Speeding Infringement Notice

[Free Radical]

My friend has received three (!) of these recently, each for $120. He's taken on another job to just pay them. I said I might be able to help. :wishmeluck:

The "alleged infringement offence details: Drove a motor vehicle on _______ Road at a speed exceeding 50 kilometres per hour being an offence detected by approved vehicle surveillance equipment."

The only other party stated at present is the New Zealand Police, to whom one makes the payment or asks advice.

The notice advises to write to the "enforcement authority" if we want to do any of:

1. Raise a matter concerning the circumstances of the offence for consideraton by the enforcement authority; or
2. Deny liability for the offence and request a court hearing; or
3. Admit liability for the offence, but make written submisions to the Court.

Of course, I would like to head this off without going to court. I am thinking of using their phone help service to ask some awkward questions.  Or I could send the 'enforcement authority' a Bill of Particulars containing the following Interrogatories. 

1. Am I entitled to a fair hearing?
2. Who has the burden of proof?
3. Am I presumed innocent of every element of this alleged crime?
4. Am I supposed to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges and proceedings against me?
5. Is there evidence of a complaining party?
6. Did I violate someone's legal rights?
7. If yes, then please specify which rights I violated

What might some of you guys do in this situation?

[Marc Stevens]

Awfully big of them to offer a phone help service, at your expense of course mate.

I know I'd like to have that phone number, no point in you having all the fun.

[Darren Dirt]

...wait, can't any of us also (just like government) simply claim "XYZ is an offense against me, and I declare you are guilty of infringement and thus owe me ABC as a penalty for same!" ??


Hmmm... Turnabout is fair play.

"alleged infringement offence details: Imposed a consent-free fraud-based coercively violent rulership upon men and women over the course of a handful of centuries being an offence detected by anyone with eyes that see and a brain that works."

I am one of many who is both witness to this offense, and the injured party thus expecting remedial compensation from the ones doing the injurious acts. ("Judge, jury, and sentencing officer"?)

;D

[eye2i2hear]

Darren Dirt Wrote:...wait, can't any of us ...

I am one of many...

Well, see, there's the problem.  Your problem.

You are not One of The Chosen People.  You're not "special" by "election".
(where do you suppose These People get such a notion by doG?!?)    :-X

[Free Radical]

marc Wrote:Awfully big of them to offer a phone help service, at your expense of course mate.

I know I'd like to have that phone number, no point in you having all the fun.

It's a free-phone number, which I doubt those outside the 'country' can use; 0800-105-777. There is a fax-number though, if you are interested: 64-4-801 8848
Anyway I'm now going to ask those questions! :biggrinblue:

[Marc Stevens]

You should use skype so you can get a good recording of it mate.  You could start with, did you file a valid cause of action against me?  How many elements make up a valid cause of action?

See if there is a regular toll number, I'm sure I can't use the toll-free one.  Maybe the main line's last 4 are 8800.

Maybe you could scan the ticket and post it with your personal info blacked out?

[Free Radical]

I added a couple of questions and made the call. I don't have skype. I didn't see your post as I was off-line for 2 hours waiting for a cop to call me back. But I notice that the two extra questions I added are the same as the two that you suggested I start with.
The person who initially answered my call said she didn't have the legal knowledge to answer: "Am I entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges and  proceedings against me" and that she would get an officer to call me. I couldn't discuss with him the particulars of this case due to the privacy act, so I stuck with the general AiLL questions, asking the cop about court procedure...

Am I entitled to a fair hearing?
"That's a bit of a strange question. Uh ... yes."

Who has the burden of proof?
Long winded answer on what the procedure is regarding how cops bring evidence to court. I asked: "do the police have the burden?" "Yes."

Am I entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges and proceedings against me?
"That information is on the ticket... you were over the speed limit... "

Does the infringement notice present a valid cause of action?
He asked me what a valid cause of action is!!! [Might it have been a good idea to tell him?] Given his ignorance, I didn't see the point of asking how many elements were in a valid cause of action.

Am I presumed innocent of every element of this alleged crime?
"Yes, that's one of the main things."

Is there evidence of a complaining party?
Long winded and slightly condescending response about how it's an automatic speed camera ... so he didn't think there was any particular person making a complaint. I insisted on a yes or no and he chose 'no.'

Did I violate someone's legal rights?
He seemed confused: "don't think so ... it's a basic law ... probably not ..." I asked for a definite yes or no and he said 'no.'

I then pointed out that if no one's legal rights are violated, then he had no standing to bring a complaint. He thought about it and then decided that it was the the legal rights of the general public that were violated.

Which legal rights did I violate?
He bumbled a bit, then said the public is entitled to make decisions ... that if you are speeding then the public is put under pressure when making these decisions. He offered the example of someone trying to overtake a vehicle; that they need to rely on there being a speed limit so they can judge if it was safe to pass. If someone is coming the other way speeding, it's hard to judge it's safe to pass.


He finished by advising me to get legal advice.

Here's the toll number: 0064 4 381 0000. They are open between 8.30am ad 4.30pm (NZ time). Ask to speak to a "duty officer." Like me, you won't be able to discuss this particular case.

[Free Radical]

I found this post on NZ tort 'law' that might be useful to throw at them; it emphases the need for an injury:

“All that the maxims come to, therefore, is this: that no action lies for mere damage (damnum) however substantial caused by some act which does not violate a legal right;..."The Law of Torts New Zealand, 2nd Ed., Davis, page 2 [citing Enticle v. Carrington (1765) 19 ST. TR. at 1066].

[Free Radical]

The ticket...




On the back...

[NonEntity]

I see that under clause 4(a) you are granted the standard Anglo Saxon right of "guilty until proven innocent."

I also note that if you ignore this they will helpfully send you a reminder at a later date.  I'm thinking you should ignore it and wait until they helpfully bring you to court, at which point you can helpfully examine the existence (or not) of the state. 

- NonE

[Free Radical]

We found the letter that came with the ticket:



On the back:



======================================================

Notice that, as with the ticket, there is no signature. In fact the only real person ever named is the victim!

[eye2i2hear]

Free Radical Wrote:Notice that, as with the ticket, there is no signature. In fact the only real person ever named is the victim!

Yeah, funny that so many are willing to sign for The State that doesn't exist, but not for a camera that at least does exist!?!  :rolleyes: (not an endorsement of the technology's usage, only that at least it exists unlike The State Inc/inked)
But more likely it's just an indication of one more step away from Their thinking that They have to do anything relative to the fleecing-- other than control The Golden Goose Gun (but that's not "Gun Control").  Old habits ("formalities") out with the new technology.  Besides, They've still got the costumes & shiny pieces of metal & now these new pieces of "Official" paper!  Reminds me of the quote posted yesterday:

anonymous Wrote:A con artist's job is not to convince skeptics, but to enable people to continue to believe what they already want to believe.

  The new City Fathers like the old school fathers: "Why is it right?  Because I said so!"  *smack*

[learnin2]

I guess you don't have the right, to cross examine the accuser? After you ask if your entitled to know all the full nature and cause of the charges, ask for the computer code, that runs their equipment.

[Free Radical]

They've sent a reminder notice. It's very similar to the initial notice sans a few alterations:

Instead of 'ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY' at the top left is says 'INFORMANT,' then down a bit...

The informant shown above alleges that you committed an infringement offence

I''d love to know who exactly this "informant" is.  I might use the help phone again and ask for him/her!
EDIT: The help-phone service informs me the 'informant' is the 'NZ Police,' not an individual.

Hey, maybe this is them: 

Infringement notice issued by  MSL217

Nice name for a bureaucrat. EDIT: They tell me that is the officer's number.


In the 'notes' section on the back, it's interesting how they de-humanize the "informant." If I deny liability for the offence:

"The informant will then, if it decides to commence court proceedings in respect of the offence, serve you with a notice of hearing..."


Further changes to boost the officiousness:

Replacing: "Issued under Authority of the Land Transport Act 1998"

with: "Section 42A(7) of the Transport Act 1962, Section 140 of the Land Transport Act 1998" 

Adding: "This is an offence against  S.40 & 133 Land Transport Act 1998 & r.4 Offences & Penalties Regs 1999 & 5.1 Road User Rule 2004."

[NonEntity]

This is getting more and more interesting! 

Maybe if you ignore them long enough they will self destruct out of infernal contradictions and rampant contraindications and constipations and stuff.

- NonE