Ask Sheriff Paul Babeu


babeuPinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu will make an appearance at the CameraFRAUD booth at the Arizona State Fair tomorrow, Sunday October 25 at 2:00 PM.

Babeu, who ended a contract with ticketing vendor Redflex earlier this year, said that photo radar programs were “corrupting law enforcement.”

More recently, the Sheriff testified before the Globe City Council in strong opposition to automated ticketing.

Stop by and say hello!

67 Responses to Ask Sheriff Paul Babeu

  1. Subversive Menace says:

    Adios Talivan Man:

    • Ron E. says:

      Top notch work here camera-woman…

      Get ready Redflex stooges, you’re gonna start getting confronted everyday. Get your illegal pirate operation out of our state.

      Redflex employees- start resigning now, because your names (and pictures), will be made VERY public as we get closer to election day next year (at which time your operations will be closed down statewide).

      • Charles in Sdale says:

        I’m actually quite shocked that RF & ATS employees aren’t resigning in droves..

        Considering how little money these poor folks make, why would they go on scamming their friends and neighbors when it puts them at risk for having their faces on TV come election time next year…? I mean, really.. Redflex pays very poorly and all their little faces are going to be plastered everywhere as criminals. Who will here these people?…

    • Did you ask the police to ticket the driver for parking illegaly? She was parked in a no parking zone AND she was parked on a non-dust free surface.

      I would never take a job that I was too embarrassed to be working that I’d want to hide my face.

      Did you ask the police why you can’t protest on the PUBLIC SIDEWALK even if it’s next to the van? I didn’t know there was a law that you can only protest on public property if it’s more than 300 feet from from a scam van.

      • Sure says:

        I spoke with two police officers the other day and one was telling me he ticketed a female photo driver for parking illegally and the ticket was dismissed “through what ever political means” are made available to Redflex.

        Said police officer doesn’t seem to like this racket either.

        Funny how the new corporate police are now superior to the real police officers.

        • LoneWolf says:

          I’ll bet they feel as important as police officers now, especially since they’re above the law. Around school zones, cops are all about safety. They look out for strangers, drug deals, violence, speeders, crazy drivers, etc. Idiots in the talivans are there for one reason only: To photograph speeders and raise revenue. The people who have relationships with these schools should demand that there be real cops, not PE around the schools. Isn’t it possible that some PE drivers might be a bit perverted and bring cameras (or use their cell phones) of their own to snap pics of the kids? Who would ever notice because who’s watching them? Sickening…

      • Even if the tickets are later dismissed, we need to get them issued. If the city had intended them to park in these areas, they would have passed laws to allow them to do so.

  2. Dr Jett says:

    Only thieves hide out and are afraid to show their face. Does that mean that Redfux hires only thieves or do they become thieves after they start working for Redfux?

  3. Steve says:

    i love it

    keep making there job harder to do!

    We should throw a huge party when they go out of business!

  4. Anand says:

    I need to do the same thing. My only weakness is that I would need someone with me.

  5. I would have been tempted to let the air out of her tires.

    • Malfeasant says:

      We all are tempted… but personally I draw the line at anything that could cause physical damage, however small- better to just be bodies in the way of their cameras…

  6. Jason N says:

    Carol, you make a good point, but there is also the view that these people have signed up (became employed) to rob us. I guess your view is that these people are just trying to put food on their table at minimum wage. But, I am glad you posted. I would still consider protesting with a sign or calling the police if they were breakin the law. But, overall, I think you are right. I don’t think I would engage the employee unless they got out and engaged with me.

    • Sure says:

      Jason, or anyone else, if one of those crazy ass Redflex employees gets out of their van, I would get the hell away from them as fast as you can.

      By looking at em, they don’t look like they can run too fast, but I am more than sure most of em could break you like a twig.

      • Ron E. says:

        Some of us aren’t scared of their buffonary and since some of us also carry mace, tasers, or (god forbid) take advantage of the second amendment, I wouldn’t worry about a confrontation with a RF/ATS low-life..

  7. Mike says:

    “Attacking” is a rather strong word, since I don’t believe videotaping could be considered “attacking”. The pro-camera Redflex employees that come on here always say that “if you aren’t breaking the law you shouldn’t care that you’re being videotaped”. By turning the camera around on them we can easily prove that they sure don’t like it either.

    True, they are just “doing their job”, but that doesn’t excuse them. If I worked at a job where I was embarrassed to tell people where I worked or be seen doing it… I would find a different line of work as soon as I could.

    • Will Kay says:

      Right you are Mike. The streaming surveillance, ANPR/ALPR technology, timing sensors, along with all the other dirty little tricks that the bailed out Goldman Sachs traffic firm has up their sleeves are all a blatant violation of Constitutional rights.

      I feel the same way, if you work for a corporation that is undoubtedly violating State and Federal laws, COMMON laws that is, then you have no excuse and you are as dishonest as dishonest can be.

      The ‘it’s just a job’ attitude doesn’t cut it with me at all. You ATS and Redflex employees (minions) work (slave) for a foreign based corporation run by a bailed out (with legally stolen fiat currency) private investment firm that has an objective of privatizing police work and setting up a 24/7 surveillance network of monitoring and policing every move that citizens make. Every camera that goes up means more Law Enforcement jobs are lost. I could go on and on, but hey, it’s just a job, right?

  8. Brent says:

    Carol, interesting point; but like Jason points out above, these people signed up to be PIRATES for Reflex and ATS. There are many jobs out there, and ethical people don’t sign up to work for a fraudulant enterprise because they need money and then get to retain their status as a honest citizen.

    These employees are starting to wise up to what’s coming.

  9. Sure says:

    I didn’t see an employee attacked. If you don’t like free speech THIS is the country for you – political correctness has run amock!

  10. Submersive Menace says:

    Can’t imagine what Carol would have told Rosa Parks:

    Listen, Rosa, the bus driver is just doing his job. Now, go on back to the bus and leave the poor driver alone. Ya know, he has to feed his family too.

    And she probably would have told Joe McNeil to get on out of that diner and stop causing problems for that poor ole Woolworth’s manager (you know, he has to feed his family):

    Feb. 1, 1960. Three of my colleagues, David Richmond, Jibreel Khazan, and Franklin McCain and I sat down at a segregated Woothworth’s lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina. We ordered apple pie and coffee. And we were not served.

    We were, previously, in other parts of the store where we purchased items like toothpaste, notebook paper, other sundry items, without incident.

    When we sat down at this lunch counter and asked to be served coffee and apple pie, we were told that we couldn’t be served. We were told by several people that if we continued to sit at this lunch counter that we were going to get into a lot of trouble.

    And we advised the store and its employees and its manager that we intended to sit and to continue to sit until they served us, because they had served us in other parts of the store so they could in fact serve us if they so chose to do so. So we continued to sit.

    The store manager called the police and the policeman came and he walked back and forth behind us. And he took his night stick and he thumped it in his hand in a threatening manner, but we continued to sit.

    People stopped and looked at this phenomenon that was taking place. We continued to sit. The store was getting ready to close and we had been sitting for, oh, about an hour and 30 minutes and an elderly white lady came and sat beside my friend Frank McCain and I, and she looked at Frank and said, ‘Son, I am disappointed in you.’

    And McCain looked at her in amazement and said, ‘Ma’am, you’re disappointed in me, why would you be disappointed in me? You don’t know me.’

    She said, ‘well I’m disappointed and the reason I’m disappointed is that it took you boys so long to do what you’re doing.’ And a smile came on McCain’s face as well as mine because that was our first sign of open support.

    The help in the store advised us to leave because it was their means of employment. I don’t think they had too much of a choice. So we left the store. We didn’t get served coffee or apple pie.

    We told the store manager that we’d be back and we’d keep coming back until they served us. As we left the store, we were met by an Associated Press photographer. Jack, and I forget Jack’s last name, he recently passed away about four or fives years, but he took a picture of the four of us leaving the store. And there was a short newspaper article noting that that day, four students sat at a lunch counter and said they were going to keep coming back until they were served.

    So that made the press, and we went back to campus. Because were young at the time, I was 17, the youngest, we knew that we needed help. So we approached several other students. I would say we probably approached 16 in all and, five or six said they would come back with us the next day. They did.

    And so our burgeoning movement of four grew into eight. The next day there were probably 25 of us. This, what I will call a movement, it turned out in hindsight to be a movement. We didn’t know that at the time, but this movement started to grow, so that by the end of the third day, our 25 of us was happening, but another city, Winston Salem, and Portsmouth, Va., a couple of other cities — Highpoint [N.C.] all these places start to have spontaneous sit-ins at these Woolworth lunch counters.

  11. Submersive Menace says:

    I am not sure why I am calling myself Subversive Menace when it is easy to see that Carol thinks she can manipulate camerafraud the way that Who tries to.

