01:30:08.000 --> 01:30:11.000]  and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[01:30:11.000 --> 01:30:14.000]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books, then.
[01:30:14.000 --> 01:30:16.000]  Brave New Books?
[01:30:16.000 --> 01:30:19.000]  Yes, Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for
[01:30:19.000 --> 01:30:23.000]  by authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and G. Edward Griffin.
[01:30:23.000 --> 01:30:26.000]  They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps.
[01:30:26.000 --> 01:30:29.000]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[01:30:29.000 --> 01:30:31.000]  Go check it out for yourself.
[01:30:31.000 --> 01:30:34.000]  It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT.
[01:30:34.000 --> 01:30:38.000]  Oh, by UT, there's never anywhere to park down there.
[01:30:38.000 --> 01:30:41.000]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking
[01:30:41.000 --> 01:30:44.000]  for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility
[01:30:44.000 --> 01:30:46.000]  just behind the bookstore.
[01:30:46.000 --> 01:30:49.000]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[01:30:49.000 --> 01:30:54.000]  Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM, and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays.
[01:30:54.000 --> 01:30:58.000]  So give them a call at 512-480-2503,
[01:30:58.000 --> 01:31:03.000]  or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:31:03.000 --> 01:31:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors
[01:31:05.000 --> 01:31:08.000]  with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:31:08.000 --> 01:31:12.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[01:31:12.000 --> 01:31:16.000]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors,
[01:31:16.000 --> 01:31:18.000]  and now you can win, too.
[01:31:18.000 --> 01:31:20.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English
[01:31:20.000 --> 01:31:24.000]  on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[01:31:24.000 --> 01:31:27.000]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons,
[01:31:27.000 --> 01:31:29.000]  how to answer letters and phone calls,
[01:31:29.000 --> 01:31:32.000]  how to get debt collectors out of your credit report,
[01:31:32.000 --> 01:31:34.000]  how to turn the financial tables on them
[01:31:34.000 --> 01:31:37.000]  and make them pay you to go away.
[01:31:37.000 --> 01:31:40.000]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution
[01:31:40.000 --> 01:31:42.000]  for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:31:42.000 --> 01:31:44.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:31:44.000 --> 01:31:47.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[01:31:47.000 --> 01:31:50.000]  and click on the blue Michael Mears banner,
[01:31:50.000 --> 01:31:53.000]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[01:31:53.000 --> 01:31:55.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com,
[01:31:55.000 --> 01:32:00.000]  or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com.
[01:32:00.000 --> 01:32:03.000]  To learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:32:30.000 --> 01:32:32.000]  Thank you very much.
[01:33:00.000 --> 01:33:03.000]  Okay.
[01:33:03.000 --> 01:33:30.000]  Okay, folks.
[01:33:30.000 --> 01:33:34.000]  We are back, Rule of Law Radio, ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:33:34.000 --> 01:33:36.000]  We've got a bunch of callers on the line
[01:33:36.000 --> 01:33:38.000]  with traffic-related questions,
[01:33:38.000 --> 01:33:40.000]  but none of them are specifically for Bill
[01:33:40.000 --> 01:33:42.000]  concerning red light cameras.
[01:33:42.000 --> 01:33:43.000]  So, folks, we will take your calls,
[01:33:43.000 --> 01:33:44.000]  and Bill's going to stay on the line.
[01:33:44.000 --> 01:33:46.000]  But before we go back to the call board,
[01:33:46.000 --> 01:33:48.000]  so, Bill, why don't you give us, you know,
[01:33:48.000 --> 01:33:50.000]  kind of a wrap-up here, you know,
[01:33:50.000 --> 01:33:53.000]  until we get some more callers on the board.
[01:33:53.000 --> 01:33:55.000]  We only got about 25 minutes left anyway,
[01:33:55.000 --> 01:33:57.000]  maybe 20 minutes at the most.
[01:33:57.000 --> 01:34:00.000]  How should people handle this?
[01:34:00.000 --> 01:34:04.000]  What's the best thing to do concerning how to fight these?
[01:34:04.000 --> 01:34:09.000]  And should we, like, have a class action lawsuit here?
[01:34:09.000 --> 01:34:12.000]  You know, maybe you could represent a whole bunch of people
[01:34:12.000 --> 01:34:15.000]  or, you know, in some kind of a massive lawsuit
[01:34:15.000 --> 01:34:19.000]  where we're the plaintiffs suing them in district court here.
[01:34:19.000 --> 01:34:22.000]  I mean, what are some options here?
[01:34:22.000 --> 01:34:26.000]  Well, I think the two best ways probably to challenge
[01:34:26.000 --> 01:34:30.000]  this red light menace of these cameras, monitoring cameras,
[01:34:30.000 --> 01:34:34.000]  is to, first of all, challenge it if you get a citation
[01:34:34.000 --> 01:34:38.000]  and be strong about it and vigorous about it and challenge it.
[01:34:38.000 --> 01:34:40.000]  The City of Austin is not running its operation
[01:34:40.000 --> 01:34:42.000]  in accordance with statute,
[01:34:42.000 --> 01:34:45.000]  and it's really designed to be a money generator
[01:34:45.000 --> 01:34:48.000]  for the City of Austin and Red Flex, in particular Red Flex.
