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

Is this some sort of identification theft scheme that's going on? What
would they do with the identification?

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"

But if they sent you the fake ticket in the mail, why wouldn't they
just issue you a real one?

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"

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.
>

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.

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"

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:02:44 -0600,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>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.

I'm sure you're smart enough to know the difference.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

The whole point of my giving these "things" a distinctive name (Fake
Ticket)is to counter the con man's clever use of a very familiar
sounding name.

And although present company is certainly smart enough to know the
difference, the General Public isn't. The Fake Tickets succeed almost
every time. I have met PhD's who have been fooled.

Jim

Big Bill wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:02:44 -0600,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> I'm sure you're smart enough to know the difference.
>