Where's a red-light camera when you need one?

City To Settle With Woman Hit By Officer Who Ran Red Light

February 22, 2011

CHATTANNOOGA, TENN. -- The city has reached a settlement with a woman whose car was hit by a city police cruiser that ran a red light while speeding to a call.

The settlement is for $60,000.

City Attorney Mike McMahan called that very reasonable, saying that Rosetta Crutcher had serious injuries and had $28,835 in medical bills.

He said a lawsuit was not filed in the case.

He said Ms. Crutcher's vehicle was rolled over by the impact of the patrol vehicle.

12-second snuff video by Police State death squad

Officer Ian Birk, Seattle Police, Murders Innocent Pedestrian in Cold Blood ~ No Criminal Charges (Just a $1.5-Million Tax Increase)

At 4:12:22 PM, Birk gets out of his police cruiser, passes in front of his patrol car, and walks towards Williams (who had already crossed the street by now and moved beyond camera view) and yells at Williams (4:12:29 PM) "Hey, Hey,... Hey! (4:12:30 PM) Put the knife down! Put the knife down! Put the knife..DOWN!" (4:12:35 PM) BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG BANG (you hear Williams moaning).


Police state death squad killer Ian Birk

The Seattle police who arrived on the scene found John T. Williams' pocket knife in a closed and locked position. The folding knife had a 3 inches long blade, which is within Seattle's legal limits and is therefore not illegal to carry or to use for the purpose of whittling wood, even while walking down a Seattle sidewalk. Since John T. Williams was not doing anything illegal, or committing a crime, or threatening anybody, there was no justification for Ian Birk to get out of his patrol car to go after Williams in the first place. The decision and events that led to the unjustified death of John T. Williams on August 30, 2010 were solely the responsibility of former Seattle police officer Ian Birk. Ian Birk was standing 9-10 feet away from John T. Williams when he shot him.


Deaf homeless dead man with his whittled stick

---

Seattle to pay $1.5-million to family of B.C. carver killed by police

The city of Seattle has agreed to pay $1.5-million to the family of John T. Williams, a B.C.-born wood carver who was shot and killed by a Seattle police officer last August.

Mr. Williams, a member of Vancouver Island’s Dididaht First Nation who had lived in Seattle for more than a decade, was shot four times by Seattle police officer Ian Birk on August 30.

In a police department review, Officer Birk testified he feared for his life in his encounter with Mr. Williams, who was carrying a knife and a piece of wood when he was shot. The Seattle Police Department’s Firearms Review Board in February found the shooting was unjustified.

The settlement between the city and the family was reached after mediation involving representatives of the Williams estate, Williams’s mother and the city, Seattle officials said Friday in a statement.

Under the terms of the agreement, $250,000 will be put in trust for Mr. Williams’s mother, Ida Edward, and $1.25-million will be paid to Mr. William’s estate. A court will approve distribution of the funds.

In its statement, the City of Seattle said “the mediation followed a number of positive meetings aimed at building trust between SPD and the Native American community. The parties are pleased to be able to resolve the case without protracted litigation that could have incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees.”

In a statement, the family said it was relieved.

“This is one step towards justice, but it is only a step. Nothing can make up for the loss of my brother,” said Rick Williams.

Officer Birk resigned from the force the same day the review board issued its report.

The review board found the officer did not have probable cause to believe Mr. Williams posed a serious threat of physical harm to either the police officer or others.

The report also found that the officer failed to follow procedure in several areas, including requesting backup and properly identifying himself as a police officer.

“The fatal encounter, which lasted about seven seconds, consisted of Officer Birk using a hand gesture and saying ‘hey’ to an individual he suspected of being impaired, and who had his back to him, followed by the statement ‘put the knife down’ repeated quickly three times before four to five shots were heard,” the report says.

Family members, friends and an art dealer who had purchased carvings from Mr. Williams have stated that Mr. Williams had hearing problems.

According to a report in the Seattle Times, Mr. Williams’s family has asked King County Superior Court judges to convene a citizen grand jury to consider whether Mr. Birk should be criminally charged. The court is reviewing the request.

A King County prosecutor previously said state law prohibited him from filing charges against Mr. Birk because the officer believed Mr. Williams posed a threat, the paper said.

The Battle of Oak Ridge: 'Kill the Traffic Cameras'

by The Dragonater

OAK RIDGE, TENN. -- In both of the following "news" stories this week, by WBIR and KNS, those "news" corporations are paid millions of taxdollars for promoting Police State propaganda, to keep the sheeple as stoopid as possible -- the easier to knock their heads off...literally.

One relevant and material issue censored from these articles is the fact that Oak Ridge city council admitted that all speed limits in Oak Ridge are illegal, under TN Code. These are the same "speed limits" sued by foreign traffic camera tickets.

Note that ALL red-light scameras in Knoxville also shoot radar, as proven by The Dragonater:



The Dragonater was threatened with arrest by Judge Mary Beth Leibowitz for daring to subpoena those media-govt contracts under the Tennessee Open Records Act, during the Red-light Sniper Trial, where a Knox County deputy sheriff confessed to the crime, and all charges were dismissed against Clifford Clark. The Dragonater hosts and edits the Original Kill Red-light Cameras website. The Dragonater is permanently banned from posting comments by both KNS and WBIR websites, and KNS and WBIR lawyers sued the Dragonater for sanctions for daring to demand copies of their illegal contracts for govt propaganda during the Red-light Camera Sniper Trial.

How many other patriots are banned from posting comments that dare deviate from the Police State propaganda profit BY POSTING USEFUL FACTS OF LAW AND STRATEGY FOR WINNING IN TRAFFIC COURT? Factual comments the Dragonater routinely posts, that are 100% censored from these "news" articles and comments:

"It is extremely easy to beat this type of ticket in court. Your easiest defense is to simply throw the ticket away. If it does not come with a return receipt that requires a signature, there is no proof that you actually got the ticket."
-Norman G. Fernandez, attorney, free ebook How to Beat a Speeding Ticket - Photo RADAR

"Your photo radar defense: Ignoring The Letter. When you receive a general post letter advising you of your photo radar citation, you have the option of just ignoring it. All states have guidelines on how the citation must be served. In effect, your payment or appearance at the courthouse is your acceptance of service. By not responding to the letter, you are refusing acceptance of service. In addition, none of the departments are making personal service to anyone that lists a PO Box as their mailing address on their vehicle registrations."
-Lt "Radar" Roy Reyer, Maricopa County Sheriff Office, Phoenix, Arizona, RadarBusters.com, Your Photo Radar Defense

"Govt control of communications and transportation."
-Communist Manifesto, 6th Plank

"COP.
2. to steal; filch. 3. to buy (narcotics). 4. cop out, a. to avoid one's responsibility, the fulfillment of a promise, etc.; renege; back out. 5. cop a plea, a. to plead guilty or confess in return for receiving a lighter sentence. b. to plead guilty to a lesser charge; plea-bargain.
-Random House Unabridged Dictionary

"The US Supreme Court said in Miranda that there's 40,000 police jurisdictions in America. We expect one civil rights crime in every one of those agencies every day. 40,000 times 365 days a year is 14,600,000 crimes committed by police every year. Hell, there's only 14,200,000 crimes committed by the criminals. The police commit more crimes against the People than the criminals commit!"
-George Gordon Radio Show, The Policeman Is Not Your Friend, He Is Your Adversary

"I’ll burn your house down, set your dog on fire and there won’t be a member of your family left, do you understand me? I won’t hire it done, I will do it myself! Do you understand me?”
-Blount County Deals Gap sheriff James Berrong, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Nuchols v. Berrong, No. 04-5645, July 11, 2005

Of course, the easiest way to beat a redlight/radar camera ticket is to throw it in the trash and ignore it, for lack of personal service of process, as required for all civil lawsuits.

75% of AZ Drivers Refuse to Pay Photo Traffic Tickets

85% of TX Drivers Refuse to Pay Photo Traffic Tickets

Only the DUMB pay Redlight Tickets

Federal class action to refund all Redflex tickets in Knoxville TN

The question is, why is this fact censored from the signs by a member of Tennessee Liberty Alliance? What other facts are censored by TLA... that the "Federal" Reserve Bank is no more federal than Federal Express, counterfeits all "US dollar bills" out of thin air and keeps 100% of income tax without any going to the govt? That the 16th Amendment for an income tax was never ratified by the states and the income tax was outlawed by the US Supreme Court? That Top Secret govt CAFR "pension funds" steal $70-trillion/year from the taxslaves and could run all govt services without any taxes whatsoever?