[01:34:48.000 --> 01:34:51.000]  The second thing to do is to try to go into your legislature,
[01:34:51.000 --> 01:34:53.000]  legislator, and ask for change.
[01:34:53.000 --> 01:34:56.000]  It's not going to do you any good in Dallas
[01:34:56.000 --> 01:34:59.000]  because you've got the king of privatization up there
[01:34:59.000 --> 01:35:04.000]  who actually authored this bill.
[01:35:04.000 --> 01:35:07.000]  But anywhere else in the state, I think you need to challenge it.
[01:35:07.000 --> 01:35:11.000]  They have successfully gotten them out of city.
[01:35:11.000 --> 01:35:14.000]  I believe at College Station they got rid of them entirely.
[01:35:14.000 --> 01:35:18.000]  Yes, my good friend Jim Ash, he was responsible for that
[01:35:18.000 --> 01:35:21.000]  with help from the Kubosh brothers in Houston,
[01:35:21.000 --> 01:35:24.000]  and one of the Kubosh brothers, one of them is an attorney,
[01:35:24.000 --> 01:35:27.000]  and the brother was fighting the ticket,
[01:35:27.000 --> 01:35:29.000]  and they ended up winning the case.
[01:35:29.000 --> 01:35:32.000]  We did a show on that a couple of months back,
[01:35:32.000 --> 01:35:36.000]  but they did not get their injunctive prayer granted to them.
[01:35:36.000 --> 01:35:40.000]  They asked for injunctive relief to have all the cameras removed from Houston,
[01:35:40.000 --> 01:35:45.000]  and they did not get that aspect of their suit granted to them,
[01:35:45.000 --> 01:35:50.000]  but they did win the case, ultimately, regarding the red light camera.
[01:35:50.000 --> 01:35:52.000]  Wow.
[01:35:52.000 --> 01:35:58.000]  The City of Houston racked up, the results are lagging
[01:35:58.000 --> 01:36:00.000]  because it takes them a year to collect the information,
[01:36:00.000 --> 01:36:02.000]  and then they report it to you after they've verified everything.
[01:36:02.000 --> 01:36:13.000]  But as of December of 2009, from the year from about June of 2008 to June of 2009,
[01:36:13.000 --> 01:36:18.000]  the City of Houston generated almost $18 million in revenue off of those red light cameras.
[01:36:18.000 --> 01:36:23.000]  You can understand why the City of Houston is loathe to get rid of the money generators.
[01:36:23.000 --> 01:36:25.000]  That's just outrageous.
[01:36:25.000 --> 01:36:30.000]  That's why we need to not be loathe to get rid of the morons.
[01:36:30.000 --> 01:36:32.000]  That's right, that's right.
[01:36:32.000 --> 01:36:36.000]  And your local city council, because the only way that these things can get implemented locally
[01:36:36.000 --> 01:36:41.000]  is through an ordinance that your city council puts into place.
[01:36:41.000 --> 01:36:47.000]  Remember people, no incumbents, next election, none, not a zip.
[01:36:47.000 --> 01:36:48.000]  No incumbents.
[01:36:48.000 --> 01:36:51.000]  People should have been voting in the primaries to get out the incumbents.
[01:36:51.000 --> 01:36:53.000]  That's their Achilles heel.
[01:36:53.000 --> 01:36:57.000]  Unfortunately, a lot of incumbents did not get voted out, namely Rick Perry.
[01:36:57.000 --> 01:37:01.000]  That was a tragic loss for us on that primary.
[01:37:01.000 --> 01:37:04.000]  But okay, we do have some more callers on the board, Bill,
[01:37:04.000 --> 01:37:06.000]  and we do have a caller who has a question for you.
[01:37:06.000 --> 01:37:10.000]  So folks, if you have a question for our guests, you go to the top of the list.
[01:37:10.000 --> 01:37:12.000]  All right, we've got Michael in Maryland.
[01:37:12.000 --> 01:37:17.000]  Michael, thank you for calling in, and what is your question for Bill Davis?
[01:37:17.000 --> 01:37:18.000]  Good evening.
[01:37:18.000 --> 01:37:24.000]  I realize your ability to answer this may be somewhat limited in terms of the differences between Texas and Maryland,
[01:37:24.000 --> 01:37:28.000]  but as Deborah and Eddie have heard on a number of occasions,
[01:37:28.000 --> 01:37:30.000]  some time ago I did get a red light camera ticket.
[01:37:30.000 --> 01:37:34.000]  However, I'm in a weird situation, and then I'm caught in a bit of Leo limbo
[01:37:34.000 --> 01:37:41.000]  because they sent in the citation by mail with the picture, and they bought the hyperlink for the video.
[01:37:41.000 --> 01:37:42.000]  And I think you're right.
[01:37:42.000 --> 01:37:46.000]  I don't believe that they captured almost any of the yellow, or certainly not all of it.
[01:37:46.000 --> 01:37:54.000]  But here's the problem is that the time had expired pretty much for me to respond and request a court date, you know.
