By on April 10, 2018

If you’re a driver in a major urban area, you probably already know all about the nasty creature known as the “public-private partnership.” In a nutshell, it’s a way for a private company to make money by issuing you citations on behalf of a municipality. There isn’t space on these electronic pages to detail the many ways in which public-private partnerships have veered off the tracks into profiteering, racketeering, bribery, and many other forms of outright criminality. In a way, it’s entirely appropriate; after all, the original “public-private partnership” was the European Letter Of Marque that permitted any yahoo with a sailboat and a cannon or two to become a “privateer” — in other words, a pirate.

It seems only reasonable that someone would eventually come up with a “private-private partnership” that uses technology to defend the hapless motorist rather than burden him further. Something similar happened years ago with radar and laser guns: insurance companies, including GEICO, gave free laser guns to the police in the hopes that the guns would be used to write tickets and thus enable them to raise the rates of their customers. At the same time, Cincinnati Microwave and other companies were selling radar detectors that cost more than a speeding ticket but less than the inevitable insurance hike.

The modern successor to Mike Valentine and Cincinnati Microwave: A 19-year-old with a website, of course.

The site is called Do Not Pay and it offers you a way to fight your parking ticket at no cost by answering a few simple questions. After you do that, Do Not Pay will send an automated appeal on your behalf. Joshua Browder, the 19-year-old who came up with the idea, says 160,000 tickets have been successfully appealed out of the 250,000 or so that have been entered into the system. You only pay the website if your ticket is vacated.

Do Not Pay is expanding into refunds for delayed flights and other more complex legal situations including divorce, but the success of the basic app shows there is money to be made on the private side of traffic law as well as the public side.

It’s not the first website or app to offer these services. Fixed, a site offering similar services for parking and traffic tickets, had quite a bit of success raising capital a few years ago. Unfortunately, this private-private partnership ran into problems on all sides, from San Francisco’s unethical but inventive ways of blocking Fixed from acting on a customer’s behalf to a bunch of attorneys claiming the very idea of an app doing automated “legal work” is illegal on its face. Eventually, Fixed was sold to some attorneys who turned it into a front end for conventional legal referrals. So much for the brave new world. Your local attorney might be a big fan of “disruption” as it relates to everything from manufacturing to bookstores, but he has no interest in letting his own business model be disrupted.

There are, of course, plenty of objections to services like Do Not Pay, most of them centering around the idea that municipalities don’t have the manpower or ability to respond to a large number of contested tickets. The system only “works” if the vast majority of people just pay their ticket and forget about it. This imperial expectation of quiet compliance is part and parcel of any ticketing operation designed to increase revenue rather than promote public safety, but it’s particularly critical to the public-private partnerships where the margins are lower on both sides of the trough. I was told some time ago that pretty much anybody who bothered to contest one of Chicago’s infamous red-light tickets wound up having their charges dismissed. In much the same way that Dell reportedly loses money on a new-computer sale the minute a human support representative picks up a phone somewhere, the red-light camera process was unprofitable if the mark had the temerity to contest the charge.

The Do Not Pay site might end up suffering the same fate as Fixed, but this is too good an idea not to eventually be sorted out by an Amazon-like tech giant. My guess is that future versions of the service will sit there and literally talk you through the process of filing the appeal, perhaps with an expert system typing in the details for you and your input only truly required for the signature. That would bypass concern trolling from the legal community while still making the service usable for anyone who is intelligent enough to play Candy Crush on their phone.

It’s not too hard to envision a future where both sides of the ticketing business continually up their game until each and every moment you spend behind the wheel of your car leads to a flurry of artificial-intelligence action from municipal bots seeking to fine you for non-signaled lane changes even as your own bots fire back with pro forma challenges of jurisdiction and measurement technique. Once a month or so you’ll get a combined statement telling you which citations were vacated and which were upheld. Millions of interactions will be passionately argued without so much as a single human neuron involved. There’s only one certainty: the overall financial burden on the motorist will increase. Just as it has been increasingly steadily for more than 60 years now.

I can’t tell you where the money will go, but I know where it will come from — and so do you.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

52 Comments on “No Fixed Abode: Here Comes The Private-Private Partnership...”

  • avatar

    “Once a month or so you’ll get a combined statement telling you which citations were vacated and which were upheld.”

    Sigh. This whole thing sounds about right.

    • 0 avatar

      Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how engaged voters are on issues like this. In the end, it’s up to us.

