GO IMMEDIATELY TO THE POLICE CAR DRIVER SIDE AND SAY:
Y: "Are you ok, I pulled over because your lights were on and indicated some sort of distress or emergency, are you alright?"
(Going to their car takes away some of their power psychologically).
P: "We're right mate, we noticed you............"
(interrupt him and say)
Y: "No, no, I just wanted to know if you're ok, I've no contract with you, you answered my question thank you. If you're ok, I'm off!"
P: "You're not going anywhere, don't you move. No, wait......etc. etc. (From here you don't need to say any more than.....")
Y: "Am I being detained, am I under arrest or am I free to go?
(You have no contract with the officers and only need to stay IF you are under arrest, otherwise you can go and several case law judgements confirm you are NOT compelled to do business with or stop for police questioning. What information you volunteer WILL be used in evidence against you.")
P: "No, I just want to see you license."
Y: "Good if I am not being detained, am I free to go?" (Hand them Notice of Conditional Acceptance)
P: "No, I need your license..."
Y: "Oh, then am I being detained?"
P: "No, where is your license?"
Y: "Good, for the third and final time am I free to go? Is this Australia, as it is my understanding that in Australia we have every right to travel peaceably where ever we wish. So am I free to go?"
P: "No, give me your license, or I will cite you for obstruction!"
Y: "I do not consent. Three times you have told me I am not being detained and I've told you I don't wish to do business with you. I do not consent, I have no contract with you and the law states clearly I don't have to do business with you. If you FORCE me or THREATEN me, then I will take court action against you and sue you. Now, am I free to go?"
(Take down there details, name, rank and serial no. also the patrol car details, time and date. Also, if you have a notepad, you too should record the conversation. This often puts the wind up them.)
P: "Go on, you can go...."
The P.O. will either let you go or get stroppy and detain you, and/or assault you, and/or charge you.
If they let you go, just thank them kindly and be on your way.
If they assault you, kidnap and detain you from herein you need give them no information other than to tell them you reserve your right to remain silent and demand a lawyer as the law permits. Just stick to the two responses when asked anything, am I free to go or am I being unlawfully detained?
EVEN BETTER IS IF YOUR NUMBER PLATES ARE YOUR PERSONAL NUMBER PLATES AS THEY HAVE NO WAY OF IDENTIFYING YOU AND CANNOT HOLD YOU WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT & WITHOUT PERSONAL LIABILITY UPON THEMSELVES. ALWYAS notice them that you hold them liable personally for injuries and that You have no contract with them and that f they do not immediately return you to your car and release you, that you will pursue charges for assault, rape and kidnap.
THAT'S IT...THEN ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS FOLLOW THROUGH WITH WHICH EVER OPTION IS PRESENTED TO YOU. ALL THE BEST!!!
(Only have your window down about 1 inch and leave your car running. When the officer approaches, YOU take the initiative...)
Y: "Hello, have I done something wrong or committed an offence?"
P: "No, we're conducting a random breath test (RBT)." (or whatever reason they say they are pulling you over for)
Y: "Oh, so I have done nothing wrong or committed any offence then?"
P: "No, we're doing RBT's. Do you have your license?"
Y: "Yes, but one moment...you say I have done nothing wrong nor committed any offence, therefore I have no obligation nor duty to speak to you, answer any questions nor conduct business with you ('Hamilton v. DPP'). I don't consent to doing business with you. Am I free to go?"
P: "No, where's your license. I need it now."
Y: "No, I don't consent and now you're threatening me and you're breaking the law when you know I have no duty nor obligation to speak to you. For both our protection I'm recording this conversation. So am I free to go?"
P: (Officer may be silent while contemplating the next move..) "Are you contravening a direction?"
Y: "Not at all. I am exercising my right to travel in peace and without interruption. As you've already declared, I haven't committed any offence and I'm not under arrest, am I free t0 go?"
P: "Yes, you are free to go."
Y: "What is your reasonable cause?"
P: "Tail light."
Y: "Oh, thank you officer for making me aware of it. I will take care of that the first chance I get. Am I now free to go?"
P: "What is your name?"
Y: "Before I answer that, is that a legal question and if so, will the information be used against me in court, because it is my understanding I am not compelled ever to incriminate myself."
Y: "Great, so if I give you my name, we both agree my name can not be brought before the court and that this is a private conversation!"
