Vote YES on Issue 99!

September 24, 2014

The Maple Heights camera removal amendment has been certified for the ballot as Issue 99.  The ballot language is as follows:

PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
(By Petition)
CITY OF MAPLE HEIGHTS
A majority affirmative vote is required for passage.
Shall the Charter of the City of Maple Heights be amended to add new Article XXII, which provides that the City shall not use any traffic law photo-monitoring device for the enforcement of a qualified traffic law violation, unless a law enforcement officer is present at the location of the device and personally issues the ticket to the alleged violator at the time and location of the violation; and that the City shall not enter into, renew, amend, modify, or make any payment under a contract with a vendor for traffic law photo-monitoring devices or services if the contract involves payment to the vendor that is contingent upon the number of tickets issued or the amount of fines levied or; and that qualified traffic violations shall be tried only before a judge in either municipal or common pleas court, and the accused will be afforded all rights then generally afforded to defendants in criminal cases under the constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of Ohio?
PROPUESTA DE ENMIENDA A LOS ESTATUTOS
(Por Petición)
CIUDAD DE MAPLE HEIGHTS
Se requiere un voto afirmativo por mayoría para su aprobación.
¿Deberán enmendarse los Estatutos de la Ciudad de Maple Heights para añadir el nuevo Artículo XXII, que dispone que la Ciudad no usará ningún dispositivo de vigilancia por fotografía de la ley de tránsito para castigar una infracción calificada de la ley de tránsito, a menos que haya un oficial de policía presente en el lugar del dispositivo y emita personalmente la multa al presunto infractor en el momento y lugar de la infracción; y que la Ciudad no celebrará, renovará, corregirá, modificará, ni hará ningún pago en virtud de un contrato con un proveedor para dispositivos o servicios de vigilancia por fotografía de la ley de tránsito si el contrato implica que el pago al proveedor esté supeditado al número de multas emitidas o el monto de multas impuesto o; y que las infracciones de tráfico calificadas sólo podrán ser litigadas ante un juez, ya sea en un tribunal municipal o en un tribunal de causascomunes, y el acusado tendrá todos los derechos que generalmente tienen los acusados en casos penales en virtud de las constituciones y leyes de los Estados Unidos y del Estado de Ohio?

A majority YES vote is required to ban traffic revenue cameras.  If you live in Maple Heights, please vote YES on Issue 99!

Advertisements

Maple Hts: We Tried to Tell You But You Just Wouldn’t Listen

September 19, 2014

The poor, beleaguered politicians in Maple Hts. really thought they could keep the red light camera issue off the ballot in Maple Hts. We tried to tell you it wouldn’t work Maple Hts., but you just wouldn’t listen.

In a unanimous decision, the Ohio Supreme Court pointed out to the good politicians of Maple Hts. the Ohio Constitution makes it very clear that a citizen driven initiative has to be placed on the ballot. Live and learn, right fellas?

 

“Whether council delayed passage of an ordinance deliberately or negligently is not relevant,” the court said. “The Maple Heights City Council received verification of the signatures [on the petitions] more than two weeks before the constitutional deadline of Sept. 5 and conducted two regular council meetings in the interim.

“It’s failure to enact an ordinance at the second meeting fell well short of acting forthwith.”

 

Maybe they don’t understand the meaning of “forthwith?” The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines forthwith as “immediately,” as in “immediately.” So as not to confuse the reader, the dictionary uses this sentence as an example:

 

“The court ordered the company to cease operations forthwith.”

 

If you would like to read the definition of forthwith, check it out here.

If you would like to read the entire article on the dressing down the Ohio Supreme Court gave Maple Hts., check it out here.

For all the Ohio politicians out there, it is good to read the Ohio Constitution.

“But in its 6-0 ruling, the court said that the Ohio Constitution “imposes a ‘mandatory constitutional duty’ upon city councils to submit charter amendment initiatives ‘forthwith.’ ”

 

We would like to remind the Cleveland City Council that no matter how “distasteful” it was for you to put Issue 35 on the ballot in Cleveland for November, 2014, it was mandatory. As in mandatory.

