Redflex, Shmedflex

Very commonly, we refer to people who don't follow the law to the written word criminal. But what about people who stand up to foul, freedom-eroding legislation? What do we call them?

Very often, we find ourselves presented with facts that overtly contradict uncouth legislation, and rarely do we see vehement opposition to such legislation in staggering numbers that cannot be denied, unless such bunk law has made its way into the mainstream. Oftentimes, the people must have the facts demonstrated to them in order for the facts to sink in, and in one case, I've done just that.

In a recent article published by The Daily Advertiser here in Lafayette, it was claimed that I have 'broken the law' by running red lights at intersections where photo enforcement is in place, quietly surveying and recording everyone that passes within their scope of view. These allegations are not only arbitrary, but not supported by facts or police empowering legislation. Now, I'm not accusing The Daily Advertiser of shoddy journalism by any means, they can only report on the information they obtain, which comes with limitations. What I am showing is they, like many people who's minds have been sold on photo enforcement, stopped thinking when they see a figure like $13,000.00. What proof does anyone have that I committed any crime that will hold up in a court of law? It's also published that I admitted to running red lights and speeding, but so what? I can say many things that would be incriminating, like I've smoked pot, but because there's no actual proof or witness that can place me at any scene doing anything illegal, I've never actually done anything illegal, and neither has anyone else that passes through the spy zone of these cameras, which I, and many of my colleagues have dubbed 'scameras', and for good reason.

Not only have I not been convicted of any crimes, but I've never even been approached by a single policeman regarding the matter. Does that mean I've just yet to be caught? Have I ever been summoned to court or received a subpoena for these allegations? Has my license ever been revoked because of these allegations? Has a detective even contacted me by phone or email for a statement regarding these allegations? No. Emphatically, the answer is 'no'. Yet we see, time after time, people who oppose red-light photo enforcement publicly are being called criminals by the cities that support and do business with companies like Redflex. Why? Why do we have to be labeled as criminals if we've done nothing wrong, and nobody can prove in a court of law, civil OR criminal, that such allegations are true?

Because the argument made by cities and photo enforcement companies like Redflex don't have the facts to support such crass and thoughtless allegations. If I'm guilty, why haven't I been summoned to court to face my accuser? Many municipalities have booted cars for such 'crimes', but why hasn't mine ever been booted? It's been reported that at one time, I was allegedly the No. 1 Offender for these photo enforcement scameras, so it would stand to reason that I'd be the prime target for Redflex's M.O. in its ability to enforce the 'laws' it has 'established', yet it has not come to pass. It must also be noted that in my community, I am the long time standing most outspoken opponent of these illegitimate practices. To know why I have never been penalized, one must understand that no legal precedence has been set that allows private enterprises to do such things. Same goes for revoking licenses, same goes for attacking one's insurance, or even bringing an alleged offender to jail, or at the very least, to court to face one's accuser.

The reason nobody goes to court for these allegations, these 'notices of violation' is because there is no accuser. In following the Code of Civil Procedure, photographs are not considered convicting evidence, and do not stand as a witness to a crime. And only in following the Code of Criminal Procedure, can a photograph be used to convict, though only in the case of murder. Photographic evidence in a court of law is observed as circumstantial at best.

So, where does that leave companies like Redflex? Here's how they trick you into thinking you are guilty of a crime you didn't commit: They snap a photo of you allegedly running a red light or speeding. Then, in most cases, that photo is handed to a retired police officer for scrutiny. That much is advertised to the public, but for the most part, dissemination of information stops there. You are left in the dark to guess the rest of the process, and by way of ignorance, when you hear 'retired police officer' you interpret 'police officer'. So it seems official, and it seems like they know more than you about your own driving habits, because typically people operate on a tolerable level of circumstantial ignorance going about their daily lives with a notable satisfaction. But the truth is, that ignorance is what is preyed upon. This process has many skeletons in its closet that Redflex does not want you to know about, for if you did, you'd know how powerless they really are at what they pretend to enforce.

The rest of the process goes like this: After being viewed by a retired police officer, that photo is then submitted to a program that prints out a very official-looking document that has an electronic signature on it and photographs of the front and back of your car. When you receive this notice in the mail, it appears you were caught with your pants down, especially if you can't recall what you were doing when the photo was taken. It's very difficult to come out of that shell of ignorance and really put the pieces together just by looking at such a document. Fear, anxiety, and helplessness starts to take over, because you look and feel guilty, exactly what they want you to look and feel. You've just been convinced that you committed a crime you did not commit. If you are one of the brave ones, and wish to contest the notice, they usually have a phone number you can call to contest, but you should never call this number, since usually, contacting the private enterprise, to them, is an admission of guilt, and everything after contacting them is immaterial. Nothing you can do or say will help your case, so there's no point in contacting them at all.

