Only $42.95
+$9.95 S&H

30-Day Money Back Guarantee
*less shipping/restocking fee


All Major Credit
Cards Accepted
David Against the State
   
 

David Against the State

Taking on the Photo Radar Lobby

by Karen De Coster

David is a remarkably diligent businessman from Mesa, Arizona, and his Goliaths are the many arms of the State. David made an enemy of the State because he dared to legally push the boundaries of the police state. He did so during a crusade aimed at the prevention of further regime encroachment into the lives of others. David's story is one of principle and perseverance, as described by Arizona resident Ernest Hancock, the man who was enlisted to assist David with his struggles. Here is David's story.

David's business is producing and selling license plate loovers, heroic devices that preclude photo radar devices from taking legible photos of license plates. His product was designed so that the slant of the loovers would make unreadable any photos taken from an angle of typically twenty-five degrees or beyond, making elevated photo radar cameras ineffectual. And this in turn necessarily alleviates a citation for the driver. The loovers do, however, enable total visibility from street level, at least as far as the 100 feet required by law. Therefore, the police should have no beef you say? Just wait.

Entrepreneurs in the free market act upon the need for products and services, and thus generate technology like that used in photo radar. Inevitably, the market will then create a competing device to produce results for those consumers who desire to isolate the unwanted effects of photo radar. Such is the magnificence of human ingenuity. Such is the glory of David's device.

David, a man with a wife and three children, invested his personal savings in order to produce and market his very legal product. He ran TV commercials to advertise the product, and he put together a website http://loover.com that enables buyers to purchase the loovers online. Sales were brisk, and David's business was taking off, though gaining him a low profit margin in the process. That hardly mattered, as David held dearly the notion that he would forsake earnings in order to combat the highly invasive photo radar campaign of the State.

At Wells Fargo bank, David maintained a merchant bank account for the credit card money deposits from the sales of his product. One day, Wells Fargo elected to freeze David's merchant account with no explanation forthcoming. The bank steadfastly refused to return David's phone calls or e-mails.

According to Ernest Hancock, a local television station in Phoenix called, saying "they had been tipped off that David was committing a fraud by offering the device for free, but charging $14.95 for shipping and handling." In fact, David had started his own company to handle the shipping and handling duties, and incurred hefty expenses due to Federal Express charges, web page upkeep, and charges incurred to his phone ordering company. So profits were insignificant. Yet somehow, David's methods were deemed fraudulent.

Upon the freezing of his account, David immediately contacted Marc Victor, a local lawyer and libertarian activist who has often dealt in freedom issues. According to Mr. Victor, there was not much he could do until David actually received a citation for his device, therefore allowing him to obtain a ruling.

What to do? Call on Ernest Hancock.

Upon Hancock's advice, David began to seek that glorious citation. He did this by driving his car down to the police station with his loover device applied to his license plate. Mesa's Radar Enforcement Department, under the jurisdiction of the Police Department, had agreed to inspect the device. David had a brother come along to videotape the ensuing events. Channel 15 was also present.

Amidst the Channel 15 cameras, a police officer, and a city attorney, the challenge was on. If David was "illegal" he surely would get his citation. Upon examination of David's license plate, the inspecting officer came to a point approximately five feet from the rear of the car where he claimed he could no longer read the plate. Keep in mind the 100-foot visibility law. He made it clear he would issue David a ticket if he was caught using the device on the road.

What followed is a display of ingenuity, egged on by Mr. Hancock in his preparations with David. As Hancock tells it:

David asked if a truck had its tailgate down, then would it be in violation according to the officer. The officer said yes. Many new trucks are advertised as having their tailgates down to allow for more storage, and have a fold-down cage for this. David looked across the police parking lot to see in plain view a truck with its tailgate down, and instructed the officer to make sure that driver got a ticket. The cameras swung around to videotape the truck, and the police knew they were in trouble.

David was instructed to never allow the TV camera to see him taking the loover device off his car since that is exactly what they were hoping to show, in order to claim a victory. David might as well have closed shop if he did that. But getting a ticket was the only way we were going to get a ruling and have some fun, and we were certain to keep this issue in the courts for at least a year or two while the government paid for the time. But we needed the citation to have all of this fun. David told the officer and the Mesa city attorney that he was going to drive out onto the public street and back so that he could get his ticket. Meanwhile his brother was taping the whole thing.

David took his automobile on its leisurely stroll – out into the street and back again. Realizing that they'd been snaked, the police officer and city attorney concurred on the non-issuance of a citation. Since it was sweeps week, Channel 15 took what video they got from David and plugged it on the air: a simple video of his car with the loovers installed and working as promised. David even snuck in a license plate with his web URL, and received 6000-plus hits to his website upon the station running the three-minute spot! The Mesa police Department and City Council reportedly were upset at what they construed to be an ambush by Channel 15. What a joy it is to make bureaucrats squirm!

