Sheriff Joe Signs!

Its official, “The Sheriff” has signed the citizen’s initiative.  I had a short conversation with him today just before the parade and kudos for Jason for asking him to sign.  I always assumed he was against them but was politically adverse to direct support.  I was wrong.   Like him or not, he didn’t dance on this at all, he was straight forward and I can respect that. Thanks Joe.  Sheriff_Joe_Signs


51 Responses to Sheriff Joe Signs!

  1. steven sanchez says:

    MY name is steven sanchez and i have court monday over a camera ticket and need advice about what i can do to fight it.

    steven sanchez

  2. Barnet Fagel says:

    Steven in what state/city did you receive the citation. Was it a speed or red light event. Provide as much detail as possible.
    National Motorists Assoc.

  3. Stacey says:

    Steven, look to the right and you will see the meetup section. Go there and there will be a post (fighting photo radar) that might help you.

  4. Well, I have to say that puts an exclamation point on this:

    When the Border Is Everywhere: Examining the Resistance to Speed Cameras and Border Checkpoints in Arizona.

    • who says:

      oh ya, BTW, such an Ironic front page post, after I posted the link you just did, the night before…

      • Gimme a Break Already says:

        Dude… it was a coincidence and nothing more. Not everything is a great conspiracy. BTW I read your article and there are some valid points there but you come across as just as racist as those you accuse of it, so chill out and get with the program. We just don’t bite off a bigger piece than we can chew is all… We are not out to save the whole world with one issue, we are trying to win one issue at a time. It’s an old concept you might have heard of…

        Focus grasshopper.

    • LoneWolf says:

      That article is pure crap. Race has nothing to do with our petition and our stance to remove the scameras. Our fight also has nothing to do with immigration and border issues.. where you guys come up with this garbage is above and beyond me.

      • who says:

        Aligning yourselves with that Pastor Anderson sure didn’t help did it?

        • LoneWolf says:

          I can’t seem to find evidence of that anywhere here, but let me clarify something for you. Some members of CF are involved in other issues besides photo enforcement. CameraFraud’s only focus is on “Photo Enforcement”; not borders, immigration, checkpoints, prisoners in pink panties, sex offenders, religious intolerance, nazis, etc etc etc.. Each and every person who posts here has their own beliefs. That’s what makes them that person. However, such beliefs do not necessarily reflect the views of CF as an organization which is strictly against photo enforcement.

          If you’ve ever looked through 4409’s videos you would understand that he’s involved in more than one issue. I can tell you straight out that him and I don’t see eye to eye on some things. He doesn’t represent my thoughts and opinions nor do I represent his. Our common grounds is that we both have an issue with photo enforcement. But anything beyond that we may or may not agree with each other.

          So, Just because one or more members of CF side with certain issues outside of photo enforcement, they do NOT represent the views of CameraFraud.

          • I think if you read the article you’ll see that what I’m discussing is the broader political context in which two political movements exist and how they relate to each other. I’m looking at the contradictions and working at explaining them.

            Likewise, I am postulating what a different version of this struggle might look like that would have the possibility of opening up broader opportunities for expanding freedom. As its posed now, most anti-camera organizing is a defense of whiteness that masquerades as a liberatory struggle. That’s a problem if what we want is more freedom not less of it. The Sheriff Joe endorsement pretty much seals that case as far as I am concerned.

            However, in the article I make quite a few complimentary points about camerafraud and even about the checkpoint organizing (which I am careful to point out in the piece is not a camerafraud project). However, the relationship between the two is problematic and in fact quite emblematic of the reactionary climate in general in Arizona. I link the two not least of all because there were/are people involved in both projects and they come from a similar ideological perspective.

            In the end, the article doesn’t come from a position of attack or malice. I seek to suggest some corrections that would, in my opinion, create bigger opportunities for everyone. However, given the politics involved, I would not be surprised if the prescription I offer is not adopted universally, to put it kindly.

          • LoneWolf says:

            You’re entitled to your thoughts and opinions on this matter just as much as the next person. It’s your freedom of speech. I read a little ways into your page but as soon as you associated certain causes such as CF with the white man, you lost me. Believe it all you want, but I certainly don’t buy crap like that.

            The only reason CF points out the fact that Sheriff Joe signed the petition is because he’s a person who’s in a position of authority and that says a lot about the progress of our signature gathering. If Sheriff Joe were Hispanic or African American, we’d still publicize it here. I’m sure there are members here who voted for the next person because they dislike Joe. Where on this website does it state that Camerafraud is Pro-Joe and everyone should vote for him? Sheriff Babeau? Once again, the opinions and views of others do NOT reflect the views of CF.

            • I encourage you to keep going with your reading, because it is the white supremacist context of Arizona politics that is precisely the point of the article. And I would like to hear your specific thoughts on it when you’re done. You can email me if you choose.

              Pointing out that much anti-camera organizing comes from within a problematic context with regard to race and privilege is not to say that camerafraud is racist. It’s just to say that racism is embedded within the political terrain and so necessarily it affects camerafraud and much of the other organizing around the cameras. That’s an important distinction to get.

