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

"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....
> 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.
>
> That's right - this legislation turns the  tradition of what's
laughingly
> called the legal system on it's pointy head.
>
> As you can see, the pigs and their cohorts in the bureaucracy have
> presented you with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that you committed what is
> essentially a misdemeanour. 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 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. You are guilty of an offence 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.
> Nice.
>
> As you can see, this legislation is *extremely_im****tant* to the Police
> State. 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

Cool, you can use all that to run as many red lights & speed cameras as
you 
like as you want, just do it in someones elses car, they can get off scott

free just by proving they were driving your car at the time.