Never mind that Redflex in Oak Ridge is a foreign corporation that keeps 90% of camera ticket revenue. $500,000 Knoxville Redflex invoice paid to National Australia Bank

"Redflex Group is based in South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Redflex Holdings Limited was listed on the Australian Stock Exchange in January 1997. Redflex Traffic Systems Inc has contracts with more then 130 USA cities, and is the largest provider of digital red light and speed enforcement services in North America."
—Redflex.com

Never mind that pesky Constitutional right to travel without an Internal Passport, or that speeding is SIX TIMES SAFER than a posted speed limit, according to Ralph Nader and USDOT.

"For decades, speed was the subject of the most widespread slogans drummed into the public. 'Speed kills' and 'slow down and live' are familiar ones peddled by the National Safety Council. The findings showed a more complex picture of the role of speed than had ever been assumed before. Accident involvement rates are at a minimum at speeds between fifty and seventy five miles per hour. Although obviously the severity of accidents is greater at higher speeds, the study revealed that considering accident frequency rates and severity, the number of injuries per vehicle miles traveled is at its minimum [up to six times lower]. The law embodies an invincible rationale: 'He had an accident; therefore he violated the law.' No distinction is made between responsibility for the accident and responsibility for the injury due to unsafe vehicle design or construction. Manslaughter charges are filed routinely against drivers; there is yet to be recorded any similar charges against the manufacturers for vehicle defects. A typical police traffic accident report has a list of 'contributing circumstances' which the officer is to check off: 'Speed too fast; failed to yield right of way; drove left of center; improper overtaking; passed stop sign; ran traffic signal; improper lights; had been drinking; and other improper driving.' Thus the driver is heir to all the dangers created by the automobile designers, not only in terms of bodily injury but also in terms of legal exposure. The result of this drastic imbalance in the law is the very poor quality of accident investigation in this country. Consequently, enforcement of the law brings no pressure on the car makers to increase the safety of their vehicles."
-Ralph Nader, attorney at law, from Unsafe at Any Speed - The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile, quoting David Soloman in Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver and Vehicle , FHwA (1964)

Solomon, David. 1964. Accidents on main rural highways related to speed, driver, and vehicle. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon public highways by automobile is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, under Constitutional guarantee."
-II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
-Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights."
-Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
-Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

Even the TN Supreme Court and Oak Ridge City Council agree that all speed limits are illegal, because Big Brother is incapable of obeying The Law of TN Code, and Order by the TN Court of Appeals in CITY OF OAK RIDGE v. DIANA RUTH BROWN.

And why do none of the "comments" mention The Dragonater, who happens to be the #1 opponent of traffic scameras in TN, going head-to-head with current Governor Billionaire Haslam over unconstitutional camera tickets on live TV, with the #1 website and Hollywood-award-winning TV/radio show exposing camera ticket fraud, with 80,000 website hits per month and over 5-million video downloads, as seen at a LEGAL 212 mph on a public highway on History Channel?

---

Signs opposing Oak Ridge red light cameras confiscated

WBIR TV

A member of an East Tennessee advocacy group says Oak Ridge is taking down their political signs, violating their freedom of speech. The city claims the sign placement violates city code.

"They are not for safety. They are for revenue only for Oak Ridge," Kay Williamson of the Tennessee Liberty Alliance said.

Williamson is so passionate about red light cameras that she's spent her own money to make signs and post them.

"It says kill traffic cameras and obey the Constitution," she said.

The signs keep disappearing.

So, this past weekend she made sure to place them next to other signs for real estate, yard sales, and cable service.

Then she kept watch with her camera phone.

"This is the actual officer getting out of his car taking down the signs," she said, pointing to a photo on her phone. "Oak Ridge Police came Saturday night at approximately 12:00 midnight and removed our signs only, and did not remove any of the yard signs."

Oak Ridge City Manager Mark Watson denied selective enforcement of Oak Ridge's strict sign ordinance.

"Once it's in the city's rights of way, it is fair game and will be removed," Watson said.

Oak Ridge City Council Member Anne Garcia Garland said red-light cameras are "an ongoing, divisive issue" in the community and she appreciates citizens like Williamson bringing forward complaints.

She said only the City Council as a whole had the power to launch an investigation into allegations of improper sign removal.

The owner of Anderson's Hilltop Market said he's given permission for those anti-red light camera signs to be posted on his private property, and he's personally seen city code enforcement pull up those signs.

"Our folks know exactly where the rights of way are," Watson explained. "Every political campaign that comes around we sit down with political candidates and say you have to be so far from the curb and so far from the road, so we know there that signage should be or should not be."

Confiscated signs end up in an area called "sign jail." On Monday, there was quite a variety of signs in the fenced-in area.

However, Williamson said Tennessee Liberty Alliance is considering filing a discrimination lawsuit. "They came around town and only removed the kill the red light camera signs," Williamson said.

Editors note: Glenn Jacobs, who identifies himself as Vice President of the Tennessee Liberty Alliance, contacted 10 News with this statement, "While the TLA opposes red light cameras in Oak Ridge and fully supports the right to free expression, the TLA has not discussed nor authorized any exploration of a lawsuit in regards to the cameras and/or the missing signs."

According to Community Development Director Kathryn Baldwin, the Oak Ridge sign ordinance does allow for certain exceptions. Those include campaign signs during elections and directional signs for auctions and open houses on weekends.

Comments

I would be happy to donate some money to a group that is fighting this.

And here I thought Big Brother was Just a part of a fiction book by H.G.Wells YOU GO GIRL NEED HELP JUST LET ME KNOW

YOU GO, Kay! I don't know how United States cities ever weaseled their way past the US constitution to end up in bed with companies who promise to split the profits off the backs of US citizens. How did we let this happen?? If we let them monitor our behavior electronically, where will it stop?? And how can city council members alienate their constituency by enacting policies that make us angry on a daily basis? you'd think that would be political suicide... I DON'T WANT TO BE MONITORED ELECTRONICALLY!

I would strongly encourage Ms. Williamson to investigate what is going on in Florida. The red light cameras are fading fast due to public's unwillingness to go down without a fight. Due to the fact that people are packing courtrooms and refusing to pay the fines, the red light cameras have become a money pit for the municipalities. The question of calibration of the devices to the lack of a police officer who reviewed the tapes being unable to make every court appearance. What many people do not realize is that there are a high percentage of these tickets that are not paid by those "ticketed" in Knoxville. The KNS has a link that shows outstanding tickets yet to be paid from a year ago. The public needs to know and the media needs to help and not blindly support these municipalities.

the red light camera is a scam. NOBODY DOES THE SPEED LIMIT!! NOBODY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOBODY MAKES COMPLETE STOPS !!!!!!!!! unless a car is actually coming, but nobody makes complete stops NOBODY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The red light camera are a scam, and that's the end of it! TAKE THEM OFF!!!! and I bet the one who is getting rich off this camera, DOES NOT MAKE COMPLETE STOPS, and...DOES NOT DO THE SPEED LIMIT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the hell with the cameras!!!!

That lady needs to get a compass and make sure where she is, if I didn't know any better, I'd swear she's in Commie China!

Hey Oak Ridge, I am an American Soldier and wear my uniform very proud. For the last 25 years I have fought for FREEDOM OF SPEECH in 2 combat zones and defend the constitution every day when I go to work. Confiscating those signs is nothing short of what Hitler and Saddam Hussein did for years. When I hear of stuff like this, it just makes me sad for the families of our fallen service members who fought for freedom of speech just to watch it taken away. The city of Oak Ridge that I knew long ago didn't do the citizens that way.

I'm afraid the cameras are only the tip of the iceberg and are mainly here to "test the waters" of whats to come.

Red light cameras are a gimmick and the only ones who really make money are the companies that put them in and maintain them. If you want safety, put a delay in from the time one road turns red and the other road turns green. Any idiots that run the light will be through before the other road is green. The worst is right on red cameras. No way for a camera to tell if you came to a complete stop. I have heard you have to stop for two to three seconds for the camera to register a stop. That is stupid. What happened to the Constitutional right to face your accuser? Ever try to question a camera picture as to what the situation was? They are a scam and people are stupid to keep letting them continue to add to them around the country.

