SCD Speed Camera Photo Blocker – True or FALSE???

On January 8^th, I published this review of the SCD Speed Camera Eliminator that discussed a number of concerns such as;

1. A previous device that was developed by CSG Technologies called the VF2 and failed to have any effect on 4 photo enforcement cameras during a “real life” test in Arizona.
2. That a previous customer almost had his car burn to the ground when a transformer from a VF2 overheated.
3. That CSG Technologies went out of business.
4. That the same developers and marketing team behind the VF2 reformed and was now selling a device called the SCD Speed Camera Eliminator.
5. That the manufacture was using a photograph of a Viper that we had rented back in 2005 to falsely represent his new SCD Speed Camera Eliminator that was brought to market 6+ years later.

(Use of screen shots of from StopPhotoRadar.com, 1stradardetectors.com, 1stRadarDetectors.com Google + account and autos.aol.com in this video is protected under the fair use doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from rights holders as these serve as an example in my commentary, criticism, reporting, research)

Well there’s more to this SCD Speed Camera Eliminator Marketing Scam.

On February 7^th, I received this cease and desist letter from the manufacture’s attorney, Richard Marsh from the law firm of Pipis Marsh Law in Longmont Colorado.

Basically the attorney accused me falsely disparaging the manufacture of SCD Speed Camera Eliminator by accusing Applied Physics and John Turner of fraudulent business practices and demanded that I immediately remove all information referring to the SCD Speed Camera Eliminator and Applied Physics from our website, RadarDetector.org, to publish a retraction of my review and to immediately cease and desist from making, publishing or re-publishing like or similar statements about the SCD Speed Camera Eliminator.

And if I refused to abide by these demands, we (John Turner, Applied Physics, SCD Speed Camera Eliminator) would be forced to purse any and all available remedies against me.

Radar Roy Fires Back at SCD Speed Camera Eliminator Attorney

Well being a retired cop I fell back on my training and experience and went to work.

First I dug up all my notes and photos from the 2005 Speed Measurement Laboratories test in El Paso.

Then I took screen shots of the SCD Speed Camera Eliminator sales pages from the various websites it was being marketed on.

Did some additional research on John Turner, his various companies including Applied Physics, Tiger Lily Products and 1stRadarDetectors.com.

Spoke with other parties that were present during the 2005 Speed Measurement Laboratories test including Robert Rosania, Aaron Zimerman, Leon Gruner and Carl Fors.

And put together my 12-page response to their Cease and Desist letter demanding that I remove my review of the SCD Speed Camera Eliminator.

In summary, here is what I fired back:

1: That I felt that the current photo being used in the marketing of the SCD Speed Camera Eliminator was false advertising because:

a) The photo of the Viper depicting the SCD Speed Camera Eliminator was photographed in 2005 and there was no way that they had a “time machine” to put their product developed in 2012 on this car.

b) That during the photo shoot of the Viper, taken during the 2005 Speed Measurement Laboratories test, which had his VF2 attached had no 12-volt power source so the image had to have been “photo shopped”.

2: That they were additional misrepresentations of the SCD Speed Camera in “action” photographs as they were using a number of photographs “stolen” from other websites that were also “photo shopped” such as this image “lifted” off the autos.aol.com website.

(Use of screen shots of from StopPhotoRadar.com and autos.aol.com is protected under the fair use doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from rights holders as these serve as an example in my commentary, criticism, reporting, research)

3: That the test of Mr. Turner’s original VF-2 Photo Radar Jammer at the 2005 Speed Measurement test was simulated using consumer grade cameras and NOT a real photo radar camera and that after repeated “simulation tests”  when the police officer advised that he was going to fail the VF-2 that John Tuner’s daughter came upset saying “this test is bullshit”.

4: That I would be willing to perform a “real life” test of Mr. Turner’s new SCD Speed Camera Eliminator here in Arizona and even offered to pay Mr. Turner’s expenses for airfair, lodging and rental car expenses.

5: That I stood by my opinion of my review of the SCD Speed Camera Eliminator published on 2/6/2012 and that I would not remove it from my website.

6: That if Mr. Turner did decide to follow through with his threats of suing me for my review that I recommended that he (Mr. Marsh) secure the videos recorded by Mr. Turner and his daughter during the 2005 Speed Measurement Laboratories “simulated” test of the VF-2.

7: That I would provide his (Mr. Marsh) firm with “behind the scenes” photography of the Speed Measurement Laboratories test that showed that the testing of Mr. Turner’s VF-2 was “simulated” and not real world.

8: And I asked for a letter of apology from Mr. Turner for having to “take time out of my day to address” this issue and for him to remove any and all images from his website depicting the Viper.

