Avoiding Photo Enforcement, Tip #23



In this series, we’re providing tips and methods to exploit and highlight the weaknesses and problems of photo enforcement. Use at your own risk, your mileage may vary.

According to Arizona civil procedure, photo enforcement tickets are required to be personally served in order to be legally enforceable. This requirement makes it virtually impossible for a segment of our population to receive photo tickets. The best part? It’s 100% legal and doesn’t require dodging process servers. Want to know how? There are actually two such methods.

Method #1: Register your vehicles in the name of a corporation or a trust. Since a corporation cannot be served, photo tickets will never become enforceable. This won’t stop them from mailing tickets to your company, as Redflex and ATS remain hopeful that the company will rat out the driver. But nevertheless, the tickets may be tossed without concern.

Caveat: Check with your insurance company before doing this. Changing your registration may cause you to lose discounts that you otherwise qualify for. It may not be worth it.

Method #2: Change your vehicle registration address to a private mailbox (PMB). This is not the same as a PO Box, as you cannot register vehicles to a PO Box. A PMB is a mailbox service that you can purchase from a place like the UPS Store or Mailboxes, Etc. Since these locations provide you with an actual street address, your address is legal for the purpose of vehicle registration.

Caveat: Since most of these stores are private franchises and each owner may be different, you’ll may want to check what their policy is with regard to turning over your personal information should a process server request it. Most owners will protect your identity.

Bonus Tip: If you are married, register the wife’s car in the husband’s name, and the husband’s car in the wife’s name. If they try to match sex from the photo to the registration, they may toss the ticket or may do no more than mail a letter if there is a mismatch.

49 Responses to Avoiding Photo Enforcement, Tip #23

  1. Dr Jett says:

    I’m shocked and appalled that anyone would try to circumvent the law by serving process papers for a scam like photo radar!!! What happened to working an honest job for a living and paying taxes that our government claims are legal taxes. Serving papers for ‘illegal taxation without representation’ is a job that only lowlife degenerates would do in America. The only reason that Jay Heiler doesn’t serve process papers is that it doesn’t pay enough money for the upper level thieves like him who make too much money conning government organizations.

  2. Sure says:

    Michael Ryan of the AZ Republic:

    CameraFRAUD.com

    Phoenix, AZ
    1,122 Volunteers

    Welcome to CameraFRAUD. We are united in our effort to get rid of every speed camera, red light camera, and photo radar van here in Arizona and across the country. We were suc…

    Check out this Meetup Group →

  3. Hellsing says:

    There is another useful thing to list here….putting title in the name of a trust. It takes a modicum amount of time to draw the paperwork up (make sure you have yourself in the list of trustees) and head to the DMV office to switch the title. Beware that the DMV clerk and/or manager might ask what a trust is and why you’d put your vehicle under same.

  4. RPr says:

    South Dakota, Tennessee Consider Traffic Camera Bans

    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3035.asp

  5. Camera Hater says:

    *sigh* More evidence that America remains the Land of the Free. Just thought the following was worth mentioning, given that one of the two companies concerned hails from the little gulag in whch I am domiciled.

    I would not be at all surprised if Redflex isn’t lobbying heavily in the US to have “Australian style” service rules imposed. Here, all they need is the licence plate. The owner automatically gets the ticket, whoever is driving, and the mail IS regarded as adequate service. If the owner doesn’t fess up and pay, the Gestapo require that they nominate who was driving. If the owner cannot, or will not nominate the driver, THEN THEY GET THE TICKET AND THE DEMERITS.

    The company idea partially works in Australia, although companies receive HUGE fines if they do not nominate the speeding driver of one of their fleet cars.

    BTW similar injustice applies to confiscations for high end speeding (25 mph over and higher). We have recently had a case where I guy had his Lambourghini in for service. The mechanic was busted for speeding (when the owner didn’t know he’d even been driving it).

    It made no difference whatsover. The owner lost his car for a month for an offence the authorities KNEW he did not commit.

    Just thought I’d mention these. While they are foreign examples, they do represent the ultimate objective, certainly of Redflex.

    The price of liberty is indeed eternal vigilance.

