Since living in the Hanging Rock area, I have observed the continued abuse of this mayors court that generates copious revenue in a tiny hamlet (pop.: 211) maintaining minimal industry with the exception of a local bakery. Their ticket dispensing activity violates constitutional law where there should be a separation of executive, legislative, and judicial powers. A mayor appoints a "police force", directs their activities, "judges" the victims one night per month (if they elect to drive several hundred miles to contest it), and then, last but not least, selects how to disperse his collected revenue. A “mayor” becomes a “judge” after completing an 8 hr. course—a situation that should be a mockery to Ohio judges who have attended law school. This mayor is so law abiding that he is arrested by the OH State Patrol drunk after reckless driving; has officers who are caught demanding & keeping cash from drivers; & has an officer who is arrested for drugs and theft. The Ohio State Patrol is competent to handle a 2 mile strip in a rural countryside. I agree with the attorney who wrote the following statement in WSAZ, “Is It a Speedtrap?”:

“Apparently, the Ohio legislature is not willing to tackle this very important issue after all, likely due to the considerable political clout exercised by those who don’t want the “gravy train” to end. After all, here is a significant revenue source largely or primarily coming from non-voters. However, the powers that be in Hanging Rock are now faced with a very recent decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bailey v. City of Broadview Heights, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5615 (6th Cir. Mar. 19, 2012) providing a road-map as to how to challenge and defeat the Hanging Rocks of the State of Ohio. The answer is a Section 1983 [42 U.S.C. 1983] class-action lawsuit in a Federal District Court, asserting that the mayor or his designee violated constitutional due process when such mayor or his designee presided over contested traffic violations. While the case upheld the Mayor’s Court wherein the defendant did not contest guilt for the traffic violation, the case very clearly indicates that the result would be different if the defendant contests guilt and either the mayor stands to benefit directly and financially from the outcome or the the outcome stands to provide a substantial financial benefit to the city. In a Section 1983 lawsuit, the lawyer taking the case on behalf of aggrieved contested traffic ticket payors stands to recover very substantial attorneys’ fees from the losing party, in addition to recovering damages and injunctive relief for class members. Of course, the reason for prosecuting such an action should not be (merely) for the money, but for the important constitutional principle to be vindicated here. Nonetheless, the substantial financial incentive provided to attorneys taking these kinds of cases “should be” sufficient to get the legal ball rolling.”