If you end up contacting them anyway, they give you a scheduled time when you can appear before an 'adjudicator' to state your case, but you must understand that this 'adjudicator' is by no means a judge. Typically, adjudicators work for the city or the company, and in my case, adjudicators work for the city, which is a conflict of interest. What happens next may astound you, but it's important to know this, because it's the crux of the guilt-trip process used to trick you into parting with your hard earned money and your rights. When you get to your adjudication, which is really a Kangaroo Court, you are sat down with the adjudicator and some other witness, usually a company employee like the secretary, and a laptop with the same exact photographs that were on the notice are shoved in your face. They tell you "We caught you speeding/running a red light, what do you have to say for yourself?" or "Is this you in the picture speeding/running a red light?" Your reflex, upon looking at the pictures of yourself in your car, is to say 'yes', and they have an admission of guilt, even if you didn't commit any crime, even if you never ran that red light, even if you didn't actually speed through the intersection, you are guilty, because you admitted to being guilty. At that point, you are in contract with them to pay for the fine. Now you have to pay, but even if you say 'no', the very fact that you are there means you are guilty anyway, and if you don't pay, they are going to attack your credit score, and add on an additional fee for holding the adjudication. None of this is legal, and they continue to get away with it, because the company is in contract with the city.

One might ask, "How is this not legal if they are in contract with the city?" There are several answers to this, and none of them are simple:

1.) The company may be in contract with the city, but you have no contract with the company, because you didn't sign anything that binds you to a contract with the company.

2.) The company cannot legally enforce a civil law that was made civil from a pre-existing criminal law, and every photo enforcement company operating in the United States has done just that.

3.) A criminal law that is made into a civil law while still holding the criminal law abridges police power, which contradicts all local, state, and federal constitutions.

4.) If they legally are able to enforce the laws they pretend to, then they should be able to legally enforce them in a court of law, not a cramped room with a city employee posing falsely as a judge.

These private enterprises pose as law enforcement, but they do not come under the umbrella of law enforcement, because they are not the police. They are not an agency of the government in any form, nor do they have any agency shared power or jurisdiction. There is no example of a private enterprise that has been legally allowed to enforce civil law outside of a court room presided over by a judge, or we would be summoned to a court of law to stand and face our accuser.

At the end of all of these arguments, companies like Redflex are still getting away with doing what they do because their ace in the hole is to sell the public and city on safety. "It's all about safety..." they'll tell you. They'll even back up that claim with several bona-fide looking statistics, but these statistics are again designed to stop you from critically thinking. If you look at the real statistics, which can be found here, here, and here, you'll see that Redflex's claims and the facts don't match up.

But that's not good enough, one might say. I need verifiable proof that the 'safety' argument is bunk. To those of you who are reading this, I am about to attempt to do just that. I am in the process of beginning a year-in-the-making documentary that will completely disprove the safety argument, and will challenge the very core of what companies like Redflex sell to the public in order to remain in towns and cities, scamming the public out of their money while never making the roads any safer. And I'm going to film the entire thing by myself. I cannot yet give the specifics of how I am going to go about doing this, but there will be a disclosure video made by me, to be released on youtube.com very shortly, within the week. It is my hope that this will start nailing the lid on the coffin for the dishonorable practices committed by companies that seek to put a separation between you and your money, and freedoms. I'll post a link to the video on my twitter feed once I've published it, and be sure to subscribe to that channel so you can witness the documentary as it unfolds, which I will be releasing in small episodes over the course of the next year.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and it is my goal to motivate and inform the public on the truth of this corrupt organization of companies posing as law enforcement, selling you lies.

AT&T, Shmaytee Antee

How many people are subscribed to AT&T?

How many subscribers have broken their phones recently?

In the past 3 years?

10 years?

If you answered 'yes' to any/all of these questions, then you are just like me, a normal cell phone user, just like all the other cell phone users with other companies out there. But what do we have in common that we don't share with other phone company subscribers? Insurance.

Oh we share the same company, Asurion. Asurion provides insurance coverage for cell phones to several major cell phone service providers(like T-Mobile, Verizon, etc)which means we all get the same service, or do we?

Some weeks ago I encountered one of the most frustrating experiences in my lifetime. I had woken up, got ready for work, grabbed my phone, turned it on...and it was busted. It was a Samsung Eternity(complete touchscreen except for a couple of buttons on the bottom)that had gone to the brink of insanity. The entire top half of the screen would send all my clicks and taps to the bottom half of the screen, while the bottom half of the screen wouldn't respond to my clicks and taps at all. It would have been a simple matter of recalibrating the tap function, except the calibration selection on the settings menu was on the top half of the screen. Poopie.

So I went to the nearest AT&T store to check out what they could do about it(because I really liked that phone)and was told by Brent(who was really nice and cordial btw)that I would have to make an insurance claim. I immediately thought to myself "Great, I gotta wait 4 days for a new phone"(Being that I've broken my other phones in the past 3 and 10 years, I knew the routine...or so I thought.)

