Open Letter to Pinellas County Sheriff on Red Light Camera Tickets and Gun Control

Published On March 25, 2013 | By CopBlock | Articles

Christopher David LeRoux shared this open letter to Pinellas County Sheriff via CopBlock.org’s ‘submit‘ tab.

2.21.2013

To The Entity Doing Business as “Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office”:

On June 7th, 2012 I was summoned to a red-light camera “hearing” at which your department conducted security. During this hearing, I pointed out that it was an unlawful hearing for an unconstitutional law, a criminal fraud operating under color of law, legalized extortion, primarily victimizing the poor. I attempted to seek a redress of grievances for having currency extorted just to get a hearing to then beg for an appeal to this camera’s alleged ruling against me. I realized and pointed out that this hearing was in fact a kangaroo court, a star chamber, where you are considered guilty until proven innocent, as is widely documented now and which your “office” of course knew full well at the time. I attempted to tell these truths as is allegedly my right of free speech, redress of grievances, due process, etc when deputy Robert Isham brutally attacked me.

As Isham says in his report, “Leroux was demanding a jury trial . . . While questioning Majewski’s authority over the matter . . .” Isham also states in his report that before the hearing even started he “received information that a subject identified as Christopher David Leroux, a documented anti-government sovereign citizen, was to appear in Traffic Court on 6-07-1012 at 1730 hours.” This seems to indicate that the attack was premeditated and motivated by what Isham had been allegedly informed were my political beliefs, by someone unnamed in that report. Are people with certain political beliefs, according to unnamed reports, all “subjects” of this police state if they dare to go to one of your hearings to defend themselves against your plunder? What cut is your department getting from this camera extortion in partnership with this company in Arizona?

The justifying assertion for this premeditated attack is that I didn’t leave when ordered fast enough. Yet Isham admits “while the hearing officer attempted to further explain his ruling . . . Deputy Allen was attempting to speak with Leroux. . .” So apparently defendants in your star chambers are expected to hear multiple people speaking at the same time. The hearing was recorded. I did not ever directly refuse to leave. I was there to tell the truth in what I knew was a kangaroo court where you are guilty unless the hearing officer feels like letting you off the hook for purposes of propaganda. I was not there to get beat up by this brute who claims he “secured Leroux’s arm and used an amount of force necessary to remove Leroux from the courtroom . . .”

What Isham fails to say, and what was witnessed by James Cox, who was arrested for filming the attack upon me, was that even after he forced me out of the hearing, while twisting my arm up my back brutally, he slammed me head first through the doors exiting not just from the courtroom but then also from the entry area to the corridor, and once in the corridor viciously slammed me head first into the glass window. Thus we see the reason for the seizure of my friend’s camera and his arrest.

There are outright fabrications in the officers’ reports. Sgt Donald Mast reported that it was deputy Joseph Heintz that “secured leroux’s arm and used an amount of force necessary . . .” Heintz reported that I spoke of my “rights as a sovereign citizen.” The hearing was recorded. This was never said, again indicating the aforementioned political overtones to this setup. Heintz also reported that he “had to physically escort Laroux [sic] out of the room . . .” Deputy Darlene Allen also reports that, “Heintz took control of leroux and escorted him from the courtroom.” But it was Isham who attacked me, not Heintz. Isham in his report fails to say anything about the attack on me, claiming he arrived after the attack. There were at least twenty witnesses to this fabrication by Isham’s own report and it happened in front of the court’s video cameras, plus the video on Mr. Cox’s camera.

Instead of reporting how he attacked me, Isham reported that I later, downstairs, “started grabbing around Sgt. Mast in an attempt to get control of the camera himself.” This is an obvious, ridiculous lie. I was a dozen feet away from Mr. Cox when I noticed they were assaulting him and demanding his camera. I told Mr. Cox to give the camera to them. This was recorded in the device they stole from Mr. Cox. The other officers do not report any of these bold lies that Isham reports. Deputy Bruce Wilson, who reports witnessing the arrests, says absolutely nothing of any of this and says only, “Dep. Isham also took Leroux into custody.”

If I had really grabbed the camera after they were in the process of taking it from Mr. Cox, it is obvious the charge wouldn’t have been nonviolent resistance but active resistance. Isham’s assertion is a totally absurd lie about something that happened in front of court cameras and many witnesses. When they attacked Mr. Cox to steal his camera, I merely picked up my Nook off the floor to keep them from stepping on it during their assault on him. I came nowhere near them. Isham even retrieved my nook, later, after I asked him numerous times to get it. He knew full well that all I was doing when he arrested me was picking up my Nook. Again, none of this is mentioned in his report, of course.

The bottom line is you are the very people claiming to protect me yet were involved in a criminal fraud to extort my currency, conspired to use your power against me and to silence even my complaint of your abuse, attacked me for speech, for attempting to seek a redress of grievances and for my alleged political beliefs, then dared to charge me with nonviolent resistance to your unlawful and immoral abuse of power, your tyranny, ransoming me from your injustice system to the partial freedom of your police state.