[01:37:54.000 --> 01:38:02.000]  And then lo and behold, they sent a follow-up citation, and they'd ratcheted up the price by $25.
[01:38:02.000 --> 01:38:08.000]  But to my amazement, they actually extended the date and included the same language
[01:38:08.000 --> 01:38:12.000]  if you want to claim a court date.
[01:38:12.000 --> 01:38:14.000]  Well, I did that, and I got it.
[01:38:14.000 --> 01:38:18.000]  You know, I did the registered mail to the United States Postal Service.
[01:38:18.000 --> 01:38:24.000]  In retrospect, I would have done it, you know, with a little more piece to it.
[01:38:24.000 --> 01:38:30.000]  But my question is, now that they've said – there's been no action on it.
[01:38:30.000 --> 01:38:34.000]  They've not given me a court date, and I even contacted the red light camera company.
[01:38:34.000 --> 01:38:36.000]  I think it's ATS or something like that.
[01:38:36.000 --> 01:38:39.000]  Anyway, and they basically said, oh, that was a mistake.
[01:38:39.000 --> 01:38:40.000]  We shouldn't have done that.
[01:38:40.000 --> 01:38:42.000]  You're going to have to contact your local courts.
[01:38:42.000 --> 01:38:43.000]  Well, how do I force their hand?
[01:38:43.000 --> 01:38:50.000]  I'm more than willing to go to bat with these people and, you know, rattle off a litany of things that I've learned in the last year
[01:38:50.000 --> 01:38:54.000]  that makes this wholly, you know, inequitable and not right.
[01:38:54.000 --> 01:38:59.000]  But I cannot say I'm anywhere near as knowledgeable of the Texas Transportation Code.
[01:38:59.000 --> 01:39:00.000]  But how do I force their hand?
[01:39:00.000 --> 01:39:05.000]  How do I say, look, you said, you know, this is your process.
[01:39:05.000 --> 01:39:10.000]  You forced this on me, and I did what you said I could do, and now you're telling me I can't.
[01:39:10.000 --> 01:39:13.000]  So how do I force the court?
[01:39:13.000 --> 01:39:17.000]  Well, you're right about a couple things.
[01:39:17.000 --> 01:39:20.000]  One is I'm licensed in Texas and I'm not licensed in Maryland.
[01:39:20.000 --> 01:39:28.000]  But I know that Red Flex is seeking – and basically these vendors are seeking very similar legislation in several states.
[01:39:28.000 --> 01:39:33.000]  Can you tell me whether it's a criminal offense in Maryland or a civil offense in Maryland?
[01:39:33.000 --> 01:39:35.000]  Well, it goes to district court.
[01:39:35.000 --> 01:39:37.000]  I'm pretty confident it's civil.
[01:39:37.000 --> 01:39:41.000]  I don't know with complete certainty, but I'm pretty confident it's civil.
[01:39:41.000 --> 01:39:43.000]  Well, I'll tell you what.
[01:39:43.000 --> 01:39:48.000]  In Texas, this is something I didn't mention earlier because I don't want the City of Austin to fix it.
[01:39:48.000 --> 01:39:59.000]  But if it's the same legislation, if they have a presumption or a finding of liability, they have to actually indicate the amount.
[01:39:59.000 --> 01:40:03.000]  And again, I have no idea what Maryland statutes say.
[01:40:03.000 --> 01:40:10.000]  But I know that this is an interesting situation in Texas and Austin because they simply make a finding of liability and they don't put the amount on there.
[01:40:10.000 --> 01:40:14.000]  And I think that's fair game for challenge because they could say, okay, I'm liable, oh, zero.
[01:40:14.000 --> 01:40:15.000]  Thank you, goodbye.
[01:40:15.000 --> 01:40:22.000]  But again, I'm cautious to say much about Maryland because in some states like Missouri, it appears to be criminal.
[01:40:22.000 --> 01:40:25.000]  And in California, there's a criminal offense associated with it.
[01:40:25.000 --> 01:40:30.000]  And so the burden of proof is different, you know, with the presumptions and things of that nature.
[01:40:30.000 --> 01:40:38.000]  So because I don't know enough about the Maryland statute, I'm hesitant to...
[01:40:38.000 --> 01:40:48.000]  And speaking in general terms, if this were not a traffic issue and if you were to presume either criminal or civil, okay, if you knew one or the other,
[01:40:48.000 --> 01:40:55.000]  how would you force their hand if they said, oh, here's what you owe for your infraction.
[01:40:55.000 --> 01:40:57.000]  But here's your remedy in case you want to do it.
[01:40:57.000 --> 01:41:02.000]  And then I try to take advantage of it and then they leave me in limbo.
[01:41:02.000 --> 01:41:05.000]  How can you force the court's hand when they basically...
[01:41:05.000 --> 01:41:12.000]  Well, I think you should take it up with the local court and contact the court because I can't speak to ATS much.
[01:41:12.000 --> 01:41:14.000]  I know a little about what they're doing.
[01:41:14.000 --> 01:41:21.000]  But what RedFlex has done to people is they make it appear that the court's doing all this stuff.
[01:41:21.000 --> 01:41:22.000]  But in fact, it's RedFlex.
