24 January 2008

REDFLEX SCAM: the redflex and lafayette consolidated government's fuzzy paper trail

UPDATE: the newspaper.com confirms The Arizona Secretary of State's office is looking at allegations that a photo enforcement vendor falsified the documents used to certify speeding convictions.

startling new evidence suggests a pattern of fraud and deceit on the part of redflex traffic systems, inc. and lafayette consolidated government in the implementation of the pet shop bois crime gangs' redflex scamera revenue stream scheme!
in this latest installment of the redflex scam, we will examine the redflex traffic systems, inc. "deployment form." (page one of the five page .pdf.).

you will notice that the form is signed by one scott michael bernard and dated "10-10-07" (10 october 2007). in 2007, 10 october was a wednesday.

next, we see that immediately beneath mr. bernard's signature the "deployment form" is notarized by an arizona notary and is also dated "10-10-07" (10 october 2007).

as far as we can tell, the exact time of the specific alleged offense that would cause the issue of this "deployment form" is not recorded on the "deployment form" although, the form does note that the speed van's "deployment time" began at "1042" (10:42 am) and ended at "1402" (2:02 pm).

click here to download five page .pdf (175kb)

remembering that mr. scott michael bernard was the operator of the speed van that day -- he was physically in lafayette, louisiana. note the date that the "deployment form" was notarized - the same date. the question is how could mr. bernard have been in lafayette,. louisiana up till at least 2:02 pm cdt and then physically appeared to sign the "deployment form" before the arizona notary on the same date?

the arizona notarial law is clear
click here to download sixty page .pdf arizona notarial handbook from the arizona sec'y of state website

arizona has two types of notarial acts the "jurat" and the "acknowledgment." both require the signer to personally appear before the notary.
arizona notary handbook page 7

208. “Jurat”
A jurat is a notarial act in which the Notary certifies that a signer, whose identity is personally known or is proven by satisfactory evidence, has made in the Notary’s presence a voluntary signature and has taken an oath or affirmation vouching for the truthfulness of the signed document. Some states refer to this as an affidavit. Anytime the words “sworn to before me”, “subscribed and sworn to before be”, or similar words appear in notarial language in the notarial certificate, you must perform a jurat. Because a signer is swearing/affirming that the information is true, there can be no blank spaces on a document. (A.R.S. § 41-311(6))

201. “Acknowledgment”
An acknowledgment is a notarial act in which a Notary certifies that a signer, whose identity is personally known to the Notary or is proven by satisfactory evidence, voluntarily signs a document for its stated purpose. The signer is not required to sign the document in the notary’s presence for an acknowledgment; the signer may pre-sign the document or may choose to sign it in your presence. Because you are attesting to the genuineness of the signature, you may not perform an acknowledgment that will be signed at a later time. Even if a document has been pre-signed, the document signer must be in the Notary’s presence at the time the Notary performs the notarization. (A.R.S. § 41-311(1))
arizona notary handbook page 8

217. What is the difference between a “Jurat” and an “acknowledgment”?

With an acknowledgment, the Notary may or may not watch the person voluntarily make the signature after the signer’s identity is proven to the Notary by means of satisfactory evidence. Keep in mind that the signer must appear before you at the time you complete the acknowledgment.

With a jurat, the signer must also appear before you, AND you must place the signer under oath or affirmation before the signer signs the document. Only for jurats must the signer sign the document in the Notary’s presence. Additionally, a jurat must not contain blanks.

furthermore, a simple search of the arizona sec'y of state notary database, reveals that the notary in this case, cheryl a. krough, "business" is redflex traffic systems, scottsdale, arizona.

this appears to be another violation of arizona notarial law:
page 7 arizona notary handbook:

213. “Party to the instrument”
An instrument is the document, a signature on which you are notarizing. A party to the instrument is someone who is mentioned in the document either by name or by job title or classification or who would have some kind of beneficial or financial interest in the document. If you are a party to the instrument, then you have an interest in the transaction and are no longer an impartial witness; therefore you could not notarize a signature.

206. “Impartial witness”
An impartial witness must have no conflict of interest. This means that, as the Notary, you cannot be a “party to the transaction” or a “party to the instrument” and you cannot have any financial or beneficial interest in the transaction, no matter how small. (A.R.S. § 41-328(B))
lafayetters you're being scammed left and right.

denice skinner offers her thoughts on this:
Please notice the attached documents. I received these from Mr. Abshire this morning when I visited the Abshire brothers on 1330 a.m. KVOL this morning with Todd C. Elliott.

Notice the Deployment Form that he was able to get after his hearing. I believe this is the document he got from the secretary at the Redflex office when the attorney (adjudicator) Mr. Fred Davis and Tony Trammel refused to give it to him citing that they would have to first consult with the City Attorney Mr. Pat Ottinger.

First under authority name (police); it references Lafayette. As you know the Lafayette Police Department is not involved in this matter.

Secondly, please notice all of the “Surveying the Site work” that was done by the Speed Van Operator. Please remember Mr. Buckel’s affidavit (page 5 of .pdf) to Judge Kelly in the Private Investigator case that (and I quote Mr. Buckel’s Verification of Affidavit) …

” Affiant has personal knowledge that the “Redflex Photo Speed System” is fully automated requiring no intervention by the driver after the system is operational and that the drivers of the vans are not a part of the process of detecting and videotaping speeders..... Affiant does further depose that the van drivers merely drive to the designated location and turn on the fully automated Redflex equipment contained therein…”

Please notice under the next section that the speed van operator conducted a tuning fork test. This is interesting for two reasons. First in light of Mr. Buckles’s affidavit but secondly, please notice the attached letter Mr. Abshire received from Multanova about their technology. Paragraph number 3 says no tuning forks are available for this machine. I would suppose it’s because this machine is a lasar and a tuning fork would not be useful.

Finally, please notice that Mr. Bernard signed a statement at the bottom beginning with …”I, being first duly sworn, depose & say….” . Notice the notary seal - she’s a notary in Arizona. How did she notarize this from another state on the same day. And, I am guessing her notary seal does not work in the State of Louisiana. I thought you were required to be in the same physical location as the signatory when you notarized a document. That’s what the rules say in Arizona. And that’s what she says – Subscribed & Sworn to Before Me: (then her signature)

The rules regarding Arizona notaries can be found at this website.

Those are my thoughts.

Denice C. Skinner
in an interesting side note a commenter here mentions the heather roberson versus the town of pollock case. in this third circuit opinion they upheld the trial courts certifying ms. roberson's suit as a class action after the town of pollock, louisiana was caught arresting and ticketing people "for traffic violations occurring on a portion of U.S. Highway 165 subsequently found to not be part of the Town." heather roberson was cited for failure to stop for a school bus on that portion and later filed suit "seeking damages for the Town of Pollock issuing traffic citations to motorists who were traveling on those parts of Highway 165 that were never properly part of the Town of Pollock."
and also
what fools these mortals be
oh look, a speeding camera company falsifying evidence to get a conviction!
related posts
  • video: redflex scam: lafayette hearing
  • feds launch investigation of redflex traffic systems inc; others
  • federal investigation of redflex traffic systems inc launched
  • joey durel and his republican crime gang running lafayette take a new tact with the redflex scam
  • redflex scam: redflex traffic systems inc v louisiana state board of private investigator examiners
  • redflex scam: extortion and malfeasance in office charges filed against joey durel and others...
  • valiant lafayetters fighting the redflex scam and criminals running their government
  • redflex spy cam scammer charlie buckels defeated in bese election bid
  • goofy broussard la joins the redflex redlight scam
  • loony lafayette goes spy camera crazy
  • ===

    crime gang running alexandria, la wants a piece of the action too
  • are communists running alexandria?
  • alexandria red light spy cams continued
  • sellout: mayor roy favors spy cameras
  • toni martin billing scandal major reason for alexandrians to reject red light spy cams
  • local blogger gets city contract
  • corrupt alexandria city government advancing the redflex redl ight scam
  • 'the light' covers redflex scam
  • redflex scam doesnt appear on alexandria city council agenda
  • redflex scam doesnt appear to be a subject of alexandria city council meeting
  • another reason alexandrians should resoundlingly reject the redflex red light scam
  • ====