Re: Speed Camera Fine/NSW-wrong Driver?HELP!

On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:58:44 +1000d, Kwyjibo Blathered on
in0dmdnT09g9qrOrvVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Toby Ponsenby" <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:g0660g$1bj$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:08:03 +1000d, larstetens Blathered on
>> inlarstetens.3961l8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> I got a  penalty notice from NSW OSR regarding a speed camera fine for
>>> a speed offense that occurred when I was out of the country-I wasn't
>>> the driver (out of country).But as I am the registered owner-I got the
>>> bloody fine.  I narrowed it down to 2 mates who were driving the car
>>> when visiting from America-SO WHAT do I do?
>>>
>>> I've never had a speed fine(not perfect-just lucky I reckon).  I'm
>>> supposed to fill out that "stat-dec"-to say I wasn't driving the
>>> car-which is not the issue/problem (obvious-I wasn't in the country).
>>> But I can't get either my two mates to cop to "who was driving"...So I
>>> have no way of 100%/Dead set identifying "who" was actually driving
>>> the car-and the pic according to the OSR doesn't reveal that. 
>>> Furthermore I don't have these blokes "drivers license numbers"?? How
>>> am I supposed to sign that statutory declaration form? I know I wasn't
>>> the driver-but I have no idea at the end of the day WHO was actually
>>> driving the car at the exact moment of the fine-and NSW OSR doesn't
>>> really offer any help either.
>>>
>>> Anybody know how this process works if you weren't the driver?  Do I
>>> just pick one of these blokes-give their address in America and "wash
>>> my hands" of the ordeal?  I just don't want to have to pay the fine or
>>> get the points-as I wasn't even in the country.....HELP
>>
>> For what it's worth - incidentally not much to the genuflecting
>> forelock- tugging imbeciles that infest this group from time to
>> time....
> 
> We'll see who the imbecile is.......
> 
>> You have been afflicted with possibly the most disgusting legislation
>> ever foisted on the Australian public. It's in fact a trial of the
>> legislation on behalf of other countries where the population might
>> just get a tad uppity about such things - to be used by GovCo in those
>> places to attempt to proof the disgusting garbage against successful
>> challenge.THAT IS WHY that retired judge is involved in show-trials
>> etc.
>>
>> This is how it works - obvious, but it needs to be said.
>>
>> You are Guilty until you proved innocent.
>>
>>
> Not even close.
> 
>> That's right - this legislation turns the  tradition of what's
>> laughingly called the legal system on it's pointy head.
> 
> Nope.
> 
>> As you can see, the pigs
> 
> And now we see your true colours......  Imbecile.
> 
>>  and their cohorts in the bureaucracy have
>> presented you with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that you committed what is
>> essentially a misdemeanour.
> 
> Correct, and they haven't made a judgement that he committed that
> misdemeanor either. They have *alleged* that he committed it and given
> him the option to avoid wasting the court's time and just pay a fine if
> he was actually in the wrong.
> They have also provided him with the op****tunity to dispute the
> allegation - first by means of contacting the police directly with
> details of the actual offender or, if that's not possible, by letting a
> court decide. It's exactly the same as any other offence, despite what
> your obviously deficient mind thinks of the matter.
> 
>> All they know is that a vehicle with the registration plate issued to
>> you has been involved. You will note that even if a photograph exists
>> involving a clear non-photoshopped image of the bonce of the driver of
>> the vehicle at the time/place of the alleged offence it was NOT sent to
>> you at the time of their furni****ng you with a notice.
>> Needless to say nor was any pig
> 
> Like throwing that word around, don't you. It's a pretty clear
> indication as to the depth of your intellect.
> 
>> able to actually apprehend you at the time/place of the offence. It's
>> dubious that the pig involved actually even saw your vehicle and
>> recorder it's passing. They have to, you know. It's Evidence, you see.
>>
>> You'll note that there will be many replies telling you to shop
>> who-ever you 'think' was driving. Why? You are not sworn to do anything
>> in particular in *enforcing* the law. That is not your jobbie. It is
>> the jobbie of the State - as detailed in our arrangement with that
>> State to maintain order.
>> Since you do not have any evidence whatsoever as to who was driving the
>> vehicle at the nominated time and place, that is the end of the matter.
>>
>> Well, it should be.
>> But the legislation says it's not.
> 
> Cite?
> 
>>You are guilty of an offence
> 
> Wrong.
> 
>> because
>> You can't tell the State who may have been guilty of that offence -
>> despite the fact that you were in fact half a planet away.
> 
> Or in your case, on another planet entirely.
> 
>> Nice.
> 
> And still wrong.
> 
>> As you can see, this legislation is *extremely_im****tant* to the Police
>> State.
> 
> There is no 'police state' you useless twonk.
> 
>> There are ramifications aplenty for the Police State if this
>> legislation is stuffed over. That's because the traffic 'thrust' of the
>> legislation is just the beginning.
>> It's a wedge being used to condition the population to a new order of
>> things - that they can be held to be guilty of an offence which in fact
>> they did not commit.
> 
> Put your tin-foil hat back on, loony.
> 
> <rest of your mindless waffle snipped>


Needless to say you are an abidingly stupid ****, Kwyjibo - and you've 
just proved it again. In spades.
As I've said elsewhere, it's not a good idea to mouth off about 
legislation you haven't read.
Do try to keep up.

<carefully considered opinion re-inserted to combat the usual selective 
quoting ****e by abidingly stupid **** Kwyjibo>
There are ramifications aplenty for the Police State if this 
legislation is stuffed over. That's because the traffic 'thrust' of the 
legislation is just the beginning. 
It's a wedge being used to condition the population to a new order of 
things - that they can be held to be guilty of an offence which in fact 
they did not commit. 
That they are guilty of a separate offence in not furni****ng an offender, 
on a plate, to the authorities too bone idle to get out and actually 
enforce their own disgusting laws.
The idea that Laws can be enacted that simply cannot be enforced in any 
effective way by using sup****t of other laws that convict people of an 
offence for not furni****ng the offender to the State is utterly 
disgusting and just plain ****en WRONG. It is an insult to the citizens 
of the country above an beyond even compulsion to serve in the armed 
forces. 

 
No if's, no buts, that *is* what its about - like the black pox, this 
trend in legislation WILL spread - it's already crept into the tewwowism 
laws - recall we had a guy slapped in jail for leaving an unexpired SIM 
with a relative half a world away with absolutely no evidence other than 
just that presented by the State - mainly because the gent concerned said 
he did just that - the only piece of evidence there was. I hope he 
sues the ****ers for billions. And yes, I'll cheerfully pay a little 
extra tax to see the ****s that harassed that guy eviscerated publicly by 
the courts. 
This is the same stuff of course. It stems from the 'consorting' gag way 
back that  has been sus since day one of it's life, too. The jailed and 
ruined gent was not in any way guilty of any crime whatsoever. Just like 
you. Yet he was jailed. And worse, when he was released by one right 
thinking court officer, he was banged up by the State. Again. Using an 
entirely different set of "laws". And still they're on about the matter 
claiming they did nothing wrong.

And then there's turning over your pal(s) who may or may not have been 
driving your vehicle. This gets a tad interesting. What it you were to 
turn over the wrong person? The state wouldn't give a **** - their 
legislation would have been 'fulfilled' be someone - anyone- taking the 
rap.

So, where to from here?
Make the ****s work for your money.
Tell them you were out of the country. Copy your tickets etc, have them 
duly witnessed as true and correct copies of the original do***ents and 
send them to the authorities by registered post. Include detail that you 
know of several people who had access to your vehicle while you were 
away, but that you have no idea whatsoever which of them may have been in 
charge of the vehicle at the nominated time and place. And nor do they. 
Ask, quite specifically, if the pigs have any idea from their own 
information. Make that request clear. Also ask if the pigs have any 
evidence other than the photograph about the offence - such as a log of 
the activations of the camera. You need t make it clear that you want 
some answers and will seek them out at court - without actually 
threatening to get them up on their hind legs as witnesses - yet. The 
idea is to get the matter in front of the prosecutors and away from the 
imbeciles at OSR, or what-ever it's called there.

Expect to State to tough it out. It's completely necessary for them to do 
that to both save their face and to push the character of this disgusting 
and foul legislation as far up the hill as they can get it before rolls 
back on them and covers them in what it obviously is. 

But like I say - make them work for the money. 
Always.
You never know - they may have made a fundamental mistake somewhere  you 
need to know what's going on and be able to point that out. When the time 
comes.


 


-- 
Toby