Redflex Corruption

[Jim]

I got a ticket in the mail yesterday. Here is the "evidence" against me. If I were doing 79 in the 65 as claimed, I would have been in the trunk of the car in front of me. I am car #2 behind the truck. A car from Colorado is passing me, and he may have been going 79, but I don't know. If he was, it looks like I got his ticket.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH3NTQrE12k

AZDPS and Redflex are clearly lying about the quality control they claim to do, and they have no problems sending a ticket to an innocent victim to help tighten the budget problem and fatten the corporate profits. If they looked at the videos as they claim to do, I never would have gotten this.

Something tells me I am not the first person to whom this has happened. Is anyone interested in starting a class action lawsuit against a company which gathers evidence for the state without a private investigators license, and has profit as its motive behind "law enforcement"?

[big_load]

What a bizarre coincidence! I had no idea when Brick's announcement came yesterday that a lurking Redflex corruption bombshell was about to drop. (Brick's vendor is American Traffic Solutions).

(Summarized from the Newark Star-Ledger).

This is probably well covered in Phoenix, but it's big news in NJ, too. Aaron Rosenberg, former nationwide lead salesmen for Redflex claims in a lawsuit that Redflex "bestowed gifts and bribes on ... officials in dozens of municipalities within, but not limited to, the following states: California, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Florida, New Jersey, Tennessee, Virginia, and Georgia." (They described the nature of some of the gifts). The Star-Ledger also noted "Redflex lost its $100M red-light camera contract with the city of Chicago amid allegations of bribery, following reporting by the Chicago Tribune."

Eight NJ municipalities have contracts with Redflex. Several others have been fighting the state assembly to expand the pilot program to allow them to enter such contracts, even while some existing camera towns are bailing out.

[kingsnake]

Wow, I am shocked. Stunned. Amazed, I tell you.

[PLC92084]

I always think of this thread when I drive past the cameras in Superior!! And when I'm in Vista (CA), I can't help but notice they're one of the last cities in that area to still have their cameras operational. Other towns around there have placed bags over the dis-used hardware...

[big_load]

Other towns around there have placed bags over the dis-used hardware.

Brick has given ATS until 2/23 to remove the cameras, after which they'll be considered abandoned property and removed by the township. It seems unlikely to happen that fast. By the way, the Star-Ledger gave ATS about as many column inches to make their case.

[chumley]

So this story isn't specifically redflex related, but I found it amusing that a local Washington DC television station has established a specific "department" devoted just to public complaints with incorrectly administered auto tickets, from speed and red light cameras to E-ZPass tolls.

Apparently there is enough "slop" in these automated (and privately-run) systems that a news organization can devote staff to covering it every day.

http://www.wtop.com/1319/3580187/Driver ... 0-in-tolls

[Jim]

Which is a big part of why I hate toll roads, and never would trust an automated system.

[Jim]

Well, not corruption or remotely Redflex, and also not something that needs a new thread, but I found it humorous and wanted to share. I got a Federal Juror summons to Arizona's 9th District Court in Prescott, AZ, today. It was mailed to my current Alamogordo, NM address, which happens to be in the 10th district. I thought that was just a little funny. Filled out the questionnaire online and they did have all of my personal address information correct, except they had me in Navajo County (from when I was in Kayenta). Seems they really should have figured out that Alamogordo, NM is not in Navajo County, Arizona. Well, this is the Federal Government we're talking about.

[chumley]

@Jim_H Or state government, presumably, which in the case of Arizona, may actually be less competent than the federal government. But probably not.

[hikeaz]

It’s getting ugly, real ugly.

With just a few pages released by Rosenberg’s attorneys, we now have black and white evidence that shows illegal campaign contributions and gifts being used to sway politicians and party officials in Florida and Arizona. More info will be released from Rosenberg’s side, but probably not until summer of 2014. [Lawsuit]



Here’s what we know so far:

Arizona - Illegal campaign contributions to both the Arizona Democrat and Republican Parties by Mr. Rosenberg that was reimbursed by Redflex and signed off on by then-CEO Karen Finley.

Florida - Two dozen state legislators and their wives were invited to an expensive dinner at Morton’s Steakhouse, which was paid for by the company and not reported. Internal emails and expense reports show the dinner cost over $3,200.00.

And this is just the beginning. Rosenberg is alleging bribery was all part of the standard ops in 13 states.

