Red Light Cameras – Cary, Raleigh, Knightdale North Carolina

The Case in the Town of Cary, NC

If you just got a red light camera ticket from Safelight Cary and you want to help with this lawsuit, you must first pay the $50 and sign up for a Hearing.

In order to participate in the lawsuit, you must be legally injured: your injury being that you paid $50. And you must have exhausted your administrative remedies. That is, you must have been condemned by the Hearing Panel or have been refused a Hearing.

You must also sign up for a hearing before the deadline on the ticket. The ticket gives you 30 days after you received the ticket to sign up. To sign up, call the Cary Safelight Office at 919-388-9129.

If you are the owner but not driver and do not want to help with the lawsuit, download the Affidavit for Cary. It is an affidavit which legally removes your responsibility. Mail it to Mayor. All the instructions are in the download. This procedure also works for Raleigh and Knightdale. Though the tickets from Raleigh and Knightdale either forbid you to do this, or omit that you can do this, North Carolina State Law decrees that you can. (Up until April 2012, Cary's tickets forbade you this legal right.) These tickets make misstatements to secure payment--the definition of fraud. (This procedure does not apply to Wilmington. Unfortunately Wilmington operates under a different statute.)

If you were the driver of the vehicle, let your defense before the Hearing Panel be this:

"[City] has created a dilemma zone at this intersection. I was in it when the light turned yellow. [City] forced me to run a red light."

This is a true statement. All intersections have a dilemma zone. It is for this reason that Redflex and [City] placed the red light cameras there. Even if you tried to "beat the light," that is an honest and legitimate defense. Beating the light is what a type II dilemma zone forces a driver to do. Yellow, given the misapplied physics of the yellow light formula, does in fact mean "go fast."

Red Light Robber Contacts

	Charge	Brief
1	Violations of Town of Cary Charter App 2.8(c) Town of Cary Charter App 2.8(e) Town of Cary old Charter 8.15	The yellow light durations are not at least the values required by the NCDOT ITSS Unit Design Manual, or the traffic signal plan of record is obsolete--it does not reflect the current characteristics of the intersection. What is on the ground is not in the signal plan. The yellow lights are too short. Illegally collected $1,200,000.00.
2	Violation of Newton’s Laws of Motion for Turn Yellow Arrows	The Town of Cary sets the duration of left turn yellows according to the speed of 20 mph - 30 mph cars, even though the speed limit is 45 mph. Therefore, the Town of Cary forbids drivers from going the legal posted speed. Any driver going the speed limit down a left lane when the light turns yellow will be subjected to a dilemma zone. If the driver so happens to be 293 feet to 100 ft from the intersection when the light turns yellow, the Town of Cary will force him to run a red light. Even if the Town of Cary set the yellow to the ITE formula, the formula does not apply to the turning lanes. The Town of Cary will still create a 100 foot long dilemma zone. Illegally collected $4,500,000.00.
3	Dilemma Zone	The formula which the Town of Cary uses to set the yellow light interval creates a type I dilemma zone for every left, U and right turning driver. The formula creates a type I dilemma zone for any case when the driver must tap his brakes before entering the intersection--like when waiting for cars at the next nearby intersection. By setting the yellow equal to the formula, the formula creates a type II dilemma zone requiring the Town of Cary to paint a line at the location of the critical distance; that is, the closest point to the intersection where the driver can begin to stop safely. Illegally collected $6,000.000.00.
4	Cary Town Code 34-303(b) is Unenforceable 34-303b “The owner of a vehicle shall be responsible for a civil violation under this section . . . .” Citation: “It is self-evident that the owner of the car is the driver.” A self-evident proposition is a proposition that requires no proof.	Meet Mary Ann: By proof by contradiction, 34-303b is not self-evident; therefore, 34-303b is not enforceable. No-evidence does not mean self-evident. The citation uses the word self-evident. Though self-evident is not explicit in Town Code 34-303b, the Code implies it. The author of Town Code 34-303b carefully avoided using self-evident because of its falsity. Why does Cary do this? Because in order to initiate prosecution, the Town of Cary must first assert this lie. Cary does not know who the driver is. There is no evidence. Because there is no evidence, Cary has no case. Cary wants a case. And so Cary changes the definition of self-evident to no-evidence hoping no one will notice. Once past this lie, then the Town of Cary proceeds to punish de facto the owner in order to force the owner to either incriminate himself (a violation of the 5th Amendment) or to force the owner to divulge information about third parties.
5	Felony Fraud The authors of the citation intentionally make false statements in order to ensure payment of the citation.	Up until April 2012, the citation defrauded the public by misstating the law. The citation misstated Cary Town Code 34-303b-c regarding the vehicle owner’s culpability. The citation assigned more responsibility to the owner than the law. The citation omittedTown Code 34-303c-3. 34-303c says, ”The owner of the vehicle shall not be responsible for the violation if . . . the owner of the car furnishes the officials or agents of the town a statement that he was not driving a vehicle at the time and location designated in the citation.” The citation, on the other hand, said that the owner must confess (Option A), or swear out an affidavit (Option B) snitching the guilty party. The citation added, “The owner of the vehicle cannot transfer responsibility of the citation to another driver if the other driver does not accept responsibility.” The last is a false statement which contradicts the Town Code. This is also Class H Felony in the State of North Carolina, a intentioned misstatement to defraud the public. Since the citation orginates from Redflex's headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, this charge is against Redflex as well. This is cross-state fraud, a federal crime.
6	Violation of Legal Precedent	The Town of Cary turned running a red light from a criminal case to a civil case, not because the infraction differs from being caught by police or by camera, but because it allows the Town of Cary to deny the accused of United States Constitution 5th and 6th Amendments’ rights.
7	Violation of the 5th Amendment	The Town of Cary forces the driver to incriminate himself by identifying the driver of the car.
8	Violation of the 14th Amendment	The Town of Cary violates the 14th Amendment’s due process by charging the driver $50.00 to get a hearing to defend himself. There is no law which allows Cary to charge the accused $50.00 to get a hearing.
9	Violation of the 6th Amendment	The Town of Cary does not provide witnesses or an impartial jury at the hearing.
10	Misrepresentation, Fraud	Brad Hudson’s title on the citation is “Cary Police Representative making one believe that Brad Hudson is a police officer. On page 5, §1.20 of the Cary-Redflex contract, the contract requires that “the person who evaluates the Potential Violations, must be a sworn police officer of the Customer.” Brad Hudson evaluates the violation on page 3 of a citation and marks his decision with his signature. Brad Hudson is a Civilian. Brad Hudson is not a police officer. He is a retired police officer. Brad Hudson impersonates a police officer. That is misrepresentation, fraud--a violation of N. C. Gen Stat §14-277.
11	Misappropriation of Funds Violation of NC Constitution Article IX Section 7 and NCGS § 155C-437	The Town of Cary pays $900,000/year of $1,000,000/year collected to the private red light camera business RedFlex. The money is supposed to go to the Wake County Public School District. Under question is the definition of “clear proceeds.” NCGS § 155C-437 defines clear proceeds as gross collections - enforcement costs. NCGS § 155C-437 allows subtraction of enforcement costs only, not collection costs. The Town of Cary defines clear proceeds as gross collections - (collection costs + enforcement costs) allowing the bulk of the money to go to the profits of a private business. Cary's definition contradicts NCGS § 155C-437's. In the end, Article IX prohibits penal fines to be used for the profits of private businesses or municipalities.