Ah come on,if you take down the cameras the cops will have to get off their A** and do something, many study's show they increase accidents but that's irrelevant to the big bucks coming in so you are screwed.

This is the least of our worries. I hardly go into Knoxville unless I really have to. I never have a ticket in my life till one beautiful day I got a ticket in the mail. The violation was, I failed to stop at a traffic light making a right hand turn. The pictures indicated that I did not stop but there was a problem, WHY WAS MY BRAKE LIGHTS ON!!!!!!!!! I spoke with a relative that works for law enforcement about the situation and they advise me not fight it. Their reason was court cost. The traffic cameras are sub-contracted out so if you pay the ticket it goes to the contractor. If you go to court you pay the city. Get it yet? Court cost $250.00 win or loose. $50 to the contractors. Do the math. What a scam! Knoxville you sure are losing business! Who wants to go to a place that scams people!

First the scamera side says it is for safety: LIE, since most of the "violations" are techincal fouls like non dangeorus right turns on red, stopping over the stop line, and split second mistakes. In the meantime most RLV crashes are plus 5 seconds into red and have secondary themes a RLC are USELESS AT STOPPING! (DUI, fleeing police not paying attention, medical/mechanical).

Then the SCAMERA side says the public "supports" RLC. Using polls like the one in Houston that said the public wanted the scameras. The only problem was the VOTERS BANNED THE RLC THE NEXT MONTH! Then the scamra side says they will respect the "results", but in Houston and in places like Wasthington State the scamera side is TR YING TO OVERTURN THE PUBLIC VOTE! Next we have Studies like that IIHS FRAUD study, read latest blasting of it: Now we have the scamera side RESORTING to CENSORING SPEECH! (and I haven't even mentioned the Astro Turf the scamera side pays for to give the illusion of support either!) FIGHT THE SCAM! Ban the CAMS! LET THE PEOPLE VOTE! THIS IS A DEMOCRACY! NOT A SCAMERA COMPANY FIFEDOM!

www.motorists.org
www.banthecams.org
www.camerafraud.com
www.bancams.com

also check out Anti TN CAMERA SITES:
http://www.facebook.com/killtncams
http://www.facebook.com/MJCameras
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Take-Down-the-Murfreesboro-Traffic-Cameras/175910999111368
http://naturaltreasure.net/scameras/

have you ever wonder why the videos have no sound? with audio sound it could interfere the scam. so the scameras need to have the ability to slow down or speed up the video and make your car look like it was going faster than what it actually was. We were not born yesterday, that is how they made knight rider KITT look going fast in the movies, but they added separate engine sound, and that is how they're making peoples cars going faster and not stopping long enough, who's to say they're using the same technology? they could speed up a small fraction of your speed just to say you didn't stop long enough and you cannot remember if you did make that small stop

When you go before the judge, ask him if he's sworn to uphold the Constitution. Know his reply? "I'm not the one on trial here!" Then walk away because he gave his answer and it's a prejudiced court. Oak Ridge cops can park in the Wal-Mart fire lanes, they can pull up signs, and speed on the roads without flashing lights. That's OK because they're taxing YOU! Move out of town and let it die! In Brazil, they BURN these things down to the ground. THEY know freedom. The SHEEPLE here don't! Ignore the red light tickets and the cameras will go away as they are no longer a cash cow...

---

Anti-traffic camera activists wage sign wars with Oak Ridge officials

Knoxville News Sentinel

OAK RIDGE - "Kill Traffic Cameras. Obey the Constitution."

Anti-surveillance camera activists in Oak Ridge, including Kay Williamson, continue to put the black-and-yellow signs next to busy city streets.

Over the weekend, city police removed more than 50 of the signs, placed hours earlier. They read: "Kill Traffic Cameras. Obey the Constitution."

City Manager Mark S. Watson called the placing of the signs "a stealth move over the weekend."

He said other signs in violation of city ordinances - including those touting low-cost mortgages, gravel contractors and diet come-ons - were also removed.

"It kind of triggered us looking at everything," Watson said.

Williamson disagrees. She said the city has selectively removed only the anti-traffic cameras sign and ignored other posted notices placed in city right-of-ways.

"They have repeatedly targeted my signs," she said.

She's a member of the Tennessee Liberty Alliance. That organization, she says, seeks to "make sure our rights and liberties are not walked on by the government.''

Comments

I'm just explaining the rationale. The 6th Amendment guarantees your right to confront witnesses against you. In the case of a traffic camera, there is no witness to confront. I've raised the point about a home surveylence system in response to that. The home owner is the witness in that case. There's also a 4th amendment requirement for an oath to be taken before warrants are issued. The point made here is, there is actually a two witness requirement. The arresting officer (4th amendment) and the citizen witness (6th amendment). One's missing from the equation.

This is beginning to get into common law territory as covered by the 7th amendment. There is no victim. Common law basically says, there must be a victim for there to be a crime. On the surface, that isn't so bad of an idea. But, for the sake of argument, I brought up a scenario of someone speeding in a subdivision where my children play. In that case, I'm the witness when I complained, and if an officer stays there and catches the speeder, he has the probable cause supported by an oath or affirmation.

I think the primary complaint a lot of people have is, no person is present. The devices are purely mechanical. A machine can't use discretion. This brings up due process concerns. (5th Amendment)

in response to TennVol01: You hit the nail on the head. Plus, traffic light cameras are now the norm all around the U.S. and many other Westernized countries. They are not going away. They have proven to save money by not needing more traffic control officers, but most importantly they save on accidents and save lives.

BULL #$%@ Congressman Duncan sent out a letter to his district listing 'several' studies that said the cameras increased rear end collisions by a larger percentage than the T-Bone collisions they prevented (in case you do not understand - they increased accidents). They serve only one purpose - $$$$$$$$

The U.S. Judicial system was founded on the belief that all are innocent until proven guilty. The way these cameras are used you are guilty unless you go to court and prove your innocence. That is what makes them unconstitutional.

So, by that reasoning, parking tickets are also unconstitutional?

Concur with Apocrypha. It is not about safety, it is about revenue. It doesn't take much research to dismiss the safety rational.

If you are stopped by the police for the same violation, it is a criminal offense. Which means you are entitled to Constitutional protections. These include a trial by jury and a right to confront your accuser. The government makes the traffic camera offense a civil offense. In other words, your Constitutional Rights do not apply!

Anyone who says these cameras saves lives are truly blind. The companies and the government sell this idea, but in reality are looking for ways to increase revenue! Not one politician who voted for these cameras can say that revenue was not a factor. If he/she does, they are LIARS!

Oak Ridge officials could not tell you if they had an anomalous accident rate at any of the intersections as they perform NO traffic engineering studies. They, like many of municipalities jumped on the low hanging fruit of easy revenue.

Additionally, when the city council voted on the cameras they omitted the fact they are SPEED cameras, too. They essentially lied to their constituents (by omission). Coincidence the camera vote was taken at city election time?

The majority of the citations issued are for SPEEDING…not red light violation. Now, what is the tolerance for the possible differential in speed detection and the operators speedometer? Well, they aren’t telling. Could be 1 mph.

That fact, in and of itself tells you they noting but cheap and easy revenue generators and not utilized for safety.

If you believe a professional politician over thousands of studies around the world ... you are severely ignorant. Do your own research before believing anything a politician tells you. And no ... I am not doing the research for you.

I remember hearing a story about two bored, intelligent (that's usually a bad combination!) children. They took advantage of a local, lucrative speed trap. One child stood a few hundred feet before the speed trap, holding a sign that proclaimed, "WARNING!! SPEED TRAP AHEAD!! SLOW DOWN!!", and waved at passing motorists. (Almost all motorists slowed down.) The other child stood a few hundred feet beyond the speed trap, holding another sign that said "IF YOU DID NOT GET CAUGHT SPEEDING, DONATIONS ACCEPTED HERE!!" The second kid had a plastic bucket for "grateful donations". Reportedly, those kids "cleaned up" that summer, and how! Maybe the woman in Oak Ridge could take some hints from a couple of smart kids who knew how to "play the system".

The reason we've been in two illegal wars for eight years is because no one has had the guts to protest. This protest against infringement of rights is right on. My question, what address can folks across the state donate to support this worthy cause?

Um..last time I checked, we were STILL in Iraq AND Afghanistan. Where, pray tell are those patriotic war protesters now?