      • 0 avatar

        Sadly its not up to the voters. In many EU countries, there are already speed trap cameras that will fine a driver for being ONE KM/H above the posted speed limit. Nobody wants the authorities ticketing for minor infractions that could be chalked up to speedometer calibration or a downward slope in the road, but they do issue tickets and generally waive those that are minor and contested. They count on people to pay without fighting – and most do.

        The suburbs of the US are populated with a TON of speed cameras, red light cameras, etc. Some governments have even been caught reducing the yellow light interval in order to issue more tickets at such intersections and have had to refund a LOT of money. But the cameras still exist and still write tickets (without police review which is required by law) and the authorities just count on people to pay. None of the voters want them, but those in power see them as a cash spigot to pay off inflated pensions, pet projects, etc.

        The voter really has no say.

        We have a very dystopian future indeed if these trends continue.

        • 0 avatar

          Nonsense. Voters DO have the final say. The problem is that they’re often too disconnected, or apathetic (or hopeless) to think they can do anything about it. They’re wrong. If enough voters tell a city, or a county, that they don’t want red light cameras, then that’s what’s going to happen.

          • 0 avatar

            At some point in my life I want to work to create a bill that states that local governments in my area CAN NOT use any fine money for operations, and that 100% of fine money has to go to something like a defense fund, Education, or similar to destroy that huge conflict of interest.

        • 0 avatar

          Cams in any place where democracy still works tend to run into trouble, and many places have shut them off.

          In places like NY City where it’s not an issue (democracy), they can top-down impose cams. Likewise Wash. DC and surrounding suburbs. Drive in DC with a detector and waze, and the number of cams is absolutely mind boggling. Fortunately, that’s not the rest of the USA>

          Governments view cams as free money. Worst case this combines with local bicycle advocates, who hate cars and want to do anything possible to make them less attractive. NYC has a toxic mix of the two, and the State, luckily, won’t give them home rule.

          All that is necessary to allow evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing…..applies to $cameras too.

      • 0 avatar

        An easier and readily available way to do speed enforcement is via systems like On Star. Even cell phone GPS can be accessed to track location related to speed zones and can be used to determine velocity. My GPS indicates the posted speed limit rather accurately so it would be a rather easy way to go.

        • 0 avatar

          Privacy nightmare, no thanks.

          • 0 avatar

            @sportyaccordy – It is a privacy issue buy there are ways around it. Sign up for GPS tracking to save insurance costs. It already exists. They already use cell phone data to set traffic lights and determine traffic flow.

        • 0 avatar

          Unsure if this still holds true, but when NJ first authorized EZ-Pass on the Turnpike the Legislature added a clause that explicitly stated that the info produced could not be used to issue speeding tickets. Law enforcement could and does use time & location info in criminal investigations.

          I am amazed by the number of people who will surrender a bit of their privacy for “convenience” or “savings.” IMO having OnStar know exactly where you are at all times just in case of the infinitesimally small probability you are in a one-car accident in the boondocks is not worth the loss of liberty. As is whatever savings one gets from letting your insurance company track your every move. A people rarely lose their liberty in one fell swoop, but in a myriad of small cuts.

          • 0 avatar

            If you carry a google phone or an iphone, you’ve already given up that privacy. I’m not sure if Apple is as bad (they probably are) but google knows everywhere you’ve been.

          • 0 avatar

            I am proud to know that this rule was at the behest of the NJ State Chapter coordinator for the National Motorist’s Association, and supported by several key NJ Legislators. One example of quiet advocacy and protection of motorist’s rights.

    • 0 avatar

      I disagree.

      You won’t get a statement, it’ll just come straight out of your account, courtesy of blockchain.

  • avatar
    Rick T.

    “It’s not too hard to envision a future where both sides of the ticketing business continually up their game until each and every moment you spend behind the wheel of your car leads to a flurry of artificial-intelligence action from municipal bots seeking to fine you for non-signaled lane changes even as your own bots fire back with pro forma challenges of jurisdiction and measurement technique.”

    This will be known as peak ham sandwich nation:

  • avatar

    Isn’t the point of any government-induced conflict to create racketeering opportunities on both sides, from which politicians will ultimately profit and expand their power? If lawyers don’t co-opt Do Not Pay, officials will eventually get the job done with new regulations.

