Nancy Crislers great idea!

Nancy Crislers great idea!

Posted in the Arnold Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Hoseltron5000

Arnold, MO

#1 Feb 7, 2014
Last night Nancy Crisler created and passed legislation to suspend red light camera prosecution in arnold. This was brilliant. Nancy is a sure choice for ward one and I support her!
Doris Borgelt

Columbus, OH

#2 Feb 7, 2014
The same thing that her husband originally put into place and renewed and supported year after year when the PEOPLE clearly said they were against them. The same thing I and others have been trying to do for YEARS and were advised not to publicly by BOB SWEENEY! Now they are trying to make her look good because there was an injunction filed and they were going to have to stop it anyway. The Eastern District told them the red light cameras conflicted with state law back in November, but BOB SWEENEY was too busy to take a look at it. Michelle Hohmeier tried to get it done back in November, don't be so hypocritical as to think Mrs. Crisler did this for any other reason than the upcoming election AND was allowed to do so by his highness BOB SWEENEY.
Matt Hay

United States

#4 Feb 7, 2014
I hate to rain on the parade, but if Arnold is taking the position which Bryan Richison states in Leah Thorsen's piece on StlToday, it was quite possibly the dumbest position Arnold can take. Why you ask? Because Bryan Richison knowingly admitted to 1) a very clear 42 USC 1983 violation http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/198... and 2) confirms one of the very arguments which Brunner/Moore v Arnold posed, which was remanded by the Appellate Court to the Circuit, which was that Arnold outsourced their legal responsibilities for law enforcement and prosecutions to a 3rd Party, which if so, is unconstitutional. The Eastern District said that they believed they had, but remanded for final decision back to the Circuit, and 3) ignores the fact that Arnold cannot legitimately claim a contractual obligation to issue such citations, as even a crackerjack attorney like Bob Sweeney is guilty of legal malpractice for not advising the City that a contract which contemplates an illegal act (such as the filing of a knowingly invalid information) is void on its face as a matter of law.

To say, "ATS made us do it" is not going to fly, and if that is the defense, they have proved the very case filed against them in Brunner/Moore.

If Nancy Crisler cared about following the law, and not getting the city entangled in both a new class action tort, as well as almost a certain Federal Action under 1983, she would have stopped the issuance of the citations due to the contract being void on its face and a matter of law. Since she did not, she just added a couple more zeros that MIRMA is going to need to add to Arnold's bill. Not well thought out at all, and I am I think without a doubt, one of the most opposed to the systems in the City.

If Nancy wants to do the right thing, she would stop the issuance completely until the Supreme Court rejects the Writ which the Eastern District Appellate Court rejected on 01/30/14, at which time, require ATS to remove their scameras within 24 hours.

You can call me Mr. Blue as I will hold my breath for her to make that motion. Perhaps she can reimburse the City the money they are now going to lose because of this careless action?

Not to mention, that the courts were already dismissing these previously. They were letting folks come, dismissing those that plead guilty to pay at the window, and once they left, dismissing all of the actions against those who plead not guilty. Look at the 01/27 Docket for "proof" of this. This action was all smoke and mirrors for political gain, and is now going to be costly for the citizens.

Since: Feb 13

Jefferson County

#5 Feb 7, 2014
What will Nancy do in June when the contract comes up for renewal? City Admin Richison said he'll present an idea to renew the contract for less than the current two-year timeframe. Nancy will more that likely vote to renew. What if Sweeney puts forth a "fix" to Arnold's RLC ordinance to supposedly make them legal. I would expect Nancy to vote yes.
Hoseltron5000

Arnold, MO

#6 Feb 7, 2014
There are a lot of negative feelings out there, lets just appreciate this for what it is, a positive step in the right direction. Why must we tear people apart on here, lets show some support and reward our government when they do well.
Wondering

Saint Louis, MO

#7 Feb 7, 2014
So Matt you keep saying the people of Arnold do not want the cameras. If this is true, do you have proof of this? How many signatures, letters or other forms of actual verification of just how many of the 21,013 citizens of Arnold are against them do you have? Cause all I ever see is a few dozen at the most!
Wondering

