FLEX YOUR RIGHTS . org
http://www.flexyourrights.org/
What to do when you are pulled over
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkpOpLvBAr8
Everything I say here I swear is fiction and in no way represents the truth...
I've gotten those red light camera tickets they run the light at 3 seconds and it's a 45 mph offramp to a 35 mph street.
It should technically be about a 4.5 to 5 second yellow. If you not watching for it you will miss the change to yellow and be going too fast to stop before being in the intersection.
If you almost stop and do a california roll...it does not take a picture...you have to be going fast enough to not be able to stop safely for the camera to be activated.
It's a catch 22 it only takes pictures of cars not speeding or going too fast for the conditions but also not able to stop for the 3 second yellow. The intersection never had a problem with red light runners they just put the cameras up at the intersections with the most traffic.
But that's not my point.
The first time I tripped the cam. My master cylinder pooped out and I had about 2k lb of tools and equipment in the back of my 1 ton van. I had to roll the van around the corner onto the shoulder putt putt and and parking brake it home where I replaced the master cylinder.
I got a cam ticket in the mail.
there are discrepancies between getting a ticket from a sworn officer and getting one from a camera clerk.
In some places they have an officer reviewing all the cam shots
A lot of places the red light cam company reviews the shots and makes a recommendation to the police which shots meet their criteria for ticketing.
It could be a sworn officer or a non officer reviewing the images.
It bypasses the ability for a sworn officer personally present at the scene of the event to use his professional training to review ALL of the present evidence and determine if an offence had been committed or if there were exigent circumstances.
The use of Cameras shields the officer from reviewing all available evidence requiring the officer to review evidence that points only to guilt without allowing the officer to balance that evidence against any other sensible evidence.
It is wrongfully using the power of the badge to enforce a civil claim with extreme prejudice.
But that's not my point either
The letter I received asked me to either pay the "fine" or request a "hearing with the police department".
It did not in any way reflect my right to remain silent or my right to a trial.
Anything you say to an officer can and will be used against you in court.
This means an honest man who has committed no crime may in fact incriminate himself by speaking to police not just by mistakenly saying something the wrong way but merely by misunderstanding on the officer's part. But anything the officer can say he heard you say or he thought he heard you say becomes fact in court.
Law enforcement of any badge has ZERO authority or power to hold court.
so I did not request a "hearing with the photo enforcement office"
Only a court established under the constitution has the power to hold court.
So I awaited my day in court. My summons never came. The "ticket" i received is not an order to appear in court but only a request to pay the alleged fine or make a request to come in and talk about it(give them more evidence)
A process server or officer must personally issue you an order to appear in court or the court itself must send a notice to your address of record.
A warrant for your arrest may not be issued unless you fail to respond to an order to appear.
A fine may not be levied for an offence unless you have been charged in court, and been found guilty by trial, or have entered a plea of guilty.
I figured since the police have no right to hold court I cannot be arrested for refusing to pay the alleged fine or for not requesting a hearing with the police.
I did not contact the police instead choosing to remain silent under the 5th and argue my case in court.
I was never called to court
But I did receive letters from the police department and from the red light camera company trying to collect on the alleged fine. I did not pay and most importantly ...I did not respond in ANY way... 100% silence. anything you say they WILL use against you and you cannot predict how they will use anything against you. you can't outsmart them running your mouth.... it's their system.
I also received a claim from a bill collector trying to collect on the alleged fine. I also did not respond in any way because the bill collector is acting as agent of the police.
I was waiting for the thing to appear in my consumer credit report as an unpaid bill and was having prepared by a lawyer a case to sue the red light camera company, the police department, and the collections agency for
1) violating my rights to a trial
2) violating the laws governing collections and consumer reports under the commerce act
3) violating my rights to a jury
4) violating my rights to due process
The police department does not take the step over the Rubicon and invoke my attorney.
I received another red light camera ticket just was going too fast to stop for the light (but not speeding) came down the ramp 45 mph and went around the corner about 20. light changed as I was slowing to 20...
They always stop collections and never pursue it in court.
In every case where anyone has responded to them in any way they have pursued it in court because the people opened their mouth or the people agreed to pay.
If you give any excuse, you are admitting it was you in the vehicle and from this moment on you have absolutely no case.
I suspect the key is in remaining silent and refusing to respond to anything but an order to appear in court where I would also have remained silent and left it to an attorney if I was called to court. There are many other legal remedies to pursue if called to court as the red light camera system is operating in a grey area at best.perhaps this information will assist others
Your taking your own chances by remaining silent. They do operate under the threat of increased resistance brings increased reprisal which is of course the way of the Tyrant.
Myself I spent 2 years in medium security prison and several years on parole as a youth (for actually being a real criminal) so as a free and lawful man fighting against government corruption it's no skin off my nose. They have a saying in the joint when your threatened by the system "'f- you I can do that time standing on my head".
Not to sound flippant, incarceration is a big deal but the bully pulpit exploits fear. If your not afraid, it changes the whole engagement. The system actually treats you with more respect if your respectful, knowledgeable, (orderly of course) and not afraid. I'm not glorifying crime. I'm just using the unusual perspective of a former criminal to highlight a different perspective the ordinary person who has not been through the system usually does not have without special training.
There's a reason and an ethic behind every law and this red light camera thing... it sets a dangerous precedence.
when you go from a system where the laws are too numerous and the punishments severe based upon the fact that most people get away with breaking the law, to a system where no-one gets away with anything...where is the justification for deterrence?
Deterrence is when the punishment for crossing the line is more extreme than what would be just. The excuse being it will prevent people from crossing the line.
Part of that is also having a broad net of excess regulation. Sooner or later people will get themselves caught. most of the time they have done much more than they have been caught doing. it is reasoned that excessive punishment beyond what would be appropriate for what the person was charged with makes good on that.
Having many laws ensures that if someone is doing wrong, if they don't get caught on this they will get caught on that. It sets many traps for the criminal lessening the chance of the criminal getting away with it.
We are moving into a world where technology and prolific legislation makes it easier to incriminate more people with more offences... and all this deterrence now keeping the peace no longer has the justification previously due to the former difficulty in catching criminals and few laws to be broken.
As the technology increases the efficiency and the ability of the government to keep the peace, the weight and cost of the law upon the people should therefore diminish.
The reverse is taking place, as technology increases, the incrimination and marginalisation of society is escalating.
