This is about red light camera tickets, but I could see something like this being used to stifle other types of cases like church-state separation or workplace rights.
Here's the pertinent excerpt from the article:
So I made a simple discovery request, asking the Santa Ana City Attorney for evidence that the city had indeed complied with the 30-day warning rule for the camera that issued my ticket. I received instead a "strongly-worded" letter from the deputy city attorney, refusing to produce any such evidence, and informing me that the Fischetti ruling "does not have any bearing on the instant matter" because of the "depublication" of the Fischetti decision. De-what? The term is in no legal dictionary. Did you know that The California Supreme Court allows itself to "depublish" a case for any reason, essentially erasing it from the law books. Why did the it do so? Because the cities of Santa Ana and West Hollywood asked them to. Red-light tickets produce a lot of money.
A depublished case is not considered overturned, and under the longstanding concept of stare decisis ("let the decision stand"), it is the law of California. It is just not to be discussed in California courts. A good analogy is to assume the Angels defeat the Yankees, and the Yankees ask the baseball commissioner to have the score "depublished," so that the results aren't available to the officials maintaining the standings. Federal courts have recently done away with such absurd no-citation rules, and the California rule may well be unconstitutional. (see www.nonpublication.com.) The Franco decision was also depublished, making it "unmentionable" under the same absurd rule, despite the fact that it is valid law.http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-tickets-camera-2544539-santa-lawEdit: spelling
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