    Government is like a kudzu vine. It will never stop growing, and its rate of growth compounds exponentially. It must be aggressively pruned to ensure diversity of flora. All of society must be aware of the fact, and they must be willing to do their part.

    One way to prune government is to challenge the monopoly of attorneys. It can be done. Accountants did it generations ago, and they won. CPA’s can give legal advice regarding Title 26 and ancillary functions, and they can practice law in US Tax Court. Accountants have their own set of bylaws that are still largely administrated by private interests (though SOX sort of screwed that up); therefore, attorneys cannot take over these implementation of these rules. The rest of society needs to draw up battle plans, perhaps doctors most of all.

  • avatar

    “There are, of course, plenty of objections to services like Do Not Pay, most of them centering around the idea that municipalities don’t have the manpower or ability to respond to a large number of contested tickets.”

    Boo hoo!! What about the the idea that honest law abiding citizens don’t have the resources to fight an entrenched bureaucracy whose sole goal is to make life miserable for the people who pay the bills?

    • 0 avatar

      The whole “deep state” concept isn’t just about civil servants making life difficult for the current President, and it isn’t just confined to the Federal Government.

      At the end of the day, people will do what is necessary to continue their income stream, but when they are the government, they have incredible coercive ability at their fingertips.

      • 0 avatar

        Govt’s #1 priority is expanding the power and scope of govt. Whether at the deep state federal level or the rural county clerk level. And they view tax payers as a personal bank account with an infinite balance that can never be exhausted.

  • avatar
    cimarron typeR

    I can’t imagine Big 3 would want this to be pervasive , ultimately nudging drivers to public transport /ride sharing.
    Not so worried where I live in Kansas, where anything close to infringement on liberty is met with considerable disdain(I remember when the politicians tried to allow red light cameras in KS), but it could be an issue for me in KC,MO

  • avatar

    What parking ticket? I sent my self-driving car home after it dropped me at work and it was sitting in my garage all day until it picked me up at 5.

  • avatar

    I’ve heard sales pitches, as a ticket lawyer, from these guys for over 20 years.

    1. Ticket revenue is something municipalities fight over. Small Towns won’t want big brother to take a cut. Indeed, Suffolk County NY was able to get the State Run Traffic Tribunal disbanded, in favor of opening a County Court, and keeping the money. NY State was charging a lot of things to TVB, which reduced the take to the County….

    2. Attorneys protect the franchise. While you have a right to defend yourself pro-se, once one accepts money to defend someone, that one must be an attorney. Traffic isn’t as simple as most think…there are collateral consequences. Many of the bright boys who think “I’ll program a website, get it ranked, and be the middle man between attorney and client” in the guise of advertising fall afoul of fee-splitting. You can pay for ads, but the per-lead idea these guys all come up with is a fee split, and not ethical.

    3. Courts are the most hidebound things in the world. They work for their convenience. You will never get a small court to radically revamp the way they do business….and if someone comes up with that idea from on-high, watch the Courts slow walk it. The defendants’ convenience is never at issue.

    4. Tickets, and the results, affect not only licenses. The ability to get or keep a job, special licenses, how tickets cross over state lines, even something like “does your state count offenses from date of occurrence or date of conviction” can make a huge difference. Life insurance, Umbrella insurance, etc.

    5. Lastly, fight every ticket. In most places, showing up as a blind squirrel will get you something. If you know a little, or hire an attorney, the deal will get better.

    • 0 avatar

      “5. Lastly, fight every ticket. In most places, showing up as a blind squirrel will get you something. If you know a little, or hire an attorney, the deal will get better.”

      This right here. I’ve done this many times and the only ones where I got nothing out of it were ones that I completely dropped the ball on even a most basic defence.

      I recall when I was 18 my insurance had lapsed for a period of time due to nonpayment ($500 a mo, yo). I inevitably got pulled over for some small infraction and only had an expired insurance card. I got cited for no insurance. Fines for this in that jurisdiction were typically $1,000 but could be up to $5,000. I figured I’m a broke 18 year old kid, why not try and wing a defense. I showed up to court with a random bank statement showing payment at some incongruent date to the insurance company. No one even read it and the charge was dismissed on the spot.

      With speeding tickets, I’d always choose meeting with the prosecutor. They don’t care at all about your story, they just jump right into negotiations. 20 over? I can offer you Disobey a Sign, $95, no points.

      If you drive a lot and depend on your license at all, it’s super important to defend against this kind of stuff.

