Huge Win in Qld Court over Speeding Fine

Article mirrored from Truthology website

Special Emergency Response Team (Queensland)

As posted earlier below as a teaser by Mark Darwin, we can confirm that YES we had a Truthology member WIN in the magistrates court here in Queensland yesterday when arguing the legitimacy of a traffic camera speeding fine.

This victory could potentially have wide-ranging effects as a precedent. Why? Because it shows what we have suspected: it is highly unlikely that the Queensland Police are unable to issue any traffic camera infringement notices in the manner they have been doing so for as long as can work out …… perhaps since inception! That said, sadly, it will probably be short-lived as I’m certain that they will move VERY quickly to shut this down without doubt!

But nevertheless, it is a significant win, and perhaps the beginning of the winds of change in bringing reform to our system.

The man challenging the infringement issued to him, and doing the arguing, was no other than WA Lawyer Warren Black, a fellow Truth teacher and Truthology member, and we can assure you that he was on fire yesterday in the court !

Let me tell you, it takes big balls to walk into THEIR court and challenge them head on, especially when it has to do with their ‘lawful and legal’ ability (under their interpretation) as to whether or not they have the right to do so, and especially as he has so much to lose being a lawyer presently licensed under their system. He performed admirably to say the least, I was there, and enjoyed every minute of it.

The alleged infringement was issued by the QLD Police, and was for the sum of $150 and a loss of 3 points, for allegedly exceeding the posted speed limit by only 14kms per hour.

Coat of Arms of Queensland

Coat of Arms of Queensland (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It was quite amusing that in the early stages of the trial, a young police prosecutor spoke directly to Warren. He tried belittling the attempt as a complete waste of time and resources for all concerned, that Warren should just pay the fine and be done with it, and had little chance of success, and the result for the effort did not warrant Warrens outcome! Needless to say, Warren let that slide and continued on with the matter at hand.

Now in this instance, Warren was arguing a number of points. The main issue that Warren was arguing was that the infringement was issued under the personal name of the officer concerned, a local Police Sergeant, supposedly on behalf of the Queensland Police force. However, as Warren pointed out, there is currently NO AUTHORITY or LEGISLATION in Queensland of any sort in place the grants this person, the right to do so, and even if it did, it must be clear that the police officer is doing the prosecution on behalf of the relevant authority, eg. Queensland Police, the Crown or State.

An example or analogy of this argument is, as the magistrate pointed out to the police during the trial, “what would stop me as the magistrate, Mr Bloggs, from going to a Justice of the Peace and stating that i saw you doing 75km per hour in and 60km zone, and then issuing a summons against you? There has to be some authority or head of power to do this!”

The Police tried to duck and dive, and circumvent this in every way possible, bringing up other issues, but to the Magistrate’s credit, he remained firm and told the Police to answer Warren’s question and provide the relevant proof.  Warren also raised some other points.

Queensland Police Service Traffic Branch Commo...

Queensland Police Service Traffic Branch Commodore SV6 Sportswagon (Photo credit: Highway Patrol Images)

He raised the point that the Queensland Police, SPUR, the Crown, the Queensland Government, are separate entities, yet somehow all involved in the issued infringement. He raised the point that for an entity or Government to raise an infringement, it had to be written in legislation as under any kind of criminal law, an offence had to be clearly specified, and the chain of legislative authority as to who ultimately prosecuted had to be clear. He wanted clarified as to who was who, and what role they all played in this infringement, and where they were mentioned in legislation or regulations. Again, to the Magistrate’s credit, he agreed with Warren, however this argument was not explored in-depth, nor was it ruled upon.

He also raised the point that if the matter was criminal and not civil, the issue was, who was harmed and suffered loss as a result of the alleged infringement and who was the accuser in the matter? (as previously outlined in our website templates) If the Police Sergeant issued the charge, was he personally harmed, and if not, who was harmed, and which entity did he represent! Again the Magistrate agreed, and insisted the Police show their authority.

What was amusing was there were 5 (FIVE) Police officers in the court yesterday, including the head of Brisbane’s Traffic Camera Branch (so we believe). The trial went from 9.30am till 3pm with more than 6 adjournments, (requested by the police) so that they could find ANY legislation or Authority (which they couldn’t) to hang their hat on and make their case. They literally tried EVERYTHING to find it….. let me assure you it was EMBARRASSING to watch them squirm for SO long and the prosecutor was forever saying…”can we just adjourn for 5 minutes so i can ring my boss”…SERIOUSLY !!!

The lengths they went to were extraordinary, and they even tried to withdraw the infringement, and issue a ‘bench warrant’ on the spot to get around it. As correctly pointed out by the Magistrate, this action would be an abuse of process and he instantly rejected it!