  6. Steve says:

    I”ve had my vehicle registered to a PMB address that I’ve had it registered at for well over ten years now, before the state sponsored photo radar scam came along. I got the customary notifications by mail like everyone does who gets flashed. When I asked the guys at the mail box place if they would be accepting process service for me if I asked them not to, they held their hands up and said “hey, I don’t want to be involved”. When they realized that I was getting out of a photo radar ticket, they thought it was pretty funny. I never heard or saw even a hint of a process server before my ticket was dismissed. It works !

    I believe that several constitutional issues relating to ARS 41-1722 void the court’s jurisdiction before your case ever gets filed, and that avoiding process service under these circumstances is completely legal, and an honorable thing to do both as a defense from the fraud against you, but also as a valid form of protest. A person’s willing cooperation with an a-moral system is unethical, even if you really were speeding.

    There are better and legal methods to achieve the same goals.

    • photoradarscam says:

      Not only that, but citizens should be outraged that we officials deemed it “fair and just” to have a system where people are immune (or mostly immune) from law enforcement for common, simple things like where or how their vehicles are registered.

      I can get a ticket, but the guy next to me can’t? How is that fair?

      A cop could pull either of us over, but photo radar can only get one of us. Even if they change the process server rules, the guy who wears a mask gets away with it, and I get a ticket. Equal protection? What’s that?

    • Camera Hater says:

      Right on the money, Steve. Agree 100%. What you are doing here, in avoiding process service, is defending common law rights that were once respected across the English speaking world but are now forgotten everywhere but in the USA.

      The right to have your “offence” brought to your attention as soon as practical after its “commission”, the right to be confronted with the evidence and have a chance to explain mitigating circumstances, and the right to be confronted with your accuser… All are conveniently forgotten by the photo enforcement industry, in their pursuit of those oh-so-yummy fine dollars. Avoiding photo enforcement servers in the 2010s, IMNSHO, is the equivalent of throwing English tea into Boston harbour in the 1770s.

      Go for it. Deny those foreign (Redflex) creeps their ill gotten dollars!!

  7. HenryL says:

    I offer the following if you would like to use it for “Tip # 24” – although it partially applies to California.

    If you have received a photo ticket issued by an Arizona city (not the DPS), you MAY be able to ignore it, if it says, “This is not a summons to appear.” These fake tickets may or may not give the name of the court – and there will no address for the court. Arizona fake tickets are similar to the Snitch Tickets used in California. (More about them in a moment.)

    Be sure to read this excellent Phoenix New Times article http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-02-08/news/gotcha before you make any contact with Arizona authorities or their websites. But keep in mind that the article is only about the city-issued tickets – it was written in 2007, before the beginning of the DPS program. From the article:

    “Most cities don’t send real citations to corporations. They send weakly worded notices that can be safely thrown in the trash. Unlike the grim tone of a citation, which orders the motorist to pay a fine or appear in court on a certain date, the violation notices let the company know up front: ” ‘This is not a Summons to Appear. There is no fine associated with this Notice.’ ”

    “The notices sent to businesses gently ask them to identify the driver and mail the form back so a new ticket can be reissued in the driver’s name. No law forces anyone to do that, however.”

    “Scottsdale’s been mailing such notices for years; Mesa and Phoenix started sending them last year. Tempe sends businesses a letter instead of a citation.”

    “Police do nothing when the notices are disregarded.”

    Now, about California. For those who might visit California, or live there, here is a special note about California camera tickets. (As in many fields of endeavor, California does it differently. Not better, just differently.)

    In California the tickets cost about $500! And a point on your license. Because the tickets put a point on your license, the police have to get the name of the actual driver before they can file the ticket at court. Since the photo of the plates leads only to the registered owner (“RO”), and he/she often was not the person driving the car, about 40 California police depts. mail out Snitch Tickets, which are fake/phishing red light camera tickets sent out to fool the RO into ID’ing the actual driver of the car. Snitch Tickets haven’t been filed with the court, so are recognizable because they don’t say “Notice to Appear,” don’t have the court’s address, and say (on the back, in small letters), “Do not contact the court.” Since they have NOT been filed with the court, they have no legal weight. You can ignore a Snitch Ticket. If in doubt, Google the term.

  8. Donny Ve says:

    I was going to point out exactly what Henry pointed out above.

    California, I believe, is the only state that actually goes after the driver (meaning they check the image to see who was driving the car). Other states go after the owner of the car.

