..
..	Explains why Aussiespeedingfines.com is a scam. Aussie Speeding Fines aussiespeedingfines.com Analysing the eBook Scam.   Many people have asked me whether the legal strategies and advice provided on websites such as http://www.aussiespeedingfines.com and http://www.fightfines.info actually work. I hope this page helps answer those questions. Here is an analysis of the legal advice offered by the authors of those sites. Both aussiespeedingfines.com and fightfines.info advise motorists who receive a ticket to send letters back to the enforcement agency in an apparent attempt to avoid the fine. The major difference between the two sites is that aussiespeedingfines.com charges people approximately $67 for essentially the same information but packaged with additional material that is both inaccurate and irrelevant. The main product sold by aussiespeedingfines is a set of "pre-written letters" which the author suggests you should send to the enforcement agency that booked you. The site makes the bold claim that doing so will allow you to avoid liability for the traffic or parking infringement that you have received. You can easily download the same or similar letters for absolutely free via the links in the next paragraph or from several other sites on the Internet. I do not endorse or recommend the use of these letters. Using these pro-forma letters is very likely to damage your chances of winning your case, and has almost no chance of saving you from licence loss or financial penalty. I have no problem with people representing themselves in court to fight traffic fines. In fact, I recommend it to people in certain cases. But I do object to people paying good money for information that is not only incorrect, but positively dangerous to rely on. If Mike Palmer of Aussie Speeding Fines had consumer's interests at heart, he could simply publish his ideas for free online, and perhaps ask for donations from all his happy fans.  But instead, he is making huge profits from selling bad legal advice, he tries to hide his identity from his customers and he pretends to have legal knowledge when in fact he has no legal training whatsoever. The sole purpose of this site is to make consumers aware how easy it is for anonymous con-men to rip-off vulnerable people by selling junk online. This site lifts the veil of anonymity that Aussie Speeding Fines tries to hide behind.   Just send some letters! The strategy recommended by Aussie Speeding Fines and Fightfines.info is to send the police some standard form letters with your own details inserted in them: 1. Send this first letter (it is re-printed below). Wait for a response. 2. If the police ignore your first letter and proceed to enforce the fine (which they will do), send this clarification letter as a follow-up. 3. Then you wait 28 days and send them this second letter. (This letter is hilarious nonsense. Utterly unintelligible - a must read!!) 4. Then when they continue to harrass you for payment of the fine and record demerit points against you, just send them this this third letter. 5. Because the letters are unintelligible (they are clearly not written by lawyers), the author then produced this help sheet to try to explain the system to his clients. You will notice that the letters do not contain an election to go to court. If you rely on these letters you are losing your chance of winning your case in court, and nothing in the letter stops the police from enforcing the fine or prevents demerit points accruing. Update: Aussiespeedingfines.com has recently created an additional letter that claims to be an election to take the case to court. However the objection letter may be invalid because it requests a jury trial or a hearing before two judges!!! Their instructions state: Because they insist on harassing you, you are asking for the matter to be heard in a court of competent jurisdiction. ie. a trial by jury or a court that has 2 Judges present. They obviously cannot do this for every simple traffic fine and this will, in many cases, stop them in their tracks. Please remember that it is your Constitutional right to request this. The author seems to be unaware that neither option is possible in Australia for any offence that arises from the issuing of a traffic infringement notice. Only specific indictable offences are eligible to be heard before a jury. Magistrates Courts do not have juries. The Infringement's Act requires traffic offence cases to be heard in a Magistrates Court. All traffic offences are summary offences, not indictable offences. Perhaps the aussiespeedingfines author has copied this letter from an Amercian website. It won't work here. If you have had success (or otherwise) using the above letters, drop me a line. I would love to know how you fared! if you relied on the strategy provided by aussiespeedingfines.com and you still lost your licence or incurred demerit points, you should get legal advice about your rights because you are entitled claim compensation from the person who advised you to take that course (his identity is revealed below to assist you to do that).   The First letter: John Smith 10 Smith Street Smithville VIC 3333   28th July 2007    Senior Constable Iva Radar Smithville Traffic Management Unit 1 Copper Street Smithville VIC 3333   Obligation Number: 0000000000 Re: Infringement Notice 23456789  Dear Iva Radar and VICTORIA POLICE, Your claim is conditionally accepted for value on the grounds that you, Iva Radar and VICTORIA POLICE SERVICE now provide a sworn affidavit and supporting documentation that substantiates your claim that the Speed Measuring Device that you have used to allegedly record the speed of my automobile on 10th April 2007 conforms to the National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth) in respect of its use for making measurements for any legal and monetary purpose. I am seeking certification that the speed measuring device is both a legal and certified measurement device to measure and record in accordance with the Australian legal units of measurement, as defined by the National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth). The only lawful way of doing this is to provide the specific NSC (National Standards Commission) number that has been allocated to this device and by providing a copy of the certificate that has been issued for this device under Regulation 13 of said Act.     