Y: "Fine then, I am happy to disclose MY name to you but if it is ever used in court, that's a breach of contract and I'll be pursuing a damages award against you for breach of contract, you realise that don't you, that you have accepted that liability?"
Officer approaches you car. Always ensure your window is up and only an inch from the top and remain polite when speaking to them.
P: "Can I see your license?"
Y: (Hand him the 'Conditional Acceptance.') "You work for a corporation, a foreign one at that, don't you?"
P: "What's this?"
Y: "It's an offer to contract that you need to sign. By the way, I noticed you didn't answer, so I take it you now you work for a foreign corporation thereby committing piracy and treason against the people. Don't you operate under contract law, and doesn't contract law prevail as disclosed under the Judicature Act 1875 (Qld) S5(11)? So, YOU need my CONSENT to conduct business and I notice you that I don't give you my consent. Good bye. (Drive off).
Officer approaches your car. ALWAYS ensure your window is up and only an inch from the top.
Y: "Hello, how can I help you?"
P: "Can I see your license?"
Y: "Here - you'll need to read and check this and check with your superiors, I have a duty of care to notice you not to conduct any business without my consent or you'll be causing damage to yourself and possibly me too. I have now noticed you that I don't consent to doing business with you..."
Hand over the NOTICE of Conditional Acceptance. He will radio through to his superior and check this out. This should enable you to continue travelling - but with a warning not to do whatever it is that attracted them. If not...
P: "Could you step out of the car?" or whatever...
Y: Sir, I am the executor and beneficiary. Aren't you a public servant?" (silence...) Am I under arrest or am I free to go. (Go through routine in example 1. above.)
P: He may respond in one of these ways: "I am a police officer" or
"I need your license" or
"Step out of the car."
Y: "I don't consent an fear for my safety. You're threatening me! I don't wish to conduct business with you and case law precedents from all eastern state clearly disclose no-one has to conduct business with the police UNLESS they are under arrest. What is your reasonable cause to stop me and ma I under arrest?"
P: "No, but you were...."
Y: "No, no, don't worry about that and thank you for pointing it out, I'll take care of that. So am I free go?"
P: "No, but you were speading...."(or whatever)
Y: "Oh, I doubt that but if that were so, thank you for your concern, I'll closely monitor that now. Is there anything else or am I free to go? (They would be brave to go on from there!)
P: "No, I want your license/step out of the car."
Y: "I am recording this conversation officer, Im being threatened with menace now so just sign that form." (Your Conditional Acceptance).
P: "No, where is your license?"
Y: "You don't wish to sign? Fine, am I therefore free to go or is this communist China where we have no right to travel freely and without police harassment?"
P: "You were speeding." (or whatever...)
Y: "If that is true, which I doubt, my apologies and I won't do it again, now, am I free to go or am I being detained?"
P: "No, I need to see your license."
Y: "Sir, what is the purpose of you threatening me? For the third and final time, am I being detained or am I free to go?"
P: "No, I just need to sight your license."
Y: "I already told you, the law states clearly unless one is under arrest, one is NOT compelled to conduct business with the police and I've told you several times already that I don't wish to do business with you. So are you soliciting or coercing me or am I free to go? (Keep up the initiative, DON'T let them get the initiative.)
P: "No, no, no, I just want your license. Are you refusing to follow my directions?"
Y: SMILE and say: "Are you THREATENING ME AGAIN or am I free to go?"
P: "Step out of the car!"
Y: "Just sign the notice so I can hold you liable for all damages you intend causing me and I'll step out of the car. I'm recording this incident and the recording WILL BE USSED AGAINST YOU IN COURT."
(He will check again with his superior as now he has been noticed thrice re: your non consent to do business. They now bear liability. Aggravated assault is a serious charge. You'll be directed to move on.)
P: "Sir, you will need to slow down. You are free to go."
Y: "Thank you Sir, have a nice day!"
Woman commonly known as Lxxx from the family Dxxx
c/o P.O. Box 1010
10th. Never, 2016
c/o GPO Box 1387,
Re: Letter dated 00/0/0000
Party ID 6xxxxxxx
Contact ID 5xxxxxxx
Debt ID 14141414
I am in receipt of your correspondence dated 00th June 0000.
I apologise for the delay in responding as I have been seeking advice on how to deal with this puzzling notification.