  9. Stacey says:

    Isn’t there a camera at this location. Don’t slow down for the camera or you might get burned to death!

    http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/01/31/20100131fatalcrash0131.html

  10. Stacey says:

    Showdown Video:

  11. ProCamera says:

    Just a little info:

    ARS 28-2157
    A. A person shall apply to the department for registration of a motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer on forms prescribed or authorized by the department.

    B. The application shall contain:

    1. The name and complete residence address of the owner.

    So unless you live at “The UPS Store” or at “Mailboxes Etc.”, you are in violation of this by registering at their location.

  12. Steve says:

    Hey ProCamera – A few hundred years ago, an unruly mob threw a bunch of someone else’s tea in to Boston Harbor. Did those guys break the law? Can you find the statute on that one for us and maybe enlighten us on what the proper and legal course of action should have been? Cause if you can, maybe we’ll all just have to see things yoyr way when it comes to photo radar. Maybe you can find us a “little info” for us on that one. Why are you here?

    • ProCamera says:

      By all means, if you think the law is wrong, then get the law changed. But disregarding the law when you don’t agree with it isn’t the answer. As registered voters, you have the right to vote for people that will change the laws to your liking, just like you have the right to get a petition together to put photo enforcement on the ballot.

      • Malfeasant says:

        Man respects law when law respects man. Anything else is tyranny.

      • cyberscan says:

        Procamera, you say that we should work to change the “law” instead of using work arounds. Changing the “law” is imparical for most people who have to work all the time just to pay all the taxes, mandates, and their bills. Besides that, the “law” allowing traffic cameras and private companies to issue tickets is a violation of the constitution in many ways. When a law is unconstitutional or unjust, it is OUR DUTY as citizens to not obey it or to circumvent it. The traffic system is set up so that the citizen has no effective recourse against an unjust or wrongfully issued ticket. The system has become an oligarchy rather than a republic. Another poster mentioned the Boston Tea Party. The state, many local as well as the federal governments have effectively become schoolyard bullies. The only way to deal with a strong, powerful bully is to collectively punch him in the face when he picks on a person.

        Our system was originally set up to deal with the problem of bullying governments and courts. The Founder put together the jury system so that citizens could protect their fellows from unjust laws and provide for adjudication of guilt when a citizen breaks a just law. Take a look at http://www.fija.org in order to educate yourself about the jury system. The 5th amendment requires due process before money (property) is taken from a person. Due process (as defined by the constitution) is not afforded to recipients of photo enforcement tickets. The required process for anything over $20 is a JURY TRIAL. Requests for a jury trial will be ignored. I’ve already tried it for a wrongful ticket.

        If I am ever seated on a jury, I would vote not guilty for any fellow citizen accused of destroying traffic cameras, driving on suspended or revoked licenses, etc. until due process is introduced into the traffic enforcement system. I also applaud any effort to deny governments the hard earned dollars of citizens until the time the governments themselves start obeying the law. For the person who wrote this article, thank you🙂

  13. Alucard says:

    Procamera failed to include paragraph D of that same section of law, and it reads:

    “D. On request of an applicant, the department shall allow the applicant to provide on the registration of a motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer a post office box address that is regularly used by the applicant and that is located in the county in which the applicant resides.”

    Of course, this does not broach the subject of owners who are corporations, trusts, etc. But, regardless, it seems like a mailbox etc. or even a PO Box user is acceptable for vehicle registrations.

    • ProCamera says:

      “This is not the same as a PO Box, as you cannot register vehicles to a PO Box.”

      So is the article wrong about being able to register to a P.O. Box?

      Providing a P.O. box “in addition to” your residence address (That is required) is what section D is intended. Look up Service Arizona online and you will find the ability to provide a residence address and a mailing address.

      • Hellsing says:

        Intent vs. actual practice are often at variance, not just in vehicle registrations, but in most facets of life — laws and rules included. Also note that the law does not say that a Post Office box can be “listed in addition to….”, but rather, that the department shall allow a person, on request of that person, to list a post office box which is regularly used by the applicant and is in the same county where the applicant resides.

        An example of this is registering to vote in Maricopa County. The rules for this compel a person to give their residence address; however, in practice, people can also use the address of the
        courthouse in downtown Phoenix.

        The “immunity” to photo tickets generated by having out-of-state plates, mexican plates, or registrations to corps & trusts still remains.