David's case is clearly one of taking on the ruling regime and paying the price. The regime rules by coercion and overt threats to person and property. It lays down arbitrary laws to which its citizens must submit. And the regime makes sure that all those who challenge it pay a price.

In a related story, a similar situation happened in Denver. Earlier this year a judge had tossed out four photo-radar tickets, citing various illegalities by the Denver Police Department, including allowing the photo radar contractor to send out summons to accused speeders. Judge Mary Celeste said "city law allows only the police department to prepare and send the complaint." According to Denver's ABC affiliate, the judge also said "the system may illegally reward the contractor for the number of photos it takes."

According to the minutes of a January 1998 meeting of the Committee on Transportation for the Arizona House of Representatives, Mesa council member Joan Payne "spoke against photo radar and asserted that Mesa implemented photo radar with the intention of having it serve as revenue enhancement specifically for the police department." Ms. Payne also "asked the Committee to be cognizant of the flow of money and acknowledge the lobbying taking place in support of photo radar (for the cities, vendors, and insurance companies)."

Follow the money, as they say.

Indeed, revenue enhancement has become big business for localities. The revenue scams revolve around changing the timing of yellow lights to nab more folks running red lights; setting up arbitrary speed zones; creating seat belt swindles, such as "Click It or Ticket"; and in general just wreaking havoc on otherwise law-abiding citizens. And the contractors of these devices get in on the goods as well. Quite often, they receive kickbacks based on quota systems set up between them and the local police departments, as Judge Celeste attested to in her ruling.

In this case, the government – and not private commerce – was the impetus for the production of the photo radar devices, not out of proven necessity, but out of a desire to fill its coffers. The message in this story is that the creations of a free market are sanctioned when they benefit the State, but there is hell to pay when entrepreneurial ingenuity encroaches upon the profits nabbed by government regimes at the expense of its citizens. Similarly, exploding technology in the realm of police radar devices is entirely permissible, while many states make radar detection devices illegal and have the power to assess huge fines to drivers for just having them on the dashboard of their car.

To this day, David still has no explanation or solution for the freezing of his bank account, but hopefully this opponent of evil will prevail. Freedom Warriors like Ernest Hancock and Marc Victor are plucky in their efforts to help David stamp out the illegitimate thuggery of those in power.

Like Goliath and the Philistines, the State has camped out on a hill that overlooks David's activities, and its words are clear: dare to kill and defeat us, or surrender your freedom. The biblical David slung his stone and flattened the giant Goliath. David then proceeded to take the giant's sword from its sheath and cut off his head.

[A special acknowledgement goes out to Ernest Hancock ernesthancock@cox.net of Arizona, whose private e-mails inspired the title and provided the details of this story. See Ernest and Marc Victor's FreedomSummit website.]. www.freedomsummit.com


Karen De Coster, CPA, is a freelance writer and Business Consultant in the Midwest. See her website at www.karendecoster.com.



posted on 01/02/2003 9:46:09 AM PST by Sir Gawain

To: AAABEST; Victoria Delsoul; Fiddlstix; fporretto; Free Vulcan; Liberty Teeth; Loopy; Mercuria; ...
-
posted on 01/02/2003 9:46:37 AM PST by Sir Gawain

To: Sir Gawain
Put the camera at eye level, and whatch the fun ,heheheheh
posted on 01/02/2003 10:18:06 AM PST by Boner1

To: Sir Gawain
btttt
posted on 01/02/2003 10:20:25 AM PST by dennisw

To: Sir Gawain
Photo radar pisses me tremendously. Just look how it's used all over the UK without much protest. I hope we never accept it all over the USA. In Florida the laws put the kibosh on this revenue collection scheme.
posted on 01/02/2003 10:25:35 AM PST by dennisw

To: Sir Gawain
From a "stupid people tricks" website:
THE CAMERA WORKED
Ben Ritson writes:
I thought that this would interest you - a true story of Australian stupidity. Most of the other chefs that I work with are into fixing up their cars and hooning them about. One of the young kitchen hands was on his way home one night when he passed a speed camera. A big flash illuminated the dash. He looked at the dash and saw he was going under the speed limit. He made a decision to drive back and test the machinery again. Yet again a flash went off as he drove by. By this stage he was really getting pissed off so he decided to turn around and try the camera yet again, this time driving at a snails pace. Sure enough the camera goes off again.

Deciding it was time to take action into his own hands he pulled over and walked up to the police van and knocked on the side door. "What the hell are you doing? Your camera is on the blink; I wasn't even speeding and I've been past it three times"."

Coolly the officer replied, "No mate, we weren't targeting speeding. We got you three times for not wearing a seatbelt. Expect three fines in the mail."


posted on 01/02/2003 10:36:19 AM PST by Dan Day

To: Sir Gawain
Something wrong with this story. Money frozen by whom? The government or the bank? And they don't have to follow due process? What am I missing? It must be obvious even though I have re-read it.
posted on 01/02/2003 11:06:40 AM PST by Protagoras

To: Sir Gawain
I have somewhat a different take on this after a repeat offender ran a red light and ran into my car. $4,000 worth of damage. He had no insurance because he had a half-dozen accidents in the two years prior to the accident with me. Yea, and I know that there are a lot of people here who are against mandatory car insurance, too. Anyway, I ended up paying the first $500 and MY insurance paid the rest. Somehow that doesn't seem fair to me.

As far as this goes, a policeman can and probably will pull over a person THAT HE PERSONALLY SEES run a red light and give them a ticket. What is the difference between that and having a camera do the witnessing? Anybody who cannot drive responsibly should pay the consequences.

PS. I have read these before and I really don't care WHO is driving the car. If you loan it to someone who breaks the law, you pay. Getting it back from whoever you loaned it to is your responsibility. After all, YOU are the one who made a bad decision on who to loan it to.
posted on 01/02/2003 11:07:25 AM PST by jim_trent

To: jim_trent
PS. I have read these before and I really don't care WHO is driving the car. If you loan it to someone who breaks the law, you pay. Getting it back from whoever you loaned it to is your responsibility. After all, YOU are the one who made a bad decision on who to loan it to.

So, I take it if you loaned your car to someone who then took the vehicle for a high speed dash at, say, 140mph down the straight-away, was caught on a radar/laser controlled camera, and a citation issued to you, the registered owner, you'd be happy to pay the fine and suffer the other consequences for reckless driving, endangerment, et al, and the possible loss of your license because of someone else's irresponsibility? Very big of you. I, on the other hand, would demand my day in court and to confront any witnesses against me as guaranteed by the constitution. Otherwise, it's just another tax.

BTW, sorry about your accident. Lucky you were able to afford insurance. How come you didn't sue the driver and at least get a judgment against him?

posted on 01/02/2003 12:23:08 PM PST by woofer

To: Sir Gawain
David's story is one of principle ...

Helping people break the law is now principle? What a spoiled brat. It just isn't that tough to obey the speed limit.

posted on 01/02/2003 12:53:27 PM PST by aimhigh

To: woofer
> Very big of you.

Not big of me at all. I feel that we are responsible for the damage we cause and if I was the one who loaned a car to an irresponsible individual, I SHOULD pay for the damages. I would be happy about it, but that is the right thing to do. And I sure would not loan out my car again.

I don't consider myself "lucky" to be able to afford car insurance. If you cannot afford it, you should not drive. Next thing you know, you will be suggesting that gas be given to drivers that cannot afford it.

I did not bother suing the scofflaw because he had no net worth. No address, no job, no belongings. The cost of a lawyer would have been mine (it was too large for small claims court), in addition to the cost I had to pay for repairs.
posted on 01/02/2003 2:04:24 PM PST by jim_trent

To: Sir Gawain
Oklahoma City considered some of these same type of devices a couple of years back. When the news broke that the city council had approved the purchase and installation of a few, the citizens and local news affiliates made such comotion that the city council cancled it's order for the devices, and they were not installed.

That my friends is the way our government is designed to function. I'm opposed to these big brother devices, but I'm equally opposed to the individual who decides to break the law because he thinks it isn't just, or isn't constitutional.

posted on 01/02/2003 2:15:53 PM PST by kjam22

To: Sir Gawain
In this case, the government - and not private commerce - was the impetus for the production of the photo radar devices, not out of proven necessity, but out of a desire to fill its coffers. The message in this story is that the creations of a free market are sanctioned when they benefit the State, but there is hell to pay when entrepreneurial ingenuity encroaches upon the profits nabbed by government regimes at the expense of its citizens.

The government has an incredible power to control and browbeat others. The free market should be just that, free from government interference. When the government doesn't like the way the market benefits someone, it passes more and more laws to limit it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

 

   

 

Home  |  Purchase  Online  |  Install Instructions  |  Testimonials   |   Contact Us
Become a Dealer  |  Press Center  |  Disclaimer & Agreement

*The license plate Loover is sold for off-road use only in states where it would be unlawful otherwise.
Copyright © 2002 National Association Against Photo Radar, Inc.
maintained by BetterThanYours.com