I am also seeking certification that the device is used in accordance with the training manual and operators manual that relates to this device and that you adhered to all the guidelines/policies for the use of this device in the state of Victoria, issued by VICTORIA POLICE SERVICE. I seek further certification that Code/Road Rule 1234 is actually part of a current, legal and valid law in the State of Victoria. I will require certification that this law has in fact been legally enacted by the Victorian Parliament in the Queens name. I will endeavour to dis-charge the associated tax, conditional on the grounds that I receive from you the sworn affidavit and supporting documentation that substantiates your claim that the above documents do indeed exist. Upon receipt of these documents and certification, I will require further information from you as to how I am able to lawfully, constitutionally, meaningfully and conscientiously extinguish or dis-charge an alleged debt/tax in excess of AU$20 in the Commonwealth of Australia without breaching the Currency Act 1965, specifically Sections 9, 11, 16 and 22, considering that the highest denomination coin in common circulation in the Commonwealth of Australia is the AU$2 coin. Additionally, the conflict that exists regarding the face value of coins makes it impossible to value the Australian dollar.    Iva Radar and VICTORIA POLICE SERVICE shall produce proof of claim within 28 days upon receipt hereof with the affidavit and attached supporting documentation as aforementioned, or Iva Radar and VICTORIA POLICE SERVICE shall: 1.    admit and agree that no such documentation can be produced by Iva Radar and VICTORIA POLICE SERVICE; and, 2.    admit and agree that Iva Radar and VICTORIA POLICE SERVICE cannot enforce speed limits by means of the readings obtained from a device that is not compliant with the laws of the Commonwealth in respect of legal metrology; and, 3.    agree that where there is an inconsistency between a law of the Commonwealth and a law of a State, the law of the Commonwealth shall prevail and the law of the State shall be invalid to the extent of the inconsistency as set out in Section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900UK; and, 4.    agree that Iva Radar and VICTORIA POLICE SERVICE  are bound by  covering clause 5 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900UK; and, 5.    agree that Iva Radar and VICTORIA POLICE SERVICE knowingly, willfully and intentionally failed to present proof of claim within the time certain, specified and allotted herein; and, 6.    agree that the conditions required in this Conditional Acceptance are not frivolous or vexatious; and, 7.    agree to be prohibited from taking unlawful action based on a radar reading against John Smith by way of  any fine or any lawsuit or any procedure for taking or confiscation or allocating demerit points in relation to a driver's licence, which may occur as a result of this alleged infringement ; and, 8.    agree that no officer or representative of VICTORIA POLICE SERVICE may attempt to perform any act which is unlawful, or falsely represents that they and VICTORIA POLICE SERVICE are acting in full accord with the laws of the Commonwealth and the laws of Her Majesty the Queen in the State of Victoria; and, 9.    agree that any such attempt may constitute a breach of Section 43 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth); and, 10.  agree that John Smith has and retains the right to claim damages as a result of any adverse or harmful effects upon him brought about by the actions of Iva Radar and VICTORIA POLICE SERVICE and/or it's officers; and 11.  agree that the only way that Iva Radar and VICTORIA POLICE SERVICE may reject this agreement and consensual contract is by way of providing the requested sworn affidavit and attached supporting documentation within the time stipulated in this agreement, and in no other written or verbal manner. If Iva Radar and VICTORIA POLICE SEVICE agree to the aforementioned terms and conditions of agreement and contract, then simply do nothing within the allotted time for response.   Yours Sincerely,    John Smith  N.B. This document is to be used Without Prejudice towards the author. All rights reserved   Analysis of the First Letter This letter, which can be downloaded from here, is as useful as a nursery rhyme. There is barely a sentence in the letter that makes legal sense. It is totally misconceived in its assumption that you can make demands of the police to provide non-existent information to you which they are not under any obligation at law to provide (even if the information existed). It then makes the bizarre claim that the consequence of non-compliance with your demands is that the police have agreed not to prosecute you. If that were correct, then I could send you a letter demanding you sell me your car for $20.00 and unless you reply to me within 28 days with proof of the existence of Santa Clause, then we have a deal and the car is mine... Good grief! Perhaps the intention of the first letter is to distract the enforcement agency (usually the police of the local council) into trying to comply with your demands in the faint hope that they will be conned into believing that compliance with those demands is a precondition to enforcing the penalty. It is not. All the enforcement agency will do is continue to enforce the fine in accordance with Part 4 and Parts 7 to 12 of the Infringements Act (together with any resulting demerit points and licence loss) unless the offender exercises his or her rights under either s.16 or s.64 of the Infringements Act, or s.89A(4) Road Safety Act 1986 in the case of licence loss offences. Nowadays most enforcement agencies are smart enough to know this. They know that the law allows two main options: (1) if you object to the fine they can take you to court where you can defend yourself, or (2) if you fail to pay the fine, they can have an enforcement order made against you. Any other correspondence from you will be considered by the Traffic Camera Office and may have the effect of delaying enforcement of the fine but it is extremely unlikely to result in your fine being cancelled, dropped or avoided. If you think that sending letters like the one above will avoid legal liability for an infringement notice you are destined to be very disappointed. I note that the first letter is addressed to the police member who issued the infringement notice, as are all the follow-up letters. The author does not seem to realise that the police member who issued the ticket has no role to play in the process after the infringement notice is issued. Once it is issued, Civic Compliance and the Infringements Court undertake all administrative processes in respect of the infringement. Objections are sent to Civic Compliance. Sob stories are handled by the Traffic Camera Office's Penalty Review Board. Fines are collected by Civic Compliance. Defaulters are chased by Civic Compliance and the Infringements Court. The police member has no role to play. He can not drop the fine even if he wanted to. In practice he will withdraw and cancel the fine only if he issues a replacement fine or a charge and summons. Importantly, he has no need to go searching for irrelevant documentation just because you ask him to. The police member who issued the ticket will almost never respond to your correspondence. You will get a letter in reply from the Traffic Camera Office telling you to pay up. So sending your follow-up letters to the person who issued the infringement notice is a waste of time. It will merely dig you deeper and deeper into a hole until you find you have dug so deep you can not get out, and no one cares that you are in there. The member who issued the notice will not have any role to play unless you lodge an objection to the fine and ask to go to court, in which case the police member will file and serve a charge and summons. In any case, if you take your case to court and rely solely on an imaginary private settlement agreement as your defence then you are certain to lose. No Australian court has ever accepted that such an agreement is lawful or possible. Quite simply, even if we assume that you have entered into a private agreement with the police, by law it is impossible to contract out of criminal liability. In fact, to enter into a contract with a police member which purports to prevent that police member from prosecuting you is an offence called perverting, or attempting to pervert, the course of justice. If I am a police member investigating you for an offence and I sign an agreement with you in which I promise not to file charges, this does not prevent me or any other member of the police from filing charges against you for exactly the same offence. Only the Director Of Public Prosecutions has the power to grant someone immunity from prosecution for a criminal offence. The concept of a "private settlement" is ridiculous. You will also notice that the proposed letters contain similar verbiage to other lunatic letters which can be found on the Internet, and also terminology common in civil courts in the United States but which have no relevance in Australia: Letter written to declare Texas an independant republic Oregon affidavit attempting to get out of a traffic fine Letter to the tax Commissioner trying to avoid tax. Aussiespeedingfines.com also publishes some pro-forma letters which they recommend you should send to the police if you want to blame (or if you are unable to blame) someone else for driving your vehicle at the time a camera offence is detected (i.e. if you want to pass the buck even though you were the driver). I am aware of many people who have sent these pro-forma documents to civic compliance. The letters are clearly a fiction and expose the motorist to charges of perjury or attempting to pervert the course of justice if the matter ends up in court. Drivers can be imprisoned for doing this. The use of pro-formas or fictional explanations to excuse yourself from a speeding ticket is dangerous and should not be undertaken lightly. Sending such letters can adversely affect your chances of winning at court. The first letter falsely implies that use of a speed measuring device is unlawful if the device has not been certified under the National Measurement Act. For decades this argument has been tried and the courts have consistently said that no law in Australia imposes any obligation for speed measuring devices to be so certified. There are still people who think they can win using this defence. I know they can not. Some of my clients faced with speeding charges have asked me to run this defence. From my experience in court and my legal research I am confident that this argument has no prospect of success. Nearly every State Supreme Court or Court of Appeal has handed down decisions that reject this argument. This page explains more about the NMA defence. What the first letter says about the Currency Act is utter garbage. No commentary needed. Just read the legislation and laugh.    The Second Letter   NOTICE OF DEFAULT   BETWEEN Senior Constable Iva Radar, OF Smithville Traffic Management Unit 1 Copper Street  Smithville VIC 3333   AND  John Smith OF   10 Smith Street Smithville VIC 3333 DATED:                  May 5th 2007 ON THE MATTER Alleged Infringement No. 000012345              Know all men that I, John Smith of 10 Smith street, Smithville in the State of Victoria, in the Commonwealth of Australia, did on the 28th day of April 2007 make a Conditional Acceptance of the claim by Senior Constable Iva Radar and VICTORIA POLICE that the speed measuring device used to allegedly record the speed of my automobile on 10th April 2007 conforms to the National Measurements Act 1960 in respect of its use for the taking of measurements for any legal purpose. The claim by Senior Constable Iva Radar and VICTORIA POLICE was accepted for value on the basis that Senior Constable Iva Radar and VICTORIA POLICE provide within 28 days, a sworn Affidavit and supporting documentation substantiating that the speed measuring radar device used to allegedly record the speed of my automobile on 10th April 2007 conforms to the National Measurements Act 1960 in respect of their use for making measurements for any legal purpose. As Senior Constable Iva Radar and VICTORIA POLICE, being fully aware of the terms of the Conditional Acceptance, failed to provide any documentary evidence in support of their claim within the time period specified, they have defaulted in respect of their claim and have admitted and agreed to the terms of the Conditional Acceptance tendered, notwithstanding any unsubstantiated denials that may be made by them that the speed measuring radar device does not comply with the National Measurements Act 1960 when used for any legal purpose. Wherefore I now, in the presence of a Justice of the Peace, acknowledge and accept the default by Senior Constable Iva Radar and VICTORIA POLICE as agreement, settlement and closure between the parties.   Dated this……………….day of ………………………2006   Signed……………………………...   Before me………………………….    A Justice of the Peace Legal Analysis of the Second Letter The instructions tell you to send the above second letter (which can be downloaded as a .doc from here) a month after the first letter if the police fail to provide you with the affidavit and associated documents that you have demanded in the first letter. Of course you will never get a satisfactory response to the first letter, if not only for the reason that some of the things that are asked for do not exist and probably never will. So the second letter is intended to acknowledge in writing that the police are in breach of your demands. The document is written in the style of a court document and tries to look official, even though it is pure garbage. The second letter is addressed to the police member who issued the infringement notice, but as mentioned earlier, any reply to your first letter will come from the Traffic Camera Office (even if yours is not a camera offence). The letter starts with the phrase "Know all men..." A clear indication that the writer is a tosser. Perhaps the language used is intended to make the document sound like a lawyer wrote it. But this phrase has never previously been seen in private contracts and is probably only found these days in very old legislation or your grandfather's will. The author goes on to say that he "makes a Conditional Acceptance of the claim" of the police member that the radar or laser used by the police member "conforms to" the National Measurement Act ("NMA"). Perhaps he means "complies with the National Measurement Act "? Anyway, I seem to have missed the part where the police ever claimed that their laser or radar conforms with the National Measurement Act. The police have never made any such claim, so it is a mystery how the writer can take it upon himself to accept a non-existent claim (even if acceptance is required). Paragraph 2 of the letter is even more meaningless. It states that the claim by the policeman was accepted for value. Is this the same claim as is referred to in paragraph 1, i.e. the claim, which the police never made, that his radar conforms to the NMA? If so, how can it be accepted "for value"? Did someone pay for the claim? What was its value? What the hell does that mean? It is not even English. Don't forget you will have to stand in court and explain the meaning of these letters to a Magistrate if you intend to prove that this private settlement is legally binding. Perhaps he is referring to the financial penalty specified in the infringement notice? If so, why not say so? If so, it is not a claim anyway. It is a fixed penalty imposed by parliament as punishment for a criminal offence which is payable if you admit guilt by not challenging the matters alleged in the infringement notice. Claims are made in civil proceedings. They have no role whatsoever in a criminal process. Paragraph 3 alleges that the police "have defaulted in respect of their claim and have admitted and agreed to the terms of the Conditional Acceptance tendered". But what claim have they defaulted on? Is it the claim referred to in the first paragraph of the second letter that their radar conformed with the NMA, being a claim that the police actually have never made? Or is it a claim for money? The police have not admitted or agreed to anything at all. What section of what legislation entitled the author to make any demands on the police for any affidavit at all? None! Are there any laws which require the police to comply with any bizarre demand that they receive in respect of a traffic infringement notice? Not in Australia. The author believes that the police are obliged to prove to the motorist that they have sufficient evidence to secure a conviction prior to the motorist electing whether or not to take the matter to court. This is nonsense. The police are not required to prove anything whatsoever until the matter is called on for hearing before a magistrate. Although the police can be obligated to make discovery of evidence in the pre-trial process they are not obliged to do anything until a court proceeding has commenced. The purpose of an infringement notice is to provide an expedient manner for motorists to expedite minor infringements of the law without the need to drag people though a full-blown court case. The motorist's option is to accept it or dispute it. The court process does not commence until the motorist has elected to take the matter to court. So this "conditional acceptance" and "private settlement" is pie-in-the-sky garbage. During the court process the motorist is entitled to request copies of the evidence that will be alleged against him or her. This is limited to matters of fact, not questions of law. Much of what is demanded in the first letter are questions of law. If the motorist does not agree with any aspect of the allegations contained in the infringement notice, the law requires the motorist to lodge an objection so that a court can determine the issue in dispute. The law does not provide any mechanism for "conditionally accepting" an infringement notice. If you do not object to it, you are taken to accept it, even if you ignore it, and even if you write crazy demands for affidavits. The second letter refers to the "unsubstantiated denials that may be made by them that the speed measuring radar device does not comply with the National Measurements Act 1960 when used for any legal purpose." In my experience the police have always been very willing to admit that their speed measuring devices are not certified under the NMA. This is because there is no requirement that they be so certified. So the letter falsely suggests that the NMA is relevant, and that the police are trying to dodge the question of whether or not their devices are certified. The letter then announces that the