If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
FAKE red light camera tickets - sent by the POLICE !
Don't fall for fake red light camera tickets.
The fake red light camera tickets come in the mail, from the POLICE! (Some of the cities doing it are El Cajon, El Monte, Emeryville, Encinitas, Garden Grove, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Maywood, South Gate, Stockton, and Vista.) Your Fake Ticket will say "Traffic Violation Notice" at the top, and will tell you that you MUST identify the driver shown in the photo, within TEN days. But these Notices are not a real ticket. The police have not filed them with the court (no court address on it), and in fact, somewhere on the back it will say "Do not contact the court." It's a con job to get you to identify the driver. I recommend that you ignore such a notice - do not respond to it in any way. For more information, see the Your Ticket page on the free-of-any-charge website http://www.highwayrobbery.net. Be careful out there. Jim |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Is this some sort of identification theft scheme that's going on? What
would they do with the identification? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On 16 Mar 2005 05:34:59 -0800, "The Office Jet"
> wrote: >Is this some sort of identification theft scheme that's going on? What >would they do with the identification? Gee, I dunno. Maybe issue the driver a ticket for running a red light? -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
But if they sent you the fake ticket in the mail, why wouldn't they
just issue you a real one? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On 16 Mar 2005 11:36:36 -0800, "The Office Jet"
> wrote: >But if they sent you the fake ticket in the mail, why wouldn't they >just issue you a real one? The OP claimed this was a fake ticket, but it wasn't a ticket at all. What the OP said it really was was a "Traffic Violation Notice". Then it tells the recipient he "must" identify the driver. ("Must" is in quotes, because I question the ability of the police to force someone to do this.) So, no fake ticket, but rather a case of someone calling a notice a fake ticket. -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
BB asked why they wouldn't just issue you a real one. Excellent
question. Since OJ didn't answer it, I will. I quote the website: "Why Do They Do It?" "So far, the common thread is that all these "Police Going Too Far..." cities use RedFlex as their camera vendor and have contracts (signed before 2004) requiring them to pay RedFlex approx. $90 for each real ticket RedFlex prints and mails. When the police are first processing the photos and they see that the face photo is obviously not the registered owner, or that it is of such poor quality that it would probably not be accepted by a judge as proof of who the driver was, they send the registered owner a notice (fake ticket) - which the City doesn't have to pay RedFlex for. Sending you the fake ticket is the police's attempt to get you to identify the driver, thus providing them that proof. Once you have filled-out the blanks on the fake ticket form, the police can be pretty sure that a ticket will stick and that they will be able to recoup the $90 it will cost them to have a real one issued. So they go ahead and have RedFlex issue (print up and mail) one." So, the bottom line. (Keep in mind this applies in CA, not necessarily elsewhere.) A notice that has not been filed with the court (no court address on it, no instructions to go to the court) is what I call a Fake Ticket. Since no action has been filed with the court, the Fake Ticket has no legal weight and you do not have to reply to it. But if you do it will cost you in excess of $300.00. Jim Big Bill wrote: > On 16 Mar 2005 11:36:36 -0800, "The Office Jet" > > wrote: > > >>But if they sent you the fake ticket in the mail, why wouldn't they >>just issue you a real one? > > > The OP claimed this was a fake ticket, but it wasn't a ticket at all. > What the OP said it really was was a "Traffic Violation Notice". Then > it tells the recipient he "must" identify the driver. ("Must" is in > quotes, because I question the ability of the police to force someone > to do this.) > So, no fake ticket, but rather a case of someone calling a notice a > fake ticket. > |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Big Bill > wrote: >On 16 Mar 2005 11:36:36 -0800, "The Office Jet" > wrote: > >>But if they sent you the fake ticket in the mail, why wouldn't they >>just issue you a real one? > >The OP claimed this was a fake ticket, but it wasn't a ticket at all. >What the OP said it really was was a "Traffic Violation Notice". Then >it tells the recipient he "must" identify the driver. ("Must" is in >quotes, because I question the ability of the police to force someone >to do this.) >So, no fake ticket, but rather a case of someone calling a notice a >fake ticket. That someone would think a "Traffic Violation Notice" is a ticket seems pretty reasonable. I've never seen one which actually said "ticket" on it. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 04:17:44 GMT, Jim
> wrote: >So, the bottom line. (Keep in mind this applies in CA, not necessarily >elsewhere.) A notice that has not been filed with the court (no court >address on it, no instructions to go to the court) is what I call a Fake >Ticket. Since no action has been filed with the court, the Fake Ticket >has no legal weight and you do not have to reply to it. But if you do >it will cost you in excess of $300.00. Now, see, here's a problem... You say, "A notice that has not been filed with the court (no court address on it, no instructions to go to the court) is what I call a Fake Ticket." We can't just make up our own definitions. No one will know what you're taliking about. If I say, "The truck is a green", and you try to correct me, and I say, "But that's how I define a skyscraper", you'd think I was nuts. So let's stick with reality, instead of making up our own, OK? Or else, at least tell us that you're making up your own. -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
red light cameras/NY Times | fbloogyudsr | Driving | 43 | January 20th 05 12:12 AM |
Don't respond to fake tickets from police con men | Jim | Technology | 2 | January 6th 05 12:30 PM |