Upon calling Asurion, I told the CSR what had happened, and he told me that I would have to fill out an affidavit, have it notorized, and snail mail it back, then wait another 48 hours to process, then 5-7 days for the phone to be delivered upon acceptance of affidavit and claim.

The space in between these two paragraphs represent my silence and immediate discontent with this situation. In disbelief, I asked him to repeat what he just said. He obliged. I said "is this a joke?"

To which he replied "No, sir. Standard policy."

I said "Since when?"

"About a few months ago."

"Why???" I inquired.

"To accomodate everyone"

I then recited to him what had happened previously to me twice(broken phone, they send me the replacement, I send them the broken phone within 30 or 60 days or they charge me retail value on my next bill, etc) and asked if that had any bearing on my needing an affidavit.

He replied with a resounding "No, it's just what we're doing from now on"

He then began to read off a litany of instructions and I interrupted him.

"So I'm to understand that paying fifty dollars for the policy and five dollars a month(a total of $105.00 a year)isn't good enough, and if something goes wrong, the only way I can get it fixed is through delayed mail and a sixty dollar errand? What am I paying you the hundred-five a year for?"

"Sir, that's just our policy."

At this point I caved, and decided to play nice...but that wasn't good enough.

"Fine, let me give you my email so you can send me the affidavit."

"Sir, we don't email the affidavit out...you have to download it off of our website, or we can snail mail it to you which could take up to 3 days."

If any of you who read this have an interpretive imagination, you must be sensing the rage that was building inside me.

I had reached maximum capacity. My frustration had built to the point of boiling over. I unloaded on this guy over the phone. I really let him have it. By the time I was done with him, he was speechless. I told him to immediately cancel my insurance, and when he asked why, I answered "Because of my lack of faith in a company who incompetently makes monetary demands of customers needing service to which they are ALREADY PAYING FOR."

By this time, everyone in the AT&T store was staring at me, like I was giving birth to a demon. And they had every right to. A couple of sailors had run out of the store, they were so offended at the filth flowing like Niagra from my mouth.

The moral? Don't buy insurance from AT&T.

The solution? Cancel your insurance, if you've bought some already, and go get a GoPhone, it's cheaper, will work well until your insurance runs out, can take your SIM card, and once your contract with AT&T runs out, you have no hooks, so you can easily transfer to another company.

My mother works for Cox Communications, so when my contract runs out, I'm getting a phone from them, as they are about to break into the wireless market anyway!

Oh, by the way, in case you were wondering: Asurion only makes AT&T customers sign affidavits, I had friends ask their insurance providers(all different companies, all under Asurion)what the procedure was for replacing a broken(NOT stolen)phone, and they just send you the box with the replacement phone, and you send them the broken phone back in the same box within 30 or 60 days(differs from company to company)...WTF?

AT&T will forever be known by me as Assholes Torturers & Thieves.

Redflex for Dummies:

For those of us who drive, we've all done it. Driven through red lights, exceeded the speed limit, made right turns on red without coming to a complete stop, and even zoomed through that yellow light to beat the red. Many of us have at one time been stopped by a police officer and given a ticket for one or more of these infractions of the law. But is police enforcement enough? Some would like for you to believe that it isn't. Are we actually safe on our roads? Some would have you believe that you aren't safe at all, unless you are protected under the vigilant unwavering eye of technology.

Companies like Redflex, ATC, and others have been campaigning for installation of their surveillance systems on intersections and in mobile photograph speed capturing units(speed vans)all over the United States for the past 14 years, succeeding in doing business in around 250 cities in the U.S., and countless others around the world, where freedom doesn't exist the way it does here. In England, the cameras are at almost every intersection, watching your every move inside your vehicle, and they can stick you with almost any violation they want, and most often, they do.

These companies do business under the guise of a government agency, when in reality, they are nothing more than a private enterprise, who pushes contracts for business upon the government they wish to do business within. A private enterprise, for those of you who don't know, is simply a business. Businesses are designed to make money, so throughout this blog, keep that in mind.

In the city I live in, Redflex has had cameras and speed vans in operation since late 2007, beginning operation without a vote by the public, without warning the public, and truthfully without any notification TO the public as to what these big boxes near certain intersections are. The public had to just wonder about it while the government kept its mouth shut. I first learned about this when my father spoke to me about it; as he had heard about it from a colleague of his, who happened to be one of the first people in my city to receive one of the photo enforcement notices. Since then, my father and I have been part of the tip of the spear in bringing this illegitimate giant of a business to its knees. We attended council meetings and voiced our opinions over 2 administrations, we have spoken publicly to several political groups in hopes to draw support from all parties - liberal, conservative, and libertarian, and we've participated in numerous internet comment threads under articles surrounding reports of the progress/troubles of the red light cameras in many news sources around America, in some cases, drawing national attention. We have been doing this for about 2 and a half years now, and we've made significant impacts on a number of different interest groups.