matter of the outstanding infringement notice is now closed. For reasons unknown a Justice of the Peace is required to witness your signature, perhaps to make it all sound far more official and plausible than it actually is. In my opinion, the contents of the letters are so absurd that no police could have any doubt that this charade is a load of bullocks. Gullible and desperate motorists on the other hand, who have little or no legal training, are likely to be conned by the official sounding forms and the goobledy-gook. They might think they are onto something brilliant. Perhaps the whole scheme is designed to woo and confuse the poor motorist more than it is designed to have any legal affect. Maybe if it were written in plain English everyone could see that it is all a futile waste of time and money. I could write many paragraphs trying to discern some meaning from the 3rd letter, but if you read it for yourselves you should arrive at the same conclusions as me. It is a mish-mash of old fashioned US civil law mumbo-jumbo dressed up to look like it has some relevance to speeding fines. To think that this garbage could get you off a traffic fine is laughable.   Your legal rights regarding infringement notices. After you receive an infringement notice, your options are to object to the infringement notice (which will cancel it), else pay the fine and accept liability, or else just ignore it. By sending the above letter you are effectively electing to ignore the fine because your action has no real affect on the course of the proceeding. The legal process of infringement notices is fully explained here. A person who receives a fine does not have any right to demand the police to provide anything at this stage of the proceeding. You could issue a FOI request, but that will take about 3 months. Assuming that a valid infringement notice has been lawfully issued to you, the choice is yours whether to accept or reject the allegations contained in it. If you do not accept liability for the offence, or you want to force the police to prove that an offence has been committed (for example you want the police to prove that they used a properly calibrated and authorised laser device) then your only option is to lodge an objection and take the matter to court. Once you are in the court system the law allows you to demand anything you want. If the police refuse to provide it a Magistrate will decide whether or not you are entitled to the material you are seeking. But the effect of choosing option 3 (doing nothing or sending garbage letters) is that you become a defaulting offender and the fine will be enforced. If it is a fine that carries mandatory licence loss, then your licence will be cancelled or suspended 28 days after the date of the fine, and demerit points will be recorded upon the making of an enforcement order. Sending these letters can not and will not prevent you from suffering licence loss or incurring demerit points. It will not prevent an enforcement order being made against you. If you choose not to object to the fine you will lose your right to have the infringement notice cancelled and you will be unable to force the police to proceed by way of charge and summons. You will lose the opportunity to challenge each of the things listed in the letter (if you think that matters). For people who are eager to win their cases, this is not a good outcome. You usually are far better off defending a charge and summons in court than trying to set aside an enforcement order and then fighting an infringement notice in court. If you do not understand the difference, then you are probably out of your depth and should get legal advice about what is best for you. The best these pro-forma letters will do is give you a chance to wear down the police in the hope that they will soften or perhaps give up. You can try that just as easily by following the traditional path of objection. The author of the website preaches that our roads exist for all people to use without restriction and that any attempt by government to impose restrictions on our use of them is unlawful. He claims that local governments are illegal because they do not get a mention in the Commonwealth or State constitution!! He claims Victoria's road laws are not binding, just guidelines, and everyone is entitled to ignore them if they wish! Fee simple.   The end game If you send all of the letters as suggested by aussiespeedingfines.com, the fine will be processed by the enforcement system despite your letters. That it their stated policy. I am informed by senior police at the Traffic Camera Office that the police have received legal advice from Senior Counsel ( a Q.C.) that the aussiespeedingfines.com.au letters are of no legal effect and should be ignored. I agree with that advice. If you send a valid objection to the fine and ask for offence to be heard and determined by a court, you will soon receive a charge and summons in the mail. You now have a court case and you can run any defence you want. If you rely on the defence that the police have already entered into an agreement with you to settle the case, and/or you argue that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter, you will lose. It is a useless argument that has never and will never succeed because the police have not agreed to any such thing. In Australia, silence is not consent unless supported by a legislative provision. If you do not elect to fight the fine in court, eventually an enforcement order will be made against you by the Infringements Court. Let's assume you ignore the enforcement order and their demand that you pay the additional costs. Two months later a warrant is issued for recovery of the debt. Eventually the sheriff knocks on your door carrying a pair of handcuffs, a wheel lock for your car and a truck to cart away your jet ski, billiard table and pinball machines. He wants money or your body. You show him the letters you have sent to the police. You tell the sheriff that the police have not provided you with the documentation and proofs that you requested within the 28 days that you allowed them. You explain to the sheriff that the police have thereby entered into a private settlement of their claim and have agreed not to prosecute you. You tell him that the enforcement order is invalid and so too is the warrant