Oak Ridge is downright backwards when it comes to traffic control. Case in point: The K-25 plant once employed upwards of 20,000 people in Oak Ridge, served predominantly by the 4 laned Highway 58. Highway 58 by K-25 is even 5 lanes as there is a center turning lane and has been 55 MPH for as long as I can remember, back when 20,000 people a day came and went from the plant. Now there are maybe 1,500 people or so working out there tearing down the place and whatnot and the IDIOTS that are Oak Ridge have LOWERED the speed limit to 45 MPH. Not only have they lowered the speed limit, but it is a full fledged speed trap by K-25 with Oak Ridge Police officers patrolling the area constantly and sometimes in PAIRS! Fair warning folks, these crooks are out to screw us and take our money.

Why would OR want to go there - it is a dying community with struggling businesses already, and it would appear that the managers would want to do everything possible to encourage business traffic...

The people of South Florida are bucking the system by challenging the camera issued tickets in court. It has become such an issue that the cameras are now considered a money pit as it is costing more to defend the tickets in court than what money is gained. Here is a link on how it is going and what they are doing.

Do you have interest in these cameras? You have 235+ posts with half being supportive of these cameras. No ordinary Joe would invest so much time defending them unless they had an interest. Earlier, you stated you were there and saw what was happening with the signs. My bet is you were the one who helped remove them or you are a cop for ORPD. Do the fines go into the general budget, the police budget, or the police retirement? If it is not about revenue, place 100% of the funds in the schools. Anytime there is a shortfall is expected in revenue. You can bet a study is being started to find the next enforcement area!

Have seriously considered moving out of Knoxville because of these cameras. I'm mortified when my out of town guests are sent bills when they visit my house. And my book club has purposely NOT patronized Market Square for dinners anymore b/c several girls have gotten tickets en route in the past. It certainly leaves a disgusting taste of the City of Knoxville in my mouth.

To those that make the argument that this automated surveillance is fine, because if you aren't breaking any laws, you don't have anything to worry about. If we take the same thought process, I assume it's okay if authorities open your mail and wire tap your phone? After all, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you shouldn't care, right?
Granted, the analogy is not perfect, because the mail and your phone is a more private setting than a camera at an intersection, which is very public. But what if the next camera has a high powered lens on it and it looks in your living room window, or bedroom? Or they put a GPS device on your car, so they can track you everywhere, or they check what you've been reading at the library. Privacy and government invasion of that privacy is a very slippery slope....a slope that should not be greased with incrementalism, which is what we seem to be doing here.

Personally, having been victimized by a Knoxville red light camera for not coming to a "complete enough" stop before turning right, I think the red light cameras are a low life, money grubbing, POS way for the government to take money out of my pocket.

Many cities are changing the "turn on red" law. Don't know when it will get to this area.

Typical damn tea party fan! Your rights and liberties include obeying the laws, maintain the speed limit and stop on red and you will have no problems.

He is probably one of the 2 people the scameras employ in the area for tech support!

Yeah, they've created a couple tech support jobs and eliminated a multiple more much needed traffic cop jobs. The next time I get caught by a traffic cop I'm going to show my appreciation for a real human being looking me in the face, instead of a spy camera mail citation.

Okay you fail to answer the questions. I can take the insults because they come from a keyboard. Hopefully not a keyboard owned by a government employer. You have an intimate knowledge of the cameras and the process. Again, no ordinary Joe would invest in half of their online comments without having a personal interest. Just answer the questions.

How many of these camera advocates would allow “big brother” to install enhanced GPS units that tracked every possible violation, every rolling stop, every single MPH over the speed limit, every turn signal violation, every illegal lane change? Then at the end of the month, the owner gets a citation. Just like that. Let me guess, bring’em on, you’re all perfect drivers. Ironically, that is not out of the question. If you told someone 30 years ago RCL would be as prevalent as they are most would have laughed and said the people would stand for it. Now, how about that camera on the light post trained on your front porch?

It's sad to see what Oak Ridge has become. It used to be a special place. Now Oak Ridge is just a dump. I'd rather live in Clinton, Oliver Springs, Harriman, or any of the surrounding communities.

Oak Ridge pays a fee to the company that owns these cameras. "A FEE SYSTEM IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL" No one has attacked Oak Ridge over this and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled all fee systems unconstitutional back in the late 70's. A city can own the cameras and use them but they can't pay a fee per ticket and fine to a company for leasing them. Why no one sees this I'll never know. Maybe I should contact Kay and give her some ammo. Her phone isn't listed. F.Y.I. would the city have to pay back all the money they have collected if I am correct? I wonder>>:):):)

Many of you sound like insurance agents. Will our rates get cheaper the longer the cameras are up? I don't think so. Do you drive 55 in the left lane? Here is a one finger salute to you for that too.

Folks, Oak Ridge has always been a town willing to milk it's residents for money no matter the cause. It's a dried up city just waiting for a good breeze to blow it away. The goverment money has gone away, the outlying areas refuse to be annexed, they can't figure a way to tax the drug dealers in the Valley. All thats left is to levy fines as the Outback and IHOP workers drive to and fro. The only benefit to living there is the free coffee and donuts at the Shell if your a city cop ;)

I wouldn't drive through Oak Ridge unless I had some sort of emergency that made it necessary. Excessive punitive measures for petty "crimes" is a problem, especially considering the violent crime and drug dealing that is going on.

Well put. If I may suggest, the fact it's a civil penalty just shifts the applicable clause to the 7th amendment. Whether or not courts follow it, is entirely another matter, but Constitutionally, if the ticket is more than $20, you have 7th amendment protection. I'd like someone to demand a jury trial, citing the 7th amendment, before agreeing to pay. That would probably give the court a fit. I may also add to your last paragraph, it's about slick salesmen. If it was purely revenue, you wouldn't see these lame deals where the company placing the camera gets 10 times as much money as the city in which the camera is placed.

I agree. I will not go to Oak Ridge because they obviously don't want my business.They do absolutely nothing to encourage it. They do not want contractors from Knoxville to build there.Most Knox County contractors long ago gave up on the Oak Ridge codes people. It really is a dead or dying town that is increasingly being populated by Mexican gangs. But anyway you cut the mustard, the redlight cameras are simply a source of revenue for cash strapped cities.End of story.

I would be happy to donate some money to a group that is fighting this.

Please don't remove the "Obama" signs, everyone needs to know who the idiots are.

Wonder where all those Police State lovers come from:

Cyberwar Revealed: Air Force ordered software to manage army of fake virtual people

---

Arizona State Appeals Court Photo Radar Decision

Full text of the 1992 Arizona State Appeals Decision forbidding the mailing of speed camera tickets.

In 1992, the Arizona State Appeals Court ruled that mailing of speed camera tickets to motorists violated the law. It required "personal service", that is, hand delivery, of any violation.

Jeffrey J. TONNER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PARADISE VALLEY MAGISTRATE'S COURT and Hon. Lester Penterman, a magistrate thereof, Town of Paradise Valley, a municipal corporation, and the State of Arizona, Defendants-Appellants

No. 1 CA-CV 90-429
Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, Department C
171 Ariz. 449; 831 P.2d 448; 1992 Ariz. App.
May 12, 1992, Filed

JUDGES: Bolton, Judge.1 Contreras, P.J., and McGregor, J., concur.

OPINIONBY: BOLTON

Defendants-appellants appeal from a superior court judgment vacating an order of civil sanction entered by the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court on a civil traffic complaint issued to plaintiff-appellee Jeffrey Tonner. Appellee filed a special action in superior court to vacate the order of civil sanction, arguing that the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court lacked personal jurisdiction when it entered a default judgment against him. The superior court judge found that service by mail under Rule 4.1(c) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (formerly Rule 4(e)(7)) was not completed prior to entry of judgment and that the judgment entered was void.

On February 11, 1990, the photo radar device operated by the Town of Paradise Valley detected a vehicle registered to General Motors Acceptance Corporation ("GMAC") traveling at an alleged speed of fifty-six miles per hour in a forty mile per hour zone. A summons and Arizona traffic ticket and complaint were mailed to GMAC alleging a violation of Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. ("A.R.S.") @ 28-701 (1989), driving at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent. GMAC forwarded the summons and complaint to appellee and his wife, the lessees of the vehicle. GMAC also sent the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court a copy of its transmittal letter to appellee. The summons and Arizona traffic ticket and complaint were reissued, naming Tonner as defendant and the vehicle's driver at the time of the alleged violation of section 28-701.