So what's the big deal? Why make a fuss over these things? Because they have a grip on our wallets ALL over the United States, and they are getting away with it. Why are they getting away with it? Because they are counting on the majority of the American people to be too ignorant to either do anything about it or even care. It's easy to fork over $25 whenever one of these notices are found in the mail, it's ONLY $25! But if you get another one, it's more than that, and on and on. This blog is going to focus on facts, figures, and most importantly, the process. Over the course of reading this, I hope to inform you, the reader, enough to the point where you either change your mind about the validity of these systems or learn enough to reinforce your own opinion about them, and tell a friend about it(including this blog!) Bookmark this blog now, because you may want to come to it later.

How do we prove that a company that claims it's reputable, and does business in the name of safety, is exactly the opposite? Simple. We break down the information they feed us and compare it with facts from other sources that haven't been bought by the company. We also dissect the process by which a company makes money. If it can be determined that any of these are accomplished through illegitimate means, then that should prove that the company should not be allowed to do business.

Let's look at some facts: In a recent article/blog published by Greg LaRose in the New Orleans City Business Newsblog, which can be read here we see that a comparison of tickets issued in November of 2007 were far greater(11,000 to be exact)than tickets issued in August of 2008, which only reached 9,000. Seems like big numbers going to smaller numbers, right? Wrong. This is a "RedFLAKES" fact, a fact designed by the company handed out to news sources in order to make the company look like it's improving the quality of life through the implication of its system. I can't stress enough how ILLEGITIMATE this practice is. When we look at a fact like this, we can learn two things: 1) There are only 2 figures of data represented over a period of 8 months, only showing the beginning and end periods, where the end period is lower than the beginning; which means that between November and July the numbers could have always been higher than 20,000, which would contradict the idea that they are making roads safer. 2) The only way numbers like that could be reached in an area that is as populated as the greater New Orleans area is, is by getting numbers from only 1 intersection, over the period of one month. We have no way of knowing if these numbers were taken from a high-traffic intersection and then a low-traffic intersection, or from the same one! Also, look at the months when these numbers were taken! November is a huge holiday month, and August is back to school! There are two schools in the New Orleans area that are known throughout the U.S.: Loyola, and UNO(there are national community colleges, but that's besides the point.) There are no reports of cameras installed at any intersections within short driving distance from those schools.

Anyone that accepts this data as fact is at best ignorant. There is no way possible for an area populated by nearly 1.5 million people to have only 20,000 to 9,000 people breaking the law with regards to traffic infringements. If we take the latest data(9,000)and do some math on it, and give RedFLAKES the benefit of the doubt, we can safely assume that it's only 1 intersection they are getting this data from. In the New Orleans area there are 11 cameras scattered around the city. So if we are to understand that 9,000 is roughly an average of infringements for the month for that 1 intersection, it's safe to assume that it's the average for all 11 intersections. I mean we want to be fair, right? We want to give them the benefit of the doubt, right? So, let's do the math: 9,000 x 11 = 99,000. That's STILL less than 10% of the affected area's native population. So we are led to believe that less than 10% of the people of New Orleans are such unsafe drivers that all 1.5 million people are to suffer because of them? Don't make me laugh.

In government, the saying "The good must suffer for the bad" doesn't exist(at least until this CURRENT administration, but that's another story), but in this case, do we know if "For the greater good" exists? In this case, no, it doesn't. In this case, the good DO suffer for the bad.

What about the one thing everyone loves to say? "If you don't speed, you have nothing to worry about!" This makes a lot of sense on the surface, but we aren't always speeding, but we are always under the scrutiny of what has been proven to be faulty implements of speed analysis. It's been proven that cars with bigger, non factory tires may have speedometers that show the driver is driving under or at the speed limit, but may actually be exceeding it, causing the cameras to snap a picture. More than one vehicle may be travelling through an intersection when a photo is snapped, but both vehicles may receive notices even though only one vehicle may be speeding. Making right turns on red is completely legal, and has always been legal, in the United States. Why, then, are cameras snapping pictures of people making right turns on red, assuming that they ran the red light? Stopping for three seconds makes no difference to these cameras, because they aren't programmed to be aware of a motorist stopping, counting to three, then making the right turn on red upon ensuring the coast is clear. Even people coming to a stop, while breaching the intersection and backing up, have been issued these notices.

These notices are called 'notices of violation' when in reality they are 'notices of extortion.' Extortion is defined as follows:

1) The act or an instance of extorting.

2) Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.

3) An excessive or exorbitant charge.

