What bothers me a great deal about the above document is that it speaks of "alleged" violations. Allege means to assert without proving. Ero, someone needs to prove a violation and give the alleged violator the opportunity to prove him/herself not guilty. But we've heard many times of individuals receiving notices of fines and being denied the opportunity to challenge the alleged violation or at a minimum it being made extremely difficult to get a hearing. Just seems to me that if the word "alleged" is used to describe an activity or an individual then that automatically means that the person/agency doing the alleging must also produce proof and the "alleged" violator be given an opportunity to dispute that proof before any finding of guilt and assessment of penalty.

I also find it very disturbing that one can be fined for having an attitude - attitude is subjective not objective. I don't see how one can be fined because another person does not like the first person's attitude.