      However, lately I got a couple small dollar 10 over tickets (enforcement is nuts around here) and just paid them since I had room on points and with a current company issued car, my personal policy only rates my wife. My record affects that none.

    • 0 avatar

      re: #5

      Not if you are big city clicker who gets a ticket in podunk town desperate for money. I got a ticket once where I was driving a blue car on a fairly busy stretch of interstate. The ticket as written by the officer said the color of the car was gray. To the day I die I will swear I was not going as fast as I was ticketed. It was 87 in a 70 zone. I will admit I was going 75-80 but no way 87. So it is plausible that the cop pulled over a different car than the one he clocked. Or as the lawyers call it – REASONABLE DOUBT??

      Nope. Judge said blue and gray are close enough that it didn’t matter. Pay the full amount, plus court fees and no demerit points removed either. And the fact that the judge and prosecutor were all chummy and laughing with each other, along with the various cops in the courtroom, prior to the start of the court session, had nothing to do with any of it. I’m sure.

      Justice my a$$.

      • 0 avatar

        I hate cops to this day and do everything I can to destroy them (legally).

        It all started when I was 17 and got a ticket for doing nothing wrong. They said I was going 20 over and I wasn’t even speeding, all because I had a modified car and I was a kid.

        i figured it would be an easy court case. The cop had no proof, no radar, no laser, nothing… since I wasn’t speeding. He followed me 2 miles into another jurisdiction before he gave me the ticket.

        I figured I’d fight it. The judge offered me a nice $80 fine and no points, but I was innocent, so I rejected the offer. He didn’t even hear me out- I got the points and had to pay the fine.

        what they created is a monster determined to destroy them (legally). Today I am a huge anti-police advocate, and do everything I can to disrespect them and fight back. I view the police as the enemy of me and the people. I’m raising my kids to view police as monsters that are evil.

        The sad thing is, I’m sure there are some good police officers out there and I just got a bad one (who in fact was eventually fired for misconduct), but that’s the problem with that level of power. It only takes one bad seed to create a monster. I KNOW that it was one bad seed, but it happened at such a young stage in my life it permanently corrupted me. I can’t get over it and it sucks for everyone.

        I know I am probably screwing my kids over too to hate police, but it just sneaks out every instance. Every time I see one I hide. Every time I pass one on the highway I get nervous, and you can bet if someone broke into my house they are the last person I’d call.

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          And just how would society behave without any police?

          Remember to be careful of what you wish for.

          Better to encourage your kids to be either a) lawyers, b) politicians, or c) police officers and work the system from the inside.

          • 0 avatar

            “And just how would society behave without any police?”

            Well in an armed society, pretty well I would think.

            The real question is what would state and local governments do without the Police and the revenue they generate.

          • 0 avatar

            It’s not about a desire to eliminate police. It’s about knowing that police often abuse their authority and are then supported by their colleagues – either directly or through police unions – and therefore cannot be trusted.

            Because police are given so much authority and the power to easily harm individuals, they should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.

            Respect their authority to avoid conflict, but if you teach children that police are their friends or that police always behave in the best interest of the citizens then you’re setting them up for a future conflict when that illusion is shattered.

            The kids probably already know that anyway. Since they were small children, they have had access to a practically unlimited supply of videos of police abusing their authority.

            Here comes the referee
            The lights flashing
            Best bit of the day
            Now that’s living
            Why don’t you run away?
            Are you kidding?
            What is the golden rule?
            You say nothing

            Take a look
            At the kids on the street
            No they never miss a beat

          • 0 avatar

            “It’s not about a desire to eliminate police. It’s about knowing that police often abuse their authority and are then supported by their colleagues – either directly or through police unions – and therefore cannot be trusted.”

            Bingo! And well said.

          • 0 avatar

            “It’s not about a desire to eliminate police. It’s about knowing that police often abuse their authority and are then supported by their colleagues – either directly or through police unions – and therefore cannot be trusted.”

            Bingo! And well said.


    • 0 avatar

      “Lastly, fight every ticket. In most places, showing up as a blind squirrel will get you something.”

      This, absolutely. My girlfriend’s kid works for a hospital and rear-ended someone in their van. The collision was VERY minor. But that didn’t stop the other driver, and her kid, from developing instant stiff-neck the minute they saw that the van was commercial. He ended up charged with causing an accident with injuries, which is a pretty serious offense, and could have jacked his insurance rates WAY up.