Prior to this notification, my records indicate that no further matters remain outstanding with SPER nor the QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE, that all out-standings had been rendered through acceptance, by default, of a Bill of Exchange (BOE) and accompanying Notice presented to SPER (insert date here).
I strongly believe that your records are in error, as according to the most recent police brief in my possession, all matters listed had been finalized.
In regards to the license suspension by the corporation known as SPER (operating under ABN: 90 856 020 239 and/or ABN: 13 846 673 994), according to Law, is it not so that only a valid court can issue fines and suspend licenses.
Please provide a copy of the court order directing such suspension, as well as a full accounting of the alleged outstanding amount.Please provide a response within 14 days. If you do not reply within 14 days, I will consider the matter settled and closed.
Grantor for Lxxxx Dxxxx
Reply from S.P.E.R. Registrar
* Call up the SPER Registrar office & speak to supervisor.
* Then ask 'who is accepting liability for damaging my commercial interests when I've already paid the outstanding account & your records have not been adjusted to show it? Is it you, and do I have to subpoena you and the Registrar to court to answer as my material witness, as to why your records have not been adjusted when I have proof of payment?'
That should shake them into action. It takes backbone but it should work.
If they say 'we don't accept bills of exchange' you ask (firmly) 'are you saying the BOE Act is no longer current or of legal force or effect?'
They may reply with 'we don't understand that'.
You answer 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Your lawyers understand it. I give you 72 hrs to correct your records ¬ify me of same if it isn't done I'll subpoena you & the Registrar Paul Murray to court. Do you understand?'
* You can hang up now. They are on notice.
* Thereafter, put a claim in for damages pursuant to the Def & Liability Clause & subpoena them to court.
I doubt it'll go that far, they adjust the record.
May 19, 2016 8:21pm
Ashley Argoon Herald Sun
Mr Daniel couldn’t pay a solicitor, but took advice from a barrister friend.
A YEAR-LONG court battle over a $185 speeding fine from one of Melbourne’s most controversial cameras has ended in victory for a driver.
Paul Daniel, an earthmoving firm’s health and safety manager, spent 15 months fighting the EastLink fine — because “I was accused of a crime I did not commit”.
Mr Daniel and his father-in-law were at the start of their annual fishing trip to Eden in NSW on February 26 last year.
On the way they laughed at media reports and a radio campaign claiming drivers had been wrongly fined at the Wellington Rd bridge.
“I jokingly said, ‘Here comes the Wellington Rd bridge, have a look at my speed’,” Mr Daniel recalled.
“He leaned over and had a look at my speed and said, ‘Yep no worries’, and we laughed ... I was going between 95 km/h and 97 km/h. Two weeks later I get the fine in the mail.”
The penalty notice alleged Mr Daniel was speeding at 110km/h in a 100km/h zone.
He couldn’t pay a solicitor, but armed with advice from a barrister friend he decided to fight the charges himself.
Paul Daniel speed camera court battle. Picture: Jay Town
He spent weeks researching state and federal law, the National Measurement Act and previous court cases, in his lunch breaks and after work.
“I was willing to fight tooth and nail all the way to the High Court,” he said.
“That’s how passionate I was about fighting something I was accused of that I didn’t do.”
Late last year, a magistrate upheld the prosecution case, but Mr Daniel appealed and this week Judge Geoffrey Chettle dismissed the charges in the County Court.
Mr Daniel claimed the judge had believed the testimony of himself and of his father-in-law.
He said he believed the judge had expressed the view that he preferred their evidence over that of a machine.
“I was so happy that I forgot to ask for costs,” Mr Daniel said.
The southbound camera in lane two, which Mr Daniel has now beaten, fined 5798 drivers in the 2014-15 financial year, raking in $1.2 million, making it Victoria’s 41st highest-earning speed camera.
Mr Daniel laughed at media reports that drivers had been wrongly fined at the Wellington Rd bridge.
“The cameras are flawed,” Mr Daniel said.
“People should not blindly pay up when they know they weren’t speeding.”
Traffic and criminal defence lawyer Michael Kuzilny said Mr Daniel’s success could set a precedent.
“Victorians are losing their licences on demerit points and losing thousands of dollars for offences they didn’t commit,” he said.
“It would be refreshing that some drivers could win cases on corroborated evidence.”
