1. Probation fee of 40 per month flat fee (Basic or intensive supervision)  2. Onetime probationer set-up fee of $10.00....  31. Individuals stopped and arrested have not been informed either on arrest or at the City Jail of their rights to avoid incarceration for their debts to the City or of their their rights to indigency hearings, counsel, or waivers or reductions of fixed pre- trial release bonds or appellate bonds.  32. The City of Montgomery uses monies collected from municipal fines, court costs, and fees to help finance the City's budget. The City of Montgomery 2013 year end budget reflects $15.9 million as the gross income from fines and forfeitures. The 2013 Municipal Court Survey for the City o Montgomery Municipal Court lists 86,161 filed cases in the category of Non-DUI traffic cases ("Other Traffic"), along with 87,596 such cases disposed of, and only 37 appeals. By comparison, in its 2013 Municipal Court Annual Survey, the City of Huntsville lists 27,889 Non-DUI traffic cases file, 7251 disposed of, and 1249 appealed. In 2013, the City of Montgomery (2013 estimated Census population of 201,846) raised more than three times as much money as Huntsville (2013 estimated Census population of 186,309) from fines and more than 15 times as much money from local court costs.  35. Indigent debtors were further faced with a coercive promised reduction of their debts by an additional $25 per day if they performed onerous and sometimes dangerous janitorial and other work within the jail, the Montgomery Municipal Court, or other city buildings. Record-keeping for time worked was poor and inmates did not even receive full credit due them for the jobs they performed.  36. While incarcerated, Plaintiffs were allowed only extremely limited visitation time with their families; frequently were subjected to the loss of jobs, homes or other property, and the pursuit of education; they and their families were forced to borrow or otherwise come up with money they needed for vital necessities to pay bonds or debts to avoid imprisonment; they incurred additional debts to family or friends who came to their aid; and they otherwise suffered humiliation, emotional and mental distress, and other injuries.  39. JCS agreed not to invoice the City or the Court for its services and in consideration of the probation services provided by JCS, the Court agreed that: "[E]ach Court Order shall provide for the following:  41. JCS "Probation Officers" routinely signed Municipal Court "Notice to Show Cause" forms that instruct probationers to appear in court for failure to pay and notify them that a warrant will be issued for their arrest if they fail to appear. The JCS-issued Notice to Show Cause also informs the probationer that they have failed to report and that in order to dismiss the court date they not only must report to their next scheduled appointment but also an amount they must pay to JCS (e.g., $1417) to rescind the scheduled hearing. The Certificate of Service on the Notice to Show Cause From indicates that the forms were sent to the probationer by regular U.S. mail.  42. The City of Montgomery's conduct of entering into the above-described contract with JCS on behalf of the City and the Court was a moving force behind the probation payments and conditions, probation revocations, and incarcerations in Plaintiffs' cases and the acts by employees of JCS and the Municipal Court can be fairly attributed to the City.  43. Defendants City of Montgomery, Presiding Judge Hayes and JCS systemically and repeatedly failed to advise Plaintiffs of any of their constitutional, federal or state law, or contractual rights, including rights to seek waivers or reductions of bail, bonds or fees, not to be imprisoned for inability to pay bail, bonds or debt, to receive meaningful pre-privation hearings, and to be afforded representation by counsel.  45. Defendants City of Montgomery, Chief of Police Ernest N. Finley, Jr., Former Chief of Police Kevin Murphy, Presiding Judge Hayes and JCS have been deliberately indifferent to the obvious need to train police, jail employees, judges and other court employees with respect to the constitutional and statutory rights of those subject to police stops, and those unable to pay fines, fees, costs, surcharges or bonds and previously have failed to adopt policies requiring such training and failed to provide such training These policies of failure to train have caused the deprivation of Plaintiffs' rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 