    • Will Kay says:

      Your new name fits you well😉

      There are two kinds of people in this world, those who are prisoners and those who are slaves. Prisoners (not felons) know that they are not free, but long to be and will do what it takes to be free. Then there are slaves, who work for and worship their masters and will tattle to them about the prisoners who are trying to escape to their freedom.

      I’m not a new world order slave and I never will be.

  12. Sure says:

    If you are a photo radar driver then as far as I am concerned you are a part of an illegal, corrupt system along with your cohorts:

    Redflex provides court administration modules for judges, DPS, attorneys, and witnesses that presents and assesses common dispute tactics and appropriate sound counter- measures required for successful prosecution. Arizona DPS/Redflex contract P 2

    Funds the re-election efforts of two-thirds of Arizona’s politicians and provides lawmakers with a personal financial incentive to protect controversial photo enforcement programs. In 1999, a ten percent surcharge was imposed on all traffic tickets to create the “Citizens Clean Election Fund.” The fund allows politicians to avoid tedious fundraising efforts.
    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/az-pols-pocket-36265795-in-photo-radar-campaign-contributions/

    The second-highest court in the State of Alaska struck down the photo radar program in 1997. The judges approved a lower-court determination that convictions rested on testimony from the company running the photo radar program, “witnesses the magistrates described as individuals who have a great deal at stake financially and who will testify to whatever it takes to convince’ the court in a given case…. Moreover, were we to find this evidence admissible, the questionable reliability of the testimony renders it insufficient to sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt in each of these cases.”
    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/00/67.asp

  13. Sure says:

    Carol is probably a judge.

    Judge John C. Keegan in December issued an order declaring the state’s freeway photo radar program unconstitutional:

    The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in part:

    1: … nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
    protection of the laws. (emphasis added)

    Further, Article 2 of the Arizona State Constitution states:

    13. Equal privileges and immunities: No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations. (emphasis added)

    The clear meaning of these provisions of the Arizona and United States constitutions is that it is unconstitutional to create one set of laws that applies only to a particular class of defendant and not to other defendants based solely on the mechanism employed by the government.

    Given the not uncommon set of circumstances where two drivers are travelling on the same highway, at the same speed in excess of the speed limit, at the same
    time, in essentially the same location and are cited by the same agency into the same court, ARS § 41-1722 creates a distinction whereby one class of defendant is subjected to a significantly different array of penalties than another class of defendant based solely on the use of photo enforcement.

    Now, therefore, it is the determination of this court that the provisions of ARS § 41-1722
    are unconstitutional and unenforceable within the jurisdiction of this court.
    http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2009/az-arrowhead.pdf

  14. Carol says:

    whoa. whoa. whoa. I first have to say, I ran into this group at Octoberfest and did sign the petition, however I have researched the group, read alot on the site and in my opinion, I have noticed there is huge negative sentiment for the employees of these companies, which yes, you are entitled too, free speech is great. But personally attacking thier employees, Redflex HR Director, Josh Weiss’s Facebook page and pointing out where he lives et al. just seems to dilute the real core issues here.

    I am not a judge, I am a realtor, and I do believe in free speech, thats what brought me here, I was just trying to make a point that the employees do a job,yes, to feed families, pay mortgage etc. a job this group cant stand, and I understand that, but I would think a more effecitve, proactive approach would be to direct that negative sentiment to the people who are responsible for implementing the programs, it is those people who through the trickle down effect provide jobs to the worker bee who shows up for their nine to five.

    if there was no demand for these programs, there wouldn’t be jobs right? economic principles…

    It will be interesting to see what happens when the issue is put to a vote.

    As far as constitutionality goes, I did see that the Seventh Circut court of appeals ruled these programs are constitutional, while they are a heavily debated issue, there are different takes on interpreting the constitution. (sometimes crazy country we live in provides different stances on issues)

    healthy debate about this issue is great, informative and useful to constituents, but accusing me of trying to manipulate people on the site and equating my opinion to anit-civil rights (the rosa parks) comment is a stretch and I think this group would probably have huge successes if the real focus was on the folks who vote “aye” on these programs.

    no offense to the gang here at all. it appears as though if anyone provides a devils advocate type of question or opposition, maybe even to gain a deeper understanding from the pro-oppositon group on the site, it is met with somewhat contentious posts.

    I think the saying is you catch more bees with honey?

