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 Has my license ever been revoked because of these allegations?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.