On March 7, 1990, a copy of the summons and Arizona traffic ticket and complaint and two copies of the notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint were sent by first-class mail to appellee with a return, postage-paid envelope. The summons directed appellee to appear on March 22, 1990, in the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court. Appellee never signed and returned the notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint nor did he appear on March 22, 1990. On that date, based on appellee's failure to appear, the allegations of the complaint were deemed admitted, and an order of civil sanction was entered against him. The Town of Paradise Valley argues on appeal that use of first-class mail for delivery of a summons and complaint is sufficient for service and to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendants in civil traffic matters. We disagree.

The requirements for service under Rule 4.1(c) are clear. A summons and complaint may be served by first-class mail along with two copies of a notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint and a postage-paid return envelope, but service is not complete until the acknowledgment of receipt is executed. Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4.1(c)(1), (2). If the acknowledgment of receipt is not executed, service is not complete under this method even if there is evidence that the summons and complaint were received. See Worrell v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 845 F.2d 840, 841-42 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 907, 109 S.Ct. 3191, 105 L.Ed.2d 699 (1989). Until service is complete, no personal jurisdiction is obtained, and any judgment entered is void. Endischee v. Endischee, 141 Ariz. 77, 79, 685 P.2d 142, 144 (App.1984); Kadota v. Hosogai, 125 Ariz. 131, 134, 608 P.2d 68, 71 (App.1980).

Appellant argues that requiring execution of the acknowledgment of receipt creates a conflict with A.R.S. @ 28-1076 (1989) because that statute requires the civil traffic complaint to state a time and place for appearance before the magistrate, and if the person summoned fails to appear, the allegations of the complaint will be deemed admitted, a judgment in favor of the State will be entered, and a civil sanction will be imposed. We find no conflict between Rule 4.1(c)(2) and A.R.S. @ 28-1076. Section 28-1076(D) provides that a "person served with a civil traffic complaint" must appear at the time directed or "the allegations in the complaint shall be deemed admitted and the court shall enter judgment for this state." (Emphasis added.) To serve a civil traffic complaint, the State must comply with A.R.S. @ 28-1073 (1989), which requires service "by delivering a copy of the uniform traffic complaint citation to the person charged with the violation or by any means authorized by the rules of civil procedure." A.R.S. @ 28-1073(A).

Appellant attempted service by mail under Rule 4.1(c) by complying with the requirements of Rule 4.1(c)(1). Without a defendant's voluntary complaiance with the requirements of Rule 4.1(c)(2), service is not complete, and no personal jurisdiction over a defendant is achieved. In that event, a plaintiff may attempt service by any other method authorized by Rule 4.1 with the costs of service shifted to the defendant who failed to execute and return the acknowledgment of receipt. Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4.1(c)(3). Nothing in section 28-1073(A) eliminates or modifies any steps required to complete service. Section 28-1076(A)'s requirement that the summons state a time and place for appearance and section 1076(D)'s provision that failure to appear shall be deemed an admission of the allegations in the complaint, requiring the court to enter judgment for the State and impose a civil sanction are not inconsistent with the rules for service by mail or the rules for service by any other means authorized by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant's recourse when a defendant fails to execute the acknowledgement of receipt is to continue the hearing and serve the complaint by some other authorized method. See Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4.1(c)(3). Until the magistrate's court obtains personal jurisdiction, it has no power to enter an order of civil sanction against a defendant. See Endischee, 141 Ariz. at 79, 685 P.2d at 144; Kadota, 125 Ariz. at 134, 608 P.2d at 71.

We agree with the superior court judge that the order of civil sanction entered against appellee by the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court is void for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm the judgment of the superior court.

Footnotes

1. Note: The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge, was authorized to participate in the disposition of this matter by the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court pursuant to article 6, section 3 of the Arizona Constitution.

See also:

Red light cameras plagued by problems across South Florida - Red light cameras have become a legal nightmare for cities across South Florida. It's costing taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars to defend camera-related citations in court with the result being that some cities are spending thousands more than they are collecting in fines. The state Legislature is considering pulling the plug. The networks of traffic cameras installed from Pembroke Pines to Fort Lauderdale have failed to live up to promises that thousands of drivers would be caught running red lights and that cities would collect millions of dollars in fines. An increasing number of drivers are fighting their tickets and winning. Courts in Palm Beach and Broward counties have stunned city officials with rulings that severely limit enforcement. Cities have been forced to devote extra attorneys and cops to pursue tickets, and to readjust budgets as reality overtakes their once rosy projections about fines. "The rulings have been going against us, and it's been very labor-intensive for our department," Fort Lauderdale Police Chief Frank Adderley said.

Red light cameras a bust for greedy South Florida cities - To see how the new laws have impacted the cameras, you only have to look at the stats for the northbound camera at US1 and Hallandale Beach Boulevard. That camera was a cash cow for Hallandale Beach last year, generating $1.2 million in fines for the first six months of 2010, before the new law went into effect. The camera snapped an average of 2,000 violations a month, with 93 percent for improper right turns. Things have gotten a lot leaner lately. For January 2011, only 72 citations were triggered by the camera, 49 for right turns and 23 for straight-ahead violations. The camera produced only $10,838 in revenue in January. Too bad, so sad.

---

Today, while attempting to update the article on David Soloman, to add the missing link to his USDOT report that speeding is six times safer than driving a speed limit, the Dragonator was banned by jewish porn pimps at Wikipedia. Proof that Wikipedia is both censored and inaccurate, essential elements for mind control by the Juice, especially regarding their Commie Jew World Oder's Police State to overthrow USA.

THE DRAGONATER WINS IN TRAFFIC COURT AT DEALS GAP, RAISES SPEED LIMIT TO 65 MPH ON THE DRAGON - NOLLE PROSEQUI BY BLOUNT COUNTY ATTORNEY GENERAL. NO TESTIMONY, HEARING NOR TRIAL WHATSOEVER. 60 MPH SPEEDING TICKET DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, COSTS PAID BY THE STATE, IN BLOUNT COUNTY GENERAL SESSIONS COURT WITH JUDGE BREWER. THP TROOPER RANDALL HUCKEBY ADMITTED ON VIDEOTAPE DURING TRAFFIC STOP THAT ALL SPEEDING TICKETS NORTHBOUND ON US129 AT MILE MARKER 0.5 ARE FEDERAL JURISDICTION, NOT STATE JURISDICTION (VIDEO BY THE DRAGONATER). TDOT ADMITTED IN WRITING THAT THE MANDATORY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SURVEY SPEED AUDIT WAS NEVER PERFORMED, IN VIOLATION OF TN CODE, THUS THE POSTED 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT ON THE DRAGON REVERTS TO THE DEFAULT 65 MPH IN TN CODE. THE DRAGONATER ALSO MADE VIDEO OF TROOPER HUCKEBY SPEEDING UP TO 60 MPH ON THE DRAGON IN A 30 MPH ZONE, WITHOUT MANDATORY EMERGENCY LIGHTS NOR SIREN, IN VIOLATION OF TN CODE, AND PERJURY IN HIS PERSONNEL FILE, WHICH SHOWED HIS $100,000+ SALARY. 2007 TDOT SAFETY AUDIT REPORT CONFESSED THAT THP'S JOB IS TO BAN ALL COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES ON THE DRAGON, SO THP TICKETS INCREASED 11,400% IN BLOUNT COUNTY. THP'S STALKER RADAR OPERATOR MANUAL CONFESSED THAT RADAR CANNOT MEASURE THE SPEED OF VEHICLES WITHIN 18 MPH OF ACTUAL SPEED. WATCH THIS SPACE FOR FULL EVIDENCE FILE. UPDATE 7 MARCH 2011

Highlander Fire and Blair Witch

Third or fourth arson this week in Spring City TN... While speaking to local residents, State Forest Service employees admitted setting at least two of the fires, including burning down a vacant house in Wolf Creek "for training purposes". Notice how the corporate news reports them as accidental "wildfires under investigation" for arson...

The majority of the latest forest fire was a controlled-burn backfire, that burned 100s of acres owned by the political Van Hilleary family, nearly burning down their abandoned mansion. Insurance claim?