Queensland Police Service Toyota Aurion SX6

Queensland Police Service Toyota Aurion SX6 (Photo credit: Highway Patrol Images)

What was fantastic about this case was the Magistrate was very fair and unbiased and was firm on both Warren and the Police about procedural fairness, and following the law. He seemed quite amused at the police incompetence in trying to justify their position, and granted them more than enough time and adjournments to try and get a result. He even appeared to give them a chance to withdraw the charge, which they refused to do, and at one stage, he suggested to Warren with some humour that he may wish to “plead guilty to bring this veil of tears to an end”!

Ultimately the Police dodged a bullet, as the matter was won on another issue. The Police tried to adduce camera evidence, however, Warren challenged it on the basis that the Police had not provided him with witness statements from the camera operator. The Magistrate agreed, and excluded the evidence, so the Police had no evidence to base a charge. The Magistrate proceeded to dismiss the charges, and then grant all costs to Warren for his troubles.

Warren literally had them on the back foot for the entire trial, and then slowly on the ropes, then on their knees, and finally WHAMO …..KO’d !!!!!! a truly fantastic result.

It is important to note, that in Western Australia, they DO have this power outlined in their legislation. You can bet after yesterdays court win, that Queensland will pass similar legislation for future use … so if you are challenging speeding fines now… and want to use this argument and be QUICK about it!…. you will have to check for yourselves in all other states.

What also happened was Warren and I had a number of talks with the Police there, and as time went on , we became more and more friendly. Warren made it clear to the Police that he was totally supportive of road safety, however, he did not agree with a system that undermined the rights of citizens, and swung the balance to favour in favour of the Police. What was interesting was a few of the Police agreed with us, and were very open to where we were coming from!

Advertisements

A sad indictment of how lawyers “do government”

Article by James Johnson:  Former Barrister of the High Court of Australia
A Clear Insight into Australia’s Openly Fascist Political (and) Legal System

Ethics and Morals: Timeless and Universal?

Ethics and Morals: Timeless and Universal? (Photo credit: stephenccwu)

I have never stolen a penny of clients monies. Nor have I ever cheated on my taxes. Nor has the legal regulator ever, in 22 years, received a single complaint against me from any of my many prestigious clients or former clients. Nor have I ever committed or been charged or been prosecuted for any serious (or even trivial) criminal offence. Yet if the Victorian Civil and Administrative Claims Tribunal rubber stamps the irrefutably corrupt and failed Legal Services Commissioner’s unauthorised and illegal reprisal application this week or next, as it clearly wants to and will, I will become the first lawyer from any Top 10 Australian international law firm ever to be struck out of the profession. I will also join a growing list of human rights lawyers struck off, far from doing anything wrong, but for doing plenty that is virtuous and right. If claiming my whistleblowing scalp is what it takes to be the last will and testament of this corrupt and failed legal regulator, if this is what it takes to finally trigger Spring Street to spring into action, well in the scheme of things that is a small (and repairable) personal and political sacrifice for these insipid government agencies to make of me … ☞☞☞ …

Dear Supporter
LAWYEROCRACY ON TRIAL / THE 21 MAY PROJECT
A. MONDAY 6 AUGUST 2012 – NEXT LAWYEROCRACY ON TRIAL HEARING

I am writing to thank you for supporting me at previous VCAT hearings on 21 May 2012 and 6 July 2012 in my quest to (a) clear my name from false assertions of professional misconduct levelled at me by a corrupt legal regulator; and (b) to compel the legal regulator to investigate several dozen instances of professional misconduct (blackmail and fraud, perjury and the like) committed against me [as they are committed against 100s of other Australians every day].

Unfortunately the legal regulator’s zeal to invade my personal private legal affairs, on the false premises of “regulating the conduct of legal services providers” “for the protection of consumers of legal services” are matched by his zeal for refusing to police dozens of genuine instances of professional misconduct by paid legal professionals – mostly, I may add, paid by the Government precisely for the purpose of beating me up and whistleblocking me.

The next hearing in this lawless VCAT vigilante is scheduled for 10 am on Monday (this Monday, the 6th of August 2012) at 55 King Street Melbourne, Australia. I am hoping that as many of you as possible will be able to make it to the hearing in Melbourne to show your support. Let’s pack the public gallery again for the third hearing in a row, and show these government tyrants that we don’t like their business, and that we are “on to them”.

The “trial” is scheduled to resume at an interesting stage of development on 3 – 5 September 2012. But the reality is, that with upwards of 200 defence witnesses, requiring 100s of days to testify (and all of the 100s of days of preparation that precedes that), this year long trial will probably not be ready to commence until mid 2013.

Here are links to two letters that I have written to the Victorian Government in its various manifestations this week in pursuit of my rights “to have an Attorney appointed by the State” and responding to attempts by these bureaucrats to obstruct (by armed force) public access to these public hearings, and to hinder my presentation of “my case” against the State.

Click to read more.