never follow a Turtle
Thread Starter
Registered!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,218
Likes: 0
From: Corona, California
Rep Power: 0 
never follow a Turtle
Well last night Chase and I were following Mike to go to Andrews house (KAFYN) and the light turns yellow and he goes for it, im like shi* i hesitate, then i say fawk it and go then chase is behind me and goes and mid way through the intersection i see a nice Bright light shinning on us and i can swear i saw chase giving the nice CAMERA the birdy as we got our picture taken... Chase later told me that he didnt give a ratz azz cause he didnt have a front plate, so the camera couldnt take a picture of his plate. But what about the rear? I dont have a front plate either? does that mean we got lucky?
Registered!!
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,099
Likes: 0
From: So Cal, This place called Orange County
Rep Power: 0 those cameras take detailed pictures of ur front, rear, and a front driver FACE shot of YOU . then, later in the mail, it comes in a big packet with detailed photos of u along with your $375 ticket.
Balut Eating Champ
iTrader: (29)
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,568
Likes: 0
From: Las Vegas, NV
Rep Power: 0 Originally posted by VNlilMAN
i heard it easy to fight.. you can just say you didnt get it in the mail or something.
i heard it easy to fight.. you can just say you didnt get it in the mail or something.
Registered!!
iTrader: (4)
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,459
Likes: 0
From: Pasadena, California, US
Rep Power: 0 I heard you can get away with that ticket easily cuz its illegal to take a picture of you without permission or somethin. I also heard just throw away the ticket when it comes. Just some stuff ive read online
Titanium Metallic. You got a problem with that?
iTrader: (8)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,496
Likes: 0
From: So Cal
Rep Power: 350 Yeah, the rear ones didnt go off. I was in the intersection when it was yellow so if we get anything im fighting it.
What J also forgot to tell you was the turn onto a couple streets before Andrews house where Turtle just went into the left land as J flew by him. I hit the brakes and waited in the right lane for like 2 cars to pass me.
Just be careful!!!
What J also forgot to tell you was the turn onto a couple streets before Andrews house where Turtle just went into the left land as J flew by him. I hit the brakes and waited in the right lane for like 2 cars to pass me.
Just be careful!!! 
I need TP for my bunghole
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,103
Likes: 0
From: OXNARD, CA. SoCal. "805", North of L.A.
Rep Power: 359 
visit this site and fight it
http://www.ticketassassin.com/
The following is copied from the site above:
Red Light Cameras: Two State Laws Make Automated Enforcement Systems Illegal in California
Automated red-light camera enforcement is well on its way to becoming California's next "smog-impact" fee: an illegal and unfair system through which the government bleeds millions from unsuspecting motorists. As with the "smog-impact" fee, when the illegality of automated enforcement is eventually established by the appellate or state supreme court, the state will have to explain to several hundred thousand motorists already fined whether or not their illegally collected money will be returned to them. The state may also have to settle potential refund claims for insurance increases caused when these illegal citations were added to the driving records of countless wrongfully prosecuted citizens. The amount per victim in insurance hikes could easily exceed the original $271 fine.
Automated Enforcement is an Illegal Speed Trap
San Diego Deputy city attorney Steve Hansen recently admitted, in a Union Tribune article, that automated enforcement is "technically" a speed trap as defined in California law, though he goes on to claim that "speed trap laws only apply to cases involving speeding violations." Whatever the current qualifications to be a deputy city attorney are in San Diego, intellectual honesty is clearly not among them.
Automated enforcement systems are illegal speed traps because their sensors measure the speed of your car as you cross a measured distance in the road (two sets of inductive loops). A speed trap is defined in 40802(a) (1) as:"A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance." So clearly, automated enforcement is an illegal speed trap.
In a chapter of the California Vehicle Code appropriately named "Illegal Evidence", code section 40801, Speed Trap Prohibition, states: "No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code."
Certainly "any alleged violation of this code" would include alleged red-light violations in which a speed trap is used, not just speeding tickets as Mr. Hansen implies. Perhaps Mr. Hansen's spin on this issue is designed to serve the city's revenue objectives at the expense of the truth and the law. To examine this statute, you may purchase a copy of the vehicle code at the DMV for just $3. You may also review the vehicle code online at www.dmv.ca.gov.