              Also, I think if you continue with the article you will see that it is not aimed at camerafraud specifically but is instead an analysis of the entire anti-camera movement. Camerafraud is a part of that, for sure, but not the only part.

              So, for instance, I look at other actions taken outside of camerafraud. I look at the politicians. I look at the general milieu as represented by comments on news articles and interviews in the media by people I assume are not associated with any particular group or action.

              The border checkpoint stuff is brought in to provide context and to support the broader argument because the two parallel each other. And, of course, there is a connection between the two in terms of people and opinions. Like I said before, it’s not an attack on camerafraud. It’s a political criticism of the movement of which camerafraud is a part and an attempt to reconcile apparent contradictions.

              • Steve says:

                anybody can write anything they want online. This just goes to prove that. Im willing to be its so offbeat nobody reads it anyway. I started reading it and zoned out right away. Looked at the source page and seen its all template designed. internet is a great place for random people to express there views lol

            • LoneWolf says:

              I refuse to read anything that ties the CF organization in with white supremacy.

              • Well, as I said before the article doesn’t tie it with white supremacy as I think you are defining it. The thing is, white supremacy is a political system and a political relationship. Looking for it in terms of the presence of klan robes and shaved heads misses this point. However, I will say I’m not surprised by the reaction. Still, the question isn’t whether CF is white supremacist (as I already said I have not accused it of such so anyone freaking out about that is ranting at themselves not at me), but whether its orientation within the context of surging white supremacy in Arizona undermines or reinforces it. And also, how the underlying ideology of white supremacy generally has influenced its conclusions and assertions. Likewise, I am concerned about where it fits in within a larger struggle for freedom of movement for all. This doesn’t have to be your goal, but it is the goal of the anarchist movement here and that is the place from which this article comes. This article was aimed at situating your struggle within that broader context. You’re certainly free to disregard this criticism (I wasn’t the first to post this link on the page — I followed the trackback) but just because you bury your head doesn’t make it any less true.

    • Malfeasant says:

      You raise some interesting points, but I think you have jumped to an incorrect conclusion.

  5. who says:

    Careful Insurgent, stacey might call you an anarchist…

    • Ouch! I’d hate for that to happen! I spotted your post a little earlier but couldn’t resist adding the link again after this Joe signing ridiculousness popped up on here. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but the PCWC blog did get some hits from Maricopa County yesterday. Ya think Joe was cruising the interweb? It almost makes me feel like I need to update my piece… Sheriff Joe as the defender of civil rights is probably the funniest thing I’ve ever heard. Camerafraud should denounce the support in the interest of human freedom.

      • LoneWolf says:

        Over half of Maricopa County’s citizens, including many Hispanics, voted to keep him in office so he must be doing something right. Keep in mind that prisoners are locked up for a reason which means they’ve lost their essential rights to human freedom. Other than that, neither I nor any of my Hispanic friends have ever been harassed by the sheriff or his deputies.

        • When you talk about the vote, you mean over half of the people who either were able or decided to vote on Maricopa county’s sheriff, right? That’s quite a different thing.

        • guttersn1pe says:

          Sure, it’s probably more accurate to say more than half the votes were for Sheriff Joe. We’ll never know how the non-voters felt.

          Of course, the non-voters have no right to complain since they weren’t responsible enough to exercise their right to vote.

          • You must have some insight that I do not have. I thought the cameras targeted drivers, not just voters. I suppose that explains why I haven’t gotten a ticket.

            Anyhow, I think if you read the article you will see that there are in fact a variety of ways to target the cameras which would easily free a camera critic from your quite limiting “voting-complaining” argument.

            • LoneWolf says:

              The petition we have going targets voters, most of who are likely to be drivers because photo enforcement affects them. We encourage individuals to register to vote so they can decide for themselves whether the cameras stay or go. Those who are not registered can NOT legally sign the petition. And again, this is not a white man’s issue. We have people from all walks of life signing the petition, including many who are “pro” camera.

          • guttersn1pe says:

            Your comment was, “when you talk about the vote, you mean over half of the people who were able or decided to vote…”

            I was addressing that comment.

      • Steve says:

        what really happened is nobody reads your blog so your trying to spam the link everywhere to get attention.

    • Stacey says:

      That is what I love about camerafraud. We are all individuals. We align ourselves with no political party, but accept all. It is really interesting how diverse our group is when it comes to a lot of things, but we all believe in one thing – getting rid of the cameras.

    • Stacey says:

      Or an asshole.

  6. Jim Walker says:

    When prominent law enforcement personnel sign the petition, you know the cause is proper. Red light cameras only produce significant revenue when the traffic light engineering is deliberately done wrong, usually with a too-short yellow interval. That deliberate mis-engineering has a high probability to raise the rear end crash rate at camera intersections. Engineers should always follow a Hippocratic Oath Principle — FIRST, DO NO HARM.