Saint Louis, MO

#8 Feb 7, 2014
Matt Hay wrote:
I hate to rain on the parade, but if Arnold is taking the position which Bryan Richison states in Leah Thorsen's piece on StlToday, it was quite possibly the dumbest position Arnold can take. Why you ask? Because Bryan Richison knowingly admitted to 1) a very clear 42 USC 1983 violation http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/198... and 2) confirms one of the very arguments which Brunner/Moore v Arnold posed, which was remanded by the Appellate Court to the Circuit, which was that Arnold outsourced their legal responsibilities for law enforcement and prosecutions to a 3rd Party, which if so, is unconstitutional. The Eastern District said that they believed they had, but remanded for final decision back to the Circuit, and 3) ignores the fact that Arnold cannot legitimately claim a contractual obligation to issue such citations, as even a crackerjack attorney like Bob Sweeney is guilty of legal malpractice for not advising the City that a contract which contemplates an illegal act (such as the filing of a knowingly invalid information) is void on its face as a matter of law.
To say, "ATS made us do it" is not going to fly, and if that is the defense, they have proved the very case filed against them in Brunner/Moore.
If Nancy Crisler cared about following the law, and not getting the city entangled in both a new class action tort, as well as almost a certain Federal Action under 1983, she would have stopped the issuance of the citations due to the contract being void on its face and a matter of law. Since she did not, she just added a couple more zeros that MIRMA is going to need to add to Arnold's bill. Not well thought out at all, and I am I think without a doubt, one of the most opposed to the systems in the City.
If Nancy wants to do the right thing, she would stop the issuance completely until the Supreme Court rejects the Writ which the Eastern District Appellate Court rejected on 01/30/14, at which time, require ATS to remove their scameras within 24 hours.
You can call me Mr. Blue as I will hold my breath for her to make that motion. Perhaps she can reimburse the City the money they are now going to lose because of this careless action?
Not to mention, that the courts were already dismissing these previously. They were letting folks come, dismissing those that plead guilty to pay at the window, and once they left, dismissing all of the actions against those who plead not guilty. Look at the 01/27 Docket for "proof" of this. This action was all smoke and mirrors for political gain, and is now going to be costly for the citizens.
So since you obviously have a law degree, do you really think that ATS is just going to not file a breach of contract law suit against the City if they stop issuing tickets? As a lawyer you should know that just because if what you say is true that ATS is in breach because of the ruling that they would not sue the city of breach of contract just because they can, because of the lose of income they will lose! So now you want the council to risk another lawsuit just so you can capitalize on that one as well?
Matt Hay

United States

#9 Feb 7, 2014
Wondering wrote:
So Matt you keep saying the people of Arnold do not want the cameras. If this is true, do you have proof of this? How many signatures, letters or other forms of actual verification of just how many of the 21,013 citizens of Arnold are against them do you have? Cause all I ever see is a few dozen at the most!
I guess you were not here in 2009 when almost 1,000 registered voters of those 21k residents signed a petition asking for a vote? Nancy Crisler may have a copy, or should, her husband used the names of those signers from Ward 1 to mail them an intimidating letter basically saying "I know you signed." The only way Randy could have obtained such a list is if Diane Waller has given her a copy.

You might ask Nancy if she still has his list lying around. The council refused to accept the petition. See: http://www.stltoday.com/news/festus-arnold-hi...
Wondering

Saint Louis, MO

#10 Feb 7, 2014
Matt Hay wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you were not here in 2009 when almost 1,000 registered voters of those 21k residents signed a petition asking for a vote? Nancy Crisler may have a copy, or should, her husband used the names of those signers from Ward 1 to mail them an intimidating letter basically saying "I know you signed." The only way Randy could have obtained such a list is if Diane Waller has given her a copy.
You might ask Nancy if she still has his list lying around. The council refused to accept the petition. See: http://www.stltoday.com/news/festus-arnold-hi...
So you think 1000 voters out rule 20?
Wondering

Saint Louis, MO

#11 Feb 7, 2014
SO wait !!!! You wanted to go against the Law when 2 Lawyers tell you the City will get sued over taking it to the people? And now you are crucifying the sitting council for doing the same?

The problem is Festus and Arnold are third-class cities, and state law does not allow them to poll voters on election ballots with the intent to change or keep existing laws based on the outcome, said Stephen Ables, assistant director of the St. Louis County Municipal League.