The latest from the Chicago Tribune foreshadows what’s to come:


In his counterclaim against Redflex, Rosenberg said he was simply “carrying out orders” and that other company executives also participated in a “pattern and practice” of wooing potential clients with perquisites including meals, golf outings, professional football and baseball games — all covered under a liberal company policy for “entertainment” expenses.

“A budget for these items was approved, and there was never a distinction between these types of entertainments and expenses that are considered gratuities and bribes,” Rosenberg alleged in the filing.

Rosenberg said that during his tenure Redflex “bestowed gifts and bribes on company officials in dozens of municipalities within, but not limited to the following states: California, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Florida, New Jersey, Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia.”

Arizona and Florida seem to be a main focus of Rosenberg and his attorneys and for good reason. Arizona is the hub, where the executives are housed and will almost certainly be where most of the bodies are buried. After all, Redflex “won” the competition with ATS for the statewide freeway photo radar contract from 2008-2010 and it certainly took more than just a convincing slide show to woo Janet Napolitano and the state legislature, who looked the other way while she jammed this massive program into a byline on the state’s budget.
Of course, Arizona Legislators in 2008 were way too ethical to accept bribes, right?

[hikeaz]

Well, not corruption or remotely Redflex, and also not something that needs a new thread, but I found it humorous and wanted to share. I got a Federal Juror summons to Arizona's 9th District Court in Prescott, AZ, today. It was mailed to my current Alamogordo, NM address, which happens to be in the 10th district. I thought that was just a little funny. Filled out the questionable online and they did have all of my personal address information correct, except they had me in Navajo County (from when I was in Kayenta). Seems they really should have figured out that Alamogordo, NM is not in Navajo County, Arizona. Well, this is the Federal Government we're talking about.

[azbackpackr]

Sooo....would a conviction in such a case also mean that all the people who paid for speeding tickets would get their money back?

Probably not, but there might be a class action lawsuit, which means you could potentially get a pennies on the dollar refund, years from now.

[hikeaz]

Sooo....would a conviction in such a case also mean that all the people who paid for speeding tickets would get their money back?
Probably not, but there might be a class action lawsuit, which means you could potentially get a pennies on the dollar refund, years from now.

There IS a precedent.....

Louisiana: Jefferson Parish To Refund Red Light Camera Tickets - 3/13/13

Scandals move Jefferson Parish, Louisiana to refund all Redflex red light camera tickets.

Sheriff Newell Normand and Officials in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana are moving forward on plans to refund $4.7 million in red light camera tickets. Council Chairman Chris L. Roberts put forward the motion on March 13 to put an end to "a long chapter of questionable dealings" with Redflex, the Australian company that issued the tickets. On Wednesday, Sheriff Newell Normand said he would follow the council's lead on the issue.

"It doesn't move me one way or the other," Normand told the council. "Whatever the parish decides to do, I will join with the council and the administration relative to those issues if you so desire to enter into a rebate program... I would go along with whatever your desire is."

Sheriff Normand clarified that the red light camera program began under his predecessor and that he would not be directly involved in any refunds.

"The sheriff's office is simply the collector," Normand explained. "We do not hold any of the information as to the recipients of the tickets and therefore not in a position to be able to rebate. That would really fall on the parish, and the parish holds those records in the parish courts."

About 284,000 tickets were issued in the program until it was suspended over ethical concerns on January 27, 2010 -- long before the Chicago scandal broke. In light of the early revelations of impropriety, a third of recipients threw their photo tickets in the garbage.

"To my knowledge, Redflex has taken no action or made any attempts to collect on the approximately 100,000 violations that were issued but not paid," a parish attorney's office spokesman said. "Since this action began in early 2008 until today, there hasn't been any attempt to collect those fines."

The situation seemed so unbalanced that the council unanimously approved the refunds.

"It draws into question whether the basis for this program was established in a fair and legal way," Roberts said. "I have hard time keeping money from those that did reply when we know that many others just ignored it and nothing was done about it. Then we find out the firm that was in the middle of this potentially could make millions and is paying consultants a percentage of tickets that were issued."

Redflex had paid a 3.2 percent cut of the firm's profit on each ticket issued to lobbyist Bryan Wagner, a former New Orleans city councilman, who in turn shared the funds with the wife of District Judge Robert Murphy. Roberts expects a long legal process before any checks can be mailed to those who paid a red light camera ticket

[hikeaz]

Notice how Nappy signed the cameras into law (June 27, 2008) and then bam! on July 30th, 2008 here comes $5000 in illegal contributions from Redflex to the dems funneled through one of their employees (who was reimbursed by Redflex for it). They also funneled $1000 to the repubs just to play some smoke-and-mirrors.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/201877215/Redflex-Lawsuit

[satillayakker]

I have always despised any, and I mean ANY automated, "enforcement" tool. They are alomst always run by a third party. I think it is based solely on greed and kickbacks, and I am, and have been for many years, a government employee. When I was a State Trooper, red light cameras and any other camera that simply photographed and sent an automated ticket disgusted me. It takes away the human factor of enforcement. There may be a good reason they were speeding, or only slowed down at the light, etc. Furthermore, it was much much much much less common to ticket the wrong person (then there were felony issues, usually), or hold the wrong person accountable. Automated systems are nothing more than greed by the municipality or certain politicians.
Here in GA, we have alot of government agencies doing more and more privatization, using companies like redflex and more. Of course, government is not very efficient, but it is much less costly to the tax payers than so called privatization, no matter who says it isn't. Those contracts are awarded to who they want to awarded to. Guess who that would be.......
Our DNR here is using private companies to issue fishing and hunting licenses now. They took the systems down, and now no matter where you get it, you have to pay an extra convenience fee, and is certainly is not convenient! If it were truly investigated, I am sure it could be traced to some politicians who are getting some kickback for the great income, just like Redflex.
I remember hearing about some local governments here in GA who were looking at using redflex and some other company. Not sure if they did or not, but I do remember alot of solicitors saying they would not prosecute if someone never sent redflex the "fine"..... I even remember it being said that the fines collected by the municipalities would be less, with a large amount going to redflex, but Redflex would be "so much more efficient"..........
Its not much for those who were robbed by them, but I am glad to see companies like redflex being on the bullseye!

[Jim]

Well, in the cyclical and pendulums movements of public policy and opinion, perhaps this is a good thing. If enough widespread abuse, corruption, and inaccuracy are known be to inherent to these things, perhaps towns will get rid of them, and they will not become popular.

I've never understood how for profit companies can get involved in law enforcement, or how that can be constitutional. At the very least, they should be subject to a referendum vote by the public, and not brought in secretly. Now, about the for profit prisons....

[Jim]

@gsp416dre
People seem to think government is a business and needs to be an efficient money making machine. That is part of our society's problem today. We think everything is about efficiency and making money. Government is a service, is should not be measured solely on how efficient it is. Somethings need not be wasteful, and can be improved, but private outsourcing does not change anything, except that it increases a profit motive.

Without going on a super long winded tirade as I could do, I will keep my point to my original schooling in Forestry at the Univ. of Florida and Forest Policy. One of the many things we talked about in Forest Policy was a certain public bias against public and Federal Lands Management as inefficient. They do a lot of things, but one thing they don't is turn a profit. The Instructor mentioned one time that if the public really wanted it, the USFS could very easily become a profitable money making machine. Just get rid of all the past 50 years environmental regs., turn every acre of productive forest land into a high yield or maximized rotation forest plantation or highly managed stand, begin charging for any and all access to the land, eliminate "wasteful" management for such things as endangered species, turn western forests into real-estate, mining and water production enterprises, and basically destroy everything most people actually like about public lands.

In law enforcement, why have human officers who can differentiation between violators and do things other than purely write tickets, when you can have a stationary camera that is merely there to make money?

[big_load]

Sooo....would a conviction in such a case also mean that all the people who paid for speeding tickets would get their money back?

Probably not, but there might be a class action lawsuit, which means you could potentially get a pennies on the dollar refund, years from now.

A large number of NJ tickets were refunded after yellow-light intervals were proven shorter than the legal minimum at some camera-equipped intersections. (Once again, belying the claim that cameras enhance safety. That claim was also refuted for the NJ cameras by before-and-after accident statistics at camera-equipped intersection).

[nonot]

I don't tend to like them paul-o-tics, but didn't the Supreme Court legalize government bribery a few years ago? It's not illegal for an individual or company to give contributions to any gov't official anymore....or so I'm lead to believe.

Or can you just bribe a Senate/House of Representatives member, and it's still illegal for state politicians?

