City of Corona, CA claims that traffic defendants must be compelled to testify
City of Corona CA continues giving fraudulent legal advice to ensare motorists
By Martin Hill
LibertyFight.com
August 21, 2012


RELATED:

Ca motorist beats fourth traffic ticket through the mail 2/15/13 [Corona, Ca red-light camera slapped down! Court documents included on page.]

City of Corona, CA claims that traffic defendants must be compelled to testify 8/21/12
City of Corona CA continues giving fraudulent legal advice to ensare motorists

Corona, CA removes false legal directive from police red-light camera website after 4 years 10/23/12

Corona, CA to Axe red-light camera program on Guy Fawkes day 9/15/12

LibertyFight.com red light camera section

The city of Corona, California, including their Mayor Eugene Montanez and Police Chief Michael Abel, have refused to respond to repeated inquiries and have refused to cease their practice of giving fraudulent legal advice to visitors of their official website. An e-mail sent to Brad Robbins, listed as City Manager, was returned as undeliverable.

The city is giving blatantly false information and misleading readers who visit their official webpage on red-light camera ticket information.

The citys' POLICE DEPARTMENT RED LIGHT CAMERA ENFORCEMENT webpage states, in part,

"On March 30, 2009, the City of Corona installed red light enforcement cameras at various intersections throughout the city. The cameras photograph motorists that fail to stop for a red light and also records the violations in streaming video. If you have been photographed failing to stop for a red light you will receive a notice in the mail. The notice will be addressed to the registered owner of the vehicle or the actual driver if he/she can be identified by the reviewing officer. If you were not driving the vehicle at the time of the violation, you must provide the name and address of the person driving." [emphasis added.]

In reality, no one in the United States, or in any state or city, can be compelled to testify against themselves, or at all, for that matter. So the claim by the City of Corona that any recipient of their revenue scheme red-light camera tickets "MUST" submit anything to the police or anyone else, is blatantly false and a violation of due process. The information posted on Corona's website, while mild in comparison to the many governmental abuses in existence today, is nevertheless a sneaky, dishonest, and underhanded way for the Police Dept. and City to operate.

The e-mail inquiries sent August 16th to Mayor Montanez (far left), Police Chief Abel (left), and City manager to their official e-mail addresses listed on the city website asked "Given the fact that we have a 5th Amendment, which states, in part, "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself", on what legal basis is this claim posted to your website? Is this purported to be legal advice to defendants seeking information on their citation?
Does your city attorney or local prosecutor have any comment on this section of your website?
In addition, due to some recent CA appeals court decisions and lawsuits regarding these cameras, an explanation would be insightful. Thanks."

The Corona Police Department "Mission Statement" states "Our members pride themselves in being the model for law enforcement with vision, while performing with integrity and professionalism. We accomplish our mission by ensuring we Provide quality customer service by enhancing police professionalism and valuing community trust."[emphasis added]. However, posting false information to clueless defendants and refusing to respond to inquiries about it is neither professional or trustworthy, and is certainly not a model of integrity or quality.

Originally pointed out by HighwayRobbery.net on their Corona documents page, the deceptive text remains unchanged. On their CAMERA TOWNS page, HighwayRobbery.net includes more information about the Corona camera system:

City of Corona, California Corona, pop. 150,000, is 10 miles southwest of Riverside. The City signed a contract with RedFlex on Nov. 5, 2008. Some of the "tickets" mailed may be "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page. The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10. The contract possibly provides a monetary sanction against the city if city traffic engineers lengthen the yellows. The contract reads: "Cost neutrality is guaranteed except as follows: If the Customer [the City] fails to maintain the minimum yellow light change interval as established by Section 21455.7 of the California Vehicle Code." The passage is open to two conflicting interpretations. 1. The City is required to maintain yellows that are at least as long as the length specified by the Code - but can be longer. 2. The City is required to maintain the exact length specified by the Code, and may not set yellows that are longer. The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the time period commencing on the Installation Date for the each Designated Intersection Approach and ending on the date that is thirty (30) days later. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6. Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: City of Corona Documents.

Also see: