Socially Mundane

I have what some might call a serious lack of general confidence in government. I just don’t trust the efficiency, accuracy, or ethical motivation in governmental ‘administrative’ work, especially the more local the government. Perhaps what I’m about to describe vindicates this attitude. Perhaps it doesn’t. Judge for yourself.

• A traffic infraction is caught on camera, but the citation is never received.
• A past-due notice is received, with a threat to be sent to collections.
• Though a rebuttal letter is sent in response to the postcard, a request for written statement is hence received - or choose to appear in person at court.
• However, the notices indicates that if a written statement is made, one waves any right to appeal. (?!)
• Even though a defense of “denial of due process” is reasonable, the case is dismissed because there are two vehicles on the road with the same license plates.

NOTE: because it appears to me the super-majority of world population are gullible idiots, I warn you what is stated here following is my personal experience. You would be the ridiculous idiot if you attempt to use any of what is written here as a legal defense for yourself in any charge made against you.

Government efficiency.

I return home and collect the mail one day to find a simple postcard. On it is a simple statement:

RE: Case BEP xxxxxx
You owe: $159.00

This was actually a bit of a surprise as the original citation was never received. Because the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right of “due process”, which includes clear information on the nature and cause of any charges” - this would be a simple case of “piss-off”. However, this means a ‘no-contact’ would have the due charges sent to a collection agency, then everything gets all mucked-up. It is better to avoid this scenario.

I attempted to research the case number in an attempt to discover just what exactly this is about. The courthouse web site has a handy search feature and found the case file immediately. The web site will happily show me the details of the case, for a fee.

I found this to be unjust as I refuse to pay money to hear the accusation against me. So I telephoned the court directly (hence all the scribbled notes on the postcard). based on what I am told:

• I made an apparent right-hand turn through a red light without stopping.
• This occurred at 5:15 P.M., August 26, 2011
• The offense occurred at (intersection crossroad) in Bellevue, Washington.
• The amount shown on the postcard is the fine plus late fees.
• I should send the payment quickly, preferably online before it goes to collections.

I found this information disturbing.

Firstly, I live in Tacoma, Washington - and hour south of Bellevue, on a good traffic day. I do work in Renton, Washington, 20-minutes from Bellevue, on a good traffic day. At the end of each day of work, I head south to Tacoma. I complete my work day at 3 P.M. in the afternoon so it’s a ridiculous thought I would drive in the opposite direction from home after a long day of work to mix it up with the worst possible traffic at the worst possible time of the worst possible day of the week. There is no doubt in my mind the offender is not me.

I write this out to explain: it is impossible that I have committed this offense for these reason. Otherwise, it’s a technical malfunction and I did commit the offense, but the wrong location, date and time are reported. Because I have no faith that my letter will actually be read with comprehension and my case will be sent off to collections anyway, I include a check for the due amount.

However, I immediately contact my bank to put a “hold payment” on that check - for two reasons: first, I fired Bank of America and I am in the process of changing banks. Secondly, I do not want the court to presume I am admitting guilt by paying the fine. I did mention the check has a “stop payment” hold on it in the letter so there could be no assumption of deceit on my part. A week or so later I receive a summons to court hearing. This is what I was actually after.

More government efficiency.

On the summons to appear there is the offer of submitting a statement in writing. Did I not do that to begin with? Must my statement be hand-written on this funny yellow sheet of paper? Why can’t the statement I’ve already sent along be used - and judged with?

Here’s the kicker: according to the summons, if I submit a written statement, judgement will be based on that statement and I wave any right to appeal the decision. I believe this is legally questionable at best.

However, playing this gamble would take time, effort and cost to fight against should my written statement be found insufficient to acquit me. So it is better to just appear in person.

How traffic enforcement cameras operate by way of legal loopholes.

I have not, up to this point, seen any photographs or recording ‘evidence’ that damns me. All I have is a postcard with practically zero information whatsoever. So I begin to do a little research and in my hunt for more information in general to how these traffic infraction cameras work I discover several reports. Obviously I don’t take this information as undeniable fact, but it is “ammunition” I can use in my defense if it comes to that.

The most stunning Associated Press article I found is one that describes the outsourcing of these traffic cameras and how there is extremely high motivation to ticket as many as possible - for monetary reasons (link to the article at the end of this post). The outsourcing of traffic cameras create an ethical question.

From the AP Article referenced:

While vendors capture violations, police or other local officials approve which violations are issued tickets. Some contracts penalize cities if they don’t approve enough tickets, effectively setting a ticket quota, the report said. That can undermine the authority of local officials to decide when to issue tickets, it said.

Fast-forward to court day.
When the docket calls for the group I am a member of, we all file in and take a seat. The judge then makes her canned monologue to the group, where much of what she states catches me by surprise. I will paraphrase in bullet form and any emphasis is mine - and remember: these are the Judge’s words:

• Washington State law makes it illegal to take a picture of your person, thus the cameras take a picture from the rear of your vehicle.
• The registered owner(s) is automatically assumed to be the driver.
• Because there is no officer giving the citation and the driver is assumed to be the registered owner, mitigation (admitting to the offense and receiving a “discount” on your fine) will not go into your driving record - (it is an ad-hoc fine that is essentially not recorded).
• Because the registered owner of the vehicle is assumed to be the driver, you can contest the charge, if you are reasonably successful in your argument, you can sign what amounts to an affidavit that you did not commit the infraction and walk away.

In my words: paying your fine is basically voluntary because, legally speaking, they’ve got nothing on you.

In short: the entire traffic camera scam (my words) is based in fear or apathy. You receive the infraction notice in the mail, you shrug and pay it - it’s more convenient that way. Or you decide to contest it, see the video of your car, become nervous then bow down and admit because it’s a “discounted” fine and it doesn’t go on record - unless you go through with the contest, then it’s the full charge.

I consider the whole concept to be extortion, plain and simple.

In my case, because I hadn’t received the original infraction notice, I hadn’t received any instructions how to access the photos and video of the alleged infraction. The judge asks if anyone is willing to go with mitigation. Of the 15 or so people present all do, except myself. The judge states I must view the video before we proceed (another part of the fear-mongering, perhaps?). I am not given the opportunity to proclaim denial of due process as the clerk is made to create a copy of the infraction notice on the spot and with that I have the information needed to access and view the “evidence” against me.

I do so.
And laugh. (It’s a very sad laugh.)
Loudly, turning heads in the courtroom.

What is wrong with this picture? (click for larger version):

Government reliability and quality in all it does.

I drive a silver Toyota Camry. However, the vehicle committing the traffic offense is a dark blue Audi (A3 I am told, I don’t know or care). The Audi license plate is the same as my license plate. Sure, there’s a possibility the other vehicle plate is a counterfeit or hack job (black electrical tape can do wonders,) but it’s a highly unlikely scenario. It’s also possible there is an identity-theft issue - but I monitor that aspect of things quite thoroughly. It’s funny in a pathetic way.

My first question with regard to government reliability, efficiency, and attention to detail in legal matters is: how the hell did two newer vehicles end up on the road with the same license plate number, simultaneously? (Of course this could be a stolen car but who on earth would steal THAT make an model? Really?)

And furthermore, how is it the court reads the registration which clearly states the number is registered to a silver Toyota Camry, yet sees video of a dark blue Audi mini-SUV committing the infraction and still attempt to fine the Toyota owner?

Yes, I am following-up with the department of licensing, though I don’t expect to make much headway. It’s a government agency, after-all.

As for traffic cameras: they are really bad news for we the public they are monitoring. The following links will open your eyes with regard to them:

Associated Press article titled “Study questions outsourcing traffic camera systems”. In short: it behooves governments to write as many citations as possible via traffic cameras, or else (this is the article referenced above):
http://news.yahoo.com/study-questions-outsourcing-traffic-camera-systems-041338036.html

Not to mention how scammers could be stealing your money based on the traffic camera. In short: the apathy toward receiving an infraction notice could be costing you a lot more that the few hundred dollars you send-off in the mail:
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/traffic-light-camera-scam-steals-your-identity.html

Many argue traffic cameras create a safer environment, but this is highly debatable. Search Bing or Google for “traffic cameras unsafe” and see how evenly split this debate has become.

If you really want to see something interesting, search Bing or Google  with this term: “avoid traffic camera”.