So there is a chance that the citation, and the subsequent courtesy notice which is usually issued by the court, were properly mailed to you, however they were probably returned to the post office as undeliverable.
It is your responsibility to ensure that your address with the DMV is current (legally, you must notify the DMV of a change of address within 10 days) and failure to do so does not relieve you from the duty of responding to a notice to appear that was issued and mailed to you at your last known address on record with the DMV.
You can contact the court or the law enforcement agency that issued the ticket to check and see whether the notice to appear was issued and mailed to you within the 15 day period pursuant to CVC 40518:
40518. (a) Whenever a written notice to appear has been issued by a peace officer or by a qualified employee of a law enforcement agency on a form approved by the Judicial Council for an alleged violation of Section 22451, or, based on an alleged violation of Section 21453, 21455, or 22101 recorded by an automated enforcement system pursuant to Section 21455.5 or 22451, and delivered by mail within 15 days of the alleged violation to the current address of the registered owner of the vehicle on file with the department, with a certificate of mailing obtained as evidence of service, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea. Preparation and delivery of a notice to appear pursuant to this section is not an arrest.
If you can somehow prove that they did not meet that requirement, then you should argue for a dismissal. If you can't, then you're stuck having to answer to the charge as well as responsible for the timely appearance on or before the date on the citation regardless of whether you received it or not. Meaning, your excuse that you hadn't filed a change of address with the DMV will more than likely fall short of getting you a dismissal of the failure to appear charge.
probably a good time to ask you what CVC section you were cited with...
Might not be as relevant as you may think but then again, it depends on which CVC section you were cited in violation of.
Mybe somebody else can chime in on whether they would be required to provide you with a copy of the video or not... I will simply post the related statutes which I found...
21455.5 (e) (1) Notwithstanding Section 6253 of the Government Code, or any other provision of law, photographic records made by an automated enforcement system shall be confidential, and shall be made available only to governmental agencies and law enforcement agencies and only for the purposes of this article.
Also:
21455.5 (f) Notwithstanding subdivision (d), the registered owner or any individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation shall be permitted to review the photographic evidence of the alleged violation.
That says that they are only required to make it available for you to view... And they have done so... Whether you can convince the judge that their failure to provide a copy of it is such a major issue or not... I couldn't tell you. For starters, you should file a discovery request (search this forum or Google "California Informal Discovery Request" for more information) and see if they provide it or not.
As I said in your other thread, you need to verify the validity of such a claim before making such a statement in court. If you can somehow show that Redflex's agreement violates 21455.5(g) then you've got a great argument for a dismissal (be mindful of the applicable dates of when the agreement/contract was entered into). Otherwise, an "unsubstantiated claim" is not going to get you anywhere!
California vehicle Code Section 21455.5(g)
(1) A contract between a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement equipment may not include provision for the payment or compensation to the manufacturer or supplier based on the number of citations generated, or as a percentage of the revenue generated, as a result of the use of the equipment authorized under this section.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a contract that was entered into by a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement equipment before January 1, 2004, unless that contract is renewed, extended, or amended on or after January 1, 2004.
The burden to prove that Redflex gets paid based on the number of citation issued (and assuming such an agreement was entered into after 1/1/2004, thereby making it illegal) is upon YOU. And until you can read the specific terms of the contract, and support such a claim with documented evidence in court, you will not get anywhere as far as invalidating the citation.
I'm going to skip over all that... You're free to make your argument in court before the judge and after he views the video and reviews the photo evidence...
The camera could have flashed as it was taking a picture of another vehicle crossing... say for example... the limit line for the red turn arrow, or for cross traffic.... Regardless, your daughter did not receive a citation for that incident... Did she? And even if she did, what does that have to do with another separate incident where you were the driver? Its irrelevant.
Uhm.... Interesting!
The statute only requires them to sign the affidavit, and mail it regular mail. But what if they had to mail it certified.. YOU ADDRESS was not current with the DMV, and certified mail gets returned the same way regular mail gets returned!
Actually, the citation gets issued and mailed within 15 days of the violation date (that's 1 notice) as well as filed in court. When the court receives its copy, then a courtesy notice maybe mailed by the court (that's 2 notices)... Subsequently, another courtesy notice is mailed by the court the day after you failed to appear in court giving you an additional 10 days to contact the court prior to it ordering a hold on your license and adding a “failure to appear” charge to the underlying offense (that's 3 notices). Subsequently, and upon receiving notice of hold from the court, the DMV is also required to send you a notice notifying of the hold on the license and that it will be suspended unless the matter is handled in court (that's 4 notices)... But if your address was incorrect at the time the citation was issued (again, not the court's fault, not the DMV's fault and not the police agency's fault) then those subsequent notices would have continued to be mailed to the old/incorrect address.
Well you're free to argue your case before the judge. My guess is he will look at the video as well as the pictures on the citation and so long as the testifying officer can establish that it was you driving at the time, that the camera system operated properly at the time, and that the elements of the offense with which you were charged did in fact occur, then most if not all of your arguments about what you believe, think or assume will fall flat...
I'm sorry to hear that you were going through a tough time back then, and I understand that this may be a HUGE fine to pay, but in all honestly, and without substantiating any of the claims you made here, you seem to have a pretty weak case if any at all. Then again, you never stated which CVC section you were cited with.. So I cannot speak to whether the elements of the offense did in fact occur. This is despite your detailed description of what you may remember from a year ago.
Best of luck!