    • Subversive Menace says:

      Sure, Carol, I believe you don’t work for Redflex. Wink, wink.

    • none says:

      No one posted Josh Weiss’s (ATS, not Redflex) home address, but now that you ask:

      9421 E Dreyfus PL
      Scottsdale, AZ 85260

    • Ron E. says:

      Carol, I’m glad you don’t work for RedFlex, but if you actually lack the intellect to side with a lower court’s interpretation that photo enforcement “is constitutional”, you might as well.

      RedFlex employees might as well start looking for real jobs soon because on November 2nd, 2010; they will lose their State of Arizona contract as well as all other contracts they have within our state (cities).

      At least over at ATS, James Tuton and his stooges actually have diversified a bit and have branched out into the toll road “industry” (which by the way is coming to Arizona soon thanks to our new “governor” Jan Brewer).

      • Carol says:

        I don’t lack the intellect, nor did I say I sided with the ruling, I was just making the point that this ruling was issued, and that its an interesting intrepretation.

        this clearly is not a place to engage in reasonable, intellectual debate on it. It is clear you are only open to discussing the things you perceive as favorable to your opinion.

        good for Gov. Brewer, I hear she is a huge opponent to these programs, she may be an ally for your cause, or at least better than Napolitano when it comes to this issue.

        My best to you and your signature gathering.

        • none says:

          Keep in mind that the internet brings out the trolls and the people from both sides that aren’t necessarily a representative sample.

          I found your posts to be interesting and points well taken, Carol

        • Ron E. says:

          My apologies for typing too quick and not reading your entire post.

          Thank you for your point of view.

        • Stacey says:

          Redflex employee Jay Heiler isn’t phased by the all the attention.

          “We love protesters,” Heiler said. “Protest is a time honored form of public debate that should always be welcomed in our society.

  15. Carol says:

    prime example of what I was talking about.

    If you read my post, I signed the petition, why would I do that if I worked for Redflex. I didnt know much about the company until consulting this site. I have discovered alot about that company from this site. But again, certain people choose to engage in silly, juvenile behavior and responses.

    Where are the directions on how to find your legislators? Council folks, etc? I know who mine are and would suggest encouraging a push for letter writing to those leaders, they hate dealing with constituents who are unhappy. If their offices are bombarded with letters, they listen. That would be more helpful than wink wink making stupid accusations.

    I dont support foreign companies, my parents raised me right, I only buy American made cars and do my best to support American made products as a consumer.

    thumbs down to you submersive menace, you only further support my point.

    • LoneWolf says:

      Carol, our defenses are high here. In order for us to defeat the scam that is photo enforcement, we need to target those who are most visible which are the ones who are working on the frontline of these operations. Personally, nothing irks me more than seeing a civilian sitting inside a scam van acting like law enforcement but yet doing something that officers who’ve trained for many months should be doing. I see this as a major insult to cops who should be patroling school zones and watching out for real safety issues such as crazy drivers, drug deals, violence, strangers, and if there are any speeders, they need to be stopped right then and there before a child gets run over or someone else gets hurt. For someone to just sit there and snap pictures of speeders, especially when there are no children around, is just plain stupid. In our minds, only a stupid person could work such a stupid job. The only motive for this is money, not safety.

      If I were unemployed and looking for a job, I’d rather live on the streets and starve to death than work for a corporation that is against everyhing the US stands for. Whoever’s working these jobs need to be made to feel like they’re imposing on a position that was always reserved for real cops. And they are imposing. They have no business being where real cops should be.

      Photo enforcement with its tracking capabilities, hard-to-dispute tickets, and personal info that involuntarily ends up in the hands of a third party is unconstitutional and I would honestly put my life on the line if it meant getting rid of this tyranical system of injustuce. Photo enforcement is spreading like a disease and as long as people are willing to work for these companies, they’ll continue to expand across the entire country. But this is where we’re stepping in.

      We’re only attacking with words and video cameras. While this may seem like it’s brutal, we’re just turning the cameras on them merely to give them a taste of their own medicine. If they can’t take it, perhaps they shouldn’t dish it out.

      There are lots of job openings in security and prisons are constantly hiring correctional officers. Nothing’s stopping them from taking a job in those fields if they feel the need to be in some position of authority.

      • Stacey says:

        Jay Heiler, Redflex Director of Government Affairs, “Cameras are less intrusive,” “Motorists quietly get a ticket in the mail instead of being stopped and interrogated for 25 minutes while their car is examined and their documents are checked. In court, they can make their case by reviewing video evidence instead of arguing about a cop’s judgment.”