      My girlfriend hired an attorney, and voila! It got dropped to defective equipment. Shockingly enough, the folks he hit weren’t actually injured. The attorney also found that the DA filed the charge TWICE, with two court dates, and only notified him about the second date. He’d have blown off the first date, and ended up with a bench warrant, had the attorney not figured that out.

      Problem is, around here, that kind of deal means coughing up a retainer for a couple grand. Not everyone has that kind of money. Thankfully, my girlfriend could swing it, and in her kid’s case, the actual bill came out to be a fraction of the retainer.

      But in his case, it turned out to be worth every penny.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        @Markf: history has proven that your belief is a fallacy.

        Government police services were initiated when policing became necessary to protect property and the safety of citizens and private forces proved to be worse than useless.

        The issue is that as in any organization or profession there are some who are unfit for their role.

        • 0 avatar

          “Government police services were initiated when policing became necessary to protect property and the safety of citizens and private forces proved to be worse than useless.”

          The Police do neither. The Supreme Court has ruled over and over they are under no obligation to protect either. The Police today exist (almost) exclusively as armed revenue agents. Issuing tickets for 4 MPH over the limit protects neither the “public” or property, it generates revenue.

          And they write reports. When you house/car get broken into you need a Police report for insurance.

          And yes, there are plenty of “bad apples”, the problem is nothing is ever done about them. Police unions (like teachers unions) exists solely to protect bad Cops.

  • avatar

    When you hear Public-Private-Partnership think rackets: scams to toll existing roads, high priced parking rates, for-profit speed & red light camera scams, jacked up rates on existing toll roads & bridges, and all sorts of other rackets that governments can “sell the rights to fleece the public”. With extremely rare exceptions, fight PPP proposals to save your wallet from being picked.

    • 0 avatar

      @jcwconsult – the previous BC government went crazy with PPP infrastructure. It was all a scam to hide costs and make the provincial budget look balanced. The province is on the hook for billions in costs conveniently deferred for some future government.

  • avatar

    One thing Orwell, Huxley, and Burdekin never predicted was just how banal the dystopia of the future would be.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    In Toronto, they no longer have ‘night court’. You have to take time during the day (off work for many) to attend court to plead your case.

    After just over 30 years of ‘perfect’ driving, I received a ticket. The officer helped me out and wrote it for not having an up to date (valid) insurance certificate.

    So that night I got my valid certificate and went to the station to present it.

    The rules had changed. Had to show it at court. Went to the Courthouse. Sat in the waiting area/line with hundreds of other overheated, bored, upset people, for over one hour to submit my ‘not guilty’ plea. That got me a chance to go into the next area to line-up to set my court date. That line was even longer.

    So I left and paid my ticket. Which counts as a ‘moving violation’ on my insurance.

    • 0 avatar

      A paper insurance card is needed? But that is stupid. You could get a card and then cancel your insurance.

      Georgia checks it electronically when you are pulled over.

  • avatar

    Lots of good comments. Yes, YMMV when fighting tickets.

    Some Courts are cordial, and some are dysfunctional families. A lay person will have no way to know which one they are getting into. Local counsel does….

    Be nice to the Court Staff. You’d be amazed how a lack of self control will not endear you to them. They didn’t write you, and have no idea who you are. Be nice.

    In NY you get a lot of small towns, where the typical calendar is 20 people twice a week in the evenings, to Traffic Violations Bureau in NYC, which is an absolute machine and nightmare for the motorist….30 cases per room x 4 rooms x 3 or 4 calendars. Everything goes to trial, there is NO plea bargain. There a blind squirrel is just run over and flattened. Judges are employees of DMV.

    Upstate, more cordial, a judge may take the time to look at your record and discuss it with you, the judges are independent of the police. Some are actually skeptical of them. For time, some city courts can be long term gigs but most are done in two hours. Long Island gives you either a tiny village court, or a County Seat style traffic Court. long waits, but unlike Traffic Violations, a deal. It will be expensive, though on Long Island…4x the fines upstate, all in.

    Still, most of the time, for most people, fight every ticket. Make them work for the money !