If we are to look at these notices of extortion, and we understand the process behind these notices of extortion, we can safely come to the conclusion that this system isn't anything BUT extortion. But how does one begin to understand the process behind this system? To do this, we must first understand constitutional process regarding criminal infraction.

When we break the law and are caught by the police, we are given a ticket, and we have to go to court to face our accuser(ticketing officer.) This is a right we are all afforded under the constitution - the right to DUE PROCESS. In the process behind RedFLAKES, there is no due process, because there is no accuser. You are presumed guilty from the moment that camera takes your photo, then you are sent a letter demanding payment from a company that never would have known you existed if that camera never took your picture, and if you decide to give in to their game, and pay them, will forget about you until you get photographed again. In fact, there isn't even a court proceeding. You can contest these notices of extortion, and attend an adjudication, but what happens next is far FAR from related to due process. You are called - not served a summons from an officer of the court - but called by a secretary working in the office asking you when you can attend an adjudication hearing, which sounds fair, but when you get there, a representative of the company(usually a city lawyer, which is a conflict of interest)shoves a laptop in your face from across the conference table and points at the picture of you in the photo(pretty gestapo). He asks you"Is that you?"and if you say yes, you are willfully incriminating yourself. Plain and simple. If you say no, then they charge that you were the registered owner of the car at the time the car was photographed speeding, and THEN you're guilty. Either way, YOU'RE GUILTY.

But wait - we don't even have to go THAT far into the process to show you how illegitimate this process really is. Photo enforcement through the mail - a system of enforcing 'laws' through the U.S. Mail service, which is borderline mail fraud, does not constitute a valid system of law enforcement, as it abridges police power. If you ran a red light at a camera intersection, and a police officer witnessed it, and pulled you over, do you think you're going to get away from RedFLAKES scott free? You'd be mistaken if you thought so. No, in fact, 100% of notices issued that were also caught by police have been approved, the world over, the difference is, the police officer is human, and the camera isn't. The difference is, the police have to go through due process, the camera doesn't. The laws that police enforce fall under the umbrella of law enforcement, EXTORTION doesn't.

A bit of history: Around ten years ago, our police force tried to establish a system of photo enforcement in an effort to alleviate the(at the time)already thinly spread police force. The city council denied the police department their request, under a ruling that it abridges police power, and because it does so, it runs against state law. We must ask ourselves, then, why are we allowing a private enterprise to do EXACTLY what we wouldn't let our own POLICE to do ten years ago? The system hasn't changed, it still abridges police power, because it does their job FOR them. And when a police stops you AND you get a red light notice of extortion, then who takes priority? The law, or a company that wants you to pay them for having bad driving habits?

RedFLAKES is going to tell you until you believe it that this is all about the safety. If this is true, and their system works, why do they only have around 200 accounts after 15 years of service? Is their sales team THAT horrible? If I were the CEO of a multinational corporation based out of Australia, cornering the international market in surveillance equipment, and all I could show for my U.S. accounts after being in business 15 years is 200, don't you think that would make me look a bit foolish?

Up there as one of the biggest problems(if not the BIGGEST)is the constant defense of this EXTORTION that government tends to participate in, AFTER they've been suckered into signing on the dotted line. They call it a “law”, and will tell the public “since it’s been voted into law, it’s a LAW, and it must be obeyed.” This is absolutely false. Good new laws don’t conflict with established laws, or arbitrarily change face from civil offenses to criminal offenses and back again, depending on who/what caught you breaking the already established law.

Still need convincing that this is a scam? Look up case history on Redflex regarding legal action against them in Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Redflex has been BANNED from these 15 states, voted unanimously in each case.

Consider this: A few months ago(around June)I did my own little experiment. I, for three months, observed placement of cameras and vans around Lafayette. I recorded locations, roadside placement(which direction it’s facing-north/south, east/west)and the time slot they were managing, if it was a van. I also recorded the highest traffic times in these areas. My data wasn’t to find numbers or contradicting data to REDFLAKE’s data, no. It was simply to prove that REDFLAKES can manipulate the results by collecting data from low traffic times, low traffic areas, and when they want to show it’s working(which they can and have)they simply use data from low traffic times, areas, and vans in those areas. When they want to show that it’s a problem, they use data from high traffic areas/high accident areas.

At great time and expense on my own part, I proved this with PLENTY of data/results. My hypothesis was not only correct, but it was SPOT ON. There were times when I sat near vans in PARKING LOTS. There were times when I sat near vans in neighborhood’s where in the four hours it was assigned to that spot, only 3 cars passed it. And these were the busiest times of the day! The reason they didn’t capture any pictures is because EVERYONE WAS AT WORK. And this practice is repeated over and over to make sure that their “facts” they give you make them look good.

'Tis the Season to Return Things...

...Fa la la la la, la la getyourmoneyback!