[01:41:22.000 --> 01:41:31.000]  Everything about this, I know relatives in Missouri, you know, if they give you a number to contact the court, that number is not the court.
[01:41:31.000 --> 01:41:32.000]  It's RedFlex.
[01:41:32.000 --> 01:41:35.000]  And you know what their interests are.
[01:41:35.000 --> 01:41:42.000]  So the ATS system, I think you really need to contact the court and say, look, this is the option you gave me.
[01:41:42.000 --> 01:41:44.000]  I, you know, complied with it.
[01:41:44.000 --> 01:41:47.000]  Here's my registered letter so that I mailed it within this timeframe.
[01:41:47.000 --> 01:41:57.000]  I wish I knew more about the statute of Maryland and I don't, you know, but it's really hard.
[01:41:57.000 --> 01:42:00.000]  To the extent it's similar to Texas, I could point you to things.
[01:42:00.000 --> 01:42:06.000]  But it's really hard commenting a whole lot with any type of expertise on the Maryland law.
[01:42:06.000 --> 01:42:13.000]  Okay, quick last question then. What about the process, the whole service of process?
[01:42:13.000 --> 01:42:16.000]  You know, because it was sent through the mail.
[01:42:16.000 --> 01:42:19.000]  Does it qualify, strictly speaking, as a summons?
[01:42:19.000 --> 01:42:21.000]  No, I guess it doesn't, does it?
[01:42:21.000 --> 01:42:31.000]  I mean, it's basically because of a police officer who's an executive officer, you know, Eddie and I have discussed this.
[01:42:31.000 --> 01:42:38.000]  Eddie, I don't know if you can launch into it at this point, but that's another angle I was interested in coming at.
[01:42:38.000 --> 01:42:42.000]  Okay, reiterate that again. The angle you're looking at is what?
[01:42:42.000 --> 01:42:43.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:42:43.000 --> 01:42:50.000]  I mean, it doesn't seem to me that it's proper process of service because essentially some police officer who's an executive branch officer
[01:42:50.000 --> 01:42:57.000]  sees this supposed infraction and sends what amounts to a summons, even though it's not really a summons,
[01:42:57.000 --> 01:43:01.000]  isn't that a bit of mixing and mingling of the branches of government?
[01:43:01.000 --> 01:43:03.000]  Well, in Texas it most assuredly is.
[01:43:03.000 --> 01:43:09.000]  The laws of Texas only allow the summons to be executed by the judicial branch,
[01:43:09.000 --> 01:43:13.000]  a police officer being an executive officer by assumption,
[01:43:13.000 --> 01:43:22.000]  since police officers are not defined or created under any article of the Texas Constitution.
[01:43:22.000 --> 01:43:29.000]  Only sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and constables are, and they're created under the judicial branch of government, not the executive.
[01:43:29.000 --> 01:43:39.000]  So as far as I'm concerned, a police officer in Texas is nothing more than a municipal security guard on a power trail.
[01:43:39.000 --> 01:43:42.000]  All right, Michael.
[01:43:42.000 --> 01:43:43.000]  Okay.
[01:43:43.000 --> 01:43:47.000]  The point being, yes, it's a crossover division of powers.
[01:43:47.000 --> 01:43:55.000]  Yeah, and municipal police, what we found basically, they're only authorized by under law to enforce city ordinances, right, Eddie?
[01:43:55.000 --> 01:43:58.000]  That would appear to be since the city created them.
[01:43:58.000 --> 01:44:09.000]  Okay, we will be right back.
[01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:16.000]  Aerial spray, chemtrails, the modified atmosphere, heavy metals and pesticides,
[01:44:16.000 --> 01:44:21.000]  carcinogens and chemical fibers all falling from the sky.
[01:44:21.000 --> 01:44:24.000]  You have a choice to keep your body clean.
[01:44:24.000 --> 01:44:34.000]  Detoxify with micro plant powder from hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608.
[01:44:34.000 --> 01:44:39.000]  It's odorless and tasteless and used in any liquid or food.
[01:44:39.000 --> 01:44:42.000]  Protect your family now with micro plant powder.
[01:44:42.000 --> 01:44:46.000]  Cleaning out heavy metals, parasites and toxins.
[01:44:46.000 --> 01:44:51.000]  Order it now for daily intake and stock it now for long-term storage.
[01:44:51.000 --> 01:45:10.000]  Visit hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608 today.
[01:45:10.000 --> 01:45:24.000]  Hello. Oh, man, you're in jail. You got busted, man. Oh, man, I'm broke, man.
[01:45:24.000 --> 01:45:33.000]  Some things in this world I will never understand. Some things I realize foolish.
[01:45:33.000 --> 01:45:41.000]  Somebody's gonna police a policeman. Somebody's gonna police a bully.
[01:45:41.000 --> 01:45:50.000]  There's always a room at the top of the hill. Here's to the grave mine and it's lonely left too.
[01:45:50.000 --> 01:45:59.000]  They're wishing it was more than opposition to build. They know that if they don't do it, somebody will.
[01:45:59.000 --> 01:46:07.000]  Some things in this world I will never understand. Some things I realize foolish.
