Mayor Frank Jackson.
I received an email from a reader that urged me to stop promoting the Cuyahoga County for Liberty’s ambitious drive to put the traffic camera issue on the November ballad, by inviting registered voters to currently sign petitions.
No, I will continue promoting the Cuyahoga County for Liberty Web site http://cc4l.org/
There has been a lot of backlash from citizens over the traffic cameras since they had been raised. In newspapers, on TV and courtrooms, and from hundreds of citizens who received traffic violation citations, via bloggers, public gatherings, in homes and so fourth. Although many people feel helpless in riding the streets of the cameras, the six years of hell raising for good reasons was not a lost cause. If people who feel politicians have betrayed them, they should think about moving beyond the frustrations and complaints.
Assist in anyway possible in helping groups like the Cuyahoga County for Liberty, rid the streets of cameras that only put on display, how low this government (elected officials) had come in the business of profiting from non-profit safety services.
And according to state law, the cameras are illegal. And that is the pivotal argument which has caused many citizens today, to move beyond all comments over the traffic cameras, and act upon the opinions in hopes of returning some kind of sanity to the offices of Council members.
If the state law claims traffic cameras are illegal, than elected leaders in government who voted on an emergency amendment on March 9,2009 is now challenged as flawed, should be considered as accomplishes to crimes which are taking place today both the East and West sides of Cleveland. So, citizens who are signing petitions to but the traffic camera issue before the public in the November election, are not only giving the populace a say on the issue, but reminding politicians that sooner or later, crime does not pay. Now citizens should keep in mind, Joe Cimperman and Michael Polensek voted against passage of the measure on March 9,2009, but this does not mean they voted against the ordinance back on July 13, 2005. Citizens in both Wards will be seeking answers in future emails to them.
Now if the crime is on me, meaning my analysis is slanderous, I urge Cleveland’s Law Director, Robert Triozzi to write a brief in sixth grade English (not in legal terms) to the citizens of Cleveland, which explains a possible loop-hole in the state law that people should know about. Crime busters have accused the Mayor (Jackson) of being the current ringleader in the traffic camera scam. And it is up to Triozzi to protect his boss’s loyalty to the citizen’s of Cleveland. If Triozzi remains silent, the document directed to below should not be second-guessed.
"SPEEDING TOWARDS DISASTER: HOW CLEVELAND’S TRAFFIC CAMERAS VIOLATE THE OHIO CONSTITUTION."
BY KEVIN P. SHANNON http://www.clevelandstatelawreview.org/55/issue4/gshannon.pdfNow there seems to be a contradiction between what the state has on the books and the city’s ordinance. The Ohio Supreme Court a few years back upheld the right of municipalities to snap camera pictures and issue citations. But does the citation carry the same strength as tickets handed out by police? Is the hundred-dollar penalty for running red lights and speeding the same, as judges would hand out in traffic courts? No, tickets written by police after braking Ohio traffic laws is a criminal offence and penalty can vary pending on the judges ruling. Traffic camera citations is a civic law which is flawed because owners of vehicles who refuse to pay the penalties, are not forced to do so by Ohio law.
Cleveland Municipal Court collections coordinator, Brian Mahon stated the law is "toothless" in enforcing the payments of penalties. Going beyond attempts by collection agencies to collect the money is fruitless. So, why is it that Cleveland’s legislative body is doing nothing to fix the law? Could it be that the law cannot be improved upon because the state ruling will over power it if tried?
Then what does the local law amount to if the courts are helpless in executing judgments on violators? The so-called law becomes something other then a legal process. Am I wrong by saying, what is presented to citizens, as law is just pretence, a deceptive act to fleece the public? Am I wrong by saying the traffic camera law is mute because if violators ignore the monitory penalties, the ordinance lacks the most powerful step of all, consequences for such actions?
Four emails have been sent to the following Councilpersons asking them to share their individual viewpoints with Ward citizens, who would like to know, why the "yea" votes for the traffic cameras? Or if members were elected after the vote, are they in union with the majority vote
I will include a reminder of the document above, "Speeding Toward Disaster… If Cleveland’s Law Director, Robert Triozzi did not respond as yet to the citizens of Cleveland, please encourage him to do so.
The immediate four Councilpersons are…
Councilman Brian Cummins. The email can be read by going to the Ward 14- citizen’s page.
Councilman Jeffrey Johnson. The email can be read by going to the Ward 8-citizen’s page.
Councilman Kevin Kelley. The email can be read by going to the Ward 13-citizen’s page.
Councilman Joe Cimperman. The email can be read by going to the Ward 3-citizen’s page.
If responses are not returned after the second reminder, citizens need to find ways to gain cooperation.
Councilperson responses to citizens will appear on the Ward pages after two weeks had past.
All other Council members will receive emails at intervals of four with separate e letters going out to Cleveland citizens with updates on out going info and incoming responses.
To be continued…