Arnold going to court for ticket camera

Posted in the Carondelet Forum

Tim

Shawnee, KS

#1 Feb 21, 2014
What is the cost to taxpayers in Arnold when the city is appealing the unconstitutional ticket cameras ?
Cluemein

Saint Louis, MO

#2 Feb 21, 2014
What are you talking about? The cost of litigation or to ATS or what?
Cluemein

Saint Louis, MO

#3 Feb 21, 2014
Why would there be a difference in city expenditures based on this event? I don't see how anything would change.

Since: Feb 13

Jefferson County

#4 Feb 22, 2014
Because Bob Sweeney bills by the hour, Cluemein.
Cluemein

Columbia, MO

#5 Feb 24, 2014
Whats so new about that, its not like the attorney is going to dissapear. That would be a stange assumption to make. So you believe we should just not have one huh?
DSH

Saint Louis, MO

#6 Feb 24, 2014
It was the people that started the lawsuits against the City and ATS. Arnold is defending itself against the lawsuits, and taking the steps they see necessary to try to prove their case.

If you want to complain about the cost of the lawsuits, why don't you complain to the ones that started it.
Tim

United States

#7 Feb 25, 2014
The law has already been proven unconstitutional, the Supreme Court won't here the cases. So the attorneys keep billing and running up the tab on tax payers as usual.
cluemein

United States

#8 Feb 25, 2014
I hope that wouldn't be the case. The bar has ethics rules that keep Attorney s from "running the meter" unless they are doing something billable towards the case. I don't think it is necessary to smear the reputation of a reputable man based on conjecture and here say

Since: Feb 13

Jefferson County

#9 Feb 26, 2014
Ethics are flexible in Arnold.
guest

United States

#10 Feb 27, 2014
Six
guest

Arnold, MO

#11 Mar 7, 2014
rebumped
DSH

Saint Louis, MO

#12 Mar 10, 2014
JCPenknife wants to talk ethics, but yet hasn't discussed Robert Boyer's taking of funds meant for his run for State Rep., and instead using them to run for County Council again. What's that called, "bait and switch"? Oh, and so much for term limits, eh?
ArnoldCC

United States

#13 Mar 10, 2014
That deserves a Leader article and maybe a run in stltoday.
ArnoldNN

Paris, France

#14 Mar 11, 2014
ArnoldCC wrote:
That deserves a Leader article and maybe a run in stltoday.
Both the Leader and Post Dispatch had articles about this. He also offered to refund donations to those that wanted them back. How much more integrity can he have? I have more respect for him changing course to be with his family.
Matt Hay

Fenton, MO

#15 Mar 11, 2014
ArnoldNN wrote:
<quoted text>
Both the Leader and Post Dispatch had articles about this. He also offered to refund donations to those that wanted them back. How much more integrity can he have? I have more respect for him changing course to be with his family.
I was going to say, as a contributor to his campaign, I received a letter letting me know about his decision and that he would be more than happy to return my contribution if I so desired. I am not sure how much more integrity one could have or where you get the idea there was a bait and switch. Having 3 young kids myself, I totally understand.
ArnoldCC

Arnold, MO

#16 Mar 12, 2014
It shouldn't have been a letter offering to return the donation. He should have refunded them and if the people wanted to find his change of direction they could send a new donation back in.

Is there an Ethics Commission ruling on something like this that may have happened in the past?
ArnoldCC

Arnold, MO

#17 Mar 12, 2014
Matt Hay wrote:
<quoted text>
I was going to say, as a contributor to his campaign, I received a letter letting me know about his decision and that he would be more than happy to return my contribution if I so desired. I am not sure how much more integrity one could have or where you get the idea there was a bait and switch. Having 3 young kids myself, I totally understand.
Good for you that you agree with his decision. It still doesn't make it right though. In my opinion if anybody else did this you would be jumping up and down.
John

Loveland, OH

#18 Mar 13, 2014
We'll let's get all our money back.
Joe

Las Vegas, NV

#19 Mar 13, 2014
I need my money back11
Anonymous bob

Saint Louis, MO

#20 Mar 20, 2014
We need more cameras around Arnold. If we had more cameras our children would be safer. The marijuana pushers wouldn't be able to get away with sellin their smack to our children! We must stop the drug pushers by any means necessary! Children are getting hooked on weed everyday more and more. Children are dying!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Carondelet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Fox C6 Board of Education : Discussion (Jun '14) 2 hr SES 881
Seckman Elementary parents...our problems are s... 4 hr Whodunit 6
fox athletics Dec 14 Warrior12 8
Arnold Christmas decorations Dec 12 Rbnhd 1
Who is the top attorney (Oct '08) Dec 12 Manix 17
John Burroughs? (Oct '11) Dec 11 No good 3
Effects of Ferguson on Jefferson County Dec 8 Froggy 19
Carondelet Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Carondelet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Carondelet News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Carondelet

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:49 am PST