    • photoradarscam says:

      The problem is two-fold:

      1. The state or federal minimum standards are MINIMUM standards, yet many treat is as THE standard and fail to consider that some locations may require longer times.
      2. The engineers are never hired. City officials hear a slick sales presentation and don’t even think to have their engineers evaluate the problem locations (which weren’t problem locations until the camera vendor pointed it out). After the sales presentation, officils feel qualified to make traffic engineering decisions without gathering data and properly evaluating ALL solutions.

  7. RPr says:,0,3043420.story

    Saturday’s protesters referenced studies showing that extending yellow lights would be more effective at stopping red-light runners. Instead, they say, the red-light cameras unfairly punish “technical foul violations” that a police officer wouldn’t issue a ticket for, such as failing to wait the required three seconds before making a right turn, or stopping just over the white stop line.

  8. Stacey says:

    Who has chosen to align himself with anarchists now. Which really isn’t surprising if you think photo enforcement is legal.

    Our friend the anarchist will whine like a bitch about civil liberties and equality, but won’t go vote when it comes to the sheriff or photo enforcement, right Phoenix Insurgent?

  9. I wouldn’t use Sheriff Joe as a metric for anything involving the measuring of human freedom — at least in any positive sense. Hyping his signing of the petition could lead to some problems in terms of attracting people to your cause and it does go a long way towards validating my theory about the white supremacist context for most anti-camera organizing by essentially confirming that this is about movement for some people and not others. But you can read the article to get more info about that.

  10. Stacey says:

    Phoenix Insurgent,

    Come up with as many theories as you like. The rest of us will continue to collect signatures for the balllot initiative so EVERYONE in Arizona can have a voice on the matter and vote on the issue.

  11. Stacey says:

    Let’s see, someone in Scottsdale gets a ticket and has no problem paying it.

    Someone in Chandler or Tempe who is barely getting by gets a ticket, how will they pay for it?

    From Chandler Sign wave and signature gathering:

    “The people in that area were so happy to see us. The cameras are making their lives hell. One woman ended up spending $600 for a ticket and ended up in jail.

    Another told me she had three of them on her refrigerator. Another woman told me she has to make payments for a ticket she received.

    These people can’t afford these tickets. When you can barely make ends meet, the last thing you need is a $181. ticket and the fear that you will lose your license and go to jail.

    That area is saturated with cameras. I think we need to get out there more, and even go to a mall or a city park where sports teams meet. ”

    Powell Gammill:

    This is a great post by Stacey. One central point in all of this revenue generation is that it is particularly hard on low income people. $200 means a whole lot more to those without than it does to those better off. And their insurance rates may get jacked — on city issued photo enforcement.

    Who do you really think photo enforcement is hurting? Is it someone driving a mercedes or someone who can barely feed their family? Is it someone who lives in Scottsdale or someone who lives in Tempe?

    Who are the people with CDLs that now have to contend with points affecting their driving records and their jobs – do you think they are the same ones who can afford to drive that mercedes?

    It is obvious you have a personal vendetta against a few of our members.

    Running your mouth is not going to help the people of Arizona. Millions of dollars from hard working people are going to Australia and a stagnant government.

    This is money that could be used to feed their children and provide them the necessities to get by.

    These millions of dollars could be spent at local busineeses which create jobs!

  12. Stacey says:

    Excuse my spelling error.

  13. Steve says:

    this guy is just looking to promote his rantings and is hoping people take the time to read is free blog. He found a few of you giving him attention he craves. If you just ignor him he will vanish back into cyberspace.

  14. RPr says:

    Still cant find any reports after the gilbert parade

  15. who says:

    Everyone has a choice to not have to pay the $181. I think you know the answer to that one.
    Ya’ll ofcourse can be proud of your diverse members, but when you align yourselves with, and accept a few rotten apples in, well doesn’t look to good.
    By the way, I was the first to post this guys blog, after my google search came up with it, not him.
    Doesn’t photoradarscam guy post his weblink like crazy on any azcentral article he can find?

  16. Stacey says:

    “Ya’ll of course can be proud of your diverse members, but when you align yourselves with, and accept a few rotten apples in, well doesn’t look to good.”

    Who, we let you post here, don’t we? We know you are a liar who promotes anarchism, and does not respect our constitution or Arizona laws. It is this thing called free speech, have you heard of it? I take NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR STUPIDITY EVEN THOUGH YOU POST HERE.

  17. who says:

    Oh my funny! Right Stacey… I’m here promoting the camera’s and obeying the law. And OH my God I’m an Anarchist! Right… I’m sure you got the FBI right on me, can I borrow one of your tin hats? I think I see someone watching me outside……

  18. Stacey says:

    No, Who, you are promoting an unconstitutional action by the state.

  19. who says:

    Then, if I’m with the goverment on this, tell me how I’m the anarchist?

  20. Nice work Jason. As always, you make a big contribution to the cause.

  21. runfaraz says:

    I know Jason, good job man!

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: