2015 - 2016 Testimonials

Hi guys,

Had a victory (and no fight). Defended a speeding fine - armed with the information from the ebook, Wayne's good work and some other material I had found, proceeded to the court ready for the challenge, thinking I had 'right' on my side, only to be foiled by a lack of a challenger.

RMS did not appear, nor brief the Police Prosecutor, who asked the Magistrate to adjourn the matter until she was briefed. Magistrate asked if I objected to an adjournment, which I did, stating that I had already had 2 tips to the Court (650 km one way drive) and that I was ready to proceed.

Magistrate promptly stopped me from saying anything further - stated as I had traveled twice to the Court and the speed was deemed a low level infringement ( doing 71 km/h in a 60 km/h zone, when the infringement notice stated < 10 km/h above the limit), he dismissed the matter, smiled at me, I packed up all my paper work, bowed to him and left. All of 2 minutes of what was a 14 hour driving trip.

Came home very happy with the day.

Regards

Rob - NSW


Hi Guys,

This may be of help to members as a success story and an example of a arrogant council.

Claremont City council parking  Fraud.

My son attended a Caravan show at the Claremont show ground on a Saturday. He Parked in a car park not clearly marked Disabled Parking (Very rusty unreadable sign MORE ON THIS LATER)  However when he got out of his car with his children, he noticed he was parked in a bay clearly marked "disabled"  so he looked around and discovered that of the 27 car park spaces only seven were  marked as disabled  so he moved his car into an unmarked bay and attended the show.

When he returned he found a parking ticket for $300.00 for parking in a disabled car park.  We went into defense mode and wrote the three ASF  process letters and a couple of others to the local minister etc all to no avail.  And the duck shove had begun.  He received no further correspondence what so ever on the subject. But surprise surprise, he got a bill marked at the top with the inference that it had been sent from "The Attorney General’s office" with the option to plead guilty or have the matter dealt with in court.  (there were three previous requests  for chapter3 hearings that were ignored)  and they were demanding payment with an extra $116.95  added to the total. Once again all three copies of our ASF letters were forwarded and again these were ignored.  The only option we were given was to have the matter heard in magistrates court. 

A further demand for payment was forwarded which was ignored as the matter was an ongoing  issue to be determined in court  THE NEXT TRICK:  My son had his drivers license suspended by the Govt of WA Fines enforcement registry and threatened WITH IMPRISONMENT until the outstanding fine was paid which was now  $416.95  This MEANT THAT MY SON WAS EFFECTIVELY PUT OUT OF WORK as he no longer had a drivers license. 

We immediately completed an "Application for revocation of disqualification NOTICE (form b4) Based on THE GROUNDS: 1   It would appear the application was heard in my absence, without notification.  2 complete absence of all the facts relating to the hearing ie: Date,   Court Number,  Court location,  Date lodged, Receipt No,  This application was forwarded to the State Solicitors Office  in Perth and his license was reinstated several days later by notice.

My son attended the magistrates court NOT chapter 3 requests (3) were ignored.    THE CAR PARK IN QUESTION PRIOR TO THIS HEARING HAD BEEN DEMOLISHED AND NO LONGER EXISTED BUT THEY HAD PHOTOGRAPHS AND LUCKILY SO DID MY SON, AND A MOVIE.

In court, the magistrate was very helpful in explaining his rights with regard to procedure etc. The council prosecutor turned up with two additional lawyers complete with intimidating white shirts and suits, sharpening pencils and arranging piles of paper and books and the ranger who issued the tickets. The ranger who issued the ticket when questioned knew very little of the parking area, he did not know how many parking spots it had but admitted that only 10 of them were clearly marked  handicapped when in fact, in his correspondence,  he had  referred to only seven.  My son had a photo of the old rusty sign as evidence, luckily, as a new sign had been erected in its place and a photo tendered in evidence, we then tendered our photo of the old sign in very bad repair.

When my son was shown a picture of the new sign he pointed out to the Magistrate, prosecutor and Marshal that the old sign was clearly shown in the back ground leaning up against the fence and if that wasn't bad enough, shovel and spirit level were in the foreground at the foot of a new disabled parking sign post.  Another photo was tendered in evidence  showing the bay he was parked in that displayed a disabled sign  the camera angle had been carefully selected to show this sign in the background But the sign was clearly not even in the car park but out in the street that runs past 20 meters away.  The judge adjourned for 45 minutes and when he returned he privately addressed the prosecutor who's face turned bright red and the case was dismissed.

One piece of evidence we did not get to use was a search of the council minutes  dated  20-08-13  repealing the excessive $300.00  fine down to $120.00  the minutes recorded a the motion carried by an absolute majority.  Our fine of $300.00 was issued on the 22nd March 2015. That raises the question where did the marshal/ inspector get the figure of $300.00?

Well we won and we thank you guys for the knowledge and courage to take on the system. The extraordinary lengths  the Claremont City council went to to get their $300.00 / $416.95 fine was criminal. It is a pity my son did not have the courage to bring up the issue of costs as they were considerable as he lives in Kalgoorlie and the matter was heard in Perth. 3 trips required fuel, accommodation, meals, I believe an application for costs would have received a good hearing as the Magistrate was clearly unimpressed with the Claremont council's heavy handed tactics but my son was pleased to put the matter behind him.

PS; USE THIS CORRESPONDANCE AS YOU WISH IT MAY GIVE COURAGE TO OTHERS.  Cheers from US

Roy from Claremont – W.A.


Hi guys,

I won a case this today in the magistrates court. Dismissed!

After the 3 ASF letters, and numerous adjournments and revocations, I got to court and the constable was apparently sick and couldn’t come to court. 

This may be the case however I thought it was strange that the police prosecutor said he didn’t know of the charges and had not spoken to me. No paperwork, but strangely knew the officer was sick.

I had all my arguments researched too. Bugger. I guess they might have thought it would be too hard? Said that they were going to move to dismiss case and didn’t want to muck me around.

Damn I should have gone for costs… 

Anyway along with the very helpful CLRG boys, I’m 2 out of 3 so far. And the one I lost was a parking fine - council and I lost my nerve.

It is worth fighting this stuff. The education is invaluable.

Laz – Vic.


Hi Guys,

Yesterday my son and I had a win at a long drawn out trial, for a speeding offence that my son had gotten. Seven court date's later with no lawyer we won.

I think the judge could see that the little people with all the engineer's report fact's and evidence we had on the police. The police could not afford to lose this case. The evidence would open up the floodgates if the police lose this case on the facts and evidence alone this terrified them.

When the police could see that the little people were winning their case using evidence and facts , The head police prosecutor who was sitting in on the case, left the court room came out side where I was sitting as a witness. I could see that the prosecutor was desperate as she was not running the case, but felt the need to get involved.

The head prosecutor said if my son was to lose this case his licence was gone with a large fine and trial court costs in the tens of thousands of dollars.

I was asked if I will plead guilty to being the driver of the vehicle and they will drop all charges against him. I knew they could not lose this case at any cost because of the evidence we gave to the court. I had second to make up my mind. I chose to take the deal even though there was video evidence by the police proving my son was the driver. The head prosecutor said I need to have the fine transferred into my name.

I agreed knowing that this would take it away from my son and as the offence happened in FEB 2015, the time they had to issue the fine had passed, I could fight it later without the cost of a trial.

So cut a longer story short, it was better for the court and the police to lie to save face and millions of dollars in unlawful prosecuted cases. Yes we won but we didn't win for all the victims that just give up because it too hard.

To the court's and the cops I will get you one day.

Darryl – S.A.


Hi ASF,

I’m writing to thank you as I have just come out of court today for my first ever traffic infringements and have had two charges dismissed. One for ridings a non-LAMS approved motorcycle and the second for exceeding the speed limit (lidar detection). If I didn't find out about aussie speeding fines I would have to pay over $1000 in fines and also have my license suspended for 6 months or a year.

For anyone reading, please follow these points in your case as it is crucial to building reasonable doubt for the evidence against you! If you don't object it means you agree it is fact! ALWAYS OBJECT unless there is a critical error that you can exploit. Use the 3 step process if you can, as it gives you an advantage. The letters must be submitted to the court before the hearing as the police prosecutioner will object to them, or at least he did in my case.

Object to the evidence tendered by the police prosecutioner, especially regarding speed cameras.

Have a reason for objection on each item if you can.

Carefully and slowly go through the brief of evidence to find any errors, omissions, lies, or loopholes, before the hearing if possible. I should have asked for an adjournment to better prepare my defence.

I had no affadavits lodged so I went straight to the initial questions. I asked if the matter was being recorded and it was. I asked if it was a criminal matter before the court and the magistrate replied yes.

When I asked about whether it was a chapter 3 court, he took a long pause and said yes. I disputed this, citing the outcome of high court case Forge V ASIC, and handed him the outcome. He took one look at it and dismissed it as irrelevant. I decided not to push the issue at this point and just continue with the case as I wanted to resolve the matter that day.

I did not fully understand the procedure for tendering evidence and objecting, as things were proceeding fast & this was my first time in court, so I slipped up by not objecting to the certificate of approval in relation to the lidar gun. I must note that they appeared to have NATA approval, but there was no NSC number, and in my case I could not prove that the Road Transport Act 2013 was not a valid act based on mentioning the Queen in the preamble/proclomation of the act, citing the Commonwealth Constitution Act, National Measurement Act, and Imperial Acts Application Act, and when I asked for the Hansard entry, all I got was excuses.

Before court began I was shown the video footage from the patrol car and quickly determined it would not help them, so decided to allow it to be tendered into evidence. The system or officers failed to activate the microphone when I was first approached, and what was said then was also omitted from both officer's statements. The incident occured some 6 months ago so when I cross examined them regarding this, the only answer I got was "I cannot recall". This is important because I objected to the reading from the lidar gun when first approached. That would have helped me along with having further evidence.

There was some confusion on the penalty notices and their reminder letters, because the registration plate number had been entered incorrectly. I decided to tender them into evidence and gave a statement of my recollection of the events just before and during the alleged infringements, including denying the speeding offence. If my other arguments were successful I would have avoided giving evidence, as you get cross examined, but I had little else to support my argument

Their argument was that on a P2 rider license, you cannot ride a motorcycle greater than 600cc AND (very important, the magistrate made sure the police prosecution and I took note) greater than 150kw/t of power. Their evidence for this consisted of certificates from the RMS regarding my license, and the motorcycle in question. There was nothing on the certificate for the motorcycle about the capacity of the engine or the power it produced. Only the registered operator, make/model/colour, VIN & engine number, the tare weight.

The outcome being that just because a motorcycle is not on the LAMS approved list, does not mean it is illegal for a R L, R P1, R P2 license holder to ride it. The statement from police and recording of the event also had no facts regarding this matter. If found guilty for this offence I would have got 7 demerit points on my P2 license (with only 7 points available), meaning an instant suspension in addition to the fine.

I had no adequate defence for the alleged speeding infringement, and as I could not refute the prima facie evidence, the police's version of events was found to be factual. However, as this was my first traffic offence and first time in court, the magistrate gave me a section 10 (of the criminal code).

Both of these outcomes are a vast improvement! I have my license and no fines to pay. The only thing on my traffic record is the section 10 for the speeding infringement.

Best regards & keep on fighting,

Adrian - NSW


Dear Team at Aussie Speeding Fines

Thank you for your ongoing commitment! because of your valuable info I have not paid for one speeding fine which I followed your templates and 'stuck to my guns' with and have not heard from them again! 

Warm regards

Angela


Gday fellas,

I thought you might like to hear what happened to me in court yesterday re an alleged parking infringement notice I was challenging.

I was well prepared and had a detailed script prepared to challenge both constitutionally and contractually. My affidavit was submitted with references to the 1919, 1988 and 1999 referenda and had a full quiver of arrows ready with quotes from Forge V Australian Securities and Investments 2006,  Wakim 1999 such as  … “A legislature cannot , by preambular assertions, recite itself into constitutional power where none exists.” and quotes from various justices like Chief Justice Latham… "A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all"

Other arrows in my quiver were sections from various statutes like The Criminal Code (section 590AB), Acts Interpretation Act 1973, the Corporations Act 2001, Transport Operations Road Use Management Act (commencement), Corporate Bodies Act 1960… and evidence in the form of US Securities and Exchange filing information, Gold Coast City Council's ABN, etc.

As usual the trial started with the parties identifying themselves, beginning with the prosecutor stating his name, which law firm he was from and who he represented. The judge turned to me and said, "and are you Mr X? Is that correct?" I answered with, "I am the beneficiary to that estate, Your Honour, and I reserve my rights, is there any objection to that?", turning to the pro (There was none). 

Then the pro began his summary of complaint. The Judge seemed to immediately be 'on my side', asking the pro to repeat himself many times so she could keep up with her notes. Asking him to say what a 'ticket vending machine' is, etc…  (Afterwards I wondered if this was because she knew from my identifying as the beneficiary that even if I lost the State would be liable, not myself as I cannot be both Beneficiary and trustee at the same time.)

As soon as the witness took the stand and started describing his statement she stopped him and asked him exactly what the sign said, which was vague at best.

By the time the TORUM Act came up I objected that despite multiple requests (referring the court to my affidavit) no Certificate of Proclamation had been provided. She said "Hold on a minute we will get to that"

It was then she pointed out a potential 'technicality' in his claim... something about him not providing the original copy of the 'Instrument of Delegation' for viewing by the court and questioning its authority without it. 

"I've never been asked for that, Your Honour” he said.

"Well, I'm asking for it.” she replied.

He said he had never needed it before. She said that in her experience it was required and later in the proceedings told him she would not be accepting it as evidence because the court had not viewed the original ... basically giving me an argument for dismissal in my own summing up : )   I added it right away to my notes, ie; 'No Instrument of Delegation has been presented to the court.'

Then she went back to my objection asking for clarification of my objection. I pointed out that in Section 2.2 of the TORUM Act, The Commencement, it states "The remaining provisions commence on a day to be fixed by proclamation" and then discussed how I had asked for it in my affidavit and the failure to provide it was a breach of the Criminal Code, Section 590AB.

She began looking for section 2.2 so I offered her a copy (I had printed 3). After reading it she said, "This appears to be a repealed copy of the act".

After some discussion about the importance of proclamation, me asking things like "Do not all acts HAVE to have proclamation to be law?” and she answering, "It is not for me to answer that” she eventually then asked the prosecutor what he had to say about my objection.

He said he had no idea what I was talking about, only saying it was an enacted act which is judicially noted and under the QLD constitution as "a valid act"

I asked to comment on that, about to go into the illegality under the constitution, quoting supreme court judges, and she replied, "Not at this stage" (The 'witness' was sitting there through the whole thing, wondering what the hell was going on. We had still not gotten through his statement so I left it for my turn)

When it was my turn I got into questions about his employer, was stopped for 'relevancy', to which I pointed out that the GCC Council was a corporation and does not a contract between a corporation and a man demand a wet ink signature? She pointed out that she was not there to answer questions and asked me to direct them to the witness (who didn't have a clue and could not answer).

"Are you aware of, and have sighted a contract binding my estate to your corporation?"

"No"

"What evidence are you relying upon to claim there is a sign in the area near where my vehicle was parked?"

"There are signs everywhere on the streets."

"Did you notice the sign on the door to this courtroom?"

"Yes"

"What did it say?"

"It said 'Court 6'"

"I'm not talking about that sign. There is one right on the door to this court room, you would have walked right past it?"

"I did not notice any other sign."

(This was gold. He claims the signs are visible, noticeable and binding without proof I even saw them, yet does not even notice a sign right on the door asking for mobile phones to be turned off! I wrote this down to add into my summing up)

He did not comprehend so I said very slowly "You claim there was a sign 3 meters from my vehicle. I am asking what evidence you have that I saw such a sign, if it indeed exists, AND that I agreed to its terms and conditions.” Of course he had none.

I continued, "Does said sign state terms and conditions on it?" 

"It just says Pay and Display and the times"

Me: "So... it’s just assumed that anyone seeing that sign would know what it meant?"

"It's a Pay and Display machine, It's a Pay and Display machine.” was all he could say.

"So it's just an assumption?"

“mumble mumble... assume whatever... mumble mumble..."

Me: "Your Honour, Is the court here to hear facts, or presumptions?"

"Arm, I don't answer that... questions... I am not here to answer… please direct your questions to the witness"

So I turned back to the witness... "So, in your opinion, does said sign form a contract which binds my estate to the GCC Corporation?"

"I can't answer that."

"No more questions, Your Honour."

The pro then proceeds to try and save him with more questions, to which the judge buts in.. "Are there no photographs of the sign or the machine?" 

"Er no"

She asks me if I have anything to add. I see from her questioning of the witness she is going to hand it to me so don’t bother going into the constitutional arguments I had prepared and simply state that I will leave anything further I have to say to my summing up.

Prosecutor begins his summing up and she almost immediately interrupts and proceeds to point out that without the photographs is that not hearsay that a sign exists? Tells the Prosecutor what my argument will be and dismisses the case without me even having to provide my summing up. 

In hindsight it appears right from the start she was ‘on my side’, possibly in order to avoid my constitutional arguments supporting the need for proclamation of the act for it to have any force or effect… OR in order to avoid the State having to pay up as the declared trustee of my estate?

Regardless, thank you for the info on aussiespeedingfines and the radio show. Darryl really helped a lot regarding the need for proclamation of acts. 

Kind Regards,

Wolf - QLD



Hi guys,

We Won!! Below is what I’ve written on the ASF Facebook page.

County Court Melbourne Victory 18/05/2016.

Firstly thank you to ASF for pointing me in the right direction and providing a stepping stone to more research. Your ASF book has been pivotal to having this speeding fine dismissed. Secondly, this was not a case of me trying to get out of a speeding fine, i was not speeding PERIOD. I was willing to fight tooth and nail because i know in my heart i was not speeding. Ok the case today.

As advised by ASF i researched the Road Safety Act, National Measurement Act, State Law and Australian Federal Law extensively. 

Firstly i asked the Judge if this matter was a criminal matter, he said yes, i stated with all crimes there must be a corpus delicti is that correct? He said yes. I asked if the court may proceed against me, without proof of a corpus delicti. At this point i noticed i got his un decided attention. He looked at the prosecutor and stated. "Very interesting argument" I jumped in with Your Honour, I move the court to dismiss the charges on the basis there is no prima face case against me. He looked at me and nodded silently for about 3 seconds and then said, just a minute, you’re putting forward an argument i have not dealt with for quite some time, I’m not dismissing the argument but i need to establish a few things with the prosecutor. From this point the next 20 minutes was taken up by the judge grilling the prosecutor about Corpus Delicti and how the burden of proof is on the prosecution and that I am challenging his evidence. I felt I had the upper hand and the Judge on my side at this point. Following this the prosecutor convinced the Judge that the photo and certificate were in fact Corpus Delicti blah blah blah. Judge stated on that basis he is not willing to dismiss but you have my attention. BINGO!!

I objected to the evidence presented by the prosecution because it does not meet the requirement of Australian Federal Law or the National Measurement Act. I showed the Judge that if State Law is inconsistent with the NMA then the Federal Act and Regulations take precedent. I showed the certificate presented by the prosecution under Section 83 of the Road Safety Act is inconsistent with certification requirements of the NMA and NMR.

The prosecution stated they will be relying on the Road Safety Act 83A to tender the evidence. I objected and stated to the Judge that section only applies if there is no evidence to the contrary and Ii fully intend to provide evidence to the contrary by way of sworn testimony that I was not speeding and as I have not yet had an opportunity to provide that evidence, I submit that section is not relevant and will be prejudicial to my case. The Judge at this point asked me if I had a copy of the Act. I obliged and passed it onto the clerk. Again the next 25 minutes was taken up by the judge reading the Act.

When the Judge finished reading the relevant parts of the Act he stated. This is the worse rules or Acts ever put on paper, it is the messiest thing I have ever seen and have always despised it. He spoke to me about the Act in detail and in length and asked several question regarding the Act and the NMA, he then said he is going to allow the prosecutor’s evidence but has noted my objection as an excellent argument that several of my high court Judges would find very interesting. From this point forward i am interested in hearing your testimony.

From this point forward I was confident I had the judge on my side. I gave my testimony followed by the passenger in the vehicle, the prosecutor asked his questions and that was that.

Dismissed due to evidence to the contrary being mine and my passengers sworn testimony that i was not speeding. We provided testimony of why the day and date in question was relevant and easily remembered, as we travel this very road, this very date, every single year for the past 10 years to go on our annual fishing trip to Eden NSW. We provided testimony that we both looked at the speedometer before going under the Wellington Road Bridge East Link and we provided testimony why we felt the need to do that.

The Judge then stated "It would be a sad day in the state of Victoria when we believe a machine over the testimony of two upstanding citizens of the community". You’re Excused.

So my advice to everyone:
1. Forget the Magistrates court, the Magistrate and his decisions are worth a pinch of shit, the real case starts at County. 

2. Research and know your topic. Don’t just use what ASF have provided. You need to know this stuff because you will be asked about it.

3. Be polite but fight tooth and nail. Remember the system is a corrupt revenue raising machine and when you question it, you will be asked to elaborate on facts of the NMA and law. If you don’t know, forget it, you will lose.

Well done guys, couldn’t of done it without you

Paul – Vic.

Please note a copy of Paul's extensive paperwork that he submitted to the court can now be found on the Speeding Fines page of our Advanced Membership website - http://membersonly.aussiespeedingfines.com/speeding-fines.php


Hi,

Fantastic work. Hope you get many clients from City of Sydney fighting illegal infringements.

I was Terminated from City of Sydney council in 2013 - check out channel 7 Today Tonight March.  

Applause... I have been a Parking Officer for 16 years, I always read signs and help others with parking fines out on the street. My Integrity got me Fired

Good on you!!!

Elizabeth – NSW


Hi guys,

Just came out of court for an alleged speeding offence. The shearing shed was fairly busy and as usual I was left to last.

Pro sought me out early to give me copies of court findings she would be relying upon to try and defeat my arguments. Typical sneaky attitude, trying not to give me time to find answers to their arguments by handing me the paperwork on the morning of the trial!

Luckily I had already read them. When preparing my submissions (see attached) I had already researched cases using my main arguments by searching the database using keywords like 'National Measurements Act', 'TORUM Act unlawful', etc and as such had already read what she gave me.

The first finding was when a fellow appealed against his fine saying the speed measuring device did not comply with the NMA. The 'reason' the magistrate found to dismiss his appeal was because the chap had not filed a 'Notice of Intention to Challenge' as required under the TORUM Act (Transport Operations Road UseManagement 1995, for those unfamiliar with Qld acts).

It was when I read this finding that I realised how important it was to file this notice. I had tried to hand it to the Pro at plea trial, and gave a copy to the judge, but Pro refused to take it because it was 'not in the correct format', so judge handed it back. I filed it using their template by putting in the tiny space they provide for 'reasons to contest' "(see attached)", then stapled to it the exact document I had handed to him.

Hearing begins, judge does not even ask me to confirm my 'name'.Pro excuses herself explaining that she has been running about a lot (she spent a lot of time reading through my authorities. Even though I had given my List of Authorities 2 weeks prior, I gave her a copy of the actual authorities when she gave me her 'findings').

Then she proceeds to explain she has two witnesses waiting (hence the running around).

Pro explains who the witnesses are, one 'expert' witness and the operator of the device.

I had already received the two witness statements. The 'expert' is a cop who works in the camera dept. He declares the police do not have to follow the NMA, despite having no legal training! I was ready to chew this guy up but he had to wait. For the 'operator' I needed the Operator's Manual to properly cross-examine so explained this to the judge.

She asked me if I had asked the QPS for the manual, I replied I had 2 weeks ago. Judge turns to Pro, questioning her about it... Pro declares that QPS is under no obligation to provide it. I replied that to not provide evidence when asked for is in breach of section 590AB of The Criminal Code. Pro snorted and said something about irrelevance. Judge ignored her and asked me if I would like to apply for an adjournment so the police could get a copy to me?

Knowing how much I would like to get my hands on this manual, and how the cops hate to give it, I agreed.

Pro speaks up trying to save the situation, "Your honour, I have two precedents that dispute Mr Collaborator's arguments..." and proceeds to give to the court a copy of what she had handed to me earlier. Pro told the judge it was a finding that found against my argument on the relevance of the NMA's section 10.

I destroyed her point using that particular 'authority' by simply saying to the judge that I had managed to read it while waiting (despite only just being handed it earlier) and found the learned Magistrate who wrote it had only come to his conclusion because of the lack of a 'Notice to Challenge', whereas I had filed mine weeks ago.

Pro had no answer to this so she moved on to my other main argument that the 'TORUM Act was illegal' (her words, not mine) and offered up the other ruling she had handed to me earlier.

I pointed out to the judge that particular ruling was made regarding a questioning of one part of the TORUM Act being unconstitutional. I was submitting to the court that without a certified copy of the proclamation for the Act as required by Law,  the entire Act cannot be proven to have any validity. I then proceeded to point out I had plenty of authority to back this up in the acts and high court findings in my List of Authorities in front of her.

Judge then said "Let's take the scenario I have in my hand a copy of the proclamation, what would your next argument be Mr Collaborator?"

"The measuring device used does not comply with section 10 of the National Measurements Act, your Honour... as Supreme Court decisions have already found, 'section 10 MUST be complied with for ANY LEGAL PURPOSE'."

Judge decides to grant an adjournment for a mention and in the meantime Pro must answer my submissions with authorities. Dates are made for the Pro to provide a written argument against my submissions to the court. I point out that I would prefer to NOT be handed them on the day. Judge agrees and tells Pro to get them to me, then gives me time to resubmit in response.

It is going to be VERY interesting to see if the Pro finds anything against my submission that without proclamation the act is invalid. I doubt she will. The Qld and commonwealth law is pretty clear on the need for proclamation. I also doubt she will find anything on my NMA submissions. I have already looked for both, trying every possible combination of words I can think of in the search tools.

I suspect the Pro will pull out and drop the case. She will not risk the court being placed in a position of having to follow the law or break it to protect the system. They will choose the latter but she would cop an earful for it. On top of this she will be forced to release a copy of the manual... big no no

In any case I will let you know what she comes up with. If I get a copy of the Tru-cam manual for Qld police I will pass it on to you.

Lessons: ALWAYS research the austlii database for any cases that may support your submissions. Doing so will expose what they will find to use against you. You can then find weaknesses and faults in their argument (if they exist). You can bet they did not read the findings very well themselves, and if they did and found the same weaknesses, chose to ignore them hoping you will not point them out. Cops are like most people, when it comes to their jobs they try to do as little for their paycheck as possible. Make them work and work hard.

I have attached my submissions for you and your members. Apologies for the name used. Because I try and use ’their’ laws against them and not ’NAME GAME’ sov-cit stuff I have been accused of being a masonic shill and collaborator by a ‘Freeman’. As you will see from them, I have used the info in the member’s area of ASF for much of it. Thanks guys.

Kind Regards,

Wolf - QLD

Please note that a copy of these submissions can now be found on the Downloads page on our Advanced Membership website - http://membersonly.aussiespeedingfines.com/download.php


Hi guys,

Another parking fine victory.

Briefly. My wife drove herself to hospital in panic during a massive haemorrhage emergency. She parked in car park next to hospital. Was admitted and the car stayed where it was for two days. Upon retrieving the car I found an infringement from Whittlesea council Victoria on the window.

I wrote a letter with a note from the hospital saying what had happened. The reply I got was a disgrace, typical Council bullshit. I started the 3 step process and as always did not use the templates word for word I used them as a guide. Letters went back and forth for 12 months and I finally elected to go to court.

Went to court last Friday. Met with the council representative and told him unless he is withdrawing I do not want to speak to him. Called up by Magistrate, Magistrate asked my wife for her plea and she stated. 'Guilty but asking you dismiss the case due to circumstance'

When my wife laid out the circumstances, the magistrate was disgusted and immediately dismissed the case. My wife asked for costs due to stress. Council objected stating the weren't told this story and if they had been they would of withdrawn.

My wife held up original letter that we sent explaining the situation. Magistrate stated she was disgusted by this Councils attitude and awarded costs of one days wages being $80.

hahahahaha cop that council!!

Now it’s onto the speed camera fine appeal in the County Court in May.

Paul – Vic.


Hi everyone,

Today I received written advice from the Courts Administration Authority SA in relation to my (false) arrest last year and subsequent court appearances.

In February I received a letter from the Magistrates Court advising that the hearing was to be on a certain date and that "you are required to attend".

I replied back to the Registrar, in her private, unlimited commercial liability, and rebutted that we are "you" and that she should send the notice to whoever "you" is for their attention. Failure to respond within 7 days would provide full legal accord and satisfaction of all claims against me.

The response today from the CAA is that they have no record of any convictions or fines against me. 

So I'm pretty happy with the result and hope that that's the last of the matter (if they try anything else now they endanger their registrar to legal action).

The reason I'm writing is to thank each and every one of you for your support, advice and conviction to keep going with this matter. I'd never have had the courage to do this in the past but with your help and support I am extremely happy!

Cheers,

Wayne - SA


Good morning Aussie Speeding Fines,

Many thanks for your support and educating me as to the ways the Monarchy raise revenue willy nilly and try to represent whatever it is they claim as law.

Attached is a letter I recently received from them that states that all of the offences (3 Multanova fines, rear facing camera photos of my vehicle on 3 different occasions in a month)  have been withdrawn. I applied the 3-step process and included all 3 case numbers together to be all dealt with as a whole and they bent over for me.

Below is a link to their submission for my win with them;

Dear Sir,

Re: Charge of Exceed the Speed Limit in a Speed Zone, Infringement Numbers xxx, xxx & xxx

Information has been received regarding the above mentioned charges. These matters are listed at Fremantle Magistrates Court on 22nd August 2016.

As part of the review process undertaken when preparing the papers for prosecution, it was decided the matters should be withdrawn.

WA Police will not be proceeding any further regarding these matters.

Sincerely,

Ren MUSCARA

Senior Constable 9485

Prosecutions officer

Once again, many thanks and I will forever recommend and be a lifelong member of Aussie Speeding Fines, cheers.

Andrew - WA


Hi guys,

Thanks for you recent advice, it was much appreciated.

Just to let you know I have been toe to toe with CCV and IMES for a good 18months. Long story short, on Thursday I went into court 1 hr before my hearing and spent 1hr and 20min auditing all the alleged Infringement Warrants. It has taken me 2 months to finally be granted permission to view the original warrants.

I entered court and explained to Magistrate unless an agreement can be reached today on my terms I will appeal to supreme court based on question of law. My argument is all Infringement Warrants I reviewed did not contain a name or signature of an Infringement Registrar pursuant to sect 80 of Infringement Act and sect 150 & 151 of Evidence Act 1995. I noted all warrants presented as "original" were all issued on Sheriff Office stationary, not Infringement or Magistrate courts, as required. Therefore, these are invalid and cannot be accepted as evidence.

Magistrate Bolster did not deny or even argue this point, he in fact stated, “I see where you are going with this.” He stood the matter down at 12:30. I was called back into court at 4:15pm, and note the entire court complex was closed and not a person in sight.

He offered a reduction and payment plan of $50 to payback $12000 instead of $202k. He said do you accept. I accept.

So thanks for your help again.

Cole – Vic



Hello all,

Having followed the three step process and reached letter 2, I received this ...

Now I'm thinking that this is a positive but I'm just checking that with you guys because you've obviously seen more than I have.

If I'm correct - then I'd like to add it to your testimonial page.

And I'd also like to say Thankyou for the work you do and the information you share. It's important that people know about this because with numbers we are powerful and they know it.

Cheers,

Julie


Hi there,

 I live in Mount Gambier and received a toll fine for a date that I wasn't even in Victoria. It was only 15 dollars but I refused to pay it as I had proof where the car was on that date.

They refused to drop the fine and sent me a picture of my car. Yes, it was mine but it was in the tunnel and not on the Bolte Bridge where they reckon the car was. The picture was from another time months before which was paid.

After going back and forwards we asked for a picture of the car on the Bolte Bridge and they said all they had was that and said if we paid 3 dollars and that it would end. We refused this and said we would go to court to fight it and ask for costs to travel over to defend it as we had proof the car was in Mount Gambier on that time and date.

Surprise they dropped it and cancelled the fine. So how many people are paying fines for old photos? I find this just a disgraceful thing to do and would like to get this out there that this is what they are now doing to get revenue illegally.

Regards,

Melinda – S.A.


Hi Guys,

Last year I had a 1 point speed  camera fine that I took to court.  The ebook worked well. The court charged extra money due to wasting their time with a belated guilty plea…..

The 7 months that it took to get to court was enough as I was given back several points in that time and I had avoided the bullet of zero points/loss of licence.

12 months passed and I am looking at getting 6 points back within 6 months.

Best regards

Craig


Mcc v Menos

Dear team,

Just wanted to give you an update on this matter.  After offering to settle for the lawyer costs and fine over $400, 4 days before the court case due to be heard, the council withdrew the prosecution due to ‘informant’ being unavailable. 

Needless to say it made me very happy!

Thank you for your support and responses

Warm regards

Phyllis – Vic.


Hey guys,

Went to court last week for a speeding fine.

Cut a long story short, I followed your book and got the charge dropped as they had to prove that I was speeding and couldn’t, as they have to prove everything but couldn’t.  They got me doing 114 in a 100 zone

Thanks a lot guys for you endless work to help us all out!

All the best and happy new year,

Mark


Hi Guys,

A personal testimonial from today...

I attended Rockingham court (W.A.) armed with a multitude of defence tactics using the E-book etc to defend a speeding fine, 107kph in 100kph zone.

'Sadly' I was not able to put my planned defence to use as the "witness" [speed camera operator] did not turn up.  The magistrate adjourned for a short period of time pending his appearance which continued as a 'no show'...probably too busy flashing other unsuspecting drivers.

After reconvening the prosecution let it be known that in addition to a lack of witness they also had "issues with the chain if evidence".

The Magistrate announced that I be "acquitted", after which I drew attention to costs incurred and that I had prepared a Stat Dec documenting my expenses backed up by copies of invoices etc - I actually forgot some trivial items.

The prosecution checked over my documentation and agreed to reasonable costs after which the documentation was passed to the Magistrate. He also looked it over and agreed it was reasonable and directed that my costs be paid....a total $747.48 (largely being return fares from Brisbane, hire car and estimated fuel costs).

I walked outside the courthouse to see a number of cars with parking tickets and took a few photos for keepsake - only to be challenged by a lady in one of the cars "Are you the parking inspector?" to which I strongly replied in the negative!  After a few minutes chat where I pointed out the 'facts of life' I left her with your web site address.

(I've previously successfully challenged Brisbane City Council over two parking fines plus a tunnel toll fee and it's associated non-payment penalties, again using the E-book!)

Keep up the good work!

Cheers

Mark – W.A.


Hi,

I wanted to post Court results regarding some parking tix.

A Melbourne council issued me approx 15 parking tix whilst parked validly with a permit. I wrote the letters (ASF) and got the anticipated rejections. So took them to Court (and stalled and obfuscated as much as possible to cause the Courts hassle for prosecuting these unlawful fines.

I asked (under UCC 1.308 & UCC 1-103.6) for the injured party and verified complaint, amongst other things. This was deferred to a later date. At this hearing, they withdrew the charges/tix before we started. 

I challenged the rest via email, and all were withdrawn.

The point I want to make (and wanted to post) is that, if I hadn’t challenged them, I would have paid and encouraged the bastards. So we have to challenge all tix.

Cheers

Adam – Vic.


Hi Team,

Received a parking ticket for overstaying the sign in a one hour area and returned it to the Lilydale council with No Contract written across both sides

Eventually got a letter cancelling the fine and advising me not to do it again as they may not be as lenient again.

Cheers

John – Vic.


Hi there,

Thanks for the cool updates. I think it’s great you are educating so many people against the establishments money raising scam speed cameras and maybe you’ve inspired groups like “block their shot” as I know when I got your e book a few yrs back they were not around, so once again keep up the good fight , less sheep on the roads now thanks to sites like  Aussie speeding fines I think more people are waking up, I know I did

Ralph - WA


Hi Guys,

Your three step letter process works    ……..… even against a bunch of vehement, reptilian downgrades working for the draconian QLD Government as the gold Coast Cops who tried to extract a hefty  $341 (where the F*^% does the 1 come from?) levy for a minor traffic infringement.  

Also: my research into the so-called ‘legislation’ in the varying states and the Commonwealth as well, that our various corrupted executive governments are relying on for their oppression; is revealing that a vast majority (around 70%) is missing the royal assent. And thus has no authority in Law. Am I just missing something? Surely the Royal Assent isn’t hidden in some obscure reference library that no-one can find. They would emblazon it on the very document they process as does the real legislation on far more documents pre-1973.

Keep up the good work guys and the word is spreading and is alive and well in Far North QLD.

Hamish – QLD


Gday fellas, 

I have two matters in the appeals courts re alleged speeding offences and have been learning lots, especially about the dirty tricks the pros use (for example recently a prosecutor tried to deceive the court when I was there for a mention to adduce evidence into the record. The Pro, under her breath, told the judge that they were ready for a hearing so as to avoid having to adduce the Speed Camera operator’s Manual into the record. I had to speak up and say that I was NOT there for a hearing on that day. It was only a mention to adduce evidence)

Until today I also had another matter still at the magistrates level.

I used the ‘Notice to Dispute’ on the advanced member’s area of aussiespeedingfines.

This particular notice goes into great detail about the National Measurements Act, specifically, "The photographic detection device used and the certificate of accuracy issued by the QLD Police Service under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (TORUM) QLD, does not comply with the accuracy and certification requirements of the National Measurement ACT 1960 Sections 10, 19a, 19aab and 20, and the National Measurement Regulations 1999 Regulation 16, 19, 37, 39, 41, 42, 46, 48, 58, 60, 63, 71, 73,74, 76, 90, and Schedules 1, 4, 7, 12, and therefore the alleged speed reading is inadmissible for any legal purpose as it has not been correctly certified.”

The Prostitutions Office responded with some impressive looking documentation making out that the device was certified according to the National Measurements Institute. I sent the guys at Aussie Speeding fines copies. They responded by saying the documents still did not have pattern approval as required by law. I was about to prepare my submissions of reply when I received a CCd email from the Prostituors to the court house saying they would not be submitting any evidence and asking for the matter to be removed from the listings. You Beauty..

The courthouse replied yesterday requiring a mention date so the matter could be dismissed and informing the prosecutor that a time had been made for this morning. Even though it was made clear that I did not have to attend I saw this as an opportunity to seek costs so did up an affidavit of costs and got it JPd before court this morning.

WHAT FOLLOWS IS A WORD FOR WORD TRANSCRIPT OF THE MENTION TODAY...

PROSECUTOR: Matter of XXXXXX (my surname)

JUDGE: Speeding?

PROSECUTOR: That's correct. Prosecution is offering no evidence in relation to this matter.

JUDGE:  ALright.... ahm... you've got no objection to that do you? (looking at me)

ME: No, I don't your honour.

JUDGE:  Charges dismissed.

ME:  Your honour, I do request the court exercise its discretion pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Act to make an order for costs.

JUDGE:  (long hesitation) Righto, so ah.. what costs have you incurred?

ME:  I have an affidavit of costs here, your honour.

JUDGE:  That's alright. (looks to pro) Have you seen this?

PROSECUTOR: No. (I hand a copy to pro, who looks it over then passes it on to judge)

JUDGE:  Thank you. (reads) righto, ahm. So what are your submissions on this application for costs (to Pro)?

PROSECUTOR: He can't make an application because he's self-represented. It's a ah, summary offence. 

JUDGE:  Yeah, so costs can be ordered, can't they? Can you be more sp... it's not for me to formulate your argument right? Can you formulate your argument so the defendant knows why-

PROSECUTOR: My submission is that he cannot make an appication for costs.

JUDGE:  Well the section of the act says he can make an application for costs. You're saying that that means legal costs?

PROSECUTOR: That's correct. 

JUDGE:  And that does not include time off work, does not mean, include writing an affidavit. That's 'cause he did it himself, he is not a lawyer?

PROSECUTOR: That's correct. And in any event any application would be opposed. Ahm this matter was brought on in fact when it was determined the prosecution was not proceeding with it... to offer no evidence and that the trial be removed from the hearing list.

JUDGE: That's right. 

PROSECUTOR: He hasn't been inconvenienced because it's been resolved on an earlier date.

JUDGE: Right, so Mr XXXXXX, the prosecution says that ahm, the the power to award costs relates to legal costs... the costs of a lawyer. You didn't have a lawyer, did you? None of the costs relate to a lawyer though you have done a good job?

ME:  Your honour under section 213 of the Criminal Procedure Act it says and I quote "A court may ... order that the prosecutor pay professional costs to the Registrar of the Court, for payment to the accused person, if the matter is dismissed or withdrawn.” I made the prosecution aware your honour of the highly relevant matter of the device having to have pattern approval as required by section 10 of the National Measurements Act 1960 in this notice, I am sure he has a copy of that notice, that was sent on the 8th of January... so I submit that the prosecution was well aware of the relevant facts by this notice and as a result of unreasonably failing to investigate said facts is liable for the costs incurred in my defence.

JUDGE: You mentioned one word there, the professional costs. You quoted the section of the Criminal Practice Rules... I believe it's section, about 159 of the Justices Act... 159, I think (to the Pro) You remember the section off the top of your head?

PROSECUTOR: No.

(Pulls out ipad)

ME:  I spent a great deal of my time your honour researching the law on this matter... 

JUDGE:  (buts in) Yeah yeah, good. (reads his ipad)

JUDGE:  Ok, so ahm.. yeah so its 158 158A. The case law on that is that I can't give you costs it's for your your own work, even though I understand that you would see that to be unfair. The application for costs is dismissed. The charge is dismissed and you are discharged.

So to sum up… they have obviously rigged the system to make sure the members of their system (lawyers, etc) get paid no matter what, but we as the defendants can not get paid for all the work and time we have to put in to defend ourselves. The judge even went so far as to make the prosecutor’s argument for him!

Is there anything I could have said to get around this?

Regardless, a win is a win. Thanks to the great info and continued support from the guys at AussieSpeedingFines. I highly recommend them to anyone and everybody and have given out many dozens of business cards.

Kind Regards,

Wolf 



Dear Aussie Speeding Fines,

Re:       Expiation Notice xxxxxxx

Matter heard at Holden Hill Magistrates Court – 20th July 2015:

I was scheduled to appear 11-30am 20th July 2015. On appearing at the court house I discovered my case did not appear on the court list. After I enquired at the counter about my case I was told it was Court 3, and to wait by the door. When Court 3 did not open I enquired again and was told it was Court 2!!!!

In court I had intended to plead not guilty – believing the case would be sent to trial. When appearing before the Judge however, I was asked how I intend to defend myself. The Judge kept asking if I admit that I was the driver of the vehicle; was I doing the alleged speed etc. and he insisted that I tell him how I intend to defend myself. I told him that I did not think I was speeding and that if he set a date for the hearing I would be able to defend myself at trial.

The Judge then stressed the point that the South Australian Government has passed legislation that upholds the presumption that speed camera readings are accurate. That to over-rule the charge I would have to prove that, in my case, the speed camera reading was not accurate. At this point I told the Judge I had written to the South Australian Police (SAPOL) and asked for details relating to their camera readings but that they did not even answer my correspondence.

I also told the Judge that I should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The judge noted that in most cases an accused person has the presumption of innocence but the South Australian Government has reversed that convention. He informed me that the new South Australian legislation relating to exceeding the speed limits holds the charged person guilty until they can prove they are innocent.

The Judge told me that it would be almost impossible for me to win a case against the State Government. I said I am being charged with a criminal offence and I have the right to have the case heard in court. He said; “It is not a criminal offence but yes, you certainly have the right to take the matter to court.” He then said if I attempted to challenge the legislation I would finish up in the High Court and I would likely be hit with court costs. I said I do not have any money so you will have to throw me in jail. He quickly responded; “I do not want to do that!”

The Judge then told me I can plead ‘Guilty under Protest’. He said this is what the court would consider a ‘Plea of Convenience’ and if I did he would accept my guilty plea WITH NO PENALTY.

I therefore entered a guilty plea and the case is now closed – with no penalty.

Robert - SA


Hey team,

Brief update from my email to you last month.

Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit (which seeks to prevent you from your right to a court of competent jurisdiction) have returned the 2 outstanding fines to the issuing "authority" - Salisbury City council.

Total of fees I don't have to pay - $650! Add that to the $375 from last month and I'm happy!

Now I will begin the 3 letter process on the council - but not just the council. The mayor, CEO, General Manager and the head of inspectorial services. They need to stop!

Very happy!

Cheers,

Wayne – S.A.


Hello,

Thanks for the email. I submitted your form letters when my husband was issued a parking fine. The first reply from the Council had a very sarcastic tone and requested the payment.

I sent the second form letter and have had no further correspondence from them for 4 months.

Winning.

He had a day’s work on Stradbroke Island but when he got to the carpark only the spots for trailers was free so he parked there rather than miss a day’s work. This annoyed me so I went ahead, so glad I did. 

Thank you all very much

April - QLD


HI ASF,

I thought my recent experience in fighting an alleged speeding fine might be of interest to ASF readers especially since it involves the limitation period for traffic offences.

My approach followed ASF’s recommendation of returning all unsolicited mail which probably included speed fines received in the mail. I received a demand for payment of an unpaid fine from SPER noting the alleged fine was dated some 2 years earlier.

In response I sent various letters to SPER challenging them on the legality of their demand for payment especially without a court order and reference to the limitation period, to no avail. This went on the 6 months. Finally, I sent them my objection and request to cancel SPER’s Enforcement Order SPER Act 1999 under s56(1) & (2).SPER finally granted my request only after I stated the above section which they had to comply with.

However, upon cancelation the QPS issued a new infringement notice starting the whole process all over again. Remember, by this time, the alleged speeding offence occurred over 2.5 years ago. I elected to have the matter heard by a court of law.

On the hearing date the magistrate read through the charge sheet and noted the date of the alleged offence and raised this is the prosecution. The magistrate then asked whether my defence rested on the issue of the limitation period in s52 of the Justices Act 1886. I replied that my defence did indeed address this issue but was only one part of my defence as I had various other points to raise.

He questioned my understanding of the limitation period in the Justices Act but also grilled me on the limitation period in the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 especially s62. It appeared he was convinced that I was well aware of the limitation period issue and how it applied to the matter. I guess he needed to do this since he was the one who raised it in the first place and would need to ensure that impartiality was being upheld.

The magistrate then grilled the prosecution over the limitation period issue at length for approximately 40 minutes and the prosecution’s defence rested on s32 of the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 claiming it supersedes s62 of TORUM Act 1995. The magistrate appeared to be contemplating the prosecution’s arguments and reading the various sections in the above acts. He finally ordered both parties to prepare submissions on the issue of the limitation period and advised I seek legal assistance and adjourned the hearing to a later date.

I contacted a number of solicitors listed on the web who specialised in traffic matters. Of the six I contacted only one replied stating that they would not be interested in preparing a submission even though I would pay for it. The other five had no interest whatsoever. Finally, through personal contacts I found a solicitor who was prepared to prepare a submission for a fixed price ($550).

On receipt of the prosecution’s copy of their submission I sent a copy of my solicitor’s submission and forwarded a copy onto the court to put on the case file. On the hearing date, the magistrate asked the prosecution whether they did indeed prepare a submission as ordered as there was no copy on the case file. The prosecution, who were different people to those at the original hearing date, said they were not sure but assumed a copy was forwarded. The magistrate asked whether they had a copy of the submission and they said they did not. The magistrate then asked if I had a copy of the prosecution’s submission and I said I did and gave my copy to the magistrate. He spent about three minutes reading a 15 page submission which included additional attachments. The submission itself was 5 pages. This suggested to me that the magistrate did read my submission and had already made up his mind. The prosecution was claiming the limitation period according to the SPER Act 1999 was three years.

The magistrate then ruled in my favour IE that the limitation period was exceeded and therefore the case was dismissed. Please note he did state that according to QLD legislation the limitation period on a traffic matter after SPER cancelation of an Enforcement Order is two years not 12 months. Also note, that my solicitor stated that the prosecution’s interpretation was correct and even though he prepared the submission as directed he did not believe it would be accepted by the magistrate if the magistrate were to read the various acts and submissions closely.

I asked for costs which the prosecution objected to. I presented a schedule of costs to the magistrate who refused them stating that travel costs, photocopying costs, lost income, and information purchase costs were all excluded and only the solicitor costs for the submission could be claimed. I argued that the whole matter was frivolous and vexatious and should not have proceeded on the basis of the limitation period, the QPS Procedures manual (no matter should be commenced if more than 8 months old), and the magistrate’s own judgement. He refused my request and would only grant costs in the amount of $550 however he stated I could appeal but I would be foolish to as most appeals for costs are lost.

Finally the magistrate gave the QPS two months rather the usual one month to pay. I objected. The magistrate said that he could rule one month however the QPS was taking approximately two months to make such payments. I immediately objected again to no avail. Having won the case and costs of $550 I chose not to proceed with an appeal on costs.

Note, the prosecution (QPS) objected to paying costs of $550 and requested that the magistrate order costs be paid by SPER which was unsuccessful. The prosecution then argued that the original QPS prosecutor pursued this matter in good faith and therefore costs should not be awarded against them. On hearing this I was speechless. There appears to be some tensions between these two organisations especially since the QLD has a huge budget deficit, with the obvious conclusion, it is all about the money.

Ed – QLD


Hey team,

Just had a small win with the Fines and Enforcement Unit here in SA. We received my wife's rego renewal and they are going to suspend her license and stop her from registering her car.

I had been using the "Return to sender" strategy with them for 3 fines - 1 was a fine which we had paid off or at least thought we had. We missed the final payment of $25.

2 of the fines were from the local council. I'll come back to these.

For the missed payment of $25 they had added fees and charges - an additional $375!

I challenged this by conditional acceptance - we would pay the fine and additional amounts on proof of:

Legislation compelling mail to be opened
Legislation forbidding the return of unwanted mail
Proof that the Fines and Enforcement Unit were not a private business registered to a lady named Theresa Kennedy and trading as a sole trader. (ASIC website shows the Fines and Enforcement Unit are a private business!)

We received an email back stating the team leader had decided to waiver the additional fees! So we paid the $25 and emailed them the receipt.

When we called the Fines and Enforcement Unit about these fines I said I'd elect to go to court and was told this is no longer possible. Then I filled in the payment plan papers and noticed a little line - "by electing to enter a payment plan you also waiver your right to elect to be prosecuted". So I killed the payment plan option and am now appealing the other 2 fines.

I had used the 3 letter process with the local council and through non-response and non performance gained an agreement. Now with the appeal with the fines unit I'm expecting them to throw the fines straight back to the council. I'll update you on completion :)

I'd NEVER have even attempted this without your ebook! I refuse to pay any fines now. Thank you for giving me the balls and resources to fight the thugs!

Cheers,
Wayne – S.A.


Hi Guys

Well I went in, court Mention today. I had a big affidavit that I had prepared but I didn't bring it out....of course....

There were heaps of people there all trying to get permission to drive due to hardship, so they had all run out of points....a crazy scenario.

There were a couple of interesting interchanges between the magistrate and the prosecution.

One was about an infringement that had been returned to sender. No note- just marked on the outside.

Magistrate said they couldn't send it to SPER because it had been "returned to sender" even though the prosecution was sure that the address was correct. They were told to send it back to TCO and have them reissue it.... so that was interesting.

Then also, the 12 months thing is only IF people refer it on, and it keeps getting referred on. In other words, the round robin WORKS! You just have to keep it up for 12 months.

So then came my turn.

She asked my name and I fumbled again.... then she said- do I want it heard, if not she will just schedule the hearing and be done with it....so a threat I guess. Then she asked how I plea- I said I enter no plea because I have no cause to answer because it is already a year old.

She said she would enter a not guilty plea and the date for hearing was set....then I piped up.

I said but you cant because it is passed the statute of limitations. She said that the policeman- Colin John Parry- declared it came to his attention on 3 March and under section 62 of transport operations blabla........

Then I said. “So is this a personal thing between him and me or is it Qpolice, because if it is Qpolice then they have had it for over 12 months.” then everything changed. She told me I might have something, and she looked up her big books.

She asked me if I put in a court election, I said no because I don't use their paperwork, but I told them repeatedly that IF they had a "cause of action" that I would go to a court of competent jurisdiction, Chapter 111 Jury court.

Then she sat back and had a think..... Then she announced she wanted him to prepare an affidavit explaining why it took so long. So he has 6 weeks to prepare his affidavit/ or withdraw.

She said she would like him to withdraw, because 8 months is too long.....

She even smiled at me, and the prosecution lady was really polite....

And they took down my email address so that they could notify me if he withdraws.....

I asked her if I needed to prepare anything, did she want my letters....She said No...I don't have to do anything- it is up to them to explain themselves.

So, fingers crossed, this one is a win......

Cheers,

Brandi - QLD


G'day guys,

Well, I went to court on Monday. The police spent almost 90 minutes presenting their 'evidence'. Dozens of pieces of paper certifying that the speed camera was correct, that the police officer was authorized under the Act, and all the rest of the rigmarole they go through to try and justify their daylight robbery.

Then I got up and told the magistrate that I am a Vietnam veteran and that I was not driving the car. I produced a Stat Dec sent to me by the Indian who was driving my car. I also produced a print out from the Department of Veterans Affairs showing that I was logged in at the gym about 5 kilometers from the site of the alleged offense at the time.

The Magistrate would not accept either document into the evidence, as he said the driver must be in the court room. As my driver was in India, there was nothing he could do.

Then the policewoman started grilling me. During this amazing performance she repeatedly asked why I didn't state categorically that I was not driving on the Stat Dec I submitted within the mandatory 30 day period after receiving the fine notice. As I pointed out, I wasn't sure who was driving the car at that time. I wasn't even sure if I was driving. However, after further investigation I found out that I was at the gym and eventually I found the Indian friend who was driving my car at the time. She asked why I could not remember where I was on the day, and I pointed out that I have a poor memory (I am 67 after all!) and the shock of receiving a speeding ticket confused me. I had no recollection of getting pinged for speeding.

When I was finished giving evidence the Magistrate took a 10 minute recess to "go and do some research". I think he was looking up the Act to see if there was a time limit to submitting a Stat Dec, and if the court could accept one from my Indian friend.

When he returned he explained that the Act is very specific. The SD must be submitted within 30 days (in Qld) and I should have stated that I was not driving the car at the time and nominated the actual driver.

As I had pointed out repeatedly as I gave evidence, I couldn't do that, and I wasn't going to lie on a Stat Dec, he said it was unfortunate but he had to administer the letter of the law.

Then came the sentencing phase. He convicted me of speeding, but then said that he believed my version of events and therefore he WAIVED THE FINE!

I want to thank you for your support throughout this saga. It is finally closed after more than 18 months of dragging it out through the court system while I did the research to back up my defence. I really appreciate the support and advice you have given me along the way. You guys have been great.

But what is really fantastic about all this is that when I first approached you I signed up as an affiliate. Since then, I have earned much more than the fine would have been...enough to buy a new laptop! Fantastic. Keep up the good work.

Cheers!


Mike - QLD


Hi Guys,

Just wanted to say thanks again for all your help and support with my latest fine.

As you may recall, I parked in an area where the signage wasn’t clear and received a fine. I wrote to the council and they sent me back what was clearly a “standard response” and it was obvious that they hadn’t even read my letter to them as they didn’t respond to any of the points I raised.

I wrote back to them about a month later and then I received a withdrawal notice because they said that there was an “oversight” and my “appeal wasn’t assessed in time”. They can explain it away however they like, as long as they cancelled the fine, which they did.

Thanks again,

 

Amanda – Vic.

P.S. I have included a copy of their actual reply because there was a line in their about Council’s “business rules” that I thought you might find interesting.

And here is the very interesting reply that she received (important section highlighted for reference):

 Dear Ms xxxxx,

Withdrawal Notice

Infringements (Reporting and Prescribed Details and Forms) Regulations 2006

Hobson’s Bay City Council records indicate that correspondence appealing the infringement notice was received on 1/10/14.

Due to an administrative oversight your appeal was not assessed or responded to within the time frame prescribed in Council’s business rules.

Therefore in accordance with guidelines the infringement notice has been withdrawn on this occasion. The matter is now considered final and no further action is required on your behalf.

The amount of any infringement penalty and any prescribed costs that have been paid will be refunded in due course, unless the person has an ongoing payment plan in which case Part 3 of the Infringements Act 2006 applies.

Should you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact our office or attend in person at the details provided. Our hours of business are 8.00am to 5.00pm, Monday to Friday.

Yours sincerely,


Andrew Bellingham

Co-Ordinator Parking and Local Laws

Categories

No categories found.
No popular articles found.