Automated Enforcement Systems May Only Be Operated By A Government Agency
Though not mentioned in the recent article, automated enforcement's San Diego incarnation is also illegal under CVC 21455.5 ,Traffic Signal Automated Enforcement, which states: "Only a government agency, in cooperation with a law enforcement agency, may operate an automated enforcement system." The system in San Diego is operated by Lockheed Martin IMS, a private for-profit corporation; certainly not the "government agency" called for in the statute. In fact, all the automated enforcement systems in California are being illegally operated by private corporations.
The law calls for a government agency to run the system because the policy and procedures employed by a government agency are fully open to public review, whereas the inner machinations of a private corporation are generally confidential and not open to the public. Any strategies Lockheed Martin might employ to increase the number or red-light tickets, and thereby improve its bottom line, are not open to public scrutiny.
We already know that Lockheed Martin has placed the majority of their cameras in San Diego at relatively safe intersections in higher income areas, avoiding the dangerous intersections that exist mostly in lower income neighborhoods where people can't afford a $271 fine. What's to keep these corporate contractors from other such profit-enhancing tactics, such as decreasing the length of the yellow lights at monitored intersections to increase violations? If they've already done this, how would the public ever find out?
Lockheed Martin only gets paid its $70 bounty per picture is you are found guilty. A faceless and unnamed "technician" at Lockheed ultimately "interprets" the data to determine your "guilt." You are not permitted to question or cross examine this person in court to see how he arrived at this conclusion. Instead, a cop trained by this technician presents the company's verdict in court. This makes the reality of the situation appear less blatant: that you are being found guilty by a corporation using the police and courts as their proxy.
Officially, your actual guilty verdict is delivered by a judge that probably understands less about automated enforcement than you do. The judge uses the trappings of his office to officiate at this miscarriage of justice. The real judge in these cases is an anonymous technician, dreaming of how valuable his stock options will be as a thousand automated systems bloom across the Golden State.
The goal of a corporation is to increase profits not to render justice. In their quest for increased corporate revenue from their automated enforcement business, there is no limit to how Lockheed Martin might abuse California citizens. We should certainly not give any defense contractor unsupervised access to the DMV license and registration data bases or to our collective wallets (remember folks, defense contractors thought it was fair to charge us $3000 for a toilet seat). Will compromised city attorneys and judges protect us from possible abuse at the hands of defense contractors like Lockheed Martin?
Automated enforcement systems are illegal and unsupervised intrusions into our privacy and should be immediately removed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of completed written declarations for contesting Automated Enforcement tickets by Written Declaration are available in the members-only shareware section.
http://www.ticketassassin.com/
The following is copied from the site above:
Red Light Cameras: Two State Laws Make Automated Enforcement Systems Illegal in California
Automated red-light camera enforcement is well on its way to becoming California's next "smog-impact" fee: an illegal and unfair system through which the government bleeds millions from unsuspecting motorists. As with the "smog-impact" fee, when the illegality of automated enforcement is eventually established by the appellate or state supreme court, the state will have to explain to several hundred thousand motorists already fined whether or not their illegally collected money will be returned to them. The state may also have to settle potential refund claims for insurance increases caused when these illegal citations were added to the driving records of countless wrongfully prosecuted citizens. The amount per victim in insurance hikes could easily exceed the original $271 fine.
Automated Enforcement is an Illegal Speed Trap
San Diego Deputy city attorney Steve Hansen recently admitted, in a Union Tribune article, that automated enforcement is "technically" a speed trap as defined in California law, though he goes on to claim that "speed trap laws only apply to cases involving speeding violations." Whatever the current qualifications to be a deputy city attorney are in San Diego, intellectual honesty is clearly not among them.
Automated enforcement systems are illegal speed traps because their sensors measure the speed of your car as you cross a measured distance in the road (two sets of inductive loops). A speed trap is defined in 40802(a) (1) as:"A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance." So clearly, automated enforcement is an illegal speed trap.
