Photo Radar doing its job! (Maricopa: rental car, 2009, rental)

[ShadowWarrior]

Originally Posted by observer53

Chasing these guys at 100 MPH? We've seen what happens in those kind of chases.

I know there are issues with the cameras, but frankly, I don't much care about how people who drive like those three get caught.

Never more than 80 on local freeways??? Please. As far as I'm concerned, that, too, is excessive, and cars or cameras are free to catch those, too.

So the ends justify the means? Suppose Big Brother monitors all telephone calls and emails, without probable cause (something they are probably doing anyway). Will catching a few criminals justify that constitutional violation?

Saw this on Freedom's Phoenix. Haven't had a chance to look at the statutes and case law. Don't know how far this will float in court, but it looks promising.

[SIZE=2]

Sender Information:

Your Name

address

Phoenix, Arizona republic

Recipient Information:
American Traffic Systems
James Tuton, President
14861 N Scottsdale Rd.
Suite 109
Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
480-443-7000

Redflex Traffic Systems Inc.
Karen Finley
President and CEO
Jennifer Dwiggins Director of Operations
15020 N 74th Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85260

Nestor
President and/or CEO
10911 Riverside Dr.
North Hollywood, CA 91602-2209



Re: Common Law Copyright and Trademark of the face of the human being known as;
Your Name


Dear Mr. Tuton or appropriate person:

I would like to introduce myself to you; I am the human being known as, Your Name. It has come to my attention that you may have used or may possibly in the future use my name and/or likeness in connection with your commercial activity without my permission and in violation of my human Rights, without limitation, my Right to privacy.

Please be advised that your actions constitute, among other offenses, a wrongful use and misappropriation of my name and/or likeness in violation of my federal and state common law and statutory Rights including, without limitation, Rights of publicity (the Right of publicity is a Right to prevent the unauthorized commercial use of a natural person’s identity), including name, image, and/or likeness and rights under the Lanham Act. If your commercial activity disperses any likeness and/or attributes of mine obtained without prior written permission from me said actions will constitute violations of my Rights. I have been advised that the remedies available to me include, without limitation, injunctive relief and recovery of actual and/or statutory damages.

Pursuant to my instructions, demand is hereby made that you; (i) immediately cease and desist from misappropriating my name and/or likeness; and (ii) confirm to me in writing that you have done the foregoing.

If you misappropriate my name and/or likeness you are hereby agreeing to pay me the sum of $100,000 payable in gold for each violation. Said amount is due and payable within 10 days of the date of the occurrence with late fees accruing at 21% a.p.r. You also agree to pay all cost incurred to recover aforementioned money(s). This includes, without limitation, any previous violation, current violations and/or future violations.

Examples of violation(s) include, without limitation: (i) photographing me or a part of my human body; and/or (ii) photographing my personal means of conveyance whilst I am inside of said conveyance; and/or (iii) dispersing aforementioned items to corporations, including, without limitation, corporations you have a contractual and/or financial interest in and/or with; and/or (iv) using aforementioned items for financial gain.

In the event that you fail to dispute this contract within 10 days then this contract will be considered in full force between both parties and may also include, without limitation, any and all parties contracted with either and/or both parties. Your silence is you acquiescence. See: Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391. Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law.” Also, see: U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”

You are also hereby notified that photographing me at any time without my prior written permission for any purpose that creates any gain and/or profit and/or remuneration of any kind to your company and/or its employees and/or stock holders is not protected under the FAIR USE ACT [17 U.S.C. 107(1-4)] § 107. Limitations on exclusive Rights: Fair use.

You are also hereby notified that I am one of the sovereigns spoken in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.;
You are also hereby notified I am fully aware of and do not surrender or waive Rights guaranteed in the federal and State Constitutions, or my free exercise of those Rights. See: Brady v. U.S., 742 at 748. “Waivers of Constitutional Rights must not only be done voluntarily, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences.”

You are also hereby notified the exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime. See: Miller v. U.S., 230 F, 2d 286, 489. “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.”

Your marketing material constitutes prima facie evidence of your intent to conduct your business in commerce for the sole purpose of financial gain under the guise of public safety. This blatant façade is in direct violation of the public interest and the corresponding engineering and safety analysis of the effects on the public by your equipment in municipalities is in violation of the RICO Act.

If you disagree with anything in this letter, then rebut that with which you disagree, in writing, with particularity, to me, within days of this letter’s date, and support your disagreement with evidence, fact and law. Your failure to respond, as stipulated, is your agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true, correct, legal, lawful, and is your irrevocable agreement attesting to this, fully binding upon you, in any court in America, without your protest or obligation or that of those who represent you.

Nothing in this letter is intended or shall be constructed to constitute an express or implied waiver of any Rights or remedies which I may possess in connection with this matter, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.



In witness of all, and of each of the things herein contained I have set my hand and Seal, this twenty fifth day of July, in the year two thousand seven and of the Independence of the United States the two hundred and thirty first.



Very Truly Yours,



Your Name, Sui Juris, a man and a living spirit, living, breathing, flesh-and blood, sentient, natural man, sovereign with-out subjects, and by lawful definition a “non-taxpayer”, residing in Heaven, yet temporarily in the Arizona republic.
[/SIZE]

[KarmaPhx]

Originally Posted by Greatday

80 in a 55 may be classified as a felony.

Most freeways are 65-75, at least on the north side. The 51 from the 101 down to the curve is 65.

[Howard Roark]

I drive no more than 5 mph above the speed limit unless I need to pass on the left. I am aware I'm slower than the hotshots so I do not drive in the left lane. If I see someone bearing down on me I shift to the right when safe. I used to drive 10mph above the speed limit but now that the cameras are on several freeways I figure I should just depart 5 minutes earlier for a drive so that the extra drive time does not make me late. I occasionally see blatant speeders and wish they would be arrested. I am happy for the speed cameras. There is more safety. I haven't understood why some people are so much against speed cameras. If you don't like them, don't drive on the freeways.

Also, I too think 80mph is way too high. In a 55mph zone it's a felony. In a 65mph zone, going 15mph above the speed limit is way excessive and a gross waste of natural resources. There used to be laws about senselessly wasting gas.

[Howard Roark]

ShadowWarrier, I consider myself a radical liberal and I am wary of invasion of privacy and am obsessively against all the victimless crime laws. But monitoring phone calls and mail is a different issue. You are using an old debate trick that is not valid. The subject is excessive speed on taxpayer-financed roadways. If we had private roads, and again I am for complete privatization, the owner of the roads would make sure they are safe and hot rodders would be identified and turned over to the police.

[Finger Laker]

no - the subject is an incompetant legislature that puts us in a budget mess and comes up with a revenue scheme "for our safety"

it's one in the same - a violation is a violation and the thought process put out of "just don't do it" would hold true in the phone aspect as well

if you don't have anything to hide, what do you care who listens to your calls

[observer53]

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

ShadowWarrier, I consider myself a radical liberal and I am wary of invasion of privacy and am obsessively against all the victimless crime laws. But monitoring phone calls and mail is a different issue. You are using an old debate trick that is not valid. The subject is excessive speed on taxpayer-financed roadways. If we had private roads, and again I am for complete privatization, the owner of the roads would make sure they are safe and hot rodders would be identified and turned over to the police.

ShadowWarrior-- I'm with Howard on this one. You are talking apples and oranges. There's nothing PRIVATE about speeding on a public road. Phone calls and mail are a whole separate matter.

[blisterpeanuts]

It's hard to tease apart who is driving drunk versus who is competent at high speeds.

There are people driving 90 regularly who are very skillful drivers and I have no fear of sharing the road with them, as long as they don't harass me for going 65-70.

Then there are drunk and/or incompetent drivers who are responsible for about half of all road deaths. That's half of some 40,000/year, not to mention hundreds of thousands of non-fatal injuries.

I think cameras really should be used for road rage perpetrators more than for speeders. Speeding is generally a victimless thing except as noted above. Road rage is just plain nasty and such people should be taken off the roads. I don't know how else to do it but with cameras, or else hire a couple thousand extra traffic cops.

They put up cameras on the loop in D.C. because road rage was getting so bad. It's unfortunate but necessary these days. If people were a little more considerate of each other perhaps we could do away with these invasive contraptions, but they're just not, and it's getting worse. The only thing that will stop it is a healthy fear of being caught.

[DebFlack]

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy as defined by law in this matter----not on a public road, a state road, or a federal highway.


Driving 100 mph is excessive, and perhaps dangerous----but so is driving 45 on an interstate, even in the right hand lane--------and most state laws are lax however on enforcing the law on the 'lower limit'-----which can cause many accidents just as well.

There are many parts of the nation where in spite of the stated 70 or 75 mph limit (rural), the flow of traffic is clocked way above that------for instance if you're doing less than the stated limit in and around the City of Atlanta, on 285, you're going to have a problem with other drivers- similarly there are stretches of I 75 where you will have similar problems slo-poking around 60-65 mph (like some stretches in Florida) particularly in the left hand lane ! I've seen state troopers pull over many cars driving around 65 in the left hand lane depending on traffic conditions-

but in a lot of areas, if you're doing 80 on the interstate, and much of the surrounding traffic is also hovering around that speed, a lot of troopers don't even bother chasing you to give you a ticket------but if you're going a SUSTAINED 82 or over based on a couple of laser 'hits', the chances are that you will definitely get stopped--

The problem will a lot of cameras it doesn't take into consideration some subjective factors----like was the driver speeding up to avoid a potentially dangerous situation ( such as driving 'through' a 'box out' involving a semi trailer, to avoid remaining in the semi's blind spot....and whether the driver's action was a 'sustained' speeding event)

[TurcoLoco]

Another stupid news bit to glorify a useless system. Cops failed to do their job and this allowed the photo radar system to look good (for a change) but in reality, those 3 were endangering lives while driving not days later while at home/work. Cops should have spotted and arrested those on the spot, not days later at their home/work.

Does this system make me feel good about the photo radar or help me feel safe driving around? Not quite.

[observer53]

The police can't be everywhere on the 101 or any other urban freeway/parkway. Fact of life, deal with it.

Would it be BEST if they were stopped at the time? Sure. Is having NOTHING happen because they were not caught live, assuming there were no cameras, BETTER than what did happen? Surely NOT.