Hughes had called a colloquy among lawyers for the city -- David Feldman and Hope Reh -- and the lawyers for ATS -- Andy Taylor and George Hittner -- on the day after Thanksgiving. Although the city technically filed suit against ATS, the city staff do not want to see the cameras removed any more than ATS does. The parties hashed out a compromise that happened to give ATS everything the firm wanted."ATS requests the court to preserve the status quo by enjoining the city from terminating the public safety program or otherwise implementing Proposition 3, pending an adjudication of these fundamental issues of law affecting not only these parties, but the general public at large," Taylor wrote in its brief to the court filed Wednesday.
The actions in Houston track what happened last year in the city of College Station after voters approved an anti-camera referendum. Attorneys for the city attempted to lose the lawsuit that ATS filed to overturn the result of the public vote.
Told you.
Kickback’s anyone ?
I fail to see why this is in Federal court. I must be missing something.
“Just three days before this provision would have taken effect, the city signed a new agreement with no termination provision in an attempt to avoid a proposed ban on new red light camera contracts”
So they did this as an intentional act to circumvent the law.
That is a type of fraud. Bring all the council members who did this up on charges and throw them in Jail.
As I understand the federal bench at this point in time, they believe that the people cannot change a decision to which they object.
Absolutely fascinating.
Who’s to say that a judge cannot overrule the election of a candidate not desired by the bench for some similar reason. It simply requires a little sophistry, a little legerdemain, a little influence, a little media, and a complacent people.