The camera commissioner conducted a year-long probe into EastLink cameras in 2013 after complaints, but found they were accurate.
In 2011, a policewoman nabbed by an EastLink camera beat a speeding fine after evidence from a 16-year-old work experience student who was in her patrol car and had looked at its speedo just before the officer drove under the camera.
Below is a letter one of our member received back from a Lawyer she approached to represent her. What is written in red is our reply/response. We decided to post this to give our Members a bit of an idea of what to ask when dealing with these entities. You can see how the twist on words is used to intimidate and confuse us. Learn true meanings and 'HOLD YOUR POSITION'.
1. The offence of driving of a motor vehicle without a driver licence is an offence under s78(1) Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 that states:
78 Driving of motor vehicle without a driver licence prohibited
(1) A person must not drive a motor vehicle on a road unless the person holds a driver licence authorising the person to drive the vehicle on the road.
Maximum penalty— (a) if the person committed the offence while the person was disqualified, by any court order, from holding or obtaining a driver licence—60 penalty units or 18 months imprisonment; or (b) otherwise—40 penalty units or 1 year’s imprisonment.
2. Section 6 of that Legislation states to whom the Act applies:
6 Act binds everyone (Where is my property(name/property) - name disclosed in that word? (everyone)), including government entities (Legal maxim 'what is not included is excluded')
(1) In this section— government entity includes— (a) the State, the Commonwealth or another State; or (b) an instrumentality or agent of the State, the Commonwealth or another State.
(2) This Act binds everyone, including every government entity.
(3) However, a regulation may exempt a government entity from this Act or a provision of this Act.
3. Schedule 4 contains the dictionary definitions that are applicable to the Act:
(a) means the person driving or in charge of any vehicle, tram, train, vessel, or animal; (where is 'car' in that definition?) and
(b) includes, in relation to a trailer
(i) the person driving or in charge of the vehicle to or by which the trailer is attached or drawn; and
(ii) for chapter 3, part 3, if the trailer was but is no longer connected to the towing vehicle in a combination—the driver of the towing vehicle in the combination to or by which the trailer was, or apparently was, last attached or drawn.
(a) includes a busway under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 (therefore excludes land with tar or concrete laid above it); and
(b) includes an area that is—
(i) open to or used by the public and is developed for, or has as 1 of its uses, the driving or riding of motor vehicles, whether on payment of a fee or otherwise; or
(ii) dedicated to public use as a road; but
(c) does not include an area declared under a regulation not to be a road.
Example of an area that is a road— a bridge, cattle grid, culvert, ferry, ford, railway crossing, shopping centre car park, tunnel or viaduct
The elements of this offence are therefore:
1. A person
2. must not drive a motor vehicle
3. on a road
4. unless the person holds a driver licence authorising the person to drive the vehicle on the road.
Application of the law to your situation:
1. You are a person (in the everyday sense of the word) and a person to whom the Act applies (see Section 6) This element is substantiated. (A 'court' is not 'in a general/everyday' sense. We are not in court 'everyday1!)
2. Must not drive a motor vehicle on a road - (To drive means to be in charge of a vessel - see schedule 4) in paragraph 1 of your Affidavit dated 15 May 2016 you confirm you are the Registered Owner of the vessel with QLD Transport Registration 318RQF.
You discuss throughout your material that you were traveling. This is consistent with being in charge of or operating a motor vehicle or vessel. This will satisfy a Magistrate that the element of driving has been established. On what evidence does the claimant rely that the plate was being used or that the car was 'operating under a plate or rego' at the time of the alleged offence?
3. You were not on private property. Private property is property that is not available for the public to drive on. Bus interchanges; shopping centre, carparks and the like are not private property. They are roads under the legislation and you were on one. This element has been established. Bulldust! Does the public claim to own the roads? NO! Who owns the roads? We need to demand the certificate of title. Isn't it the Creator's material that built the roads? Therefore doesn't it belong to the Creator? Therefore it must be a private road. People need to learn to ask the right questions!
4. unless the person holds a driver licence authorising the person to drive the vehicle on the road -- you were not the holder of a valid licence. After the period of your disqualification expired you failed to renew your licence. Therefore, you were unlicenced.
So what? What law requires or compels a man or woman to be 'licensed' for the purpose of travel on private roads for private purposes? Show me the evidence! (e.g. How does any Act apply to a man or a woman?)