Now I see in the media that the Florida Sheriff’s Association is saying they will not enforce any new gun control laws they consider unconstitutional. Well, first of all, it must be said that the right to free speech normally and should never require a permit, a license, registration, a background check, be taxed or forced to purchase liability insurance to exercise so neither should the right to bear arms. A right doesn’t require permission to be exercised. That is what makes it a right. I explain these basic principles of freedom because I see that despite the Florida sherrif’s association’s statement, you support universal background checks and other infringements of the 2nd amendment. You want to take more of my rights and hassle me for daring to want to defend myself, while claiming to protect me.

So what we have, to sum up, is a sheriff’s office which routinely violates the constitution by enforcing red-light camera tickets, kangaroo courts against the people they claim to protect, that also want to violate the 2nd amendment while claiming to protect it. You have no credibility, sir, not the slightest little bit. And of course there are thousands, if not millions more “laws” you are currently enforcing which are clearly unconstitutional and which the American revolutionaries would obviously condemn. I compliment you on your alleged willingness to take a stand for freedom, eventually, if you ever do, even if it is a confused, pathetic stand. You are in effect stating that I was correct for standing up to your unconstitutional star chamber by saying you will draw your own lines someday, maybe. How about an apology and a refund? Holding my breath.

Christopher David LeRoux

 

Like this Article? Share it!

About The Author

When you see "CopBlock" as the author it means it was submitted via our contact tab - see top of page. Anyone can share their police related story with CopBlock.org via this tab, we thank you in advance.
  • t.

    I bet after the laughing stopped…the Entity Doing Business deposited this crap in the circular file.

  • Common Sense

    Wow…

    Another sovereign loses again. Shocker.

  • Steve H

    You did this all wrong. Right now you can go to traffic court, if you received a UTC after the “notice”. There is no due process for the notice, it is really just extortion. If the jurisdiction sends you a UTC in the mail, you can go to the “arraignment” and have the ticket put on “hold” until the appellate court decides a few issues around the due process (process) of camera tickets.

    That will probably take about 6 mos. If the court rules in favor of the defense lawyers which on one of the issues is quite likely, you can get your ticket dismissed. You don’t get a trial in traffic court in FL, I can’t cite you the controlling case law but there is one.

    There is a ticket defense lawyer in Ft. Lauderdale that specializes in red light light camera defense in FL. He is 1000-0. Hasn’t lost a case yet.

  • Steve H

    I didn’t mean you don’t get a trial in traffic ct in FL, I mean you can’t get a jury trial, but you can appeal your case to the Circuit court and to the Appellate court if you want. But the number of due process issues surrounding camera tickets in FL are starting to become overwhelming for the lower courts. That’s why you can get your ticket put on “hold” for probably at least a year.

  • Shawn

    Last I heard, FL state is ending the cash cow of red light cameras because of the legal issues with it. Especially when Tallahassee was caught shortening yellow lights.

  • Steve H

    The big problem here is that the driver doesn’t get the ticket the owner of the car does. First, ATS sends a “notice” which you can pay 158, if you ignore it or want due process you have to wait until they send you a UTC that charges you under the statute for running a red light that is $265.

    The big problem here is that the state has to prove that the driver violated this statute, because that is one element of the crime. 2nd problem is that if the state wants to introduce the pictures as evidence, the defense attorney just has to object that the evidence is hearsay because no person saw the car go through the intersection. The pictures are the only evidence. The court would have to allow an exception to the rules of evidence to introduce the pictures without a witness and violate the 6th amendment.

    Also, sometimes the jurisdiction just sends the cop who administers the program to court to show the pictures and the defense attorney objects to the cop acting as the plaintiff’s attorney which is not allowed in county court unless he was the one writing the ticket. judge just dismisses the case until the city attorney re-files and shows up in court. they never re-file.

    The legislature really fxxxed up this law.

  • Steve H

    Also, the Pinellas County Clerk, wrote to the cities, Clearwater, st. pete and others pleading with them to turn off the cameras because the program is causing his office to implode. They have to spend 3 times as much time and money on these tickets as normal tickets. Huge issue with rental cars because the rental car company takes a long time to respond with the driver’s name and then the ticket goes 60 days and nobody really knows what to do about that. Really pissing off the tourists.

  • Common Sense

    So if someone committs a crime, say burglary or maybe trespassing, and its captured on a surveillance camera, you think the footage is excluded because no one was there to ‘view’ the crime in progress?

    Sorry, the court would allow the pictures just as much as they’d allow the surveillance video so long as there’s someone to testify to the photos or video.

    In theory, you’d need the operator of the camera and the officer who eventually issused the citation.

  • Steve H

    Yeah, it’s called foundation. Even in the case of a bank robbery where the crime is caught on the video, the manager of the bank or the IT person who operates the cameras has to testify in order for the video to be admitted. Just like when a 911 tape is to be admitted the 911 operator is there to testify about the tape, otherwise it is hearsay.

    maybe in the case of the FL pictures if the ATS operator testified along with the pictures and the city attorney called him as a witness, the video and pictures could be introduced but they don’t do it that way. They send a non-attorney cop over to give the pictures to the judge. Hearsay objection. case dismissed.