What a Hypocrite you are! SO you fire the current city attorney for going against you and the one you hire tells you the same thing you cant put it to a public vote! WTH!!!!!
Matt Hay

United States

#12 Feb 7, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think 1000 voters out rule 20?
There are not 20k voters in the CIty. That is the entire population. Exclude Children and those not registered to vote and I believe the number is like 12k registered. Of those, only about 4k vote in a typical election.

That said, 1000 signatures were collected from registered voters in the span of a week, and certainly not all of the registered voters were queried, so their non-appearance is in no way indicative of their feelings as they may have either declined, or more likely, were just not asked about their feelings. When you have a quarter of the number of voters in a typical municipal election express a preference specifically to remove the cameras, then yes, I would say that is quite telling, given that state laws for referendum require only 5% to force a vote.
Wondering

Saint Louis, MO

#14 Feb 8, 2014
You forgot this one:
SO wait !!!! You wanted to go against the Law when 2 Lawyers tell you the City will get sued over taking it to the people? And now you are crucifying the sitting council for doing the same?

The problem is Festus and Arnold are third-class cities, and state law does not allow them to poll voters on election ballots with the intent to change or keep existing laws based on the outcome, said Stephen Ables, assistant director of the St. Louis County Municipal League.

What a Hypocrite you are! SO you fire the current city attorney for going against you and the one you hire tells you the same thing you cant put it to a public vote! WTH!!!!!
Wondering

Saint Louis, MO

#15 Feb 8, 2014
And This One:

So since you obviously have a law degree, do you really think that ATS is just going to not file a breach of contract law suit against the City if they stop issuing tickets? As a lawyer you should know that just because if what you say is true that ATS is in breach because of the ruling that they would not sue the city of breach of contract just because they can, because of the lose of income they will lose! So now you want the council to risk another lawsuit just so you can capitalize on that one as well?

Since: Feb 13

Jefferson County

#16 Feb 8, 2014
What do you think the right direction is? If it is anything other than the permanent removal of the cameras, it is not the right direction. This reeks of an election ploy to keep the cameras safe until the current pro-camera incumbents can get re-elected.
Hoseltron5000 wrote:
There are a lot of negative feelings out there, lets just appreciate this for what it is, a positive step in the right direction. Why must we tear people apart on here, lets show some support and reward our government when they do well.
Matt Hay

Fenton, MO

#17 Feb 8, 2014
Wondering wrote:
You forgot this one:
SO wait !!!! You wanted to go against the Law when 2 Lawyers tell you the City will get sued over taking it to the people? And now you are crucifying the sitting council for doing the same?
The problem is Festus and Arnold are third-class cities, and state law does not allow them to poll voters on election ballots with the intent to change or keep existing laws based on the outcome, said Stephen Ables, assistant director of the St. Louis County Municipal League.
What a Hypocrite you are! SO you fire the current city attorney for going against you and the one you hire tells you the same thing you cant put it to a public vote! WTH!!!!!
No, just did not see it. My response from the same question you asked Doris:

It would have been an advisory initiative, just like the one Bob Sweeney had said was entirely proper in I believe in '98 when they put an advisory question on the ballot regarding trash services. That was the issue. He could not cite anything that changed between that time or any difference, so we were only left to believe that he was playing politics (which he was). Dennis did not say we could not, he said it was basically a grey area of the law as there was nothing which denies or authorizes it, bu that as a matter of public policy (and not law) he had concerns of voter confusion.(The previous trash ballot not withstanding). Ron Counts caved, and that was why it was not an advisory measure.
Matt Hay

Fenton, MO

#18 Feb 8, 2014
Wondering wrote:
And This One:
So since you obviously have a law degree, do you really think that ATS is just going to not file a breach of contract law suit against the City if they stop issuing tickets? As a lawyer you should know that just because if what you say is true that ATS is in breach because of the ruling that they would not sue the city of breach of contract just because they can, because of the lose of income they will lose! So now you want the council to risk another lawsuit just so you can capitalize on that one as well?
I am not sure what you are saying, as it is a bit convoluted, so I will try to respond to what I think you are asking. First, you can sue anyone for anything, all you need is money for the filing and a venue willing to hear it. That said, the ATS agreement, of which I have a copy, has a termination and severability provision that says that basically, the arrangement is voided if there are judicial or legislative changes which prevent its continued execution. That said, there is also the number one rule in Contracts Law, and that is that a contract which contemplates an illegal act is void on its face, and as a matter of law.(So, really the severability provision I referenced was just a codification of that tenant of law.)

