Speeding Infringement Notice

[eye2i2hear]

Hooking right up with this===>> AiLL board topic... AiLL aboard!!  RailRoaded, RailRode. car-go

[Free Radical]

I will write to them. Is the following OK for format, wording, etc?


Dear Sir/Madam

I have received the above listed speeding infringement notices and would appreciate it if you could answer some questions.

If I deny liability and am granted court hearings for each of these alleged offences:

1. Am I entitled to fair hearings?                               
2. Who has the burden of proof?                               
3. Am I presumed innocent of every element of these alleged offences?
4. Am I entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges and proceedings against me?
5. Are they in the nature of a tort, or of a contract dispute?
6. Do these infringement notices each present a valid cause of action?
7. How many elements are there in a valid cause of action?

Questions regarding each alleged offence on an individual basis:

8. Is there evidence of a complaining party?                               
9. Did I violate someone's legal rights?                               
10. If the answer to question 9 is ‘yes,’ then please specify which rights I violated.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours sincerely

***********
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Given my friend wants to avoid court due to court costs if he loses, I don't have a problem laying all my cards on the table in this letter; but let me know if I should alter anything. I'm thinking of removing question 7.

Thanks for your help!

[NonEntity]

As I said elsewhere, I don't think you can ask these questions on paper and have them work as Marc has.  The reason is that if they can see them all at once they can see where you are going with the questions and therefore you can't trick them into painting themselves into a corner.

If you are planning to do this by mail you would need to do it one question at a time, just as you would do in court.

Just my 2 cents.

- NonE

[Dynamo Joe]

Am I entitled to a fair hearing?

If you ask that question in court...is that how the judge can gain jurisdiction over you?

[Free Radical]

NonEntity Wrote:As I said elsewhere, I don't think you can ask these questions on paper and have them work as Marc has.  The reason is that if they can see them all at once they can see where you are going with the questions and therefore you can't trick them into painting themselves into a corner.

If you are planning to do this by mail you would need to do it one question at a time, just as you would do in court.

Thanks. Time is limited, so I'll ask an easy group of 'set-up' question--those that they have already admitted in the phone call--and if they reply I'll send a second letter. I'm not confident it will work, but should still be an interesting exercise.

Here's the first group:

If I deny liability and am granted a hearing for these alleged offences:

1. Am I entitled to a fair hearing? Yes or no.                             
2. Who has the burden of proof?                               
3. Am I presumed innocent of every element of these alleged offences? Yes or no.
4. Am I entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges and proceedings against me? Yes or no.

For each individual offence:

5. Is there evidence of a complaining party? Yes or no.                             
6. Did I violate someone's legal rights? Yes or no.                               
7. If the answer to question 6 is ‘yes,’ then which specific rights did I violate?
--------------------------------------------------
I'm adding the "yes or no" because in the phone call they waffled and I had to bring them back on point. The reply I want is:

1. Yes
2. The police
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. No
6. No

All but question 6 were happily admitted in the phone call. 6 was initially admitted, but after I pointed out it implied they wouldn't have a case, they decided the "general publics' right to make non-pressurized decisions" was violated. :winkwink: So I should get a "no" to question 6.

Then I'll send them this:

“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].

No violation of a legal right = no case.

[NonEntity]

I still stand by my issues.  Also, your proposed solution is to take a stand, and as Marc has shown, that does not seem to be effective. 

I don't mean to be throwing cold water on your ideas, it's just that these are potential problems I see for you.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

FreeRad, I certainly comprehend and appreciate the gist of what you're after, I'm just inclined to want to follow through on a feeling for the need to keep you aware of what this is probably really all about for Them. 

For Them, it's about sucking energy.  Time and energy are most visibly represented by "money" presently.

And it is my position, that at the core, The Powers That Be, actually don't need the money as much as They simply need us to not have it.  [evidence in point: They print all They could possibly use or need and tie "every man, woman, and child", born and unborn, with the tab/bill/debt-- debt of course tied to lienable commodity assets ie land]
For with it, individuals have the opportunity to educate themselves, not to mention literally arm themselves.

My gut hunch is that what you'll ultimately get from your questioned bureaucrats via letter or phone exchange, somewhere after the dog & pony show, snorts & grovels, is: "That requires a legal determination".  And "that's what Court is for / take it up with the judge."  Indeed, a sucking energy form for them is "arguing".

I'm not saying don't try it at the bureaucracy level, not at all.  I only hope to keep you away from not keeping in mind that this letter/phone level's a bit like playing the mega jackpot lottery.  [compare the reams of paper, called "lotto tickets", tossed to the floor as losers week after week after week... each when bought (into) should have been a winner?]

It seems from what I'm learning, it takes getting the guy in the black dress, known by his fruits in LegalLand as The Legal Determinator, undressed in facing the obvious blatant double-speak in Order to stop the energy drain aka damage control.  And so unless one is dealing with him directly-- and generally from Their perspective, publicly as either on The Public record or the Court record --you're wasting yet more precious energy.  At least potentially wasting-- because as with the likes of hunting, video games, etc, energy can be "spent" quite enjoyably, too, both when it's learning a sport and playing the sport.  I indeed hope this is a bit of sport for you!

Best wishes to you, and thanks for keeping us in the loop!

[NonEntity]

2i2's post has spurred a new thought.

If what he says is true, that at the end of all of your paperwork you'll still have to go to court to resolve the issue, then I wonder if revealing all of your methodology via paperwork upfront might actually destroy your ability to prevail in court.  Just a thought.  I wonder what Marc might think of this...?

- NonE

[Free Radical]

I appreciate all the advice guys. There won't be a court hearing because my friend is from Asia and English is his second language, and I wouldn't be allowed to help him during a hearing.

It's all a bit of an experiment and preparation for if and when my turn comes. Most likely they will either ignore the letter or tell me to seek legal advice. Though I did read somewhere (old AiLL forum?) that a seat-belt infringement was dropped six weeks after such a letter were sent to both the po-lice officer and the prosecutor.

If Marc wants to amuse himself, the helpline toll number is 0064 4 381 0000. Open from 8.30am - 4.30pm (NZ time). Ask for a 'duty officer.' :wacky:

[eye2i2hear]

Free Radical Wrote:I appreciate all the advice guys. There won't be a court hearing because my friend is from Asia and English is his second language, and I wouldn't be allowed to help him during a hearing.

Ah, that clears my impression up a bit 4sure.  Thanx

Quote:It's all a bit of an experiment and preparation for if and when my turn comes.

Excellent`e.  Hopefully it's akin to a challenging video game? 

Quote:Most likely they will either ignore the letter or tell me to seek legal advice. Though I did read somewhere (old AiLL forum?) that a seat-belt infringement was dropped six weeks after such a letter were sent to both the po-lice officer and the prosecutor.

I almost mentioned, when I spoke of the judge, the prosecutor as well.  My impression is that at this level you still have a lot of guys a bit more under the illusion delusion, especially in the smaller municipalities and so they look at it from a "cost savings"/"case overload" perspective (they, being "good citizens", think The System actually cares about budgeting rather than that They don't give a phlying phuck because it's actually about debt=property transference=slavery).

Quote:If Marc wants to amuse himself, the helpline toll number is 0064 4 381 0000. Open from 8.30am - 4.30pm (NZ time). Ask for a 'duty officer.' :wacky:

Marc`e, he's our Mikey...  [img width=68 height=88]http://re3.yt-thm-a02.yimg.com/image/25/m5/3289830342[/img] [doG I'm gettin' old...]