Red Bank officials will be in court June 30 to defend the constitutionality of their red-light camera program aimed at deterring traffic violations.

Soddy-Daisy resident Basil Marceaux, a frequent candidate for public office, is appealing his conviction in Red Bank City Court for running a red light.

The red light cameras – which are being utilized by hundreds of communities across the nation, including the city of Chattanooga – take photos of the rear license plates of vehicles that run red lights.
Red Bank employees then send citations to the registered owners of those vehicles, demanding that they pay $50 fines.

Mr. Marceaux received one of the letters last fall, and has been fighting the matter in court ever since.

In a document signed by both Red Bank City Attorney Arnold Stulce Jr. and Mr. Marceaux, the parties agreed to stipulate that “On September 16, 2007 at approximately 9:42 a.m., the defendant/appellant Basil Marceaux was driving a certain 1997 Mercedes automobile . . . at and through the intersection of Dayton Boulevard (southbound) at Signal Mountain Road in the city of Red Bank.”

But they agree on virtually nothing else, as evidenced by a voluminous file in Hamilton County Criminal Court packed with numerous documents that Mr. Marceaux has filed, contending that the town has no authority for the actions taken against him.

In the documents, Mr. Marceaux describes himself as “ombudsman for for all citizens (who) are victims of the Trojan Horse in the Battle of Troy which allows Red Bank to promote slavery.”

The gist of the case, Mr. Marceaux argued in a memorandum filed Tuesday, is that Red Bank officials and their attorney “are break(ing) the city charter at the same time laughing at higher court decisions . . . passing ordinances that are violating the city charter, the U.S. and state constitution while promoting slavery, at the same time collecting illegal funds to balance their budget.”

Red Bank, in turn, is asking Judge Rebecca Stern to dismiss Mr. Marceaux’s lawsuit on the grounds that the dispute is a civil matter and consequently should not be heard in a criminal court.

“Since this case is civil in nature, this matter is governed by rules in civil cases including retrial on appeal to . . . circuit court,” Mr. Stulce noted in a memorandum supporting the town’s position that the lawsuit should be dismissed.

Further, the attorney noted, none of the numerous arguments that Mr. Marceaux has filed with the court are relevant to the case.