GLE is actually 100% correct about the traffic camera tickets being null and void in AZ, but they rely on a loophole to enforce them:

If you respond to the letter using the form, OR view the pictures/video of the infraction online you are agreeing to waive your right to be served the citation, either via the supplied form or by agreeing to the web site’s TOS. If you do not respond to the ticket in any way it falls upon them to send you a process server. They usually don’t bother.

That said if you decide to put yourself on the government’s radar by getting snapped repeatedly and ignoring the tickets, They will investigate and the court will send someone to serve you in person.

@viruspoem,

I didn’t mean to say that you had to buy your way into a profession. There are plenty of attorneys who went to law school, passed the bar and just plain suck. My point was more directed to the people who read one rule and misapply it or apply it poorly. And even the people who just learned the profession from reading still trained by reading, not just apply one aspect out of context.

@GLE
The traffic camera issue might be Arizona specific or someone might have noticed the loop hole and closed it. But it does seem that someone thought that they should copy another state’s work without looking into all the details. Perhaps the state that Arizona copied allowed for service by mail of traffic citations.

The comment about “its fair use until a court decides” leads to a very robust discussion about truth, facts and due process. In short form, just because you are not able to prove something is true in court, does not mean it isn’t true. Or because you are able to prove something is true in court doesn’t make it true. The determination is accepted by the courts, even though its not true. That’s why there are truthfully innocent, but legally guilty, people in jail and legally innocent, but truthfully guilty, people on the streets.

Admission to Practice Law in Calfornia
Educational Standards

A person who intends to comply with the legal education requirements of these rules by study in a law office or judge’s chambers must
(1)
submit the required form with the fee set forth in the Schedule of Charges and Deadlines within thirty days of beginning study;
(2)
submit semi-annual reports, as required by section (B)(5) below on the Committee’s form with the fee set forth in the Schedule of Charges and Deadlines within thirty days of completion of each six-month period; and
(3)
have studied law in a law office or judge’s chambers during regular business hours for at least eighteen hours each week for a minimum of forty-eight weeks to receive credit for one year of study or for at least eighteen hours a week for a minimum of twenty-four weeks to receive credit for one-half year of study.
(B)
The attorney or judge with whom the applicant is studying must
(1)
be admitted to the active practice of law in California and be in good standing for a minimum of five years;
(2)
provide the Committee within thirty days of the applicant’s beginning study an outline of a proposed course of instruction that he or she will personally supervise;
(3)
personally supervise the applicant at least five hours a week;
(4)
examine the applicant at least once a month on study completed the previous month;
(5)
report to the Committee every six months on the Committee’s form the number of hours the applicant studied each week during business hours in the law office or chambers; the number of hours devoted to supervision; specific information on the books and other materials studied, such as chapter names, page numbers, and the like the name of any other applicant supervised and any other information the Committee may require; and
(6)
not personally supervise more than two applicants simultaneously.
Rule 4.29 adopted effective September 1, 2008; amended effective November 14, 2009.

The internet, I’ve found, tends to give prominence to the ignorant, desperate, my-life-is-a-roleplaying-game types over the reasonable and informed. This displays it’s net effect in the opening statements of this article, which imply that anyone having come to the bar by way of reading the law is a JLU-style poseur, googling a topic and claiming the matter settled on page one.

The fact is, there are a lot of people in this country who are perfectly capable of learning a profession and excelling in it by reading a book, and there are a lot of people who’ve spent a quarter of a million on a formal education and have near-perfect LSAT scores but can barely read and write. There’s a lot of grey between these extremes as well. None of the negatives, however, should be taken as invalidating the practice of reading the law, or autodidacticism in general.

I don’t mean to cast aspersions on the article at all, the rest of which was excellent. I’m just tired of people reacting to the the roleplayers of every field in such a way as to give credence to the cancerous idea that knowledge is a commodity, and if one hasn’t purchased it and had the proof of their purchase vetted by others then it must be somehow invalid.

We have speed enforcement cameras on some of the freeways in my state. If the camera catches you speeding, you receive a letter showing all the details including your picture, and advising you to pay a fine. Some smart folks researched the matter and discovered that you can’t be legally “served” with a speeding ticket unless it’s in person, so they advised people to ignore the letters. There’s a video interview with a lawyer available where the lawyer advises the same thing. So the only people who pay those fines are those who are too lazy or uninformed to know that they don’t have to. Since the fines don’t result in any points on your license anyway, they’re obviously just making revenue for the state and the camera company. The conclusion I get from that is that it is good practice for you to do some research and know what the law says. It can save you money.

And BTW, that city in the southern part of my state is Tucson, not “Tuscon.”

@Jumpman: This sounds like real trouble. You’re going to need plenty of legal advice before this thing is over. As your attorney, I advise you to rent a very fast car with no top, and you’ll need the cocaine, a tape recorder for special music, Acapulco shirts. Get the hell out of L.A. for at least 48 hours. This blows my weekend because naturally I’m going to have to go with you. And we’re going to have to arm ourselves… to the teeth!

It’s not about justice, but rather about who picked the best team and who had the most rare candy.