The unlawful use of compelling force by the City of Fort Worth
Last December my wife received a notice from the City of Fort Worth, Texas that she was the target of a red light camera civil violation. The notice was printed 91 days after the alleged violation (the City municipal law only allows for notices to be sent within 30 days), and only allowed a few days for a response.
Her options were simple: she could either pay the fine or request something called an “adjudicative hearing.” Since the civil penalty had been imposed in a manner contrary to the City’s own laws, she could not possibly choose to pay the fine. That the money would be spent on further red light camera programs, which have been repeatedly proven to endanger the public, gave her little choice but to contest the violation.
An adjudicative hearing is not the same as court. There are no judges or lawyers, but rather City employees making determinations of guilt or innocence based on a lacking and biased sense of the law as explained by individuals committed more to revenue generation than civil rights. Rather than subject herself to such a kangaroo court, my wife demanded that her Texas Constitution Article I, Section 15 right to a trial by jury be recognized.
Article I, Section 15. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. The Legislature shall pass such laws as may be needed to regulate the same, and to maintain its purity and efficiency.
We had to pay extra shipping to ensure that her letter was delivered by the “due date” on the ticket, so late was the City in sending it to her.
Instead of impaneling the jury, the only legitimate course of action available to the City of Fort Worth, they awarded themselves a default win in her case. Her penalty rose from $75.00 to $100.00, and the City is now considering turning her account over to a collections agency.
My wife and I have both spent countless hours on the telephone with City attorneys and employees, explaining to them that municipal code cannot possibly hold precedence over the Texas Constitution’s Bill of Rights. As of today the City has chosen to ignore its lawful mandate and to end its communication with us on the matter. Fort Worth Deputy City Attorney Gerald Pruitt made this clear just before hanging up on me earlier this afternoon.
What concerns us even more is that the Fort Worth Star Telegram seems to be taking its cues from the City in this case. I originally wrote a long and detailed account of this matter to be published as a letter to the editor, which editor Paul K. Harral then requested that I shorten for publication. After limiting my statement to fewer than 300 words, Mr. Harral contacted me again to inform me that he was going to “try for the focus letter position” with my editorial. Three hours later I received another note from Mr. Harral, this time rescinding his promise to publish the letter and instead prompting my wife to simply accept the adjudicative hearing as offered by the City and repeat her request for her constitutionally inviolate right to a jury trial from the City during that hearing. What happened between 7:30 and 10:30 this morning that would convince Mr. Harrel to decide not to publish an editorial critical of the City of Fort Worth? Only he knows. Whatever responsibility he might have had to promoting dissenting opinins, a fundamental charge of a free press, went out the window in those three hours.
Mr. Harrel did point out that “there are all sorts of examples in law – medical malpractice for example – that require a hearing before proceeding to trial,” as well as trotting out a lot of the same arguments, largely verbatim, that the City has been using to give us the runaround. Of course he’s right about the medical malpractice suits, but what he fails to recognize is that in these cases the individuals signed contracts requiring them to submit to arbitration or hearings prior to trial as conditions of their employment. My wife is a not a contract employe, but a citizen, and as such is not bound to follow any municipal code which violates her civil rights. Were we to begin allowing municipalities to determine by decree which cases may be heard in front of a judge and jury, our future as Texans and as Americans would indeed be bleak. By accepting the City’s hearing my wife would in fact be waiving her right to a real trial, placing the decision into the hands of a system which is clearly operating outside of its mandate. That Mr. Harrel, a journalist, would so blindly follow the lead of a City in this matter gives us grave concerns about the legitimacy of his newspaper and his capacity as a journalist.
At this point the City of Fort Worth is unlawfully exercising compelling force against my wife by refusing to register her vehicle, and will soon be committing outright criminal acts by attempting to force a collection through punitive measures. She has repeatedly and lawfully demanded a legitimate trial, and has been denied at every turn by the City.
This is why we carry. This is why we protect ourselves. It is not always going to be a home invasion, carjacking, robbery, or any other sort of violent crime. It may instead be a City attempting to ensure a revenue stream that is clearly unconstitutional and dangerous to the public health. When we stand up for our rights we often place ourselves in the unenviable position of being whipping posts for unelected and unaccountable lawyers such as Gerald Pruitt who are more committed to the rule of revenue than the rule of law.
And sometimes these people can be dangerous. Sometimes the protection of a City revenue stream is such that the unlawful use of compelling force becomes the dangerous use of police force. I don’t truly believe that this is one of those circumstances, and I have no reason whatsoever to suspect that Mr. Pruitt or any of his colleagues would ever do something so sinister as asking any individual or force to take unlawful action against us. But the possibility exists, and it’s the same sort of possibility which exists each and every time we walk out our doors. To stand for liberty is to stand against tyranny. Mr. Pruitt and his colleagues are, whether they know and accept it or not, agents of tyranny, and as such are not to be trusted in any capacity.
Always remember, enemies foreign and domestic.
Leave a Reply