How One Boiling Frog Beat the SCAMCAMS in Court
"Exercising My Constitutional Right to 'Confront My Accuser'!"
As I awaited my SCAMCAM case in a local court, I watched with interest as several innocents got nailed for their SCAMCAM “infractions.”
Here’s an abbreviated transcription of what was said when it came time for my interaction with the judge. [I’ll leave out the part about the three misaddressed notices and consequential missed hearings—due to the typical bureaucratic bungling.] The judge was soft-spoken, and her microphone was not working that day [yet more bungling?], so I’ll do the best to give you an abbreviated account of what I thought she said. My own voice came through clearly on the transcription, however:
Judge: “Were you driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction?”
Me: “Your Honor . . . Well, I would want to ask you . . . Is there some kind of a Constitutional . . . basis for your being able to ask that question of me?”
When the judge circled around the subject and came back to our impasse, I answered the second time: “I want to ask you again what is the . . . Constitutional basis of your asking that question of me? It’s not that I’m unwilling to answer; I’m just wanting to know where we are in the light of both the Washington State Constitution and the U. S. Constitution.”
After more muffled, judicial gobbledygook, I distinctly distinguished the words: “. . . Case dismissed!”
The jangled judge dismissed the case so quickly that I didn’t even have time to ask her the question that was really on my mind:
Your Honor, the coming generations of these so-called "Photo-Safe" red-light cameras will offer the city the possibility of placing the populous in strait jackets as it relates to their driving licenses, insurance, seat belts, cell phone usage, etc. I personally believe that these are better described as “SCAMCAMS,” for they already constitute an infringement of our Constitutional rights. But, what I wish to ask you is this: At what point on the present slippery slope toward a police city and the further loss of our Constitutional rights will your continued handing out of these revenue-generating traffic-camera citations start to become a matter of conscience for you?
I have yet to ask and get that question answered. However, in my opinion the judge showed great wisdom and restraint (if not conscience) in her immediate dismissal of my case. I would hope to think that her dismissal was a matter of conscience for her, but as I recall, I did let it slip that I was currently writing a book on the Washington “criminal, justice system” (yes, there is a comma between the words, “criminal” and “justice system), so she may have suspected that anything she said in response to my request for her Constitutional authority to pillage the populous might have been used as a quote in my book. If so, she would have been absolutely correct.
CAUTION: I am not recommending that you see my experience as a formula for you, for you may well find that other judges in other jurisdictions will have already become so hardened against the Supreme Law of the Land that they will try to throw the book at you. Yet, I would most certainly do it all over again myself, even if I had to face less desirable consequences. It's either that, or us Boiling Frogs all finally get cooked! And, the way I see it, we either all start hanging together, or we'll hang separately!
Let’s start with the www.NoScamCams.com effort first, then go on to the greater matters that now suppress us boiling frogs and surpass the oppression experienced by the Founders under the British occupation and for which the Declaration of Independence was written, the Revolutionary War fought, and the Constitution of the United States adopted.
Please proceed to "Six Ways We Can Starve out the SCAMCAMS Now!"
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.
–Margaret Mead