The toothless firebugs at the Forest Service "forgot" to tell area 911 Dispatch, Police, Sheriff, Fire Departments, news repeaters and terrorized residents that this was an intentional "controlled-burn"... Notice how firemen don't carry fire extinguishing equipment, only flamethrowers:

































UPDATE:




Devil dog hanged with a dog leash near the latest fire...






Blair Witch haunting the old Van Hillary mansion...in Hell!

---

Fires burn near S.C.

Author: Michael Reneau
Source: Rhea Herald-News
02/22/2011

Firefighters have been battling wild fires near Grandview Mountain for several days, and local law enforcement is investigating the cause of those fires.

Tennessee Forestry Division Technician Russell Roberts said Tuesday that his agency is battling a 125-acre fire that spans from the Cawood Road area west to Possum Trot Road at the foot of Grandview Mountain.

He said the blaze is proving tricky in that no roads give firemen access to the blaze. Roberts said even bulldozers are having a hard time reaching the fire.

To fight brush fires forestry agents clear trees and underbrush around the fire, leaving nothing to burn so the fire will snuff itself out.

As of Tuesday afternoon the blaze was about 100 feet away from any houses, which Roberts said was a fairly safe distance.

Roberts and other forestry technicians fought a 55-acre fire at the end of last week near Highway 68 in the Grandview area as well. It took them two days to extinguish that blaze.
Roberts said the nooks and crannies near the ridgeline complicate the firefighting.

"When you get in these mountains you've got all these bluff lines," he said.

Roberts said brush fires usually crop up in early spring, but these fires are two-to-three weeks early, he said.

"We just need to catch up on our rainfall levels," he said.

County firefighters have been on hand as back up. Assistant Rhea County Fire Chief Chuck Kinney said county firefighters primarily provide backup but step up when buildings are in danger.

Rhea County Chief Deputy John Argo said the sheriff's department is investigating the cause of the fires and suspects it may be arson.

"We're checking in to see what we can find out," he said.

Michael Reneau can be contacted at michael.reneau@rheaheraldnews.com.

Fair use for non-commercial news commentary and archive cache per 17 US Code 107.

---

Early morning fire in Rhea County damages home

WRCB Staff
Feb 21, 2011

SPRING CITY, RHEA COUNTY, TN (WRCB) Firefighters in Rhea County spent Monday morning battling a house fire.

The call came in around 2:30 of a vacant house fire at 3020 Ideal Valley Road in Spring City.

When the Wolf Creek Fire Department and the Spring City Emergency Response Team responded they found the house fully involved.

No injuries were reported.

The cause of the fire is under investigation.

Fair use for non-commercial news commentary and archive cache per 17 US Code 107.

---

See also:

60 firemen arrested for arson in Georgia

Blair Witch Michael Vick forest fire arson pyromania pyromaniac Vietnam War kill dog torture Wiccan Satanic Satanism Molech Bohemian Grove RSPCA PETA dog fighting animal cruelty

The Police State is now a work of art

Audio: The Police State Is Now A Work Of Art by Pastor Texe Marrs PhD, Capt USAF Intelligence, author of millions of books.

---

Is America Becoming a Police State?

by REP. RON PAUL MD
Winner of the 2012 and 2008 CPAC Presidential Poll

In 2002 I asked my House colleagues a rhetorical question with regard to the onslaught of government growth in the post-September 11th era: Is America becoming a police state?

The question is no longer rhetorical. We are not yet living in a total police state, but it is fast approaching.

The seeds of future tyranny have been sown, and many of our basic protections against government have been undermined. The atmosphere since 2001 has permitted Congress to create whole new departments and agencies that purport to make us safer- always at the expense of our liberty. But security and liberty go hand-in-hand.

Members of Congress, like too many Americans, don't understand that a society with no constraints on its government cannot be secure. History proves that societies crumble when their governments become more powerful than the people and private institutions.

Unfortunately, the new intelligence bill passed by Congress two weeks ago moves us closer to an encroaching police state by imposing the precursor to a full-fledged national ID card.

Within two years, every American will need a "conforming ID to deal with any federal agency -- including TSA at the airport. Undoubtedly many Americans and members of Congress don't believe America is becoming a police state, which is reasonable enough. They associate the phrase with highly visible symbols of authoritarianism like military patrols, martial law, and summary executions.

But we ought to be concerned that we have laid the foundation for tyranny by making the public more docile, more accustomed to government bullying, and more accepting of arbitrary authority -- all in the name of security. Our love for liberty above all has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacy that would have been abhorred just a few years ago.

We tolerate inconveniences and infringements upon our liberties in a manner that reflects poorly on our great national character of rugged individualism. American history, at least in part, is a history of people who don't like being told what to do. Yet we are increasingly empowering the federal government and its agents to run our lives.

Terror, fear, and crises like 9-11 are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people.

The loss of liberty, we are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary. Many citizens believe that once the war on terror is over, restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. But this war is undeclared and open-ended, with no precise enemy and no expressly stated final goal. Terrorism will never be eradicated completely; does this mean future presidents will assert extraordinary war powers indefinitely?

Washington DC provides a vivid illustration of what our future might look like. Visitors to Capitol Hill encounter police barricades, metal detectors, paramilitary officers carrying fully automatic rifles, police dogs, ID checks, and vehicle stops. The people are totally disarmed; only the police and criminals have guns.

Surveillance cameras are everywhere, monitoring street activity, subway travel, parks, and federal buildings. There's not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain -- anything goes if it's for government-provided safety and security.

After all, proponents argue, the government is doing all this to catch the bad guys. If you don't have anything to hide, they ask, what are you so afraid of?

The answer is that I'm afraid of losing the last vestiges of privacy that a free society should hold dear.

I'm afraid of creating a society where the burden is on citizens to prove their innocence, rather than on government to prove wrongdoing.

Most of all, I'm afraid of living in a society where a subservient populace surrenders its liberties to an all-powerful government.

It may be true that average Americans do not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. Americans remain tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing total government supervision is necessary and helpful, and because they still enjoy a high level of material comfort.

That tolerance may wane, however, as our standard of living falls due to spiraling debt, endless deficit spending at home and abroad, a declining fiat dollar, inflation, higher interest rates, and failing entitlement programs. At that point attitudes toward omnipotent government may change, but the trend toward authoritarianism will be difficult to reverse.

Those who believe a police state can't happen here are poor students of history.

Every government, democratic or not, is capable of tyranny.

We must understand this if we hope to remain a free people.

Gun-toting mother of 3 WINS $70M lawsuit vs cops

Update: Town of Southampton Defaults in Gemovese Lawsuit


Video link

Holy fucking shit! Now that's what I call knocking the heads off Gangsta Govt.

This sounds a lot like the Clifford Clark case in Knoxville TN, driving with a legal unloaded rifle seized by an illegal search of his vehicle, thousands in property illegally stolen by police, "terrorist" charges invented out of thin air, police destroyed all evidence in the case, all charges dismissed after cops confessed to shooting the red-light camera, and the foreign camera contractor fired for "suspected bribery and contract fraud".

---

Mother of 3 Arrested for Taking Pictures of Tourist Attraction at Airport Wednesday

LongIslandLawyerBlog.com
February 16, 2011

This case is a frightening example of what can happen when a photographer encounters ignorant bullies with badges. According to the complaint filed in Federal Court, Nancy Genovese, a mother of three, was driving home on County Road 31 past Gabreski Airport in Suffolk County. Gabreski Airport displays a decorative helicopter shell by the roadway to the public, which is visible to all who pass by.

Nancy Genovese stopped her car on the side of the road across the street from the airport in an area that is open and accessible to the public, and crossed over the road to the airport entryway that is also open and accessible to the public to take a picture of the helicopter display. While still in her car, she took a picture of the decorative helicopter shell with the intention of posting it on her personal “Support Our Troops” web page.

As Nancy Genovese was preparing to drive away, she was stopped and approached by Robert Iberger, a lieutenant with the Southampton Town Police. Lieutenant Iberger demanded to know why she was taking photographs. Nancy showed the lieutenant her camera, but Lieutenant Iberger grabbed her camera and handled it “without care”. In an attempt to prevent the lieutenant from damaging the camera, Nancy removed her memory card, which Lieutenant Iberger confiscated. To date, Nancy’s memory card still has not been returned to her.