In a chapter of the California Vehicle Code appropriately named "Illegal Evidence", code section 40801, Speed Trap Prohibition, states: "No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code."
Certainly "any alleged violation of this code" would include alleged red-light violations in which a speed trap is used, not just speeding tickets as Mr. Hansen implies. Perhaps Mr. Hansen's spin on this issue is designed to serve the city's revenue objectives at the expense of the truth and the law. To examine this statute, you may purchase a copy of the vehicle code at the DMV for just $3. You may also review the vehicle code online at www.dmv.ca.gov.
Automated Enforcement Systems May Only Be Operated By A Government Agency
Though not mentioned in the recent article, automated enforcement's San Diego incarnation is also illegal under CVC 21455.5 ,Traffic Signal Automated Enforcement, which states: "Only a government agency, in cooperation with a law enforcement agency, may operate an automated enforcement system." The system in San Diego is operated by Lockheed Martin IMS, a private for-profit corporation; certainly not the "government agency" called for in the statute. In fact, all the automated enforcement systems in California are being illegally operated by private corporations.
The law calls for a government agency to run the system because the policy and procedures employed by a government agency are fully open to public review, whereas the inner machinations of a private corporation are generally confidential and not open to the public. Any strategies Lockheed Martin might employ to increase the number or red-light tickets, and thereby improve its bottom line, are not open to public scrutiny.
We already know that Lockheed Martin has placed the majority of their cameras in San Diego at relatively safe intersections in higher income areas, avoiding the dangerous intersections that exist mostly in lower income neighborhoods where people can't afford a $271 fine. What's to keep these corporate contractors from other such profit-enhancing tactics, such as decreasing the length of the yellow lights at monitored intersections to increase violations? If they've already done this, how would the public ever find out?
Lockheed Martin only gets paid its $70 bounty per picture is you are found guilty. A faceless and unnamed "technician" at Lockheed ultimately "interprets" the data to determine your "guilt." You are not permitted to question or cross examine this person in court to see how he arrived at this conclusion. Instead, a cop trained by this technician presents the company's verdict in court. This makes the reality of the situation appear less blatant: that you are being found guilty by a corporation using the police and courts as their proxy.
Officially, your actual guilty verdict is delivered by a judge that probably understands less about automated enforcement than you do. The judge uses the trappings of his office to officiate at this miscarriage of justice. The real judge in these cases is an anonymous technician, dreaming of how valuable his stock options will be as a thousand automated systems bloom across the Golden State.
The goal of a corporation is to increase profits not to render justice. In their quest for increased corporate revenue from their automated enforcement business, there is no limit to how Lockheed Martin might abuse California citizens. We should certainly not give any defense contractor unsupervised access to the DMV license and registration data bases or to our collective wallets (remember folks, defense contractors thought it was fair to charge us $3000 for a toilet seat). Will compromised city attorneys and judges protect us from possible abuse at the hands of defense contractors like Lockheed Martin?
Automated enforcement systems are illegal and unsupervised intrusions into our privacy and should be immediately removed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of completed written declarations for contesting Automated Enforcement tickets by Written Declaration are available in the members-only shareware section.
Last edited by PunkingCivic; Feb 26, 2004 at 03:53 PM.
--< GripSpeed Member >--
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,739
Likes: 0
From: San Gabriel, California, US
Rep Power: 0 Originally posted by l00pb4k
Yeah, in AZ you can pretty much ignore them. Just throw them out, they send someone to serve you 45 days later...just don't be there...and its done.
Yeah, in AZ you can pretty much ignore them. Just throw them out, they send someone to serve you 45 days later...just don't be there...and its done.
--< GripSpeed Member >--
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,739
Likes: 0
From: San Gabriel, California, US
Rep Power: 0 Originally posted by xtremejm
ha ha me and chase still be representing, what about you fool?
ha ha me and chase still be representing, what about you fool?
Thread
Thread Starter
Honda Civic Forum
Replies
Last Post
Touge
Canada East
0
Sep 23, 2015 11:19 PM
Touge
Ottawa
0
Sep 23, 2015 11:14 PM
Touge
Canada East
0
Sep 22, 2015 11:55 PM