  14. Steve says:

    My point ProCamera, is that the voters never did vote photo radar in to existance. Many of us believe it to be no more than an illegal tax. Americans aren’t too keen on paying illegal taxes, and most of us were brought up to recognize one. Discarding the law usually isn’t the answer.

    Then again, some times it is the right answer. If the majority of the people vote to keep photo radar, then maybe I would be willing to sign and return that notice of violation whether I am happy about it or not. A decision by the majority of the people on something like this would mean something. Until then, we should respond to the scam for what it is, an illegal money grab by the government against the people. It would be unethical to cooperate.

    Another thing to consider is the violation of the equal protections clause of the US Constitution. The same law that gives some people points on their license and makes other people immune from those same points, based purely on the method of evidence gathering? Now that’s a scam too. The state didn’t want to share the revenue with the insurance companies. Insurance points would have increased the insurance company profits, while reducing the effectiveness of the state’s money making machine to bring in profits. The repeat photo radar speed violator would cease to exist one way or another, and the state’s revenue source would further shrink as it loses repeat customers. Besides, it would have ensured even more that the people vote it out, and they couldn’t risk that. This type of corruption is what is starting to destroy the social contracts that assures the rule of law. It started with the state, not the majority of the people who are refusing to pay right now. Hopefully the courts will intervene before the majority of the people find it necessary to use “what ever means necessary” (hopefully that’s only a vote) to bring an end to the scam.

    • ProCamera says:

      Steve,

      I agree that it was not voted in to existance. I agree that MONEY was “one” of the driving forces behind putting the cameras on the highways. And I agree that it is your right to gather our signatures and put it on the ballot.

      Now I do not believe it is a Tax being that the laws that govern following the posted speed limit already exist and are enforced by officers. So catching people who violate those existing laws is not a “Tax”, it is a “Fine” as punishment for breaking established laws.

      I am all for making the camera company and the courts follow the rules and actually serve you if you are found to violate the law. But I am against a person that willfully changes their address and circumvents other laws so to make it easier to evade a process server.

      As for the equal protections, I also agree. I think that the notices should be sent to everyone that violates the law. But I do not think that they should answer this dilemna by getting rid of cameras. I think they should change the laws so that no driver need to be identified, but to issue the ticket to the owner of the vehicle and treat it like a parking ticket.

      If you lend your car to a friend and that friend fails to put money in the meter in downtown Phoenix, you will receive that parking violation and it is up to you to recoup the money from your friend. Same should go for the traffic camera tickets. And this would go for Rental cars, company cars, out of state, out of country, etc…

      I guess it boils down to our way of thinking. Many people, (I’m not claiming to be able to read your mind) believe that cameras signify the big brother surveilance of society. But I see it as a technological advancement that helps society to deal with it’s bad elements.

      As for safety, I believe that the cameras do much more good than they do bad. Sure, there are more rear end “Stop Short” collisions that occur, but there are also much less t-bone collisions from people running the lights. And we both should agree that the T-bone accidents cause much more physical injury and property damage.

      • LoneWolf says:

        Procam, your logics make no sense.

        Why should the owner of the vehicle receive a ticket for someone else’s violation? If a cop pulls somebody over for speeding, does he ticket the driver for speeding or does he ticket the owner who’s in the passenger seat working on his laptop? Even if the owner knew the driver was speeding, should he receive a ticket also or is it safe to say that the driver knew what he was doing and was perfectly capable of making his own decisions?

        And what’s more effective in slowing traffic down: Cops or cameras? When a cop drives down the freeway doing the speed limit, how many cars do we see fly past him? His mere presence slows down a few miles worth of traffic, doesn’t it? People know where the cameras are and it’s easy to pinpoint the radar vans, but they don’t know where all the unmarked cars and other patrol cars are that blend in with the traffic, now do they? Isn’t it safe to say that cops are by far more effective in slowing down traffic than cameras are?

        Another thing you need to realize is that people have little respect for the cameras. In this state, people keep speeding by them, ignoring them, not just because they think they can avoid the ticket, but because they believe the system itself is illegal. A private corporation from Australia is helping to enforce the laws of a state within the US. Imagine that… And there are loopholes or weaknesses in this entire system. We’ve exposed a few and we’ll continue to do so. Either the laws need to change to fix these loopholes or the system is seriously flawed and needs to come down. But we know there’s a lot more to the photo enforcement system than just loopholes… as long as a corporation, government officials, and local community governments stand to benefit off of the money made from these things, there will be a great potential for corruption through cheating and violating the constitutional rights of citizens. We’ve already proven that as well.