You speak in your material attached above about probable cause. This is not something that is applicable in Australia. That is contained in the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Correct, you need to refer in Australia to reasonable suspicion.
The concept in Queensland law is "reasonable suspicion" - this is quite a low test. Please see section 29 - Searching persons without a warrant - of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act QLD 2000. How the heck does this Act apply to you? S12 discloses that it applies to 'everyone'. Are you everyone? Have used that question in court and the police officer couldn't answer and went silent. Where is your property (title case name) disclosed within the word 'everyone'? If it isn't included, it's EXCLUDED The Police are alleging that your vessel where's the evidence? pulled over (or ceased travelling) at the time that you have come into close quarter with Police. It was revealed that you were not the holder of a current drivers licence so what?. The Police noted that you were displaying signs consistent with someone effected by Methamphetamine they better prove it because if they don't its a false arrest and a false charge and you can counter sue . This will satisfy a Magistrate that they had reasonable suspicion to search your vessel. You can ask for a cheque for (e.g.) $100,000A to enter your property and request payment BEFORE they enter. Otherwise you can say 'I don't consent'.
The minute they threaten you, you answer "under threat of menace and fear for my life, I will allow it but you will be prosecuted for your actions and I hope you have both sufficient indemnity insurance to cover my claim or sufficient property should your insurer with- draw the indemnity insurance because you broke the law which waives the insurance!" Now watch their reaction. They may back off, but if they don't and fail to prove their claim, you can sue them. Even if they find something in your car, what law discloses a man or woman cannot carry or smoke any substance? There is no such law so again, their claim to any charge will be a false charge. You are not a person or road user UNLESS you consent (possibly by your silence = assent) to it.
The Prosecution are able to make out all the applicable elements of the offence. We do not consider that an illegal search occurred here.
We consider that your prospects of success at trial are marginal at best. We are happy to list the matter for a hearing for you but we will be unable to act for you in that matter and you will need to represent yourself.
Lawyers are licensed to protect the system. There are paths to multiple parties before they swear to assist you. This is why its IMPOSSIBLE for you to win against the system using a lawyer.
You'll end up in jail with a lawyer.
1. You can articulate your own case in court, with no plea entered - BUT I DON'T recommend this because few people are sufficiently qualified or competent to do this - it is a big learning curve to negotiate around their Masonic Lodge-Tribunal/Court, so
2. Learn the 'No Consent' process - is simple and easy to follow - can download process from our templates page.
3. plead 'guilty to the facts' - as you believe the informant is commuting a fraud in the court by converting you property (name) (S408D Qld Criminal Code Act 1899) for the purpose of committing piracy (S80 Qld Criminal Code Act 1899). If they don't except your plea and the Judge enters a plea, then hold him liable for his order and the orders that arise for it. (You may need some coaching to learn how to do this.)
We do not hold funding in relation to these matters. We are only funded through Legal Aid Queensland in relation to other matters you currently have on foot. You will not be able to satisfy the merit test for Legal Aid funding for a summary trial. Without funding we are unable to act for you in a hearing.
Lastly, it is not relevant that you do not believe in the Legislation of that you do not need to hold a valid licence. The Legislation is Authorised by the Parliamentary Counsel and is binding.
It is binding on persons, citizens, residents, road users, drivers and any other corporation but NOT man or woman. Do you really expect a publically registered entity - lawyer do say anything different?
We do not consider that your Constitutional argument has any basis in law. It is not relevant to the offence as you were not traveling for trade or commerce amongst the state. You were returning home from doing your grocery shopping. Of course you were, and did you get paid for doing that? NOOOOO! So you were in your private capacity. Bang, you got them! That lawyer testified as your second witness that you were using your car in a private capacity, so rules of commerce don't apply. How dumb is he?
We await your instructions, in writing, regarding how you wish to proceed with this offence -
Tell him to have another cup of coffee and go back to dream land - the land of fiction - public
- accept the facts as alleged by the Prosecution and accept responsibility for the offence in those terms (plea of guilty); or
- contest the facts as alleged by the Prosecution and conduct a summary trial on this offence by either putting the prosecution to proof or by running an affirmative defence such as a Constitutional argument (plea of not guilty).
Any plea is playing the game and accepting the consequences.
We hope this has been helpful.