 


Chris Finney discusses Red Light Camera Fight with Bill Wills on Cleveland Radio WTAM

September 10, 2014

If you missed the radio interview with Chris Finney on Bill Wills show WTAM 1100AM on Tuesday morning,  this link will take you to the interview.

Vote YES on Issue 35 to ban automated traffic enforcement in Cleveland, Ohio!!


We need your help!

September 9, 2014

Now that Issue 35 has been certified for the ballot, we need your help.  The big business-big government alliance behind the cameras can afford to pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into a campaign to defeat Issue 35.  We don’t need to match them dollar for dollar, but we do need some money to mount a campaign.  Please consider making a donation.  You can contribute on-line at rally.org/liberateohio or send a check to Liberate Ohio, 13825 Liberty Av., Cleveland, Ohio 44135.  Your contribution could mean the difference between defeat and victory!


1851 Center for Constitutional Law Traffic Cameras are Unconstitutional

September 8, 2014

It is important for everyone to remember what the true issues are with traffic cameras. If we look at what the 1851 has presented to the Ohio Supreme Court, then we cut straight to the real issues.

The 1851 Center’s brief asserts the following:

  • Through the Ohio Constitution, citizens vested judicial power in the courts only. And Ohio cities’ hearing officers exercise “judicial power” when they determine whether Ohio drivers are liable for the violation.
  • While the Ohio Constitution permits the Ohio General Assembly to create additional judicial power, legislators have never created blanket authority for cities, or traffic-camera specific authority. Instead, they have indicated that all such violations must run through municipal courts.
  • The City of Toledo, like other Ohio cities, cannot create judicial power through local ordinances.
  • “Administrative” traffic camera enforcement violates Ohioans’ right to defend themselves before an elected judge, as well as their due process right to judicial oversight before deprivation of their vehicles.

This is the heart of the problem. Cities across the state can assert whatever other arguments they want to, but these are the true issues.

Read the entire article here.

The politicians in Cleveland think they can “create” judicial power by passing new laws. They all should know that this is in direct violation of the Ohio Constitution. If your local politician doesn’t know this, remember that factoid at election time.

 


Vote YES on Issue 35 to ban the cameras

September 7, 2014

The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections has published a list of local ballot issues and their assigned numbers.  The Cleveland Camera Removal Amendment is Issue 35, which will read as follows:

PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
(By Petition)
CITY OF CLEVELAND
A majority affirmative vote is required for passage.
Shall the Charter of the City of Cleveland be amended to add new Chapter 40, Section 203, which provides that the City shall not use any traffic law photo-monitoring device for the enforcement of a qualified traffic law violation, unless a law enforcement officer is present at the location of the device and personally issues the ticket to the alleged violator at the time and location of the violation?
 
PROPUESTA DE ENMIENDA A LOS ESTATUTOS
(Por Petición)
CIUDAD DE CLEVELAND
Se requiere un voto afirmativo por mayoría para su aprobación.
¿Deberán enmendarse los Estatutos de la Ciudad de Cleveland para añadir la nueva Sección 203 del Capítulo 40, que dispone que la Ciudad no usará ningún dispositivo de vigilancia por fotografía de la ley de
tránsito para castigar una infracción calificada de la ley de tránsito, a menos que haya un oficial de policía presente en el lugar del dispositivo y emita personalmente la multa al presunto infractor en el momento y lugar de la infracción?

A YES vote is required to adopt the amendment to ban the cameras, so please remember to vote YES on Issue 35!


Cleveland City Council Votes To Place Traffic Camera Issue on the Ballot

September 3, 2014

Cleveland City Council did the right thing on Wednesday, September 3, 2014, when they voted to place the traffic camera issue on the November, 2014 ballot. The entire article can be read here at cleveland.com.

The entire process was just a formality. Ohio State Law mandates a citizen initiative be put on the ballot if the signatures are verified. (Apparently, Maple Hts. politicians don’t think they have to follow the law. Good luck with that one. You can catch up on that drama right here.)

Councilperson Joe Cimperman has the right idea:

“….because they do not do what they’re supposed to do. They were supposed to make life safer, sure they slow people down, but you see an increase in the number of rear end collisions and you see people speeding as soon as they pass the cameras,” said Cimperman.

We agree councilor!!