        You speak of red light cameras like there is no other solution. It’s already been proven that increasing yellow light time and the red light time on all sides is what prevents accidents, not cameras. People rarely run red lights on purpose. The redlight runners are mostly those who’ve missed the yellow by a second or less but if there were red lights all around for that extra second, it would help prevent accidents.

        • ProCamera says:

          Lonewolf,

          Issuing photo tickets to the registered owner makes the owner responsible for who they lend their car to. Just like parking tickets. One thing you can guarantee is that an owner that receives a ticket because his friend was speeding is either gonna get the money from his friend, or next time, he just can’t allow him to borrow the car. I’d like to add that this is how many other states handle their photo enforcement programs, issued to the owner.

          I am not arguing that a cop is not “More Effective” at hindering traffic. But it is not feasible to put an officer every 2 miles down the road to keep everyone driving responsibly. Cameras are much cheaper, are very effective at catching certain types of traffic violations, and they help, even though it is required to put signage around the cameras to warn the drivers.

          And Yellow/Red light times, I am not arguing that they should not change the light times. The camera companies do not have access to change the light timing. That is up to the city engineers to do that.

          As for a foreign company offering a service, sorry, but they were the cheapest bidder. I think it was ATS that did the test study in Scottsdale on the freeway but Redflex got the contract.

          As for government benefiting from the system, govenments have benefited from traffic enforcement for a long time now. And as much as they like to claim that there are no quotas, I guarantee you that when the city council has a meeting and the citation revenue is down, the Police chief is notified, and he gives the info to the squad commanders and then to the patrol Sgt’s and then officers are told to “Pay more attention to traffic enforcement”. That equates to more citations written per shift.

        • RPr says:

          Antenori said the only response he got from city traffic officials was that there is sometimes “a small variation” in the times due to how the private companies that operate the red-light cameras set them up.

          http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/150006

        • LoneWolf says:

          Procam, so if I lend my gun to a neighbor and he goes and shoots/kills some convenience store clerk, then I, the gun owner, should be charged with murder? Or maybe charge the retailer who sold me the gun? Perhaps the manufacturer of both the gun and the bullets? The mining company where the metal came from? I just don’t understand your logics here… the entire purpose of the legal system is to hold people accountable for their actions. What lesson will the speeder who borrowed my car learn if an officer pulled him over but issued me the ticket for lending that speeder the car? Basically, you’re telling me that speed cameras should be on a different citation-issuance system than cops who pull people over for the same violations are.

          Cameras might be cheaper, but I still don’t see their effectiveness. They slow most people down for a whopping 100 or 200 feet but then they speed right back up again. People wearing monkey masks can fly right by them without a problem. An officer down the road can A) Pull the monkey mask guy over before he hurts someone. B) Identify him. C) Issue a citation so the monkey mask guy becomes aware of his carelessness, not the owner of the vehicle (if he isn’t that guy). D) The cop can perform a light inspection of the vehicle and cite monkey mask man for other violations such as a broken windshield, no insurance, no DL, worn-down tires, or perhaps he has a warrant out for his arrest.

          And yes, the traffic camera companies do have access to the redlight timing system. There are some articles on that here somewhere.

          The fact that foreign companies are helping to enforce our street laws just adds fuel to the fire. The idea that private companies, whether ATS, Gatso, or Redflex, help enforce traffic laws is what really and rightfully bothers most people. Officers go through lots of training which gives them the right to enforce all of our laws- they know what to look for and they know what to do in certain situations. They put their lives at risk during routine traffic stops. If the purpose of the camera is to help prevent that cop from getting shot or wounded during that routine stop, then thank God for the cameras, right? OR are the cameras just put there to keep more criminals on our streets? That individual who is armed and dangerous just drove by the camera and the camera did nothing to stop him so now we have an armed and dangerous criminal on the loose. But the cop who put his life on the line by pulling over this criminal gets shot, but the entire police force will eventually nail this guy and get him off the streets for a very long time or forever, correct? The camera might’ve helped save his life, but isn’t it possible that the officer’s act of bravery may have saved several lives?