        • LoneWolf says:

          That sounds so enticing but I think they (purposely) forgot to mention a few things…. And the bottom line? M-O-N-E-Y

        • Camera Hater says:

          Obergruppenfuhrer Heiler conveniently ignores the fact that the courts routinely apply a “guilty unless proven innocent” approach when dealing with photo enforcement, while a live cop would have to prove his/her case. Also live police have a wonderful thing called a brain. That means if you do have a legitimate reason for speeding, they have discretion to let you go.. OR, amazingly, actually help you if you need assistance.

        • Malfeasant says:

          There’s a problem with this argument- if speeding is so dangerous that it must be stopped at all costs, then we need the “intrusive” police to step in and stop the people doing it at the moment they are doing it. But the reality is that speeding alone is not that big of a risk, so the “intrusion” usually isn’t neccessary, except in rare extreme cases… which brings us back to the cameras being all for the money.

    • Bryan R says:

      Carol, read my post from today about my experience with “contacting my state legislator(s)”. That’s just a skeletal outline, but the whole process of a legislative debate on the speed cameras was subversively undermined by the House GOP leadership (and presumably some bureaucrats behind them).

      Contacting your legislator on this topic has already been done by everyone here, and we all got the shaft after some dirty backdoor dealing at the capital.

  16. Sure says:

    Well, Carol, when you get off the fence let us know which side you landed on.

  17. Stacey says:

    There are people who “do” and people who bitch about the way it is getting done.

    • Good point.

      “We don’t dream it, we do it!”

    • LoneWolf says:

      If we targeted IRS employees, I doubt ANYONE would complain.

      • I’ve talked to IRS people over the phone before and they are actually NICE. I was surprised, but it just goes to show you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover.

        **REDFLEX, ATS and GATSO are exempt from the previous statement***

        • LoneWolf says:

          The nice folks who work for the IRS are just being obsequious. What better way to rob someone of their hard-earned cash than to do it with a convincing smile. The thieves who work for PE hide themselves just like real crooks. Approach them with a camera and they put a bag over their heads so people can’t see who they are. When we post them on this website, it’s equivilant to putting them on America’s Most Wanted. I just don’t understand how anyone can complain if our mission is only to expose these thieves.

  18. capitalfraud says:

    Carol,
    Hope you see this, your messages are appreciated. ATS has been highlighting that 7th Circuit opinion as if it meant something. Unless you live in Illinois, Indiana or Wisconsin, it has no effect on you. What Judge Easterbrook ruled is legally correct, but think about what he’s saying:

    “The interest at stake is a $90 fine for a traffic infraction, and the Supreme Court has never held that a property interest so modest is a fundamental right.”

    What he’s basically saying is the judiciary is superior to the Constitution itself:
    “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”

    Unless you can show me how $90 is not a greater property interest than $20, there’s no other way to read what’s going on. The courts are ignoring the plain meaning of the words. (And if it’s not a civil suit, then it’s criminal and “all” means “all”.)

    You’ll find a far more balanced opinion from the Supreme Court of Minnesota which ruled scameras violated state law and forced Redflex to refund every single dollar it collected. Ask yourself, why do you know about the 7th Circuit, but not a state supreme court ruling? The answer is: your media is part of the scam. Especially the Arizona Republic which employs the former Redflex spokesman.

    Read the Minnesota case here:
    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1688.asp

    • Ernest Hater says:

      What he’s basically saying is the judiciary is superior to the Constitution itself:
      “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”

      Unless you can show me how $90 is not a greater property interest than $20, there’s no other way to read what’s going on. The courts are ignoring the plain meaning of the words. (And if it’s not a civil suit, then it’s criminal and “all” means “all”.)

      Maybe they are adjusting for inflation?

    • There are MANY constitutional aspects to PE that have YET to be ruled on. High courts have not heard all arguments and not all arguments for some aspects have been heard.

  19. B says:

    I’m not personally big on attacking employees of the company either. I have a 2nd cousin who’s working for Redflex because they had to put food on the table after losing their last job. Even though the company disgusts me, I get the need to survive financially.

    However, going after the government officials (i.e. the Legislature and Governor) is pointless.

    I was in constant contact with my state legislator (who I know personally), and others at the capital. I was assured that Sam Crump’s bill (HB1023?) – the ban on speed cameras on state highways – would at the very least come up to a vote.