    • 0 avatar

      Being polite and patient does usually pay dividends if for no other reason than not making a situation worse. My brother as a newly licenced teen was in a minor accident with my dad’s pickup. He didn’t see any damage to the other vehicle and left. He was charged with “hit and run” which is rather serious. My dad told him, “you made a big mistake, you face the consequences”. I went to court with him and we sat all day long. It turned out that the court had his name wrong. The judge had a reputation for being crusty but fair. He asked my brother what happened. My brother was polite and truly upset by sitting in court all day. The judge said that it was a rather large mandatory fine. He told my brother that since “they” wasted all of his time sitting in court that he’d “pay” him an hourly wage for being in court. My brother lucked out and had to pay a fine that was under $100. He did get saddled with penalty points on his licence but nothing worse.

  • avatar

    Hopefully, some future iteration of Western Civilization will obviate this sort of nonsense by finally realizing that the freedom of the Common Man is far too important to be left in the care and feeding of the Common Man.

    How many noxious laws were passed because the Common Man couldn’t go to the City Council session and challenge the proposed law, because he “had to get up and go to work in the morning?”

    The only real long-term solution is to start a new country with a new legal code – a country where the government can only interpret and enforce laws, but has no power to make new ones.

    • 0 avatar

      Well, then, let’s hope that nothing changes…ever. That way, the old laws work just fine.

      I see what you’re getting at, but that dog ain’t gonna hunt.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        Agree with FreedMike. A great many posters here demonstrate very little comprehension of what life was like in previous centuries/eras.

        We are living in a comparable paradise. The end of the 20th century was a period when the human race experienced longer lifespans, less infant mortality, less starvation, far fewer diseases, better standards of living and even to a large degree less violence and human suffering and greater personal freedoms than any other time in human history.

        Technology, engineering, communications and laws made this possible.

        As for traffic tickets, they are a problem not worth worrying about as during most of our lifetimes autonomous vehicles will become the norm.

        • 0 avatar

          “We now face the danger, which in the past has been the most destructive to the humans: Success, plenty, comfort and ever-increasing leisure. No dynamic people has ever survived these dangers.”

          Romanticizing the past can be a problem, but don’t oversell the present (or the future) either.

  • avatar

    “There are, of course, plenty of objections to services like Do Not Pay, most of them centering around the idea that municipalities don’t have the manpower or ability to respond to a large number of contested tickets.”

    Yet around here the next big thing is contracting security companies that drive around with cameras on the roof, issuing automated tickets. Especially in big mall parking lots… They put up parking time limit signs and go to town on the people who stay too long.

    The other big one is private parking tickets that actually aren’t even legally enforceable.

  • avatar

    So much reminding me of the scene in 5th Element where the Bruce Willis character is trying to work as a taxi driver.

  • avatar

    The entire institution of issuing citations as a form of penalty, is nothing but a racket to begin with. If an act someone performs is “bad,” preventing him from performing said act has value to “the community.” Meaning, it’s something they are willing to pay for. Imprisoning criminals being a good example.

    This cost, must necessarily, at a minimum, be positive; in order to ensure that what is deemed “bad” is truly considered so by those ultimately footing the bill. Once running around arbitrarily calling people bad and harassing them becomes a profit center for the ones doing the harassing, all bets are off.

    And not only wrt preventing the enforcers from continuously seeking to expand the number of people they can shake down this way. But also wrt preventing them from devoting an ever greater share of their resources to this profitable activity, vs bothering with much less profitable lines of work, like catching murderers.

  • avatar

    Here in Los Angeles County we can simply ignore the 145,000 red light camera tickets handed out annually by seven cities and the MTA. The ability to ignore the $500.00 tickets is due to a LA County Superior Court (“LASC”) policy that they will not turn you in to the DMV if they don’t hear back from you after a red light camera ticket has been mailed to you. (For more specifics about LA County camera tickets, do a search on red light camera no consequence.)

    The LASC policy is another current example – others being pot and immigration laws – of one branch of government reacting to cancel or nullify overreaching by another branch. It is also an example of a really powerful and large entity – the LASC may be the largest court system in the nation – not having become comfortably numb.

    So, I am keeping my fingers crossed. And being careful about who I vote for.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • SPPPP: Legitimate scrapyards already do this, at least in my area.
  • ajla: Yes, this always happens when California’s waiver provision comes up. Half the comments are about how bad...
  • ravenuer: Gee, if I need money to eat, I’d get a job.
  • Jeff S: Even a law can be overturned if it is not a Constitutional Amendment. Not saying laws will be overturned but...
  • Art Vandelay: All the draft ruling said was that it was an overreach by the court and the legislature should pass...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber