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….

Is the SkyEye GPS enabled radar detector from Radar Shield Technologies another one of those  “cheap ass radar detectors” manufactured by Rayee Technologies?

On Monday, January 30^th I received a cease and desist order from Radar Shield Technologies regarding my review of the Ghost Pro radar detector published on February 10, 2011.

When I published this review the Radar Shield Technologies website stated that their SkyEye GPS enabled radar detector would be coming soon.

The image of the SkyEye looked exactly like the “counterfeit Chinese radar detectors” that Tommy Chen from Rayee Technologies was hawking at the 2009 Las Vegas Consumer Electronics Show.

During my interview I asked Tommy if he  “sold cheap ass radar detectors” and he replied, “yes, we make cheap ass radar detectors”.

After receiving the C&D order I did what any good “retired copy would do” and that was to do more research on Radar Shield Technologies, the owner Nir Steel and of course his attorney Yechezkel Rodal from Bavaro Legal in Plantation Florida.

Radar Shield Website

Radar Shield is now selling their SkyEye GPS equipped radar detector for $389.95 promoting it as the “smartest speed-trap defense system ever made!”

Their ad states “by adding GPS engine into our legendary Ghost platform.. enables alerts far and behind conventional detection range…”

As Escort Inc. holds the patent for GPS enabled radar detectors in the US and being that they recently filed a second lawsuit against Cobra electronics for patent infringement, I was curious if Nir Steel, the owner of Radar Shield Technologies had worked out a licensing agreement.

So called one of my contacts at Escort

The first words out of his mouth were “who, never heard of them” then my contact related that Escort had not entered into any licensing agreement allowing the use of their patent.

My contact then asked if I could obtain a unit for his inspection and I told him that I was working on it.

Radar Shield Yahoo Local

Radar Shield Technologies also has a Yahoo Local Listing for their “virtual office” (drop box) in Beaverton, Or.

On 4/14/2010 a review was posted by “Dr” stating”

DON’T BUY ANYTHING FROM THEM!!!!!!
BEWARE!!! It’s an Internet scam!!!
What they selling is a piece of shitttttttt!!
You not gonna bve refundede,they not gonna pick up the phone!!!!!!! YOU wasting your money, if you buy anything from these assholes…..

Any SkyEye GPS Radar Detectors on Ebay?

As Radar Shield has also been selling their Ghost radar detector on eBay, I decided to take a peek over there too.

I couldn’t find any listings for their SkyEye, but I did find this listing for the Ghost Invisible radar detector, item number 200611108207.

The seller, Zalyb had an 86% positive feedback ranking.

The last review posted was on December 17, 2011 by Jususc who related that he would buy again.

But what did catch my eye were these 2 negative reviews:

• “Absolute shite, doesn’t work on Spectre as advertised, just got a $1000 fine“
• “Not good at all bad communications! Ghost invisible radar not as described“

Nir Steel – President of Radar Shield Technologies

I’ll respect the privacy of Mr. Steel and his family by not posting any personal information.

However I was VERY SHOCKED to see that someone who is held in such high regard in his temple would lower his standards in by scamming people online.

Yechezkel Rodal – Bavaro Legal

Mr. Rodal was admitted to the Florida Bar on September 21, 2011 and is eligible to practice law in Florida.

In reviewing several of the cases that Mr. Rodal has been involved in since his acceptance into the Florida Bar, they all appear to be related to debt collection issues.

I sincerely hope for his clients’ sake that he takes the time to research their legal standing prior to sending out “ bullshit” C&D letters like he did in this matter.

Is the SkyEye Radar Detector another Scam?

Based upon Nir Steel’s and Radar Shields history in the radar detector industry it would be safe to assume that the SkyEye is another one of Rayee Technologies “Chinese counterfeit” radar detectors marketed by Radar Shield Technologies.

But I don’t base my reviews on assumptions.

So over the course of the next couple weeks I will have an associate of mine purchase a SkyEye GPS enabled radar detector who will then have it shipped to my office.

When I am finished testing the unit I will then ship the unit to Escort Electronics so they can inspect it to see if it violates their patent for GPS enabled radar detectors and post my reviews here, on my radar detector review website.

On February 10, 2011 I published my review and video of Radar Shield’s Ghost Pro radar detector ranking it the 2^nd Worst Radar Detector that I had ever tested.

On Monday, nearly a year after this review was published, I received this cease and desist letter from Yechezkel Rodal, an attorney with the Bavaro Legal firm in Plantation Florida.

Click Image to View

Mr. Rodal writes in his letter that my company (RadarDetector.org) persists in spreading untruths about his client Mr. Nir Steel and his company, Radar Shield Technologies and that my defamatory statements are affecting Mr. Steel’s business.

Mr. Rodal cites these two examples from my Radar Shield radar detector review:

1. That my “assertion” that the Radar Shield is “Chinese counterfeit” is untrue, defamatory and illegal, and
2. That my allegation that Radarshield doesn’t carry FCC certification is also false, defamatory and illegal.

Mr. Rodal “warns” me to cease and desist from spreading any “further” defamatory statements, reviews, comments, articles, videos, etc. against Mr. Steel or Radar Shield Technologies immediately.

His cease and desist demand includes e-mails, reviews, my websites, other websites, Facebook, YouTube and any other type of social media.

Mr. Rodal states that if I choose to ignore this warning, that his client, Mr. Steel would have no other choice but to proceed accordingly and file a lawsuit against me and my company, warning to “Govern yourself accordingly”.

My Public Reply to Yechezkel Rodal, Esq. – Bavaro Legal PA

Retiring as a Lieutenant with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office I typically have a great deal of respect for members of the bar and would address you in a more appropriate manner.

However your cease and desist letter is a misrepresentation of the facts filled with complete “bullshit” so I have chosen to address your concern here on my website.

First, let me explain to you a little bit about who I am and what I am all about.

After serving a distinguished 20-year career in law enforcement, I retired at the rank of Lieutenant.

During my career I was certified as a traffic radar instructor certifying 1000’s of police officers in the use and operation of various speed measurement devices including police radar guns.

I have been called upon to testify as an expert witness in numerous superior court cases throughout Arizona regarding the use and technology of police radar guns.

After my retirement in 1996 I launched the website Radarbusters.com which provides tips on how to beat traffic tickets and reviews of various speed counter measurement devices.

Several of these reviews have been published in magazines such as American Iron and Car and Driver.

I have been interviewed by various news shows including 20/20, CBS Good Morning, American Journal and the Speed Chanel.

I also attend trade shows such the Consumer Electronics Show and SEMA to stay up on the advances in our industry.

Thus I feel that I am very qualified to publish a review stating my opinion of a particular product in the radar detector niche.

As I have demonstrated in my review and video, I have keep very detailed notes regarding my experiences with products I test to support my opinions if asked to do so.

You state in your letter dated January 10, 2012 that my statement calling your client’s product a “Chinese Counterfeit” were untrue, defamatory and illegal and that RadarShield holds a registered trademark.

In reading my review I do warn consumers about the dangers of purchasing a radar detector from unscrupulous dealers that sell counterfeit radar detectors manufactured in China and Korea.

I also relate in my review that I found a new company that was selling “Tommy’s” detectors calling themselves Radar Shield Technologies (your client).

So I don’t understand your position in that if your client holds a registered trademark it somehow mitigates the fact that he sells “Chinese counterfeit” radar detectors?

Your second statement references that my “allegation” that RadarShield doesn’t carry FCC certification is also false, defamatory and illegal.

On October 27, 2002 a public notice was published by the Federal Communications Commission (DA 02-2852), which required that all radar detectors sold in the US be FCC approved and labeled with a FCC identification number.

My Youtube video review published on February 10, 2010 clearly demonstrates that your clients Radar Shield radar detector did not have this required FCC identification number attached.

Prior to the publication of my review, I did go to the FCC.gov website to check if your client had the required FCC FRN number and he did not.

After the receipt of your letter, I went back to the FCC website and found that your client did register for a number on 2/22/2011, 12 days after the publication of my review.

However this search on the FCC site did not locate any FCC type acceptance number assigned to your clients Radar Shield detector.

It should also be noted that within my review that I document my attempts to contact your client by telephone and e-mail prior to the publication of my review and he chose to ignore me.

Mr. Rodal, I have been in this industry for over 15 years and I have always published my honest opinion of the products I test.

Occasionally I publish a review of product such as your clients Radar Shield radar detector, which falls short in performing the way the manufacture and/or distributor advertises the product.

And I admit that I may get a couple emails or telephone calls because they don’t agree with my opinion and they leave it at that.

But never in my 15 years being in this industry have I never received a certified cease and desist letter from a law firm threatening legal action, so I consider your notice a “badge of honor” so thank you.

Your letter is framed and proudly displayed on my office wall.

But the issue I’m sure you would like me to address is if I will indeed cease and desist in publishing any further defamatory statements in regard to your client and your client’s products.

1. I am prepared to defend my opinion of your clients radar detector which I published on my website and in my video as I do not consider them to be defamatory in nature at all.My review (opinion) is based upon my 35 years of training and experience and is well documented.
2. Your request for me not to publish any “further defamatory” statements, reviews, comments, articles, videos, photos including e-mails, reviews, my own websites, other websites, Facebook, Youtube and any other social media to me is laughable, allow me to explain.If you would have taken the time to read any of my prior reviews either negative or positive that I have published on my website it is very rare that I publish any new commentary unless something newsworthy occurs with that product.So by making your request in your cease and desist letter you and your client have opened the door for further commentary.

So before I publish my “follow-up” review of the Ghost Pro radar detector in the coming weeks, I would like to extend this invitation.

If your client feels that my review was unfair and would like me to amend it and/or do a follow-up review of the Ghost Pro radar detector we can schedule a day for him to come out to our office for a follow-up review.

Prior to his arrival I will make 3 “blind purchases” of the Ghost Pro radar detector from his website and/or his eBay account and these detectors will remain sealed until his arrival.

Upon his arrival he can inspect the packages to make sure that they have not been tampered with and we would then open the packages and inspect the radar detectors for proper FCC certification labeling.

I would then have 1 off-duty police officer who is certified in police radar test the Ghost Pro radar detector against various police radar guns measuring the detectors performance, sensitivity, range and filtering.

This officer will also test the “stealth” capabilities advertised on the Ghost Pro website using two Spectre RDD devices.

If the unit performs as Mr. Steel advertises on his website I will gladly offer him a public apology on my website and pay all of his expenses in coming to our office and his acceptance would be the cheapest and the fastest way to put this all behind us.

However if your client does decide to proceed in his threats in filing a lawsuit against my company and me personally, my attorney and I are both prepared to counter with a formable defense.

Is the new SkyEye GPS enabled Radar Detector another Cheap Counterfeit Radar Detector Too?

Is the Sky Eye radar detector a counterfeit too?

Based upon your cease and desist order demanding me “to cease and desist from spreading any further defamatory statements, reviews, comments, articles, articles, videos, photos, etc” and your client’s recent decision to market a new radar detector he calls the SkyEye, “the smartest speed-trap defense system ever made” utilizing satellite (gps) technology I suspect that your action is to some how prevent me from doing a new review on this new radar detector marketed by Radar Shield Technology.

Well allow me to provide you with some additional information.

1. Escort Inc. holds the patent for radar detectors within the USA for GPS enabled radar detectors. Your clients marketing of this SkyEye clearly violates Escort’s patent so I would assume that once they find out about it, they will send Mr. Steel their own cease and desist letter and/or file a lawsuit against your client.
2. The SkyEye is detector that is very similar to the ones that were hawked by Rayee Technologies at the 2009 CES show in Las Vegas which I referenced as being a “cheap ass radar detector” and a “cheap counterfeit radar detector manufactured in China”
3. So based upon this information you may want to warn your client that he should expect a couple of new orders for this Sky Eye radar detector, one from Escort’s legal team and of course one from me to do a new review.

In closing I will also offer 1 additional tip that you may find helpful in your law career.

Before you send out another one of your “bullshit cease and desist” letters to an Internet Marketing professional, make sure that that you have a strong case and be prepared for the reputation management issues in both the search engines and social media spaces cause they can be a bitch to remove.

שלום עכשיו

Just returned from this years Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas and had an opportunity to interview John Larson, the president of Escort Radar.

During this 8 minute video, John addresses many of the questions our radar detector community have been asking and discussed some of the new products that they are coming out with this year such as:

• The release of an Escort Live model for their remote mounted radar detectors
• Speculation about a front and rear antenna radar detector now that Valentine One’s patent has expired
• Escort’s new remote mounted radar detector called “Smart Radar”
• And John’s “State of the Union” of the radar detector industry

Recently we have received several inquiries about the SCD Eliminator photo radar jammer asking if we knew anything about the product and/or the manufacture.

(Note: We have been threatened with legal action regarding this review of the SCD Speed Camera Eliminator! You can read their Cease and Desist Order, my response and other supporting documentation regarding the SCD Speed Camera Eliminator here!)

Back in 2006 we tested a similar device that was manufactured in Victoria BC Canada and distributed by Tiger Lilly products, a Colorado LLC owned by John Turner and his daughter Jamie.

We obtained a VF2 directly from their company, for our review.

We first tested their photo radar jammer using a strobe device and out of over 100 attempts the unit failed to flash even once.

We contacted John and he felt that the power transformer was defective so within a few days we received another unit to test.

We installed this second unit decided to test the unit against 4 of the Scottsdale photo radar cameras.

In each case the unit failed and we post our review of the VF2 photo radar jammer.

A few weeks after posting the review of the VF2, we received a telephone call from a customer who read that review and told us that he had purchased a unit and that the transformer of the unit had melted, almost catching his car on fire!

So we decided to do a little detective work on this new SCD Speed Camera Eliminator and here is what we found out:

1. The site lists a telephone number of 720-635-3931.This is the same telephone number of 1stRadarDetectors.com website owned and operated by Tiger Lily Products.
2. The SCD Series Speed Camera website’s registrar lists their address on Victoria BC Canada.
3. And here is the biggest kicker!If you  went to the the distributor’s website prior to February 9th y you would have seen a photo of a Dodge Viper with a decal “Got Speed?” depicting the SCD Speed Camera in action (as above).

This Dodge Viper was rented by Leon Gruner of Blinder USA, Robert Rosania of the Veil Corporation and myself in June of  2005 from a Dodge dealer in Las Vegas for the Speed Measurement Labs radar detector test in El Paso.

During the entire time this Viper had this “Got Speed?” decal it never had Mr. Turners NEW SCD photo radar camera jammer installed on it as it wasn’t even yet developed!

Would You Spend Your Money On This?

Based upon the out and out lie on Mr. Turner’s website depicting the SCD 2 photo radar camera “in action” on a car which never had the SCD Photo Radar Jammer installed on it, his prior history with the VF2 and having a customer almost losing his car because of a fire that had the VF2 installed, I certainly wouldn’t recommend this device!

What are your thoughts?

Today Escort Radar filed a federal complaint against Cobra Electronics in the US District Court, Western Ohio Division, case number 1:11 CV 797 for patent infringement.

Escort’s lawsuit asserts that Cobra’s iRadar detector and their iRadar community service infringes on two of their patents.

This will be the second time that Escort has pursued litigation against Cobra for patent infringement.

John Larson, the CEO and President of ESCORT relates.  “Our inventions and patents cover not only the identification and marking of false alerts, but also, the sharing of radar alert information between detectors, an idea we brought to the market with the ESCORT Live™ social network.  ESCORT and Cobra have peacefully coexisted since 2008, but with the iRadar, Cobra has overstepped its bounds, into infringement of our patents, and is capitalizing on our research and our ideas, including ESCORT’s multi-decade effort to build a network that permits radar detectors to share information in a network that benefits the driving community as a whole.  ESCORT was left with no choice but to respond.”

The first lawsuit was settled in 2008 in Escort’s favor.

Here is my take – I think that Cobra should had been called to task long ago for the way they have continued to market their radar detectors as 6, 8, 10, 12…. band radar detectors.

Hell we all know that there are only three radar bands (X, K and Ka) and one laser band in the USA!

But this lawsuit has nothing to do with their marketing, which I feel is misleading, but the hijacking of anther’s intellectual property.

However, in my mind they have proven to me that they will do what ever it takes to market low performance radar detectors rather then focusing on delivering on quality as Escort, Beltronics, Valentine and Whistler has.

What are your thoughts about Escort’s lawsuit?

Imagine owning a car so unique, so special that SEMA decided to give you one of the premier parking spots to show off your ride, right at the front door of the Las Vegas convention center.

This is exactly what has happened to a good friend of mine, Jim Cozzolino.

Jim owns this 1991 FXMD FX TA 1 Wide body NSX that is powered by a custom 3.3, forced induction FXMD FX 500 turbo charged engine.

Jim and his NSX has been featured in various competitions including the Castrol Top Car Challenge, Modified Magazine Tuner Shootout, Super Lap Burnouts and is a regular at NASA-AZ TTU and UMS time attack competitions.

Oh and one more thing, just so when Jim is out on one of his weekend cruises around Phoenix Jim has one of our Escort 9500ix radar detectors installed on the dash and a set of Blinder laser jammers installed in the grill.

Congratulations Jim and on your ride back home, please fly drive safe.

SEMA, short for Specialty Equipment Market Associations, is the world’s largest automotive trade show in the world and this year Escort Live stole the show!

Escort Live was awarded the Best New Mobile Electronics product for 2011 and the POP Mechanics Award as well!

Tomorrow at 3:00 pm Pacific we will be hosting a Live broadcast from SEMA that you can watch at your home or office as Escort unveils this amazing new product.

http://www.radardetector.org/escort-live/

Isn’t Anything Private Anymore?

I’m sure that you would agree that pervasive government surveillance which George Orwell wrote about in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is becoming more of a reality each day, however Simicon’s new photo radar system erodes our privacy to a new level.

Typical photo radar systems can only track one vehicle at a time, but the new Simicon system called Cordon can track up to 32 vehicles across 4 lanes of traffic.

Also as a car enters into range the Simicon’s OCR technology immediately identifies the license plate and maps the vehicle location date and time into its database.

The Cordon system is portable so it can be easily moved from one location to the next.

In the following video vehicles tagged with a green dot are driving below the speed limit, those with the yellow dot are changing their speed within the acceptable range and those tagged with a red dot are speeding.

Peak Gain Systems, Simicon’s North American distributor plan on making these units available to North American police agencies during the 1^st quarter of 2012.

(Simicon had filed a copy-write violation regarding this video, thus the video has been removed)

What are your thoughts?

Are you willing to give up your privacy allowing the government to track your every move?

How much would you be willing to pay out in attorney, witness and court fees to fight a $1700 fine and 6-month suspension of your driver’s license?

$2,000?

$5,000?

$10,000?

How about $60,000???

Well this is exactly what one 29-year-old motorcycle enthusiast had to spend to fight his speeding ticket.

Last May, 29-year-old John Bustutti was clocked on laser riding his Suzuki 1000cc motorbike at 149-km/h in a 60-km/h zone last May (92 mph in a 27 mph zone) in the Royal National Park in Australia.

(Full Story Here)

John was cited and he faced a fine of $1744 and a 6-month suspension of his driver’s license.

But John knew that there was no way he could had been clocked by radar doing this speed and fought back, ultimately racking up a legal bill in excess of $60,000.

Roy Zegers - 2005 Radar Detector ShootOut

To support john’s defense he sought the assistance of a good friend of mine Roy Zegers who has over 30 years experience in police radar equipment and countermeasures.

In court Roy proved that the officer was wrong by enlisting the help of a surveyor who measured the road and proved that the distance the officer claimed he used in measuring John’s speed was not long enough if in fact John was traveling at the 149 Km/h speed.

Hats off to Roy for coming to the aid of someone unjustly cited and to John who spent so much of his time and money to prove his innocence.

If you feel that you have been unjustly cited I recommend downloading our free Radar Detector Buyers Guide where we have a chapter that outlines many of the mistakes of police radar and lidar.