Every year around this time we all relish in the time we spend with our families, the food we eat, the egg nog we drink, and the hundreds or thousands of dollars in gifts we give/receive...and then return to the stores. We all get what we don't want at some point, but do we all get the money back we expect? We could all benefit from a refresher course now and then, to make sure bad employees/business practices don't needlessly get the better of our wallets this season. There are a few tips and steps I like to adhere to when I get something that I need to return:

Tips:

1. Call the store ahead of time and find out if their return policy covers full cash back/replacement of product/store credit.

2. Always have your receipt for the product, if you have to do a little digging/asking for it, there's no shame in that - people these days are fairly jaded to the idea of something being returned(which is why I usually just get people gift cards or cash anyway, I'm horrible at deciding what gifts to give people)

3. Make sure you write down the name of the customer service rep at the store you are returning your product to(EVEN if you are mailing the product in to a national service center 5 states away from you, or Japan, or India, get their name!)

4. Make sure your product came with a warranty(if it did, then you should take the time to read your warranty, there might be helpful info in there that you otherwise wouldn't be able to take advantage of, as the case most of the time is, the store clerk has no idea what is written in that warranty, and if you walk in with a little bit of know how, you might come out on top instead of 'Big Co., Inc.')

These tips can help you prepare for a return that could otherwise cause you to hear "Sorry, we don't give refunds...*click*"

Steps to follow if you have to bring your product back to the store yourself and confront someone face to face(hopefully that person who's name you took down over the phone)so you can successfully complete your return transaction are as follows:

1. Make sure you bring your studied receipt and warranty with you. Have it on hand at all times, it's like your lawyer, can be irritating to deal with, but will help you in the end, because you paid for it.

2. When you speak to the customer service rep, don't speak down to them, but don't be passive either, they've had to spend their holidays listening to people like you, and I'm sure they'd rather be doing something else than listening to a bunch of unhappy, griping customers. Be assertive, and elicit their full attention. If they start to wander, remind them that you are the customer, and you are in charge...but don't be a jerk, you can do that in a calm, pleasant tone while still being assertive. Remember, they have a job to do, and it's OK to remind them from time to time of that.

3. Don't be afraid to speak to the manager if your customer service rep isn't giving you the service you expect from a CSR. The elevation in authority usually gets their attention if all else fails, and if they're being lazy or inattentive, this will definitely remind them that YOU are the boss, not them.

4. When speaking to the manager, be prepared to restate your case and make your demand again, but also be prepared to state why you had to have him called here in the first place(bad customer service.) Once the manager hears your story, chances are you are in like Flynn, and will get the service you desire. Managers hate bad customers, because managers are always under review, and a bad review could cost them their job.

5. Once everyone's clear on the proper transaction for your return and you are satisfied, make sure(if you have a warranty or an extended warranty)that BEFORE you complete the transaction, you are aware of their fulfillment policy. If you've read the post before this one, you'd know that I was burned by Best Buy on their fulfillment policy after I purchased a two year warranty, and only got one service out of it. Companies will do this to you, in hopes that you won't read your warranty.

Most extended warranties are expensive, and there's NO refund for those. This is how most companies make their money. There's no two ways about it. My brother purchased a $1,300 laptop a couple of years back and bought the only extended warranty offered for that laptop at a price of $300, for 3 years. He's not going to get the money back on that warranty, and neither are you! Make sure you get full service on your warranties!

Above all, don't take no bull! There will be companies that you want to return something to that you just can't, because they have a no-return policy. In that case, EBAY(or your favorite auction site)can help you get a bit of cash in your pocket where you would instead have a piece of plastic you can't spend anywhere else but the place you got it.

You know, I've still got a SEARS store credit gift card for $20 for returning a Tie 2 years ago, and I go into SEARS about once every six months, I've still yet to spend that money...just making a point.

Have a happy and safe holiday everyone!

The Best Buy Beat Down

Throughout my life I have had many pleasant and unpleasant experiences as a consumer(who hasn't?), and I've learned from those experiences. I've also learned to do my homework on businesses. Please allow me to take no more than 15 minutes of your time to tell you about an experience that I had at the local Best Buy in Lafayette, Louisiana, from December 2008 to November 2009.

In December 2008, I strolled into my local Best Buy with my Christmas bonus in hand, and purchased a Guitar Hero drum kit for the Xbox 360, which completed my instrument controller ensemble.(NOTE: I am an avid gamer, and video games have been and always will be a significant part of my life.) I found the last one on the shelf and proceeded to the checkout line, happy as a clam. When it was my turn to check out, I was encouraged to purchase a 2 year warranty for the kit, as it has a chance of breaking under normal wear and tear. Since I'm a cautious consumer, after a issuing a small gauntlet of questions about the coverage of the warranty to the cashier, I figured I had heard enough, and purchased the warranty. Being confident in my new purchase, I rushed home as fast as I could to get it out of the box.