[01:46:07.000 --> 01:46:15.000]  Somebody's gonna police a policeman. Somebody's gonna police a bully.
[01:46:15.000 --> 01:46:20.000]  I know they will. Yeah, they're gonna put the bill.
[01:46:20.000 --> 01:46:29.000]  Because I see so much in glass and steel. I know they will never fail to set back the scale.
[01:46:29.000 --> 01:46:33.000]  I know they will never fail to set back the scale.
[01:46:33.000 --> 01:46:53.000]  I know they will. I know they will. I never know. I know they will. I know they will. I never know. I know they will.
[01:46:53.000 --> 01:46:57.000]  Okay, folks, we're gonna try to get to your calls as much as we can.
[01:46:57.000 --> 01:47:02.000]  But while we have our special guest, Bill Davis, we do want to finish up on some topics here.
[01:47:02.000 --> 01:47:09.000]  So Bill, before we, well actually during the break, you brought up a good point concerning the summons.
[01:47:09.000 --> 01:47:12.000]  And I had a question about the summons as well.
[01:47:12.000 --> 01:47:16.000]  And we do want to make it clear that we never advise people.
[01:47:16.000 --> 01:47:18.000]  We can't give legal advice anyway. We're not attorneys.
[01:47:18.000 --> 01:47:26.000]  But we do not encourage people or if it were me situation, do not ignore summons.
[01:47:26.000 --> 01:47:30.000]  Because you can end up in jail. You can end up in a bad legal situation.
[01:47:30.000 --> 01:47:36.000]  I know that there's a lot of legal reformists out there in the pro se legal reform community
[01:47:36.000 --> 01:47:42.000]  that tell people to ignore summons because the court doesn't have jurisdiction for this, that, or the other reason.
[01:47:42.000 --> 01:47:47.000]  And that's just not going to end you up in a very good place, right, Bill?
[01:47:47.000 --> 01:47:52.000]  Yes, you end up in a worse legal position than what you started off with. That's, yeah.
[01:47:52.000 --> 01:47:59.000]  Absolutely. Now, speaking of the summons, I wanted to ask on these red light camera tickets, what kind of summons is it?
[01:47:59.000 --> 01:48:04.000]  Who issues the summons for this first initial hearing?
[01:48:04.000 --> 01:48:05.000]  Well...
[01:48:05.000 --> 01:48:08.000]  Or is there a summons?
[01:48:08.000 --> 01:48:12.000]  I wouldn't call it a summons. What you get is a notice of violation.
[01:48:12.000 --> 01:48:16.000]  And if you don't act, you're going to be presumed liable.
[01:48:16.000 --> 01:48:28.000]  So now the ball is in your court, so to speak, to take action to avoid the automatic imposition of a $75...
[01:48:28.000 --> 01:48:34.000]  Or to avoid the automatic imposition of a finding of liability appointees.
[01:48:34.000 --> 01:48:39.000]  And what is the worst thing that can happen to you if you just blow it off and not pay it, for example?
[01:48:39.000 --> 01:48:44.000]  Well, they'll come back and try to hit you up with an additional $25 charge.
[01:48:44.000 --> 01:48:50.000]  Now, I don't know because, you know, my involvement was trying to kill these things right off the bat as opposed to getting it a lot further,
[01:48:50.000 --> 01:49:00.000]  but it's pretty apparent from earlier cases that were occurring that, you know, Red Flex's game in this is debt collection as part of the process.
[01:49:00.000 --> 01:49:08.000]  And so I have no idea how long you'll be harassed for that $75 plus $25 from who or anything else.
[01:49:08.000 --> 01:49:16.000]  And the other thing that could happen is that your vehicle, you may not be permitted to re-register your vehicle next time it comes around.
[01:49:16.000 --> 01:49:19.000]  They cannot do anything to your driver's license. They cannot do anything to your insurance.
[01:49:19.000 --> 01:49:22.000]  And you cannot be reported to a credit reporting agency.
[01:49:22.000 --> 01:49:27.000]  Okay, yeah, that's what I wanted to get to is what are the possible consequences?
[01:49:27.000 --> 01:49:28.000]  In Texas.
[01:49:28.000 --> 01:49:29.000]  In Texas, right.
[01:49:29.000 --> 01:49:36.000]  Now, I do know that in the state of Arizona, they totally did away with all the red light cameras altogether because people just...
[01:49:36.000 --> 01:49:40.000]  There was just mass civil disobedience. Nobody was paying them.
[01:49:40.000 --> 01:49:47.000]  And so it became more expensive for the corporations and the municipalities to have to deal with it
[01:49:47.000 --> 01:49:52.000]  than the revenue they were collecting because they just weren't collecting any revenue from the civil disobedience.
[01:49:52.000 --> 01:49:59.000]  So I don't know if we've gotten to that point yet here in Texas, but certainly fighting them seems to be the way.
[01:49:59.000 --> 01:50:03.000]  Now, I did get a Skype chat from somebody asking the question,
[01:50:03.000 --> 01:50:09.000]  can they use a technique concerning the issue of can they insist to be faced with their accuser?
[01:50:09.000 --> 01:50:11.000]  Is this something that can be used?