that stems from it, so he is powerless to do anything to enforce it. The sheriff laughs, waives the warrant in your face, impounds your car, suspends your drivers licence, seizes your jet ski and trail bike, and insists that if the money is not paid within 7 days we will come back and arrest you. You go to see a lawyer and ask him to take steps to reverse the injustice you are experiencing. He makes application to the Infringements court to set aside the enforcement order that has been made against you on the grounds that the Infringements Court had no power to make the order, given the existence of a private settlement agreement which pre-dated the enforcement order. The registrar of the Infringements Court refuses your application for revocation as this ground is considered fanciful. You appeal against the registrar's refusal. The appeal is then listed for hearing before a Magistrate. You attend the Magistrates Court on the appointed day with your lawyer. Your case is called. You have to convince the Magistrate that the enforcement order should be set-aside and you should be given a chance to defend the alleged offence. You get in the witness box and give evidence to the court. You tell the magistrate that the infringement was settled by a private agreement. You tender copies of the letters you sent to the police. The police prosecutor cross examines you. He asks you if you exceeded the speed limit on Geelong Road on the date in question. You mumble something about you are not sure. They produce your first and second letters which you tendered into evidence moments earlier. They point out that in these letters you state "Please understand that I am more than willing to accept your claim and pay the associated fine". You agree that this is the case but your answer to that is the letter has the words "without prejudice" on it, so it can not be used against you. The Magistrate falls off his chair laughing. Of course it can be used against you. You are the one who tendered it into evidence to prove the alleged private settlement agreement. The police then suggest that you could have objected to the fine if you wanted to have your case heard and determined by a court. You agree that this is the case. The magistrate then has to decide if there is any basis for allowing the enforcement order to be revoked and allowing you to defend the allegation of the offence. Given that you do not deny liability for the offence, and you have no justification for failing to object to the fine within the time allowed, the court will most likely refuse your request to set aside the enforcement order. It will refuse the application partly because you will have failed to show that refusing to set aside the order would result in an injustice, or that you have a realistic prospect of winning your case should you be allowed to defend the allegation, and because you have failed to show any basis as to why you have failed to bring the matter to court in the usual manner (by objecting to the fine within the time allowed). So your appeal will be dismissed. You will then be ordered to pay the amount owing under the warrant, together with your legal bill (if you have engaged lawyers). So the end point is you have been refused the opportunity to defend yourself in court and you have racked up more than double the original fine amount as a debt to the state, and you still have the demerit points, and an ebook.   Who operates "AussieSpeedingFines.com?" In June 2007 the aussiespeedingfines.com website contained the following terms and conditions: 1. You shall not use, or allow to be used, any information contained within "the website" in any way against the authors. 2. Even if known, you shall not disclose the names of the authors of "the website" to anyone at any time. 3. You fully understand that all the information that is contained within "the website" is provided to you on a Without Prejudice basis. 4. You further acknowledge that none of the information provided within "the website" is to be considered legal advice, it is simply provided for informational purposes only. By continuing to read pages contained in/on "the website" you agree to the Terms and Conditions outlined above of your own free will and understand that any breach of those Terms and Conditions will render you liable to a penalty of AUD$1,000,000.00 payable immediately to the authors. Should you NOT agree to ANY of the Terms and Conditions above then you must close down "the website" within your browser and NOT read any further. If the author were legally trained, he would know that it is illegal for a contract to impose a penalty which is greater than a fair and reasonable estimate of the actual loss and damage suffered as a result of the breach. So I'm not intimidated by the threat of a $1 million claim being made against me even if simply reading his web site has caused me to enter into a contract with him. The owner has gone to considerable lengths to avoid being associated with his website. He does not disclose his identity as the owner on any part of his site. When making payment to him by credit card you are transacting with an anonymous entity. If paying by cheque, make it out to a service company. If you want a refund or you want to make a complaint, there is no-one to sue. There is no person, registered business name or Australian company that is prepared to take responsibility for the website. When you search whois for the domain owner's details, you get the following: Registrant Contact: Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. Whois Agent (ktypgvhx@whoisprivacyprotect.com) +1.4252740657 Fax: +1.4256960234 PMB 368, 14150 NE 20th St - F1 C/O aussiespeedingfines.com Bellevue, WA 98007 US Administrative Contact: Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. Whois Agent (ktypgvhx@whoisprivacyprotect.com) +1.4252740657 Fax: +1.4256960234 PMB 368, 14150 NE 20th St - F1 C/O aussiespeedingfines.com Bellevue, WA 98007 US   Technical Contact: Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. Whois Agent (ktypgvhx@whoisprivacyprotect.com) +1.4252740657 Fax: +1.4256960234 PMB 368, 14150 NE 20th St - F1 C/O aussiespeedingfines.com Bellevue, WA 98007 US   Status: Locked   Name Servers: NS85.MDWEBHOSTING.COM.AU NS86.MDWEBHOSTING.COM.AU No meaningful information is published about the identity or contact details of the domain owner.Doesn't sound like someone who is proud of his work and prepared to stand by it. Perhaps the author is just a very humble man?! Here is what others say about this. In the online promotion of the ebook, the author says this: Please don't wait to order this e-book though. We have done everything in our power to hide our identity from the government, but they WILL eventually find a way around this and try to shut our site down. Might be because he doesn't want his customers to lynch him when they discover they have lost their licence after being promised they will avoid fines for life. But it is now time to acknowledge this legal genius. The aussiespeedingfines.com website is owned and operated by a man called Mike Palmer, who operates out of his home in Beaumaris Victoria (Tel/Fax: 03 9589 1639). Mike Palmer is a motivational speaker (a.k.a. an over-priced spruiker). His online profile suggests he is a student and follower of Tony Robbins, the American motivational speaker who started out selling his own seminars and who utilises firewalking and hypnotism in personal power building seminars. Mike spent some time studying to be a hypnotist, which he probably found more useful than wasting any time studying law. He also operates tours around Melbourne (although I can't find any sign of his registration as a travel agent under the Travel Agents Act). It seems Mike's powers of persuasion are an integral part of his business. Mike was planning to run a speeding fine forum on 3 September 2007 through Bayside City Council's Bayside Business Network Seminar Series. A couple of weeks before it ran, the Council canned it because of concerns that his business is unethical. Mike Palmer - public speaker - success coaching international   Aussie Speeding Fine's owner - Mike Palmer     Mike Palmer's Exclusion Clause Here is a snippet from the Aussiespeedingfines.com exclusion clause: All of the information provided by Aussie Speeding Fines in this website is presented as an information and educational service only. All aspects of the information and educational service provided by Aussie Speeding Fines in this website is not, and does not, represent itself to be legal advice in any way; nor should it be used for any other purpose than that of education and research.  Aussie Speeding Fines do not seek to offer, nor offer any form of legal advice. Aussie Speeding Fines note that there will always be potential risk involved in any form of legal challenge and that every individual should make legal challenges only according to their own personal situation, existing legal education and ability. Aussie Speeding Fines therefore recommend that before any legal challenge or legal decision is made, that everyone should seek independent legal advice as to the suitability of the strategies covered in this website to their personal legal profile and goals. Aussie Speeding Fines have taken every care to ensure that the content of this website is accurate and timely, but cannot take any responsibility for errors or omissions that may occur. This website is not designed to replace your licensed legal advisor. You should seek appropriate independent legal advice as required, as general information contained in this document is impersonal and not tailored to the legal needs of any specific individual. Aussie Speeding Fines cannot and do not accept any responsibility or liability for any loss, claims, demands or damage what-so-ever that may arise directly, or indirectly, as a result of any reliance placed upon any information conveyed in any form (whether written or oral) within this website. If you think that sounds dodgy, you're right. Luckily Mike Palmer suggests you should get independant legal advice before you make a legal decision. Well, here is some free independant barrister's legal advice: aussiespeedingfines.com is a scam. The recommended strategies have no legal basis whatsoever and you will be wasting your money and risking your licence if you follow his advice. No lawyer has ever published anything in support of Mike Palmer's advice. Please let me know if it ever happens! No Court has ever said Mike Palmer's strategy is valid. The police do not accept that his ideas have any legal basis. If his ideas worked I, and hundreds of other lawyers, would be using the same tactics for our clients. Nothing he has published is news to traffic lawyers. Many of these ideas have been around the traps for decades, others are just plainly bizarre. The ebook is mainly a compilation of material that can be googled for free from a variety of sites around the world. The fact that someone (who wants their identity to remain a secret for obvious reasons) dares to charge money for this garbage is outrageous. It is a jailable offence to obtain financial advantage by deception.   More of Mike Palmer's legal nonsense: In essence, no "Road Rules" publiction in ANY state has been lawfully enacted. No state government can lawfully enact them because they contravene our funadental Constitutional rights (Section 92 of the Commonwealth Constituion) to travel freely on our roads. Certian, fines, such as red light camera fines, also have fundamental flaws - like speed cameras - in respect to proving the authenticity of the photographs produced by these devices (see the section in the e-book relating to the flawed MD5 algorithm). All the road rules are just that - rules. They are NOT Acts or Laws. You must remember that these rules were only ever put in place to help create an even flow of traffic. It makes sense to have Stop signs and Give Way signs that INDICATE what people SHOULD do, but you cannot punish them for not doing it unless they actually cause an accident. In essence, our roads were created in fee simple and we cannot be charged to use them, or park on them. Chapter 9 of the e-book goes into much greater detail as to why parking tickets are illegal (including explaining why local governments have no lawful power). Copied directly (with typos) from: www.aussiespeedingfines.com Palmer claims the (Commonwealth) Consitution prohibits the making of road laws. Then he claims they are not laws anyway, but merely recommendations! S.92 of the constitution says nothing at all about this apparant right to travel freely on our roads. S.92 prohibits the states