Austarion

Some advise from the horses mouth :D

http://www.epicinter.net/how-and-why-yo ... -sergeant/

Statistically it is known that apparently 70% of all officers know that what they are doing with traffic matters is simply raising revenue for their business. Yes folks, don't be alarmed but the various state law enforcement agencies are businesses, where their staff get bonuses for what they collect. Yet 6% believe that enforcing the road safety act (as they differ from state to state) is what is right & proper in exercising their role. The rest won't actually tell you this because it puts their job at jeopardy. Part of the problem right there!
The problem arises for them where it can be proven that the RSA is invalid as it is not assented by the queen. This is compounded by the fact that each officer gives an oath under Queen Elizabeth II's name. This discrepancy gives rise to questioning the validity of that law (and others). Then section 100(2)a of the magistrates court act 1989 says the magistrates court has no jurisdiction if one was to question the validity of the RSA.
This is just for starters...

The theory of clogging up the courts is sound but you want to also be armed with knowledge. You are dealing with a cartel who work against you being a tax payer, licensed operator of a vehicle and ultimately the corporation that they see you as (and also known as a bonded debt slave). Btw the court collects a bond just for you appearing in a court room. Justice? Right! ;)

I have always wondered this, but If I elect to go to court to fight the charge, and I lose. Do I have to pay anything extra?

There have been 2 fines which I just payed because I didn't want to incur further cost even though I wasn't in the wrong.

If you go to court and lose, you pay court fees, and any extra fines the judge imposes upon you.

This is, however, only the case if you do not appeal and take the case higher. This is how large companies postpone legal battles. They keep appealing and appealing and the only money they actually pay out is to their lawyers to get the appeals out on time, and for the appeals to make sense, or be convoluted enough that it doesn't get thrown out of court straight away.

the creme de la creme as far as almost unwinnable uphill battles go if you're just one person.

I went to court to fight a "burnout" fine. It cost me nothing when I represented myself (10+ yrs ago). I had to question 2 cops on the witness stand. In total there was the two cops I was challenging, their Sargent and a police prosecutor. I did such a good job, a layer that was there can up shook my hand and said I should be a lawyer.

I was the last on the day but the 20 people before me all either had the penalty reduced or removed. Might have just got a good judge.

yeah you only pay fees if you lose.

it's good in theory, but whenever a system that was put in place to do a public service becomes self important (such as the legal profession), it's headed towards corruption, if not already there.

Mamun, you seem to know a bit about what's going on...you got anything else to share with the punters?

There's lots of approaches along with a massive amount of subjectivity and hence a multitude of possible outcomes for any particular matter.

This is the application of law at it's best!

hah! i'm hardly what you would call experienced on these matters.

Don't rely on me, there are people who know a lot more about legal proceedings.. I just observe things.

Found out today apparently the court fee if you lose is $14 in QLD. If I had known that I would have fought it.

Really? That's so cheap! In what court? Must be maggots (magistrates) court. The cost scale does goes up, especially so at the high court level.

I say go nuts. Appeal the decision then if you're not happy with the outcome. If they still rule against you, you will probably only pay a piddly amount anyway.