          I agree on income and quotas and it’s quite possible for a cop to cheat somehow in order to bring in a few more citations. But the difference here is that the ones who were cited can meet that cop face to face in court and question him since he witnessed the violation. And again, corporations are for the money. They have total control over calibration of the equipment and in some cases, the redlight timing. There’s nothing stopping them from cheating either. But now we face a cop or photo enforcement rep in court who didn’t witness the violation, but he witnessed a photograph of a driver, a license plate, and some data on the sheet that was generated from the radar or speed-triggering mechanism. How do we know this info is 100% accurate? If the accuser is the state and the witness is the camera company, how is it fair that a civil violation is enforceable solely because the witness witnessed a photograph, not a violation? I can put whatever I want down on a piece of paper. I can write out a statement that Joe Schmoe with license plate 123456 flew right by me as I was doing the speed limit. Does my writing turn this into a legitimate violation or should there be a little more to it, after all, it’s my writing against Joe Schmoe’s word? Maybe a photo or video of his vehicle going past mine would help? Or maybe in addition to that, a photo of him as the driver? Or how about a picture of my speedometer, his car flying past me, he as the driver, and his license plate number. Would that help? Would this hold water in court or would I be laughed off of the face of the earth? If this were acceptable, what if everyone caught onto it and started nailing other drivers left and right, wouldn’t that be the ultimate solution? People like to play cops, don’t they? Or is it possible that people would rather not be involved in such a thing because A) They’ll have to sacrifice work hours for court hours. B) The state wouldn’t be compensating anyone with a portion of the ticket revenue and C) A disgruntled driver could declare revenge against that citizen and follow him/her with a camera wherever that person goes, or worse, stalk that person with intent to do harm.

          You might want to do some serious rethinking about this…..

          • ProCamera says:

            Lonewolf,

            With your thinking, then shouldn’t we do the same thing for parking violations? I mean, it may be someone other than the registered owner that forgot to feed the meter. Are you putting together a campaign to outlaw parking violations that are not properly served to the person who parked the car?

            Also, with a traffic violation, different then Murder, there is no “Victim” of the violation. There is an offender, but no one suffers from being speeded against.

            • LoneWolf says:

              Procam, you can’t even compare parking tickets with “Moving Violations”. I’m not even going to get into that one with you because others here have already made the point of that clear in a post from some time age.

              But to answer your second question. A moving vehicle can be just as deadly as a bullet. But it looks to me like you’re contradicting everything you believe in about speed cameras. Now you’re saying speeding is a victimless crime and nobody suffers from it. That’s a point we’ve been making here for a long time.

  15. Dr Jett says:

    Procamera,
    You do appear to present an intelligent approach, but you appear to lack the understanding of the Federal Highway Laws that govern all of the nations highways. Join the National Motorists Association and learn about traffic law before you continue to show your ignorance of the law. http://www.motorists.org/contact/
    I assume that Redflex is paying you a good salary to disseminate erroneous information that would appear to give the scamera companies some legitimacy in America. NOT !!!
    I have seen a driver license that is issued to a PO Box because the driver didn’t have any regular address. I also saw a drivers license where the address was listed as Country Club Dr & Southern Ave because that driver was homeless at the time.
    Now it is time for you to study the Uniform Vehicle Code which governs the nations traffic laws. Unfortunately, the local state governments administer their form of ‘justice’ according to collecting the most revenue by ignoring the National Laws and pretending that the judge is acting in accordance with the law which is usually false.
    The speed limit signs are not the actual speed limit because the national traffic engineering studies that are required every 5 years have never been done. The survey would determine what the actual speed that is the safest to drive at according to 85% of the drivers on the road would determine the speed limit.
    I am tired of having to educate a Redfux Shill who is trying to con the rest of the people who go on this site and presents the lies that Redfux propagates as the truth.
    Why don’t you show up at High Noon Feb 6th at your place of employment. I will talk to you in person. Look for the sign DPS=Destination Police State. That is what you are really promoting and it is obvious by the information you present. Have a nice trip back to Australia! We don’t want traitors like you in Arizona.

    • Awesome. I could not have said it any better.

    • ProCamera says:

      Dr. Jett,

      You are able to provide a mailing address that is separate from the actual location, and have that mailing address printed on your ID, but you must provide the actual location to the MVD on your application. Unless you lie about it that is. And when the police department, or someone acting on their behalf, is looking at those MVD records, they see the physical address as well as the mailing address.

