will alexandrian's lay down their civil liberties for their mayor and city council to have another revenue source to steal from?
because thats what it amounts to. in todays public safety / transportation committee meeting, the committee heard from city attorney charles "chuck" johnson, esq. mr. johnson reported that several weeks ago he had requested from the general counsel for redflex "copies of all the contracts that redflex has executed with other municipalities in the state of louisiana, copy of their sec financial disclosure statement and a list of all the pending cases that they have currently in litigation and what the status of each of those is." however, yesterday redflex sent an email to mr. johnson saying that they hadnt compiled that information yet.
as luck would have it we dont currently have a copy of a contract that redflex has with a louisiana muncipality but we do have a copy of the contract that redflex has with the mountains recreation and conservation authority, a public entity of the state of california. and its a doozy. you can download the 31 page .pdf here.
all we had to read was this first "whereas" in the recitals to see how this scam operates. do you see the deception? redflex has EXCLUSIVE "knowlege." this means that the city wont even know what information and databases redflex is compiling on you, who or what they are sharing or selling the information to and you wont be able to find out from the city under a public records request either.
a shocking comment made by the city attorney mr. johnson was when he said that "as soon as redflex can get all that to me (the above mentioned information) i intended to present it to the council IN EXECUTIVE SESSION." now this statement should immediately send up red flags! the first thing you have to ask yourself is why is the city being so secretive? what is the city hiding and what is it about redflex and this spy camera scam that the city doesnt want you to know?
RS 42:6.1 is the statute that governs the exceptions to open meetings. the only possible provision that might apply is 42:6.1A(3) which states: Discussion regarding the report, development, or course of action regarding security personnel, plans, or devices. how could this possibly apply? after all, they're just talking about simple red-light cameras right? you run a red-light and get your picture taken and a citation in the mail right? we're not talking about security protocols for a presidential visit or security measures for the d.g. hunter power plant. or is there a lot more to all this, that the city isnt telling you about and that the city doesnt want you to know? we think its a lot more to it than what the city would have us believe.
you dont have to possess a degree in psychology to figure out that this is all about making money. one clear example is the statements made by councilman louis marshall. you can almost see the dollar signs in his eyes when he goes on about "the reason why i ax'd that this be put in the committee, while i was down in new orleans...listening to the television there...jefferson parish had if iam not mistaken 16,000 tickets paid, only two were contested...this could be something that could be another revenue source for the city." so there ya have it! just like we've maintained all along its about the money. after councilman marshall made the above statement and after a period of time elapsed he must have thought that he should add this bit in just to cover himself "and at the same time you could be making a lot safer for the city..." mmhmm.. now if councilman marshall would have been thinking foremost about safety that would have been what he mentioned first instead of as an afterthought -- because safety, it is an afterthought.
if you really think this bunch whether its the mayor, the city council, the chief of police or redflex really gives one damn about you or your families safety please leave us a comment and let us know what kind of drugs you're on.
speaking of the mayor (and if this guy ever leaves politics he should really go to hollywood and pursue a career in the movies coz hes quite an actor) gave his obligatory spiel against cameras. this was so reminiscent of his little speech he gave against the baggy pants ordinance which you might remember he allowed to become law anyway knowing full well that its wrong. so dont count on hizzoner to come to the rescue and dont pay any attention to what he said coz its all bullshit, just an act and as hes already shown that as long as its politically expedient, he will sell you down the river in a heartbeat.
some think that these cameras only take still pictures. wrong. these are full motion cameras and if you had watched the presentation that redflex representative charlie buckels gave to the city council back in the spring you would have known this. [video here]
so do you really want some perv sitting in a computer room thousands of miles away making rude comments about your wife's ass or your daughter's tits? not to mention where all this video is being stored and shared with.
the bottom line is that this is a colossal scam.
====
includes: Plunging Stock Makes Redflex Desperate for Revenue; Missouri: Mayor Indicted for Taking Red Light Camera Bribe; US Cameras Drive Record Profit for Redflex Australia; Red Light Camera Salesman Convicted of Fraud; California: Push for Speed Cameras Violates Law; Ohio Anti-Camera Bill Moves Australian Stock Market; Modesto, California Red Light Cameras Increase Injuries; California Cities Issuing Fake Red Light Tickets; Louisiana: Petition Drive Calls for Camera Referendum
EXTERNAL LINK