After about 2 months, I felt glad I had purchased that warranty, because it was time to cash in on it. The red pad(snare drum)had pooped out on me, and wouldn't respond to the hit of the stick, like all the others did. So, I called in, asked if they could replace it, and after they confirmed they could I brought it in, and left with my new drum kit. This made me real happy, as they promptly replaced the item, no questions asked.

This drum kit worked great for about another 9 months, and in November, wouldn't ya know it - the red pad broke again! So I followed the same steps I did last time(as I'm just OCD like that)except this time they didn't have a replacement drum kit, but they offered to give me store credit in its place, which I reluctantly agreed to. I packed up the toy, and brought it to the store. When I arrived at the store, I had to go through the typical steps: Sticker at the door, wait in line, plead my case, and finally after having to go back home to get the drumsticks(which I forgot to pack)I got my store credit, and was ready to leave the store. I was surprised, however, to be interrupted by the customer service girl, Becka, who informed me that my 2 year warranty was fulfilled, and if I would like to purchase a new warranty, I could do so at the check out counter. This didn't sit well with me and I thought to myself for a second before asking her: "If you had replaced the toy, would the warranty still be 'fulfilled'?" She quickly replied 'yes' as if this isn't the first time she's had to answer that question. I paused, thought about this, and it occurred to me that 2 year warranties normally last 2 years, and not 2 services. I asked her the reason the warranty was fulfilled and she informed me that it is outlined in the warranty contract. I quickly started studying the warranty again(which I had done when I bought the warranty)in the store, and found nothing about fulfillment after 2 services. She told me that I had had the product serviced before, but that was still within the manufacturer's warranty, so the extended warranty didn't kick in until after the 90 day manufacturer's warranty expired. I told her that still doesn't explain where it points out in the warranty that I'm only allowed 1 service within the 2 year service contract. Since I had the document in hand at the time, I asked her to point it out so it would be clear that I don't have a case to plead, and she couldn't point to a clause that I couldn't also contradict with another clause in the same paragraph, or how it doesn't pertain to this particular situation. In fact, she couldn't prove at all that the contract was fulfilled, so she called someone else over, it was a black girl, if I remember correctly, her name was either Heather or Kim. She started looking through the document, studying. After about 2 minutes of looking, she found, on the second page, these sentences:

"Our obligations under this Plan will be fulfilled in their entirety if we replace your product, issue you a voucher or gift card or reimburse you for replacement of your product pursuant to these terms and condition. This Plan is inclusive of your product's manufacturer's warranty; it does not replace your product's manufacturer's warranty, but it does provide certain additional benefits during the term of the manufacturer's warranty." She stopped there. She outlined the sentences with a smirk and a purple pen that looks like it had been chewed on enough to replace an employee's hunger for the day.

Taken back by this a bit, and somewhat disappointed in myself, I studied the pair of inky spears over and over for what felt like hours, though it probably wasn't more than a minute or two. I decided to keep reading after the two sentences, and lo and behold, another contradiction to the previous clause; to which I proudly read to them:

"Parts and services covered during the manufacturer's warranty period are the responsibility of the manufacturer and are not covered under this Plan. After the manufacturer's warranty expires, this plan continues to provide the benefits provided by the manufacturer's warranty, as well as certain additional benefits as listed within these terms and conditions."

They didn't know what to say. Becka started rummaging frantically below her cash register as I stared down my nose at them in victory! She then reached for something I couldn't see, and brought it to the counter in a feat of deception. It was a booklet. She started frantically reading through it, and I had to interrupt her. I asked her what she was reading, which she replied, "I'm reading through the warranty booklet."

"Why are you doing that? I don't know what's in that booklet! That wasn't the booklet I was sent!", it was much larger than the one I had.

"This is the one we go by," she said

"But this (pointing to my book) is the book I was given, so this is the book you have to use! If you don't read your warranty books, then you can't do your job right, and I want a refund."

"I gave you a refund."

"You gave me a card, and didn't include the price of the warranty in it, which is unacceptable, because you are breaching the contract that I paid for."

I asked her why she didn't consider the contract fulfilled when I replaced it the first time? She said that it was still covered under the manufacturer's warranty, and while under the manufacturer's warranty I have unlimited replacements. Both Becka and Heather/Kim confirmed this to be true. So I went back to the statement after the inked section and told them that "under the manufacturer's warranty I have unlimited replacements, but this extended warranty doesn't remove that privilege, it extends it. It even says so in the ink right here! But you didn't want me to read that, so you didn't highlight it."

After proving her both wrong with their own ink, she threw her hands up into the air, and said "I'm not going to argue with you, if you want to take it up with corporate, I can give you the 888 number."

I told her that's unacceptable, and I want to speak to the manager.