[01:50:11.000 --> 01:50:17.000]  And my initial instinct is you can't really use that argument because this is a civil issue with the red light cameras, not criminal.
[01:50:17.000 --> 01:50:19.000]  Bill, what do you have to say about it?
[01:50:19.000 --> 01:50:22.000]  Well, you're talking about the confrontation clause.
[01:50:22.000 --> 01:50:29.000]  Well, the rules of evidence in some ways allow you to accomplish what you're talking about.
[01:50:29.000 --> 01:50:35.000]  What Red Flex is trying to set up in particular, and Senator Cronin's legislation in particular,
[01:50:35.000 --> 01:50:40.000]  is to try and create the situation where you stand accused, somebody else has made the accusation,
[01:50:40.000 --> 01:50:43.000]  they're not there in court, okay?
[01:50:43.000 --> 01:50:46.000]  And they try to do this through affidavits.
[01:50:46.000 --> 01:50:54.000]  The problem is that these affidavits, their whole purpose for sitting in an affidavit is to prevent you from having an opportunity to cross-examine them.
[01:50:54.000 --> 01:50:58.000]  That's the whole purpose of that, is to deny you the opportunity to cross-examine them.
[01:50:58.000 --> 01:51:05.000]  And all I can speak to is the process used in Austin and by Red Flex is that in the past,
[01:51:05.000 --> 01:51:10.000]  Red Flex has actually gotten caught creating fraudulent affidavits.
[01:51:10.000 --> 01:51:15.000]  And notaries have lost their license for it, and you know what's particularly crooked about the whole thing
[01:51:15.000 --> 01:51:19.000]  is in the state that they got caught on that end, it's a criminal offense.
[01:51:19.000 --> 01:51:26.000]  So some poor schmuck, I shouldn't say that, the guy was not, he was a victim in this thing.
[01:51:26.000 --> 01:51:33.000]  He actually got hit with a pretty serious criminal conviction based on false fraudulent affidavits set forth by Red Flex.
[01:51:33.000 --> 01:51:39.000]  You know, there was a subsequent civil action and there was a notary that lost her license as a result of that thing.
[01:51:39.000 --> 01:51:42.000]  But these people, it's all about the money.
[01:51:42.000 --> 01:51:48.000]  They don't really face any repercussions from the court if they submit fraudulent documents, you know?
[01:51:48.000 --> 01:51:54.000]  So at least as far as challenging it here and in many other states,
[01:51:54.000 --> 01:51:58.000]  I believe I'm certain that they're going to try and use affidavits.
[01:51:58.000 --> 01:52:05.000]  And you should look at those affidavits as one avenue of challenge and see if they actually qualify as an affidavit.
[01:52:05.000 --> 01:52:07.000]  Were they signed?
[01:52:07.000 --> 01:52:08.000]  Actually signed.
[01:52:08.000 --> 01:52:09.000]  Is this an original?
[01:52:09.000 --> 01:52:10.000]  Is this a copy?
[01:52:10.000 --> 01:52:11.000]  Is it notarized?
[01:52:11.000 --> 01:52:12.000]  Is it dated?
[01:52:12.000 --> 01:52:16.000]  Does it refer to this specific incident?
[01:52:16.000 --> 01:52:20.000]  Or is it some general we preserve the records, you know,
[01:52:20.000 --> 01:52:25.000]  a document that could have been created three years ago that's not applicable to this case?
[01:52:25.000 --> 01:52:29.000]  So I don't know if I've answered it exactly,
[01:52:29.000 --> 01:52:36.000]  but they try to deny you the right to confront the entity that's setting forth this evidence by using affidavits.
[01:52:36.000 --> 01:52:43.000]  But you can, they do still have to comply with the rules of evidence as to those affidavits.
[01:52:43.000 --> 01:52:47.000]  Yeah, they're just not wanting to do anything according to law at all.
[01:52:47.000 --> 01:52:53.000]  They're just straight up mafioso, suggster, extortionist.
[01:52:53.000 --> 01:52:55.000]  Yes.
[01:52:55.000 --> 01:52:56.000]  Okay.
[01:52:56.000 --> 01:52:57.000]  And I speak of it.
[01:52:57.000 --> 01:53:03.000]  They privatize the judicial system, so they sit back, have no repercussion from this,
[01:53:03.000 --> 01:53:09.000]  and they can use, you know, by the way, the City of Austin, the contract that RedFlex has,
[01:53:09.000 --> 01:53:14.000]  denies any prosecutorial discretion for the prosecutors.
[01:53:14.000 --> 01:53:17.000]  They are obligated by the contract to prosecute these cases.
[01:53:17.000 --> 01:53:23.000]  Now, wait a minute, how does the prosecutor get involved in the first place when this is a civil case?
[01:53:23.000 --> 01:53:26.000]  Well, in Austin, it's still a prosecutor.
[01:53:26.000 --> 01:53:34.000]  I mean, the entity, the person or the party that represents the city is still a prosecutor.
[01:53:34.000 --> 01:53:35.000]  Yeah, okay.
[01:53:35.000 --> 01:53:37.000]  Well, it seems like they should have to hire,
[01:53:37.000 --> 01:53:40.000]  it seems like RedFlex should have to hire their own attorney or something.