Stolen Photos of the SCD Speed Camera Eliminator Removed!

Within 48 hours of my e-mailed response to Mr. March Mr. Turner removed the images of the Viper and the other “stolen photo shopped” images from his websites.

But Misleading Photos of the SCD Speed Camera Eliminator Still Remain!

I first direct your attention to this screen shot of the SCD Speed Camera Eliminator website depicting a Mustang GT driving on a 2 lane country road.

(Use of screen shots of from the StopPhotoRadar.com website is protected under the fair use doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from rights holders as these serve as an example in my commentary, criticism, reporting, research)

Any “reasonable” person who would see this photo would think that since the SCD Speed Camera Eliminator is a device that is suppose to jam photo radar cameras that this is a photo of one of their devices in action.

However, I have never seen any instance where some police agency would set up a photo radar camera on some lone country road.

So then this photo leads me to suspect that this photo is AGAIN falsely advertising their product!

Then I then direct you to the product page for the SCD Speed Camera Eliminator depicting a white station wagon parked on a grassy lawn.

(Use of screen shots of from the StopPhotoRadar.com website is protected under the fair use doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from rights holders as these serve as an example in my commentary, criticism, reporting, research)

Have you ever seen a “real photo radar camera” on someone’s lawn?

So then this second photo leads me to suspect that this photo is also AGAIN falsely advertising their product!

SCD Speed Camera Eliminator and John Turner Fires Back!

I guess John Turner fired his mouthpiece because on 2/12/2012 he published this update on his Google + account:

“Our customers recently came across a Blog, RadarDetector.org, managed by Roy Reyer, aka, Radar Roy, and the blog suggested a product review of our SCD Photo Radar Eliminator. I read the initial review by Roy Reyer, who is recognized in the radar/laser industry as a knowledgeable person in this field.

The Statement that has been asked is this: How can someone who states that they are a credible source compare a new product to an older product and makes completely inaccurate statements that are not able to be supported by facts. Is this how someone in the industry should represent themselves?”

(Use of screen shots of from the the 1stRadarDetector.com Google + account is protected under the fair use doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from rights holders as these serve as an example in my commentary, criticism, reporting, research)

This update then linked to this article published on his website  on 2/9/2012 attempting to justify his misleading advertising.

(Use of screen shots of from the 1stRadarDetectors.com is protected under the fair use doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from rights holders as these serve as an example in my commentary, criticism, reporting, research)

1- Mr. Turner references that my review of the SCD Speed Camera Eliminator was in fact a review of the VF2 product produced in 2006 by a Canadian Company.

Well not entirely accurate John.

My review compared the similarity of these two products which you sold on your website and where you were using misleading advertising to promote your new SCD Speed Camera Eliminator.

2 – Mr. Turner relates that I described the SCD with the “wrong image, owned by our company” called the APC power interface without the permission of Applied Physics.

Finally a bit of truth is published by a person who calls himself “Honest John”.

However, the reason I chose that image instead of all the other images on your site was because other companies copyrighted all those other images depicting your SCD Speed Camera Eliminator and these were manipulated by you and/or your staff to mislead your customers.

So in other words I would rather receive a DCMA notice from 1stRadarDetectors.com then AOL, or CarBodyDesign.com.

3 – John Turner admits in his rebuttal that the VF2 that he sold in 2006 and manufactured by “2 Canadian Women” at GSG Technologies had reliability problems.

However what John fails to tell you that he was also responsible for the funding, development and marketing of this product along with an individual by the name of Martin Young who is also from Canada.

And once John found out about all of these “reliability problems” (such as causing fires in customer’s cars and not jamming photo radar cameras at all) he severed his ties with this company because of pending civil litigation.

John also fails to mention that Martin Young, who developed the VF2, is also responsible for development of his SCD photo radar jammer.

4 – Mr. Turner states that I made a personal attack on him and his daughter Jamie stating that he owns Tiger Lilly products, a Colorado LLC and makes the correction that the name of his company is Tiger Lily Products Inc. and that his daughter is not an owner but an employee.

Ok, correction duly noted.

5 – Mr. Turner states that a few weeks after I posted my SCD review on my “blog” that I state that a customer called to tell me that a customer who had purchased a unit had told me that the transformer had melted, almost catching a car on fire.

John then asks “Where is the proof of the installation and was the install done properly?”

John, I apologize if you took this statement of context as what I implied was that after I published my review of your VF2 photo radar jammer back in 2008 that a customer called telling me about the transformer melt down.

This is also documented by a written response on the review of the VF2 photo radar jammer on 9/28/2008 by a user calling himself “OneFastGT” who writes:

“I to had a friend that had a fire hazard created in his vehicle (smoke damage) because of the shoddy “weather proofing” and cheap construction quality of a VF2 that Turner heavily promoted by giving it 5 stars.

I have long suspected the star ratings system that Tiger Lily uses throughout all of their many websites and the test that SML conducted using only a prosumer camera and flash close up to “simulate” the photo cameras. The test was bogus and so were the results.”

6 – Mr. Turner feels in his rebuttal that if I would have done some “detective work” in my review that I would had found out that “some of their dealers and distributors” use their telephone number on their website(s).

(Use of screen shots of from the AppliedPhysicsInc.com is protected under the fair use doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from rights holders as these serve as an example in my commentary, criticism, reporting, research)

John, allow me to direct your attention to your Applied Physics Inc contact page.

The contact information for both your site here and the StopPhotoRadarNow.com website lists basically the same contact information with Martin Young responsible for sales and marketing on both sites and you as the “Countermeasure Expert” on StopPhotoRadarNow. com and the President and CEO on Applied Physics.

What other homework do I need to do?

You also say that Leon Gruner of Blinder USA gave you permission to photograph the Viper in 2005 at the Speed Measurement Laboratories test in El Paso and provide an e-mail dated January 30, 2012 where he says he provided you permission.

John, there are several holes in your justification of using the photograph of the Viper.

a. Robert Rosania is the person of record who leased the Viper for a 2-week period from Fantasy Auto Rentals in Las Vegas Nevada.

Leon and I then entered into an agreement with Robert to affix our decals and to advertise our products on his Viper (not Leons)

b. Robert Rosania never gave you permission to use photos of the Viper in your advertising and you signed an agreement with Carl Fors at the 2005 SML test NOT to use photos of other manufactures products and/or vehicles without their written consent.

c. You telephoned Leon on the morning of February 8, 2012^h “begging” him to send you a “formal letter” giving you permission to use the photos of the Viper.

Leon’s first response to you was “John, with all the thousands of images out there on the Internet, why do you have to pick the Viper.”

You never told Leon that you had legal council and that you only wanted this letter to clear stuff up.

It was after Leon learned of your intentions that he followed up by saying ““I don’t want to play any part in John’s bullshit advertising. He sent one of these things to me before and it didn’t fucking work then and I doubt if it will work now.”

After Leon read John’s “rebuttal” and how John spun his eMail, Leon sent me this (which you can read in its entirety)

7. John relates that his VF2 was fully function-able during the time it was installed on the Viper.

John, this is incorrect.

Robert Rosania allowed your VF2 to be installed on the Viper for the “Road and Track” photo shoot.

As this was a rental car Robert insisted that your VF2 not be wired into the system.

In fact Martin had caused over $1000 in damages to the wiring harness before Robert intervened.

So no John, your VF2 was NOT fully function-able.

8. John then relates that the photo of the Viper used to depict the SCD Photo Radar Jammer was taken by Martin Young, so it was Martin who owned the rights to this photo that depicted the SCD Speed Camera Eliminator and that I was in violation for using this photo without Martin’s permission.

WTF????

John, I don’t dispute that the photo was taken by Martin Young; in fact if you look closely at the truck area you will see Martins reflection where he is taking the picture.

(Use of screen shots of from 1stRadarDetectors.com, StopPhotoRadar.com and 1stRadarDetectors.com Google + account is protected under the fair use doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from rights holders as these serve as an example in my commentary, criticism, reporting, research)

What I don’t understand is how you got your VF2 to flash, as your VF2 had no power source to it during the entire time it was attached to the Viper for the “Road and Track” photo shoot.

Could this be another example of your PhotoShop skills?

9: That within 48 hours after posting my review of the SCD Speed Camera Eliminator that my business associates, competitors to 1stRadarDetectors.com made comments.

I don’t dispute that Robert Rosania or Aaron Zimmerman made any comments about my review and/or your product. Can I help it if I have friends?

But to call them competitors?

Robert is the manufacture of a product called the Veil and there is nothing on your website that competes with Robert’s products.

And at one time you used to be a distributor of the Veil products.

However Robert removed your distributor status several years ago for your misleading advertising.

Aaron Zimmerman, the manufacture of several devices for motorcycle radar detectors.

Aaron also does not sell/manufacture any products that are similar in nature to the products sold on 1stRadarDetectors.com.

You have asked Aaron to be an official distributor of his products on your website on numerous occasions and each time he has turned you down citing your deceptive marketing practices.

John,

I can go on and on in this but just let me summarize it here and perhaps put an end to all this.

Get over it and admit it.

You made the biggest mistake any small business owner could ever make

You lied to your customers!

Sincerely,

“Radar” Roy….