So, literally speaking, ATS could sue, however, they would lose and likely not make it past a first hearing. Why? Because the Eastern District Appellate Court said that the Municipal Court of Arnold DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION in the first place. Continuing to mail these citations without jurisdiction is a textbook violation of 42 US 1983, which is a Federal Law, thus the clause in the agreement which requires this be done is void on its face.

It is no different than if I mailed an invoice to someone random telling them they owe me for something and soliciting payment. I would be guilty of mail fraud if I did so. However the City is doing so under the color of law, which elevates this to the 1983 violation.

Why is it do you think that the 10 other ATS Munis with the same contract language have all ceased issuing citations as a result, yet, Arnold and St. Louis persist on, however, STL City only continues because the City Attorney there keeps playing parlor games to prevent a hearing so Judge Ohmer can issue his order. They will be stopping shortly now the post-trial briefs are submitted and Ohmer grants the motion for the restraining order which he intended to issue the beginning of December, until the parlor games started at 4:09pm.
Wondering

Saint Louis, MO

#19 Feb 8, 2014
Ok thanks for the answer. So in your opinion you think it is worth the Chance that we could get into another lawsuit against ATS (even if a nebulous one) for breach of contract. And stop issuing tickets Immediately; Knowing that this will add to the City Attorney's bill that you are always complaining is so high.
Matt Hay

Fenton, MO

#20 Feb 8, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Ok thanks for the answer. So in your opinion you think it is worth the Chance that we could get into another lawsuit against ATS (even if a nebulous one) for breach of contract. And stop issuing tickets Immediately; Knowing that this will add to the City Attorney's bill that you are always complaining is so high.
Personally, I would rather face ATS in State Court defending the non-performance on an agreement which is void as a matter of law (which will be one quick hearing) than to face class actions for Section 1983 violations and mail fraud in Federal Court, which one can guarantee will last for years. I almost think Sweeney advised the Council accordingly knowing full well almost certain Federal Class Actions will pad his pockets more. Look what he did in Shaun Missey's case, and look how he is refusing to produce evidence in Ken Moss's case against the City, even risking being held in contempt again like he was in Ott. The only person such behavior injures in the tax payer, as they foot the fines he racks up, and he just submits the time to the City in billable hours.

The fear of Federal litigation, rather than that filed by ATS which is an easy dismissal, is why the 10 other ATS municipalities elected to cease the sending of citations entirely until the issues are judicially resolved. In this case, it seems Arnold opted for the most detrimental action for the taxpayers, and the most beneficial action from Bob Sweeney's standpoint.
Les

Ballwin, MO

#21 Feb 9, 2014
Wondering wrote:
And This One:
So since you obviously have a law degree, do you really think that ATS is just going to not file a breach of contract law suit against the City if they stop issuing tickets? As a lawyer you should know that just because if what you say is true that ATS is in breach because of the ruling that they would not sue the city of breach of contract just because they can, because of the lose of income they will lose! So now you want the council to risk another lawsuit just so you can capitalize on that one as well?
Do you have a law degree?
Doris Borgelt

Torrance, CA

#23 Feb 10, 2014
Will the City let any who show up to pay the RLC tickets they receive know they have no need to pay them?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Arnold Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
dunklin fire is doing some shady stuff (Feb '11) Wed Drunklin 6
Arnold Ordinance 6.17?! (Feb '12) Tue calegal in Arnold 28
Fox C6 and the ECLIPSE Aug 10 Man In Moon 4
What happened to Kimmswick? (Jan '06) Aug 7 Just Hype 795
Social Security Office ( Cruel and Unjust ) Aug 3 Expose 23
thinking of moving here Aug 3 Imagurl 5
old dairy queen on lemay ferry Jul 28 GLEN CARBON 4

Arnold Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Arnold Mortgages