Lieutenant Iberger demanded that Nancy remain where she is, and he refused to allow her to leave. At this time, Lieutenant Iberger notified the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office and the authorities at Gabreski Airport of Nancy’s presence outside the airport, and falsely and wrongfully informed them that she posed a terrorist threat.

Suffolk County Deputy Sheriff Robert Carlock responded to the scene, along with various members of the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office. When Deputy Carlock arrived, he placed cameras on the roof of his vehicle, aimed at Nancy Genovese and her 18 and 20 year old sons who had come to the scene at this point to help their mother. Deputy Carlock ordered all three of them to stand directly in front of the cameras, and not to move.

Officials from the airport, as well as other local and federal law enforcement agencies also responded, including, without limitation, the Southampton Police Department, the Westhampton Police Department, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security. Nancy was questioned on the side of the road for approximately five to six hours, from about 6pm until midnight, denied food or water, and denied the opportunity to use a restroom, all without having received any warnings as to her rights.

Nancy Genovese also had a left lower leg injury just above her ankle that she had received earlier in the day and which, exacerbated by the stress and length of her roadside detention, was causing her to limp. When the officers saw this, they ordered her to expose her wound, which was bleeding, for no legitimate purpose, and with no regard for Nancy’s health or well-being. Members of the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office used Nancy’s leg wound as another object to taunt her with, telling her that they were going to arrest her for an unreported knife wound.

Here’s where the story takes an interesting twist, and why I believe Nancy’s situation hasn’t received more press coverage. Before arriving at the airport to take a picture, earlier that day Nancy had been to the local shooting range with her rifle practicing her hobby, target shooting. During the first hour of questioning, Lieutenant Iberger searched Nancy’s vehicle, without her consent, and came across her unloaded rifle, which Nancy was legally carrying, in a locked case. Now some people throw up their arms (no pun intended) at this point, and say, “what does she want, she brought a rifle to the airport!”, but I would like to remind everyone that it is perfectly legal to drive around with an unloaded rifle in your car. Yes. Really. And Nancy did not enter the airport, she was parked alongside a public roadway. It is important to remember that no matter how you feel about firearms, nothing that Nancy did violated any laws.



Using force, Lieutenant Iberger pushed Nancy Genovese when she objected to the seizure of her rifle. Deputy Carlock taunted Nancy, asking in a disparaging tone, “You’re a real right winger, aren’t you?”, and stating in words or substance that she was never going to see her rifle again.

During the remainder of the six hours that Nancy Genovese was forcibly detained on the side of the road, she was taunted, verbally harangued, threatened, belittled, abused, humiliated and harassed by members of the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office. For example, Deputy Carlock repeatedly referred to Nancy as “a right winger” and “tea bagger”, and threatened that they were going to arrest her for terrorism to make an example of her to other “tea baggers” and “right wingers”.

Around midnight, officials from the airport and federal law enforcement agencies determined that Nancy posed no terrorist or other security threat. Once most of the other law enforcement officials left the scene, Deputy Carlock ordered Nancy Genovese to be handcuffed by another member of the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office. Before placed in handcuffs, Nancy attempted to give her purse containing her wallet and cell phone to her sons. Her wallet contained approximately $13,000 in cash, money she was holding to pay tuition that day for her son’s college and her daughter’s Catholic school tuition. Deputy Carlock refused to allow her sons to take her bag, and ordered her to leave it on the front seat of her unlocked vehicle, even after being informed of the value of its contents. When Nancy’s sons objected, Deputy Carlock threatened to arrest them if they touched it, and ordered them to leave the scene. Not knowing what to do, they left.

When Nancy’s sons responded to a call from the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office in the early morning hours to pick up their mother’s vehicle from the roadside, they found $5,300 of the $13,000 missing. The money was never returned. In addition, the contents of the glove compartment box was missing, and there was damage to the body of the car, particularly around the trunk.

Around midnight, after her sons were ordered to leave upon threat of arrest, Nancy was transported, in handcuffs, to the Suffolk County Jail. While in a holding cell, Deputy Carlock continued to verbally harass Nancy, telling her “you will pay”, and admitting that they had nothing to charge her with, but that he would “find something in order to teach all right wingers and tea baggers a lesson.”

While in her holding cell, Nancy Genovese was interrogated by Suffolk County Undersheriff Caracappa without receiving any warnings as to her rights. Her requests to speak to a lawyer were ignored. Following her “interrogation”, Undersheriff Caracappa informed her that she was being arrested and charged with “terrorism.”

At this point, Nancy requested medial treatment for her bleeding and painful left leg. After several requests, and several hours later, she was taken to the Peconic Bay Medical Center by male members of the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office, and handcuffed to a bed. A sonogram was performed on Nancy’s left leg from her ankle to her inner groin, requiring her to disrobe. Despite her and the doctor’s request for them to turn away, the two male Suffolk Deputies insisted on staring at Nancy while she disrobed, further humiliating her. She was prescribed antibiotics, and discharged back to the Suffolk County Jail, with instructions on proper care for her leg wound.

Once back at the jail, the Suffolk County Sheriffs denied her access to her antibiotics, and denied her proper care of her leg wound. This caused a serious and painful staph infection to develop.

The following morning, Nancy Genovese was briefly questioned at the Suffolk County Jail by two FBI agents. No federal complaints or charges were ever brought against Nancy. That same day, Nancy was transported in handcuffs and ankle shackles, with no regard for her ankle wound, to the Southampton Justice Town Court. The driver drove fast and recklessly, intentionally making abrupt turns and laughing. This caused Nancy, who was not secured by a seatbelt, but was instead restrained with her hands cuffed behind her and her ankles cuffed together, to roll about in the back of the vehicle, further exacerbating her leg injury. When she requested that the Deputy Sheriffs secure her with a seatbelt, they laughed at her, and the driver continued to recklessly swerve the vehicle.

Nancy Genovese was brought into the courthouse in handcuffs and leg restraints, and was violently pushed through the door by the Deputy Sheriffs. This added to Nancy’s humiliation, particularly since Nancy knew some of the courthouse employees and other people who were present. Both before and after arriving at the courthouse, Nancy repeatedly requested to speak with an attorney. All of her requests were ignored.

Despite never stepping foot onto airport property, Nancy Genovese was arraigned on a single misdemeanor charge of Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree. She was assigned a Legal Aid Attorney by the Judge. Undersheriff Caracappa and Deputy Carlock intentionally lied to the Judge about the circumstances surrounding Nancy’s arrest, including that she was a terrorist and had surveillance equipment in her car, and the judge set bail in the amount of $50,000.

Due to the excessive amount of bail, Nancy’s children needed more time to come up with the money, so Nancy was returned to the jail. The Legal Aid Attorney assigned to Nancy spoke with the Deputy and Undersheriff, and due to the conversation, directly afterwards informed Nancy that he was no longer her attorney, and that he was going to ask the court to place her on suicide watch.

Once back at the jail, Nancy Genovese was processed, including being issued prison “greens” to wear, and was photographed, fingerprinted, and eye scanned. Members of the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department continuously verbally harassed Nancy. A woman in civilian clothes then interviewed Nancy. The woman told Nancy she was going to be placed in “general population.” During the interview, two men wearing “Suffolk County Emergency Response Team” jackets entered the room. One of them removed Nancy from the room and held her in the hallway outside of the interview room. From there, Nancy heard the woman who had interviewed her arguing with the other man, saying that “She is not suicidal.”

Despite the woman’s protests, Nancy was physically moved by the two men wearing “Suffolk County Emergency Response Team” jackets to another room. There, another woman who identified herself as a nurse administered, without Nancy’s consent, two injections into Nancy’s arm. One of the men held Nancy’s head so that she could not see what was being done, while the other man held Nancy’s arm down. Despite her demands to know what they were doing, no one answered her. Nancy experienced bruising and swelling in her neck and arm long after she was released from custody.

Nancy was then escorted by the two men into a cell area, where she was forced to disrobe and put on a “suicide gown”, consisting of a heavy, jacket-type blanket that fastens around the body with Velcro. Nancy was not permitted to wear undergarments under the blanket. Nancy was required to wear this same “suicide gown” for the next several days. After three days, Nancy was evaluated by a psychiatrist who determined her to be of sound and stable mind, and immediately removed her from suicide watch.

Later that day, bail was posted, and Nancy was able to go home. Subsequently, all charges against Nancy were dismissed.

