Stationery on Stationary Cameras Irritates DPS

November 29, 2008

The onslaught of Post It notes on photo scam cams has lead DPS to assign an investigator to “determine who is obstructing speed-enforcement cameras on Valley freeways.”

“DPS officials say the acts of vandalism are attempts to prevent speeders from being ticketed.”

Vandalism?

Wikipedia defines vandalism as: “the behaviour attributed to the Vandals in respect of culture: ruthless destruction or spoiling of anything beautiful or venerable. Such action includes criminal damage, defacement, graffiti and crass erection of an eyesore.”

Crass erection of an eyesore? Sounds like the cameras themselves.


What is “Fraud”?

August 18, 2008

Wikipedia defines fraud as “deception made for personal gain.” Websters’ defines it a little more potently: “deceit, trickery… intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.”

No matter what your views are on photo radar, one thing is for sure: Redflex has perverted the truth by falsifying speed camera documents. In fact, they were so blatent about such forgery and fraud, Redflex was called on the carpet by the Arizona Secretary of State’s office just last month:

“Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer last week confirmed that documents used to convict motorists of speeding in Lafayette, Louisiana contained elements that had been falsified. Brewer revoked the license of Cheryl Krough, notary public for photo enforcement vendor Redflex after concluding that she violated four Arizona laws while purporting to certify a speed camera deployment form for use in official hearings.

The article continues:

At issue was the form used in an attempt to convict motorists Mark and Phil Abshire of speeding on October 10, 2007. Krough signed this document, certifying that van driver Scott Michael Bernard had sworn to the truth of the document’s contents in her presence. The secretary of state’s office saw no evidence that this ever took place.

“It cannot be determined whether the signer was in the notary’s presence when the notary notarized the form,” Cota wrote.

Krough, who worked in the Scottsdale, Arizona office for Redflex, was 1400 miles away from the Redflex employee who drove the van that day. The secretary of state’s office expressed a certain amount of indignation that in response to an investigation of the matter by the Arizona Attorney General’s office, Krough, “wrote a short response to the complaint on a post it note.”

Who’s watching the watchers? Those we’re entrusting to enforce the law are breaking it, and when caught doing so try to explain away their actions on a post-it note!

Perhaps it’s time to cover the camera lenses with post it notes. What’s good for the goose is….


%d bloggers like this: