Two Men, Two Acts of Government Defiance

Justin Eassa and Stephen Ruth have something in common: Both took matters into their own hands after concluding that the government had crossed a line, and both found themselves treated as outlaws for acting on their convictions.

Eassa is accused of removing a Somali flag displayed outside Buffalo City Hall, an action he says was motivated by his belief that the flag was improperly displayed in relation to the American flag. Ruth became known as the “Red Light Robin Hood” after taking a baseball bat to Suffolk County red-light cameras that he believed were unconstitutional, dangerous and designed primarily to generate revenue.

Ruth, who ultimately prevailed against felony charges stemming from his campaign, offered words of encouragement to Eassa.

“Keep your faith in God, and you will prevail,” Ruth told the Kenmore, N.Y., man. “I’m confident that he will be vindicated.”

Eassa has not been convicted and is defending himself against an active criminal case. During an interview on News Radio 930 WBEN with Stefan Mychajliw, he said he believes Buffalo officials—not he—were responsible for the underlying controversy because they permitted the Somali flag to be raised.

“The real question everyone should be asking is why was it raised,” Eassa said, arguing that it was not properly positioned in relation to the American flag.

Eassa has established a GoFundMe to help cover his legal expenses. He said he initially resisted asking for money but was persuaded by friends and now hopes to challenge the case as far as necessary.

Ruth said the controversy reflects a broader concern about whether public officials remain accountable to the citizens they represent.

“During these times, when we question where our politicians’ loyalties lie, we want to see them loyal to the people,” Ruth said.

He described the flag display as “another overreach” and said residents increasingly feel that government officials are “not beholden to us.”

Ruth knows the consequences of crossing legal boundaries in the name of a political cause. He began fighting Suffolk’s red-light camera program after researching fatal crashes at camera-controlled intersections and concluding that shortened yellow-light times were making roads more dangerous.

He knocked cameras down, cut wires and recorded his actions, drawing more than a million online views. Ruth said he expected to be arrested and was prepared to lose his freedom if that was what it took to force change.

“I felt like I could beat it,” Ruth recalled. “I had to be willing to go to jail to make a change. And it worked.”

Ruth faced multiple felony charges, lost his real estate license temporarily and said prosecutors threatened him with prison. He nevertheless continued speaking publicly against the cameras, appearing before lawmakers, running for office and gathering petitions from motorists who opposed the program.

Attorneys David Raimondo and Billy Keahon represented Ruth without charge and eventually secured his acquittal. Suffolk’s red-light camera program later expired after state lawmakers, under intense pressure from Ruth and his supporters, declined to renew the legislation authorizing it.

For Ruth, that outcome proved that determined citizens can prevail even when the power of government is directed against them.

He sees Eassa’s case through that same lens: a citizen deciding that obedience was no longer acceptable and accepting the possibility of arrest.

“It seems like government is more and more spitting in our faces and seeing how we react,” Ruth said. “This is the reaction they got.”

Whether Eassa’s actions were legally or politically justified will now be decided through the courts and public debate. Ruth’s advice, however, remains simple: stay faithful, stand by the principle that motivated the act and be prepared to endure the consequences.