  16. Sure says:

    Procamera – intelligent approach? hahaha. It is like arguing with a rock. What is the point?

    It isn’t even an enjoyable debate when you have to dumb down.

    It is like debating a four year old who will lie and justify their selfish, destructive actions.

    • Mike says:

      Yeah, supposedly so was Jan Brewer. Forgive me if I’m not too optimistic.

    • B says:

      The point about the cameras going to a vote being a saving grace is a valid one…

      What if Redflex, and ATS and any others with a vested interest, pump millions of dollars into the campaign and somehow convinces 50.1% of the population that they’re all sinners and that we MUST have the cameras to stay alive?

      I’d rather have the petition drive fail than let that happen…

      • It’s never worked before.

        I can’t believe the AZ Republic still publishes that push-poll sponsored by ATS. These people are all fooling themselves.

        • B says:

          That 52-48 margin earlier this year shows that the procamera PR machine is getting better, and it is disconcerting just how many people are using “safety” while covering up their own selfish motives for wanting the cameras – fear, jealousy, vengeance… all core human flaws that Redflex/ATS are becoming more adept at using.

          Don’t get me wrong – I’m all for a ban. I just don’t think this is as much of a slam dunk as some people here do…

        • B says:

          And that Push-Poll is a joke.

          Here are the REAL questions they asked:

          http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/pollquestions.pdf

          (And a post I still agree with as a thorough response):

          1) #21 – 82% of those in the poll have never had a photo ticket taken. Give them time – sooner or later, as they start nailing people for more crimes, they’ll realize what a pain they are.

          2) #19 – the BIG MONEY QUESTION…. that Laurie is quoting for her 63-35% question.

          They TOTALLY rigged that question. Look at the way they set it up. They stated the “I agree with the cameras” question as if it was loaded with facts.

          Think about it. They said…

          “Did you know that:

          1) Fatalities have dropped significantly in Phoenix since the cameras went up? (statistically questionable at best, but does that matter?)

          2) They slow down those speeders (that cut you off all the time).

          3) They make highways safer when used with cops. (Nevermind the dangerous situations the cameras create… Don’t worry about me suggesting any data to back this up.)

          4) The speeders pay for it by themselves – so it doesn’t cost you a penny! (hey – no taxes for me?? sounds good..)

          Did you ALSO know that people that are against the cameras (speeders) think the following:

          1) They think it’s all about revenue (that they have to pay when they get caught).

          2) Cops should be the only law enforcement on the road (so they can get away with speeding).

          3) They think it’s all about civil liberties. (What does that mean to the average Joe?)

          Now… who do you agree with? Which ‘deal’ sounds better to you?”

          When asked that way, I would’ve even thought, “Hey – sounds good to me. Leave ’em up.”

          SUMMARY: This was a PR question that:

          1) framed the argument in the most positive light for the cameras and the most negative light for cameras, and

          2) ignored the possibility that there’s more to the discussion than just the issues presented in the question.

          Therefore, this 63-35% poll is a total sham… period. This would be a GREAT case study in how polling questions can manipulate people into saying something they don’t agree with.”

  17. Dr Jett says:

    B,
    I have done my own poll and found that 80-90% of the people that I have asked to sign the petition to get rid of the scameras not only signs it, but tells whoever else they are with to sign it too. That is one question that I can ask anybody at any location I go to and get a similar response. I even offerd Redfux trolls who posted on this site an opportunity to go with me and see the results with their own eyes. Gee, I wonder why none of the trolls took me up on that offer?

  18. remarkable issues here. I¡¦m very glad to peer your article. Thank you a lot and i am taking a look forward to touch you. Will you please drop me a mail?

  19. Sam Norton says:

    Sam Norton…

    […]Avoiding Photo Enforcement, Tip #23 « CameraFRAUD.com – The Cameras are Coming Down[…]…

  20. Woah! I’m really loving the template/theme
    of this blog. It’s simple, yett effective. A lot of times it’s difticult
    to get that “perfect balance” between user friendliness and visual appeal.
    I must say that you’ve done a superb job with this. Also, the blog loads extremely fast foor me onn Internet explorer.
    Excellent Blog!

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: