..

Never pay a speeding fine or parking ticket again. Speeding Fines - What you really need to know.

Home
Previous Page
Next page


..

 

Explains why Aussiespeedingfines.com is a scam.
Aussie Speeding Fines
A legal analysis of Mike Palmer's ebook.

Barrister's legal advice:
"It's a scam.
Don't waste your money on this useless eBook"

 Previous Page 7 Next

 

What happens when you rely on the letters?

If you send all of the letters as suggested by aussiespeedingfines.com, the fine will be processed by the enforcement system despite your letters. That it their stated policy. I am informed by senior police at the Traffic Camera Office that the police have received legal advice from Senior Counsel ( a Q.C.) that the aussiespeedingfines.com.au letters are of no legal effect and should be ignored. I agree with that advice.

If you send a valid objection to the fine and ask for offence to be heard and determined by a court, you will soon receive a charge and summons in the mail. You now have a court case and you can run any defence you want. If you rely on the defence that the police have already entered into an agreement with you to settle the case, and/or you argue that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter, you will lose. It is a useless argument that has never and will never succeed because the police have not agreed to any such thing. In Australia, silence is not consent unless supported by a legislative provision.

If you do not elect to fight the fine in court, eventually an enforcement order will be made against you by the Infringements Court. Let's assume you ignore the enforcement order and their demand that you pay the additional costs. Two months later a warrant is issued for recovery of the debt. Eventually the sheriff knocks on your door carrying a pair of handcuffs, a wheel lock for your car and a truck to cart away your jet ski, billiard table and pinball machines. He wants money or your body. You show him the letters you have sent to the police. You tell the sheriff that the police have not provided you with the documentation and proofs that you requested within the 28 days that you allowed them. You explain to the sheriff that the police have thereby entered into a private settlement of their claim and have agreed not to prosecute you. You tell him that the enforcement order is invalid and so too is the warrant that stems from it, so he is powerless to do anything to enforce it. The sheriff laughs, waives the warrant in your face, impounds your car, suspends your drivers licence, seizes your jet ski and trail bike, and insists that if the money is not paid within 7 days we will come back and arrest you.

You go to see a lawyer and ask him to take steps to reverse the injustice you are experiencing. He makes application to the Infringements court to set aside the enforcement order that has been made against you on the grounds that the Infringements Court had no power to make the order, given the existence of a private settlement agreement which pre-dated the enforcement order. The registrar of the Infringements Court refuses your application for revocation as this ground is considered fanciful. You appeal against the registrar's refusal. The appeal is then listed for hearing before a Magistrate.

You attend the Magistrates Court on the appointed day with your lawyer. Your case is called. You have to convince the Magistrate that the enforcement order should be set-aside and you should be given a chance to defend the alleged offence. You get in the witness box and give evidence to the court. You tell the magistrate that the infringement was settled by a private agreement. You tender copies of the letters you sent to the police. The police prosecutor cross examines you. He asks you if you exceeded the speed limit on Geelong Road on the date in question. You mumble something about you are not sure. They produce your first and second letters which you tendered into evidence moments earlier. They point out that in these letters you state "Please understand that I am more than willing to accept your claim and pay the associated fine". You agree that this is the case but your answer to that is the letter has the words "without prejudice" on it, so it can not be used against you. The Magistrate falls off his chair laughing. Of course it can be used against you. You are the one who tendered it into evidence to prove the alleged private settlement agreement. The police then suggest that you could have objected to the fine if you wanted to have your case heard and determined by a court. You agree that this is the case. The magistrate then has to decide if there is any basis for allowing the enforcement order to be revoked and allowing you to defend the allegation of the offence. Given that you do not deny liability for the offence, and you have no justification for failing to object to the fine within the time allowed, the court will most likely refuse your request to set aside the enforcement order. It will refuse the application partly because you will have failed to show that refusing to set aside the order would result in an injustice, or that you have a realistic prospect of winning your case should you be allowed to defend the allegation, and because you have failed to show any basis as to why you have failed to bring the matter to court in the usual manner (by objecting to the fine within the time allowed). So your appeal will be dismissed. You will then be ordered to pay the amount owing under the warrant, together with your legal bill (if you have engaged lawyers). So the end point is you have been refused the opportunity to defend yourself in court and you have racked up more than double the original fine amount as a debt to the state, and you still have the demerit points, and a useless ebook.


Legal theories from AussieSpeedingFines.

Mike Palmer has published many examples of some quite ridiculous legal theories. Here we comment on some of them:

Mike Palmer's Publication My Comment
In the meantime, we have had MANY queries from people saying that they have elected to go to court and they then decided to pay the original fine at the last minute only to have the agency concerned return the fine and incorrectly and ILLEGALLY tell them that they couldn’t accept the payment and they now had to go to court.


Those who elect to go to court will find that the original infringement notice is withdrawn and replaced with a charge and summons. The only way to bring a charge and summons to an end is for it to be dealt with by a Magistrate in court.

Once you elect to go to court you do not have any right to change your mind. You can always ask the Magistrate to make an order similar to what was on the infringement notice.
Now, there are a number of problems with this response by the agencies:

Firstly, despite their continued persistence that these fines are somehow a criminal offence, the reality is that they simply are NOT. These are Civil matters as they are trying to extract payment from your ALL CAPS name. Any court proceedings dealing with payment of money come under civil disputes. Speeding fines, red light camera fines etc. all only proceed to court because you failed to pay the prescribed fee – rendering them Civil matters.
Infringement Notices are not civil matters. They always deal with a criminal offence. Breaching speeding laws is a criminal offence, not a civil debt.  A fine is the financial penalty which you have the option to pay if you do not wish to dispute the criminal offence alleged against you. Once you elect to go to court, the offence is enforced by a court making an order if a charge is found proved.  

There is no such thing as an ALL CAPS name. Your name is still your name no matter whether it is spelt with or without capital letters. It is a widespread practice to capitalise a person's surname on legal documents because in many cases it is impossible to tell which part of the name is the surname without using capitals to distinguish between the two.

The infringement notice is not trying to extract payment. It is inviting you to accept guilt by paying the fine, or else take the case to court. At court the question is not liability for a civil debt. The question to be determined is whether you are guilty of a criminal offence and if so what the appropriate sentence will be.
This, by the way, is also why the 3 step process IS a legal and valid process because the steps leading to and including the private settlement agreement come under Civil law. But you MUST present this information in the correct way for it to be taken notice of. If you explain the paragraph above to the Judge they will start to get some understanding of what you are doing, rather than just “copying and sending letters off the internet”. Infringement offences have nothing whatsover to do with civil law. Palmer is either an imbicile or just pulling your leg. It does not matter how you present the matrial, it will still be ignored by the Police and the "judge" (perhaps he meant to say "Magistrate").
Now, because they are Civil matters they have certain obligations under Commercial Law. The relevant obligation here is that when payment is tendered then they must accept that payment. If they do NOT accept that payment then they give up any further entitlement to pursue that debt. We have written a letter to the Department of Justice on this point and will include any relevant replies in our next update. First, the option to pay the amount specified on an infringement notice ceases once the person elects to take the infringement offence to court.

If you elect to take the matter to court, the fact that you offered to pay the original penalty amount prior to the court case can not prevent the magistrate giving you a much higher fine and also licence loss if he or she wishes to do so.
For example, if we were to send you an e-book and say “Just send us a cheque when you receive it” – (sorry, no, we can’t actually do that, this is just an example) – and then you sent us a cheque - we can’t then turn around and send the cheque back and say “No, we only accept cash now.” A legal form of payment was tendered and if we refuse to accept that payment we cannot legally lay any claim to it any time in the future. If we were to then try and sue you for the price of the e-book you would simply explain that you sent a cheque and that lawful and valid payment was refused and therefore we have no further entitlement to the debt and a Judge would side with YOU. Infringement notices are not concerned with form of payment. They are not concerned about whether a debt is paid or not. They are concerned about determining guilt for a criminal offence. The only way to determine guilt is to give the person a chance to accept guilt by paying the fine, or to determine the question of guilt in court if the person elects to take the case to court.
So, what does all this mean to you? It means that if you send a cheque to the relevant agency a week or 2 before the final hearing date and they send it back then they have given up any right to pursue a debt from you. Therefore, there is NO need for you to go to court because they are only going to court to pursue the recovery of a debt. The relevant agency could not possibly accept a cheque a week or two prior to the final hearing even if it wanted to. Firstly, it would be tantamount to a bribe to the police to encourage it to withdraw charges that have been laid. Secondly, as charges have been laid, the only way for those charges to come to an end is for the court to make an order in respect of them. The police need to allocate any payment to an infringement notice or a court order. As the infringement notice was cancelled prior to the court case commencing, it is impossible to allocate the payment to the infringement notice. In some cases Councils will offer to withdraw charges for parking offences if the financial penalty is paid prior to hearing. Usually these are cases where the council has initiated the court case without the driver/owner electing to go to court.

 


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. Aussie Speeding Fine Exclusion Clauses
10. Examples of Mike Palmer's legal nonsense
11. Unlawfully providing legal advice?
12. Terms and conditions of this website
 
View all as a single page
 










..


..

..