    What happened? The House leadership (under the GOP – the party that’s supposedly more against the cameras) would NOT let it come to a House floor vote.

    Why not? They can’t say the program is earning enough revenue to help with the state budget crisis – that’s not the case. If that WAS the case, the GOP would’ve got the word out that it wasn’t financially prudent in these “tough financial times” or something about keeping the schools open, etc.

    Instead, there was disappointing silence. Nothing…

    Then I finally came across the real reason why the legislators don’t want the cameras to go away: $16.50.

    That’s the amount that every legislator receives into their re-election fund from EVERY PHOTO RADAR TICKET.

    So, again, going after the government officials is pointless. They are on the take… and they will NEVER have an honest vote on the issue.

    That’s why we’re frustrated, and some camerafraud members that go after Redflex employees (sometimes to an extreme) have few if any other legitimate outlets other than to expose the hypocrisy and/or other employee problems.

    • Sure says:

      I guess my idea of “extreme” and yours differ.

      Extreme to me is knocking one of them upside the head. lol

    • LoneWolf says:

      It’s a sad but true fact that when money speaks, lots of people listen. But these are basically people who are trading our valuable constitution and our freedom in exchange for money. They’re selling them to these corporations that take these things and tear them up because they’re in the way of making profits.

      The state isn’t making lots of money off of PE right now because 3/4 to 2/3 of the people who’ve been ticketed aren’t paying up. That will need to change in order for this program to be effective. They’ll probably eventually deploy more scameras and make vehicle owners pay the tickets regardless if they were the ones who were caught speeding or not. One way to make this happen is to put more money in the pockets of whoever has a direct impact on these programs like the legislators who can rewrite laws that are current obstacles to PE.

      I can understand the need to put food on the table, but at the same time, people shouldn’t resort to working for some company that contradicts American freedom, values, ethics, and everything else that America stands for. People sell drugs because they also need money for food and the nicer things in life. Others might sell child pornography, stolen software, or pirated movies… but just because they need to put food on their tables, is that a good excuse to trample on the rights of others? I think there’s a big difference between being smart and being desperate…

      • LoneWolf says:

        Speaking of ethics, as a web developer who needs money just as much as the next person, I would rather build 50 free websites for CF than create a single million-dollar website for Redflex.

        • B says:

          No, no… I’d take the $1,000,000, build them the best web site I could. Then I’d use some of the money to put together an unstoppable PR campaign to make sure the proposition passed…🙂

          • LoneWolf says:

            I guess I didn’t see it in that light but you’re absolutely right! Nothing like biting the hand that feeds ya😉 Politicians do it everyday..

      • Camera Hater says:

        I couldn’t agree more, Lone Wolf. The Stasi marksmen killing Germans trying to escape to freedom in the West probably used the same “food on the table” argument. Ditto for the slimy little KGB informers that made the totalitarian surveillance system in the USSR run. To what degree do you throw personal ethics, and the fundamental principles on which America was founded out the window, just to earn a wage?? Sorry but Redflex and ATS employees deserve all they get, and a videotaping and one-woman protest is hardly an “attack”.

        BTW, I would be only too happy to be videotaped doing my job. And anyone who wants to protest the actions of the company I work for is welcome to do so in my workplace.

  20. Dr Jett says:

    Carol,
    You might like to learn that if anyone could sell anything, then there would be no jobs for people who can sell anything; real salesman. Obviously the government is the problem and the video is not about attacking the robbers that work in the vans. I would take the employees that claim that they can’t get a real job and get them a job at McDonalds because that is probably the only work they are capable of doing.

    • A thief holding up a c-store is just robbing the store to put food on the table, but that doesn’t make it right does it?

      The same could be said about a prostitutes.

      The ends do not justify the means.

  21. Dr Jett says:

    Carol,
    I do thank you for signing our petition and appreciate your interest in looking further into PE. I found that about 80% of the people approached will sign the petition to put PE on the ballot. Most of them REALLY want to get rid of PE.
    Soon ATS & Redfux will spend millions of their stolen money to try to sway the public into believing that it is in the interest of safety. They can’t believe that the colonists (Camerafraud) are willing to go up against their multimillion dollar corporations.
    The legislators, police and other government officials were easy to bribe. Those entities are supposed to keep their people under the government thumb. They forgot that America was founded by REVOLUTION. Some of us still believe in FREEDOM.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: