Taking the case of Federal Way traffic cameras further | Letter

Published 5:28 pm Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Addressing the letter written by J.T. Mast as printed in the Dec. 26, 2014 edition of the Federal Way Mirror titled “Judge’s ruling on crosswalk school zone biased”:

Of course the judges associated with this ruling are biased. It is base human nature and animal instinct to gravitate towards the hand that feeds you. Moreover, there are no guarantees of finding a competent or objective judge on any given ballot and a judge is but an attorney in robes given brief authority by you and me to preside over a court. There are not even any guarantees that any particular judge is a competent attorney, let alone a good judge.

That said, I agree with Mast’s analysis and conclusions. However, that poses a dilemma on where to go next and how best to proceed. The city judges would have us believe that the logical step is to take the matter to the state Legislature, as “they, the judges, are simply applying the law as written.”

I say this is abject nonsense. Their decision or interpretation is but a simple lowest court ruling that can be overturned on appeal. If Mast is interested in taking the matter further, then the next step is to tee up his own case by speeding through the zone in question and causing the city to generate a citation. This will give him basic legal standing to assert his case through the courts.

As Mr. Mast is not an attorney, I would also suggest that he hire an attorney. In this case I would be inclined to look at local attorney Herman Brewer, as he has expressed a similar opinion. Once this position has been overturned by a higher court, the next logical direction would be to file a class action civil suit against the city to address all citations issued in relation to that particular “school zone.”

I suggest hiring an attorney, since Mast seems at least mildly surprised by the institutional bias of local judges; he is likely to be shocked by the level of bias and integrity practiced by city attorneys.

Another option is to consider a city ballot initiative measure that would address all photo cameras in the city. Granted you are limited by a state Supreme Court decision that does not let you eliminate the cameras by ballot measure.

However, you can address the revenue generated by the cameras and require that it be used for specific itemized safety measures. You might also require that it be used to pay for legal representation in contested traffic cases where a traffic camera has been used. Let your imagination run wild.

You will find a deep wellspring of responsive emotion from the majority of voters in this city.

Mr. Mast, if you are really interested in taking this further, then given the right parameters, I would be willing to contribute towards your legal fund or an initiative measure.

Another further consideration is to make this a political issue whenever one of these judges stands for re-election.

David Koenig, Federal Way