Notice how Nappy signed the cameras into law (June 27, 2008) and then bam! on July 30th, 2008 here comes $5000 in illegal contributions from Redflex to the dems funneled through one of their employees (who was reimbursed by Redflex for it). They also funneled $1000 to the repubs just to play some smoke-and-mirrors.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/201877215/Redflex-Lawsuit

[satillayakker]

Right on point, Jim! Many local governments here have looked at "enforcement" that way. Many cities have been looking at officers as profit makers for a "company" (city) and forget about the "service" factor. Lets get more money and take away the idea of officer discretion. Even when they don't have the money to install these cameras, etc., they force their officers, who are their employees, to write "xx" number of tickets. I know for a fact that there were some local municipalities here in GA who did not welcome troopers in their area because they, nor anyone else, could force us to write/not write, anyone. (Story always changed when there was a big problem they needed help with though...)
I know that a certain county sheriff asked my post commander to have us write more tickets and issue less warnings because it costs the county money..... after a "discussion" about who we worked for (the discression of the governors office and the public, as well as the purpose of our charter) and how we would continue to do our job, it was made a moot point. I say that to say this, many times enforcement, as many other government functions, can very well be efficient if there was less of a false interest in efficiency. However, that will not change. Even if a politian or "self server" doesn't have his hands in the cookie jar, whatever he can do to create the illusion of efficiency will be pushed, because it makes him to appear the hero.
There is waste in all levels of government, but much of the waste by lower levels is due to the attitude form higher levels making themselves appear great at the expense of efficient and effective employees. I could go on and on about that, having seen local, state and federal government from the inside, but I digress. Even as you said, if we did away with those pesky inefficient programs such as environmental protection, beuatification projects, officers doing community policing (which is a target of politicians...), we could see a huge profit, but at what real cost?
I guess looking at a pure profit for money view, it makes no sense to have any officers anywhere doing anything!!

Nonot, I can't speak for other states, but I believe GA has made it to remain illegal by a resolution or some other action.

[hikeaz]

I don't tend to like them paul-o-tics, but didn't the Supreme Court legalize government bribery a few years ago? It's not illegal for an individual or company to give contributions to any gov't official anymore....or so I'm lead to believe.

Or can you just bribe a Senate/House of Representatives member, and it's still illegal for state politicians?

Notice how Nappy signed the cameras into law (June 27, 2008) and then bam! on July 30th, 2008 here comes $5000 in illegal contributions from Redflex to the dems funneled through one of their employees (who was reimbursed by Redflex for it). They also funneled $1000 to the repubs just to play some smoke-and-mirrors.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/201877215/Redflex-Lawsuit

Public financing at the state and local level[edit]

A small number of states and cities have started to use broader programs for public financing of campaigns. One method, which its supporters call Clean Money, Clean Elections, gives each candidate who chooses to participate a fixed amount of money. To qualify for this subsidy, the candidates must collect a specified number of signatures and small (usually $5) contributions. The candidates are not allowed to accept outside donations or to use their own personal money if they receive this public funding. Candidates who choose to raise money privately rather than accept the government subsidy are subject to significant administrative burdens and legal restrictions, with the result that most candidates accept the subsidy. This procedure has been in place in races for all statewide and legislative offices in Arizona and Maine since 2000, where a majority of officials were elected without spending any private contributions on their campaigns. Connecticut passed a Clean Elections law in 2005, along with the cities of Portland, Oregon and Albuquerque, New Mexico.


AzRS 16-907. Prohibited contributions; classification

A. Any person who makes a contribution in the name of another person or who knowingly permits his name to be used to effect such a contribution and any person who knowingly accepts a contribution made by one person in the name of another person is guilty of a class 6 felony.

B. Except for a contribution to a candidate's campaign committee, an individual or political committee shall not give and a political party or other political committee shall not accept an earmarked contribution. (quid pro quo)

C. For purposes of this article, a contribution from partnership funds shall only be made in the name of the individual partners who make the contribution.

D. A standing political committee shall not act as a campaign committee or a sponsoring organization for any candidate, initiative, referendum or recall but may contribute to other political committees as provided by law.


End of page 1 http://www.wcsr.com/resources/pdfs/Elec ... g_1pgr.pdf
"• Reimbursement of political contributions:
The Senior VP makes the maximum contribution to a candidate for the U.S. Congress and asks other company executives to make contributions. Each employee who makes a contribution is reimbursed through a corresponding increase in his or her annual bonus. Such a conduit arrangement is treated as a “contribution in the name of another,” and can lead to civil and criminal prosecution. At the federal level and in many states, this is also treated as a prohibited corporate contribution.
.......
.....
And on-and-on.... . http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc- ... story.html

Think that 'Clean Election' initiatives are the answer?? http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2009-04- ... elections/