Upon Nancy’s release, Undersheriff Caracappa issued a press release in response to media inquiries, titled “Armed Woman Arrested for Trespassing at Suffolk County Gabreski Airport”, which falsely stated that Nancy had been taking pictures of the airport and surrounding security”, and that she became hysterical, and began “screaming and flailing around” when confronted. Undersheriff Caracappa also falsely reported that Nancy had surveillance equipment, 500 rounds of ammunition, and “scary weapons” in her car, and that she was a right-wing extremist and terrorist, and that she had been at the airport trespassing several times and had been warned to stay away. Upon further inquiry, it turns out that Nancy had never trespassed at the airport before, had never been warned by anyone to “stay away” before, had no “surveillance equipment” of any kind other than her point and shoot camera, and certainly was not a terrorist. Undersheriff Caracappa has refused to issue a retraction or correction.

Nancy has filed a Federal Lawsuit seeking up to 70 million dollars from the Town of Southampton, the County of Suffolk, Lieutenant Iberger, Undersheriff Caracappa, Deputy Carlock, Lieutenant Leuete, and various other employees of the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department. The lawsuit is still ongoing.

EDITOR’S NOTES:

All of the alleged facts discussed in this article have been taken directly from the court documents filed in this case.

Nancy Genovese was on public property the entire time. At no time did she trespass onto airport property, which is why the trespassing charge (the only charge against her) was dismissed.

Here is the google maps view of the airport entrance, and the helicopter on display.
Although Undersheriff Caracappa released a statement saying that Nancy was previously spotted around the airport in the past and had previously been warned not to return, not a single person can verify his claim. Nancy claims that she was never warned to “stay away” from a public area outside a tourist attraction.

Yes, to some, Nancy’s claims seem far fetched and outrageous. But let’s look at the facts that both sides can agree on. Not a single crime was actually committed by Nancy. Yet, she was held against her will, in an isolated cell, in essentially a straight jacket, with no medical attention, for several days.

---

Sodi lawyer with a sordid past

LongIslandLawyerBlog.com
February 18, 2011

The Town of Southampton has failed to timely file an answer to the Nancy Genovese lawsuit, possibly leaving the taxpayers of the town on the hook for $70 million dollars. A motion for a default judgment has been filed against the Town of Southampton and Town of Southampton Police Officer Robert Iberger, and we are awaiting a decision by the court.

So what happened, and how could the town fail to defend itself against such a large lawsuit?

Michael C. Sordi, the Town Attorney for the Town of Southampton, represents both the town and defendant Robert Iberger, a Town of Southampton Police Officer. He is the attorney responsible for defending both the town and the Southampton Police, but as a result of personal issues, he inadvertently “forgot” to serve an answer. Sordi states in court documents that he telephoned counsel for the Plaintiff the day before his answer was due, advising that his mother was in extremis, and that the doctors treating her had suggested that her death was imminent. He was granted a verbal two week extension, but did not follow up in writing, as he was en route to his mother’s bedside.

A week later, the Town Attorney’s mother passed away. One week later, the Town Attorney’s 25 year old nephew died suddenly and unexpectedly. Michael Sordi states that over the course of these weeks he was in and out of his office tending to family business and grieving the loss of his family members, and that he quite frankly “forgot” that he had not served an answer in this case. He states “I simply got ‘caught up’ in my personal events and I thought, erroneously, that I had actually served the Answer, when in fact I had forgotten to upon my return to work.”

This has not been the first time that the Town Attorney has missed a deadline. Last year, he failed to timely file a response to a lawsuit against the town by a level 3 sex offender, putting the town at risk for an excessive judgment. Luckily, the delay in that case was positively resolved for the town.

Before Michael Sordi was appointed as the Town Attorney for the Town of Southampton, he was the lead attorney in Nassau County in a high profile federal case involving excessive force by a Nassau County police officer. The county lost the case, and the jury awarded the plaintiff nearly $20 million dollars. Michael Sordi was fired by Nassau County shortly thereafter in December 2009. Republican County Attorney John Ciampoli clamed Mr. Sordi, as the lead council on the case, did not complete any prepatory work for several pretrial motions that needed to be filed. He stated “I would characterize that case as having been grossly mismanaged and mishandled by my predecessors in virtually every way that I could imagine.”

Although town officials were aware of the Nassau County mess, they hired Mr. Sordi anyway. Last Friday, Michael C. Sordi, the Town Attorney for the Town of Southampton, was asked to submit his resignation. As part of his parting package, he will receive one month’s salary (his annual salary was $115,000), compensation for unused vacation and sick days, and the town will pay for his health insurance coverage through May 2011. Mr. Sordi also had the town sign an agreement that the town will “fully, forever, irrevocably and unconditionally” release him from any liability in claims or lawsuits brought against the town.

No word yet on if the taxpayers of the Town of Southampton will be on the hook for the $70 million dollar default judgment.

---

Heavily Armed Glenn Beck Fan & Tea Bagger Arrested at National Guard Base

New York Penal Law Section 140.10 – Criminal Trespass In The Third Degree

A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when he
knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon real
property
(a) which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to
exclude intruders; or
(b) where the building is utilized as an elementary or secondary
school or a children's overnight camp as defined in section one thousand
three hundred ninety-two of the public health law or a summer day camp
as defined in section one thousand three hundred ninety-two of the
public health law in violation of conspicuously posted rules or
regulations governing entry and use thereof; or
(c) located within a city with a population in excess of one million
and where the building or real property is utilized as an elementary or
secondary school in violation of a personally communicated request to
leave the premises from a principal, custodian or other person in charge
thereof; or
(d) located outside of a city with a population in excess of one
million and where the building or real property is utilized as an
elementary or secondary school in violation of a personally communicated
request to leave the premises from a principal, custodian, school board
member or trustee, or other person in charge thereof; or
(e) where the building is used as a public housing project in
violation of conspicuously posted rules or regulations governing entry
and use thereof; or
(f) where a building is used as a public housing project in violation
of a personally communicated request to leave the premises from a
housing police officer or other person in charge thereof; or
(g) where the property consists of a right-of-way or yard of a
railroad or rapid transit railroad which has been designated and
conspicuously posted as a no-trespass railroad zone, pursuant to section
eighty-three-b of the railroad law, by the city or county in which such
property is located.
Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class B misdemeanor.

We read it. I had three different attorneys look at the charge and all had the same response. I ended up retaining a criminal lawyer on Broadway and a civil lawyer on Park Avenue, NYC.

Rather expensive for an “unemployed, single mother of three.” But the truth is I am a retired, single mother of three with a huge savings account from an excellent career. The sheriff thought he arrested a poor welfare mom who could not fight back. Surprise!

I have one charge 140.10 only. I was across the street on the county road in my car. Amazing how rumor can go viral and become so twisted.

Though I appreciate that site and info you posted, the numbers you mention mean nothing in this case as my one official charge is 140.10.

I would hope after over 12 hours of interrogation, the sheriff, grasping at straws for anything he can find to charge a legal citizen with, they would get it right.
It was not until the under sheriff, Caracappa saw my myspace. He didnt like my political views and told me around 3 am I was under arrest.

I don’t do drugs I don’t drink, I have no mental problem, I never in my life lost control, my firearms were transported legally, registered, I have no priors…so what do they do?

Trespassing 3 on the shoulder of a county road? Even the parking signs were in order, they didn’t say no standing.

Trespassing 3 is not a legal charge to arrest someone and further make a smear campaign to smear their good name all over the media.

Thanks for the info, I appreciate it and I like that site you posted.

Regards,
Nancy.

---

Well my friend, I have to thank you for leaving the posts up and our discussions were good. I have good news, I do hope you will let this post go up on the forum;
Today, November 17, 2009, this one charge and the entire case has been DISMISSED. Southampton Justice court, 116 Hampton Road. Southampton NY 11968.

I paid for a trial and the DA dropped the charge. Our country is in a pretty sad state of affairs when something like this can happen to an innocent citizen. More info and contact lists are available at my blog on myspace.

My notices of claim is filed for wrongful arrest and deformation on a timely basis, three weeks ago. Its just too bad the media ran the wrong way with this in an attempt to go after Beck. You have other reasons for boycotting Beck, I am sorry the mainstream media saw it fit to include me in there quest, but in this case they were wrong.

Thanks!

Regards,
Nancy Genovese

---

Cliff Clark had a massive stroke one month after winning his case...