>>The problem is not the police officer. He is just following orders. Besides, you wouldn't get anywhere by challenging him. All he has to say is that you were impeding the flow of traffic even if you weren't and you would lose, be inconvenienced, fined or worse. <<
Sadly enough, that's probably true.
>>He would just deny his statement about the law. Who says police always tell the truth? The judge will always take the policeman's word unless you have a tape recording, and then it probably wouldn't be allowed as evidence. <<
Innocent until proven guilty, huh?
>>The problem is to find out who made the decision to order the police to enforce a proposed law. That is the guilty culprit because it robs us of our civil rights. <<
And they'll just deny it, shifting the blame up or down the chain of command. And if the "I don't care what the law says" ever comes out, admissible or not, they'll just disavow responsibility and let the beat cop take the rap.
>>It makes a mockery of the whole idea of hearings, discussions and an MTA vote. What's next? Change a route before the hearings are held? Raise the fare, then hold the hearings? <<
Well, some C/R's are already announcing the photography ban as if it were law, so if by "next" you mean "already starting to happen" you'd be right.
>>Someone at the MTA needs to explain what's going on.<<
Good luck. I wager we'll find bin Laden AND Saddam's WMDs AND Iraq will be a stable and peaceful democracy before that ever happens...