This is where the you know what hits the fan. Ashley, the store manager, approached the counter after a 5 minute wait, and told me she had been informed of what was going on. She said there's nothing I can do. I told her I don't need to do anything, and that YOU need to do something about these unsatisfactory services I've been rendered. Ashley was growing impatient with me much more rapidly than the other girls(bless their hearts)and decided to use volume, rather than words.

"Sir, I'm done with you, I'm not going to argue with you..."

"But..."

"I WILL NOT ARGUE WITH YOU LEAVE THE STORE NOW!"

"So what you're saying in this case, the customer isn't right?"

"YES!"

She then raised her arm, snapped her fingers, and whistled to someone behind me, as if she was calling her majesty's royal guard, who in this case just so happened to be a 400-pound, no neck having sack of flesh named Malcom, who, with the worst case of halitosis I've ever experienced, approached me with a glint in his eye, and blood on his chops. This guy is the kind of guy that isn't smart enough to reason with words; so he resorts to reasoning with violence. He very breathily spoke: "come with me." I told him no. He said it again(I was hoping he wouldn't have)"come...with...me" He inched closer to me, and if it weren't for his enormous gut getting in the way, we would have been touching noses.

"You are going to come with me, one way or another," he said.

"If you lay a finger on me, we're going to have a problem." I replied

"I'm not going to touch you."

"Then how am I coming with you one way or another?"

Ha! I had him cornered. 'My wits win the day!' I thought to myself.

"I'm going to call the cops on you and they'll pull you out of here," he said with a smirk on his face.

I said "Fine, I'll wait for the police to show up, so they can protect me from you."

This is the part where I get humiliated. The police were called, in front of me, and they were told I was being loud, obnoxious to employees, and threatening to other customers for no reason. Right in front of me! They said those lies! I told them they better save the camera feed so they can play that lie back to the police, to which my response was nothing more than a sneer and a thumbed nose in my direction.

So, like a brave and seasoned warrior, I waited, calm, still, confident. Suddenly, I found myself being slowly surrounded by Best Buy employees who had heard what was going on, and like vultures, they encircled me and started jabbing me with insults like"It's just a toy, what's the big deal?" "Why doesn't he go bother someone else, somewhere else" "This guy is pathetic, making an issue out of a hundred dollars." "He's not gonna get what he wants." One of the employees approached me, and asked, "Why are you making such a fuss out of this?"

I said"Out of what? Protecting my rights as a consumer? Buddy, if you like the idea of rolling over and taking it in the you-know-what, that's your problem. But I won't be pushed around with these Gestapo tactics, I'm standing up for myself!"

He responded with"We did what we are supposed to do. We did our jobs."

"Oh, so using deceptive practices and committing fraud is doing your jobs? Standing around on the clock and gawking at customers, wasting the company's money, is doing your jobs? Arguing with customers, telling them the customer isn't right is doing your jobs?!"

He retreated.

20 humiliating and embarrassing minutes pass, where I was a statue, like one in Central Park, a bastion of poop and target for winged rats to perch upon, when the police finally arrived. They approached and asked me what had happened, and I proceeded to tell them the story, and asked if I could have them escort me out of the store remaining behind me so 'tons o' fun' wouldn't pull any tricks(at this point in the story, your fearless narrator had all of his integrity and humility stripped from him, and was just frustrated to the point of petty name calling, so I said that one loud enough for him to hear, though I'm sure it didn't do any good, as he probably doesn't know what a 'ton' is, much less the plural of the word)

On the way out, an older black man was posted where Malcom had originally been, at the terminal near the door. While I was walking out of the store, Malcom's replacement(I use that term loosely)decided to take up the role of Don King, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton in one grandstand perfomance, and yelled out in the store, in a flavorful way;"You are hereby banned-ed-ed from tha store, sur, and if you come back, mistuh, you will be uh-rested-ed-ed fo' tresspassin', thank you, suh, and have a nice evenin'!" He finished with a twisted lip flip in my direction.(I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think he called my mother a hamster, and said my father smelled of eldeberries.)

In the parking lot, the police and I were discussing what was going to happen next. I asked if there was going to be a police report/incident report/any paper trail at all filed, and they confirmed that there wasn't going to be. I retrieved their names, badge numbers, and a business card they wrote it down on, so I can have them corroborate the story if I needed them to.

Now you may think this is where my story ends, but it doesn't. There's action, suspense, drama, and a letter filed with the Better Business Bureau that doesn't get a response until after 3 unsuccessful attempts at contact with Best Buy corporate.

Now that you've heard my story, I must warn you that this has been occurring for years (as far back as 1996) at Best Buy stores all over the United States. I've done extensive research at my own time and expense, and have gathered case log, names, dates, store numbers, employee/former employee testimonies about the deceptive practices and Gestapo tactics they use on their prey/customers. I hope you have found this story very informative and enlightening, as it cost me my dignity and humility in front of people I've met, people I've never met, and people I know, just because I wouldn't be quiet, and take what I had comin' to me.