Fake speeding tickets! BEWARE!!!!!

[army judge]

Certain localities have taken to issuing FAKE traffic citations.

They do this to scam your money out of your pocket into their GREEDY hands.

If you have been issued a REAL citation, it'll always provide you with the information on the court (Name, Address, Telephone Number, Court Date, and what you must do to address the citation).

If the citation is legitimate, you'll always be allowed to appear before a REAL JUDGE to plead your case, and FIGHT the charge(s).

I posted this under California, but other states are engaged in this practice, too.

Here is a copy of a FAKE SPEEDING citation.




http://www.motorists.org/Images/red-light-cameras/fake-rlc-ticket.gif






So, how do you know the CITATION is FAKE?

If your red light camera "ticket", or speeding "ticket" does not have the full address and phone number of the Court on its face.

If it says, "DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT", it's most likely not a legitimate traffic citation.

If that is the case, you may be able to ignore the FAKE citation.

This website provides more information into this 21st Century "government and private sector" SCAM!

http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsticket.htm#Fakes

 

[Michael Wechsler]

Wow - thank you army judge. That's very valuable information about yet another popular scam. It is remarkable (and revolting) what human beings are capable of doing.

I think that one of the most successful scams are fake parking tickets. I've read about this happening in several localities. Fake parking tickets are a popular scam because it's relatively easy to carry out. Create an official looking parking ticket by scanning into a computer a summons that you've seen before (perhaps even their own ticket.) The scammers alter the address to send in a guilty plea in the back to appear as a post office box or another address which can receive mail that isn't a home residence. There may be instructions regarding making out checks payable to cash or to a certain account or company that sounds official relating to parking. This is a quick hit and run business where the perpetrators hope to get cash quickly and leave. It's foolish since frequently the money may be traceable, unless it's cash. But if they get enough suckers to send money before the authorities are alerted about the scam, they are long gone before an investigation is underway

 

[army judge]

Professor, life as we once knew it is over. I can deal with the remnants and scraps, it's all we've got. It despairs and depresses me to know that today's children will never have the opportunities we had. Heck, I look at my grand kids, and their dreams are quite small. What a sad society we've become.

 

[CdwJava]

Lawprofessor, in the interest of clarity these are not items sent out by enterprising thieves, they are sent out by the police departments and agencies operating the red light cameras. When a vehicle is identified as violating a red light covered by one of these cameras, the local jurisdiction operating the camera attempts to identify the driver based upon matching the DMV photo of the registered owner or any family members to the face in the camera. If they cannot do so, they send a notice similar to the one linked by Army Judge in an effort to identify the driver of the vehicle. The options and the facts are, apparently, indicated on the notice.

Again, these are not notice's sent by thieves and scam artists, but by the law enforcement agency operating the camera program within that jurisdiction.

 

[army judge]

I often disagree with many laws emanating out of California. I guess that's just the Texan in me.

But, Californians and Texans share a mutual affection for due process. In California, some of those red light scammers (not police agencies, but the civilian corporations hired by the greedy politicians) to fund their nearly empty treasure chests.

California doesn't require the owners of those vehicles allegedly caught disobeying those traffic signals to reveal WHO is in the photo, or who might have been driving the car.

I could blather on about the reasons why, suffice it to say, it's not any citizen's job to "rat" anyone else out. Many Californians are learning they don't have to respond to unofficial documents,not under the seal of a court of competent jurisdiction.


Sent from my iPad3 using Tapatalk HD

 

[CdwJava]

And nowhere do these notices say that anyone is legally required to "rat" out who was driving. I am hoping that the state one day changes the law to make the registered owner responsible if no driver is identified ... but, that's just the law-and-order guy in me.

 

[army judge]

And nowhere do these notices say that anyone is legally required to "rat" out who was driving. I am hoping that the state one day changes the law to make the registered owner responsible if no driver is identified ... but, that's just the law-and-order guy in me.

You are right, it's what they don't say that bothers me.
It's the cozy collaboration between government and private enterprise that bothers me.
That's the "constitutionalist" in me.
I love that document that stands between us and anarchy.
I respect, appreciate, and admire all that those in your profession do to keep the thugs at bay for our society.
But, I marvel at what the founders created and gave to each of us.


Sent from my iPad3 using Tapatalk HD

 

[CdwJava]

Since local government is generally not in the business of developing, producing, installing, and maintaining high technology hardware and systems, they have always had to collaborate with private enterprise. If you are referring to the rules that allowed contract fees to be based on a percentage of the number of cites paid, I would agree that such an arrangement created fertile ground for malfeasance, or, at least the perception of malfeasance. But, since CA no longer permits these fee-based contracts, the incentive for the companies that produce and maintain the cameras and their systems to fudge things are all but eliminated.

I have never worked in a jurisdiction that operated these systems while I was there, but I know many that have and they have been effective in reducing serious injury collisions. Yes, they are also the only traffic enforcement model that turns a profit so it seems that this is why so many people complain about them ... they work, and they catch violators and people don't think it's "fair." Though, is the enforcement law supposed to be "fair," or is it supposed to be lawful? It might not be "fair" for me to wait down the street from a problem bar waiting for DUI drivers to depart, but it is lawful. It might not be "fair" to use cameras to catch red light violators, but it is lawful (and maybe safer than chasing someone through heavy traffic). And, it is also lawful not to respond to one of those local notices (aka "snitch tickets").

Best bet: Don't run red lights!

 

[army judge]

I don't advocate anyone breaking any law.
If a citizen is dissatisfied with a law, use the mechanism in place to seek redress or change.

That said, government should protect and serve the citizenry. Usually, they do. Occasionally, they don't.

I've received only one traffic citation in my life.
That was many decades ago, during the days of 55 MPH speed limits. That state chose to make a statement and allowed alleged violators to simply pay a small fine. I paid the fine.

Frankly, I'd rather interact with a certified law enforcement officer, if I'm stopped. Those stops are far more productive in changing driving habits.

I'm no fan of cameras enforcing laws. A LEO can testify and be cross examined. A judge or jury can then determine guilt or innocence. That's due process, and that's fair. A camera, not so much.

Sent from my iPad3 using Tapatalk HD