[01:53:40.000 --> 01:53:44.000]  Well, I can tell you that the city prosecutors that I've met aren't too happy about this either,
[01:53:44.000 --> 01:53:47.000]  and they would rather be handling criminal matters as opposed to the red light camera case.
[01:53:47.000 --> 01:53:52.000]  Yeah, it just doesn't seem right that the taxpayers are having to pay for a prosecutor
[01:53:52.000 --> 01:53:57.000]  to deal with a civil issue between, you know, dealing with these red light cameras,
[01:53:57.000 --> 01:54:01.000]  RedFlex and people who own these vehicles.
[01:54:01.000 --> 01:54:02.000]  I mean, this is a civil matter.
[01:54:02.000 --> 01:54:04.000]  They should have to hire their own attorney, not the taxpayers.
[01:54:04.000 --> 01:54:06.000]  I'm not in agreement with that.
[01:54:06.000 --> 01:54:09.000]  Okay, but at any rate, we do have another caller on the line.
[01:54:09.000 --> 01:54:11.000]  Other callers, I'm sorry we have to make you home.
[01:54:11.000 --> 01:54:14.000]  We probably won't get to you tonight, but we do have a guest,
[01:54:14.000 --> 01:54:17.000]  and so we always ask that if people call while we have a guest,
[01:54:17.000 --> 01:54:21.000]  that you call with it on topic and with questions for the guests.
[01:54:21.000 --> 01:54:22.000]  We've got Danny in Illinois.
[01:54:22.000 --> 01:54:24.000]  Danny, thank you for calling in.
[01:54:24.000 --> 01:54:27.000]  What is your question for our guest, Bill Davis?
[01:54:27.000 --> 01:54:32.000]  Well, it sounds like you're familiar with the laws in Missouri.
[01:54:32.000 --> 01:54:38.000]  I ended up getting a red light notice of violation in Missouri,
[01:54:38.000 --> 01:54:43.000]  and I thought I'd ask to find out what you thought about that, how to handle it.
[01:54:43.000 --> 01:54:51.000]  Well, looking at the Missouri, I'm not licensed in Missouri, okay,
[01:54:51.000 --> 01:54:53.000]  and I have just some general familiarity,
[01:54:53.000 --> 01:54:56.000]  but I'm not qualified to speak as an attorney on it.
[01:54:56.000 --> 01:55:00.000]  What's disconcerting as an attorney, looking at the Illinois stuff,
[01:55:00.000 --> 01:55:02.000]  I mean, I'm sorry, the Missouri statutes,
[01:55:02.000 --> 01:55:05.000]  it is kind of unclear whether it's a civil or criminal matter,
[01:55:05.000 --> 01:55:07.000]  but it looks like it's a criminal offense.
[01:55:07.000 --> 01:55:10.000]  But unlike other states,
[01:55:10.000 --> 01:55:16.000]  Missouri does not seem to have an overriding state statute
[01:55:16.000 --> 01:55:18.000]  that governs how these cities have to implement this.
[01:55:18.000 --> 01:55:23.000]  Actually, you should do a little Google searching on Missouri,
[01:55:23.000 --> 01:55:28.000]  because the Missouri Attorney General, in his opinion, these things were illegal, okay?
[01:55:28.000 --> 01:55:33.000]  And it's pretty strong when your own state attorney general says that this is illegal.
[01:55:33.000 --> 01:55:36.000]  If you have access to the Internet, I would look for that.
[01:55:36.000 --> 01:55:41.000]  I think it was last year where the state attorney general said he thought that these were illegal.
[01:55:41.000 --> 01:55:45.000]  I believe it's an official AG opinion in the state of Missouri.
[01:55:45.000 --> 01:55:50.000]  The problem is, if it's criminal, that's not a good thing to be having out there,
[01:55:50.000 --> 01:55:52.000]  especially if you're a professional.
[01:55:52.000 --> 01:55:58.000]  I also know that, well, I don't want you to admit anything on the air,
[01:55:58.000 --> 01:56:02.000]  but there's a lot of, depending upon whether it's a straight going through,
[01:56:02.000 --> 01:56:06.000]  or an accusation of going through the light or turning on red,
[01:56:06.000 --> 01:56:11.000]  it appears that there's some Missouri case law and prior holdings
[01:56:11.000 --> 01:56:15.000]  that your situation may be different if you're accused of turning on red,
[01:56:15.000 --> 01:56:18.000]  as opposed to accused of going through the light.
[01:56:18.000 --> 01:56:21.000]  But, I mean, in some of these cases, it's ridiculous.
[01:56:21.000 --> 01:56:24.000]  They're even, instead of showing the red light in the picture,
[01:56:24.000 --> 01:56:29.000]  and I don't know if that's your case or not, I believe it was probably Red Flex involved, was it not?
[01:56:29.000 --> 01:56:31.000]  I'm not sure about that.
[01:56:31.000 --> 01:56:36.000]  Well, were you supposed to go to a website and call photo...
[01:56:36.000 --> 01:56:39.000]  No, it's actually on a notice of violation.
