..





..

 

Explains why Aussiespeedingfines.com is a scam.
Aussie Speeding Fines
A reply to Mike Palmer's garbage

 

On 27 May 2009 Mike Palmer sent his subscribers an email that reproduced the text of an email sent by Dr Richard Brittain,  Executive Officer of the National Measurement Institute.

This is the email that is said to have been sent to Dr Brittain:

To Whom it may concern,

I would like to know if the speed measuring devises used by the police are exempt from the National Measurement Act 1960 (cth) and if so, why and where can I get the exemption certificate that proves that fact.

As far as I can see the only exemptions are:
a) A quantity of reticulated electricity, reticulated gas or reticulated water
b) Charges relating to telephone calls
c) The fare payable for use of a taxi
d) The charge for the hire of a motor vehicle
e) Tyre pressures
f) The expiration of the time for parking a motor vehicle

Your response would be appreciated

Regards

jim

The reply from Dr Brittain is claimed to be as follows:

Dear Mr ??????? (Jim),

I refer to your e-mail of 3 May 2009 to our Trade mailbox and confirm as follows:

1.    Speed measuring devices are not exempt from the provisions of the National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth).

2.    There is no exemption certificate attesting to the above.

I trust that this information satisfies your enquiry

Yours sincerely

Richard Brittain

Dr Richard Brittain LLB
Executive Officer, Legal Metrology
National Measurement Institute
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research

Mike Palmer then goes on to state:

Obviously, if you DO have our e-book then you will understand that this confirms what we have said all along and ALL these unjust and unlawful devices (speed cameras - mobile and fixed; radar devices - car mounted and hand held; and hand held laser) MUST all comply with Section 10 of this Act and they DON'T!

Palmer has grossly misinterpreted Dr Brittain's reponse because he has no idea what the correct legal meaning of the National Measurement Act is. For decades courts have said that evidence of speed from speed measurement devices is admissible in evidence in court without any proof that the device complies with s.10 of the Act,  and nothing Palmer says will change that.

The National Measurement Act applies to certain instruments when used in certain circumstances or for certain purposes. Some instruments are able to apply for exemption in certain circumstances. The Act has provisions for the granting of exemptions. Speed measurement devices have never been granted a certificate of exemption under the Act - because they have never needed a certificate to be exempt, just as neither a television nor a yoyo needs a certificate to be exempt. Jim sets out the possible exemptions in his email (above). There is nothing in the Act that enables an exemption to be given for speed measuring devices. Speed measuring devices are not capable of being certified as exempt. This does not mean they are bound by s.10 of the Act. Yoyos are not exempt from the National Measurement Act and there is, naturally, no exemption certificate certifying to that fact. Palmer would argue that this makes all yoyos subject to s.10 of the Act! What an idiot.

There is a fundamental error in Palmer's smug marketing campaign. Speed measurements taken from speed measurement devices have always been accepted in court regardless of the National Measurement Act. The courts do not need an exemption certificate to ignore the National Measurment Act when it comes to speed measurement devices. Exemption certificates are required for devices that would be subject to the provisions of the Act if they did not have an exemption certificate. The Supreme Courts of several states have each said that speed measurement devices are not subject to the National Measurement Act, and so they do not need any exemption certificate. See: http://trafficlaw.com.au/speeding.fines.html#nma

So Dr Brittain is correct. No exemption exists, because speed measurement devices are not eligible for exemption! Jim states what devices are eligible, so he has asked a futile question in his email.

__________________________________________________________

Site Content

1. Introduction
2. The aussiespeedingfines strategy
3. The First Letter
4. Analysing the First letter
5. The Second Letter
6. Analysing the Second letter
7. What happens when you rely on the letters
8. Who operates aussiespeedingfines.com?
9. Aussiespeedingfines Exclusion Clauses
10. More of Mike Palmer's legal nonsense
11. Unlawfully providing legal advice?
12. Terms and conditions of this website

View all as a single page

 

..


..

..