[01:56:39.000 --> 01:56:44.000]  But they say if I don't pay this, then they're going to send it to a collection agency.
[01:56:44.000 --> 01:56:47.000]  Right, and I think that's a good part of their business is, you know...
[01:56:47.000 --> 01:56:50.000]  And then you go after them with Mike Mears's information.
[01:56:50.000 --> 01:56:51.000]  Exactly.
[01:56:51.000 --> 01:56:53.000]  That's what I was thinking too.
[01:56:53.000 --> 01:56:55.000]  Okay, I don't know about that.
[01:56:55.000 --> 01:56:57.000]  I mean, I'm not familiar with that, I guess.
[01:56:57.000 --> 01:57:03.000]  But you really should look for the Attorney General's opinion.
[01:57:03.000 --> 01:57:07.000]  And have you missed the court date or anything?
[01:57:07.000 --> 01:57:11.000]  No, I missed the due date that I was supposed to pay it for,
[01:57:11.000 --> 01:57:17.000]  and they sent me something saying that I have a notice to appear.
[01:57:17.000 --> 01:57:21.000]  Oh, there is something else too.
[01:57:21.000 --> 01:57:24.000]  I'm sorry, my memory here.
[01:57:24.000 --> 01:57:29.000]  In some states, okay, this is another challenge, and I think this is occurring in Missouri.
[01:57:29.000 --> 01:57:35.000]  In some states you have to have, it's called an information before it can be summoned.
[01:57:35.000 --> 01:57:41.000]  And I believe there's someone in Missouri challenging that whole...
[01:57:41.000 --> 01:57:44.000]  You have to excuse me because I'm in Texas.
[01:57:44.000 --> 01:57:48.000]  The Missouri thing I'm just familiar with because of somebody I know,
[01:57:48.000 --> 01:57:50.000]  and I've researched it a little bit for them.
[01:57:50.000 --> 01:57:54.000]  But I believe one of the challenges is their whole process is illegal
[01:57:54.000 --> 01:57:58.000]  because they have to have essentially what amounts to a grand jury or miniature grand jury,
[01:57:58.000 --> 01:58:03.000]  and generate what's called an information, or whatever the lingo is in Missouri,
[01:58:03.000 --> 01:58:05.000]  before they can issue one of these summonses.
[01:58:05.000 --> 01:58:07.000]  And they're not doing that.
[01:58:07.000 --> 01:58:14.000]  So look for those two things, maybe an allegiance system, some positive outcomes.
[01:58:14.000 --> 01:58:16.000]  All right, thanks, Danny.
[01:58:16.000 --> 01:58:18.000]  Okay, we're at the end of the show.
[01:58:18.000 --> 01:58:21.000]  Do you want to give out your website for the folks?
[01:58:21.000 --> 01:58:24.000]  Well, I mean, my website has absolutely nothing.
[01:58:24.000 --> 01:58:26.000]  I haven't contacted the show because I have...
[01:58:26.000 --> 01:58:28.000]  Okay.
[01:58:28.000 --> 01:58:32.000]  Yeah, I'm a patent attorney by normal practice, and that's my passion.
[01:58:32.000 --> 01:58:35.000]  I just got involved with this because I thought it's a real wrong
[01:58:35.000 --> 01:58:38.000]  by the city of Austin and Red Flex and the state.
[01:58:38.000 --> 01:58:39.000]  Absolutely.
[01:58:39.000 --> 01:58:43.000]  And we need more attorneys like you with this kind of passion, Bill,
[01:58:43.000 --> 01:58:46.000]  to go after these extortionists.
[01:58:46.000 --> 01:58:48.000]  It's a protection racket.
[01:58:48.000 --> 01:58:51.000]  It's just straight up in your face, thuggery.
[01:58:51.000 --> 01:58:53.000]  And we really appreciate all the work you've done, Bill.
[01:58:53.000 --> 01:58:54.000]  They need a challenge.
[01:58:54.000 --> 01:58:55.000]  They need a challenge.
[01:58:55.000 --> 01:58:57.000]  Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak about this tonight.
[01:58:57.000 --> 01:58:58.000]  Oh, you're welcome.
[01:58:58.000 --> 01:59:00.000]  We'll be back on Thursday night.
[01:59:00.000 --> 01:59:01.000]  Okay.
[01:59:01.000 --> 01:59:16.000]  I'm like a stepping razor, don't touch my sides, I'm dangerous, dangerous.
[01:59:16.000 --> 01:59:23.000]  If you are a Chucky, nobody Chucky from me.
[01:59:23.000 --> 01:59:31.000]  If you are a Chucky, Chucky, nobody Chucky from me.
[01:59:31.000 --> 01:59:38.000]  I'm like a stepping razor, don't touch my sides, I'm dangerous, dangerous.
[01:59:38.000 --> 01:59:45.000]  I'm like a chopping razor, don't touch my sides, I'm dangerous, dangerous.
[01:59:45.000 --> 01:59:53.000]  If you are a Chucky, don't touch my sides, I'm dangerous, dangerous.
[01:59:53.000 --> 02:00:16.000]  If you are a Chucky, don't touch my sides, I'm dangerous, dangerous.