from imposing duties or taxes on interstate trade or commerce. Although many people would like to believe what Palmer says has some substance, the unfortunate truth is it is pure fantasy. All State parliaments spend so much time passing road laws and enforcing them with police and courts. Won't the States be very disappointed and embarrassed to learn that Palmer has discovered that all this activity is unlawful? I wonder why no court has pointed this out to any State government up til now? If Councils have no lawful powers then I guess Palmer doesn't pay rates on this Beach Road house, especially if the rate notice seeks more than $20.00. And I guess he must be winning his court cases every time Bayside Council seeks an order for possession and sale of his house after several years of non-payment of rates. Why aren't the newspapers or law journals reporting his legal victories? His ebook is a work of fiction and the legal theories in it have no foundation in logic or law. You would be better off spending $20 on a Peter Carey novel. It is probably easy for a gullible person to believe what is written in the ebook. What is hard to believe is that Palmer is stupid enough to believe in what the book contains.   Selling Legal Advice Mike Palmer is earning money selling legal advice and legal opinions. It is more than just legal information, it is a controversial strategy that has the ability to adversely affect your legal rights. Mike Palmer's book purports to tell you what your legal rights are, what the law is and how you should exercise your legal rights to achieve a specific goal. You are paying Mike Palmer to assist you to avoid liability for a criminal offence. So much is clear from the fact that his book is targeted at people who want to defeat being liable for speeding fines. The issuing by the police of a speeding infringement notice is a legal process and advice on how to deal with that process is legal advice, no matter how much Palmer might deny that it is. Palmer is selling you a legal strategy intended to affect your rights in a legal proceeding. It is not an offence to give legal assistance for free, and it is not an offence to provide people with information about the law. If aussiespeedingfines truly had your interests at heart, they would be providing this information free of charge just like fightfines.info does. if you charge money for providing legal assistance you could be engaging in legal practice. Under the s.2.2.2 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 it is unlawful to engage in legal practice without being registered. This offence is punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment. By charging money for his legal advice, Mike Palmer is possibly engaging in legal practice in breach of s.2.2.2 of the Legal Profession Act because he is not a registered legal practitioner in the state of Victoria. You can search for him yourself at the Legal Services Board. If you have paid money to anyone for legal advice of this nature, you should demand to see a current legal practicing certificate. If the person is not a registered legal practitioner, they may be committing an offence against the law of the state in which they are practicing, i.e. in the state in which you are receiving the advice. You might wish to complain to the law institute in your state if you believe you have paid for legal advice from someone who is not qualified or registered. If as a result of relying on legal advice you have suffered loss and damage (e.g. you have lost your licence for 12 months because you lost the chance to defend yourself in court), you may be able to claim compensation from the person who gave you the incorrect advice. All lawyers carry insurance against such claims. Non-lawyers have no such cover and you will have a much harder time recovering your losses from a non-lawyer. You will also find that non-lawyers will have an exclusion clause that says they are not giving you legal advice (even though they are) and you are fully responsible for the choices you make and if in doubt you should get legal advice! Palmer says he is not selling legal advice. Apparently he is just publishing a book. If that is true then he is obliged to deposit a copy of his book with the State Library of Victoria pursuant to s.49 Libraries Act: 1. A good copy of the whole of every new publication published in Victoria, other than a prescribed publication, must be deposited by or on behalf of the publisher in accordance with directions of the Library Board of Victoria at a place or with a person determined by the Board within two months after the day on which the publication was first published. If you do a search at the State Library you will not find any record of a deposit of his publication. So is Palmer publishing a book or providing private legal opinions? As they say on ACA: You be the judge!   Terms and Conditions of this webpage: 1. You shall not use, or allow to be used, any information contained within this page in any way against the author. 2. By reading this page, you agree not to complain about it. If you breach this condition, you are liable to a penalty of $3,000,000,000. 3. You fully understand that all the information that is contained within this webpage is provided to you on a Without Prejudice basis (meaning I won't be prejudiced by it, even though you might be). 4. You further acknowledge that none of the information provided within this webpage is to be considered legal advice, it is simply provided for informational purposes only. 5. I have taken every care to ensure that the content of this website is accurate and timely, but cannot take any responsibility for errors or omissions that may occur. If I've stuffed -up, please blame someone else. 6. I cannot and do not accept any responsibility or liability for any loss, claims, injuries, demands or damage what-so-ever that may arise directly, or indirectly, as a result of any reliance placed upon any information conveyed in any form (whether written or oral) within this website. I am just responsible for collecting the money. By continuing to read pages contained in/on this webpage you agree to the Terms and Conditions outlined above of your own free will and understand that any breach of those Terms and Conditions will render you liable to a penalty of AUD$2,000,000,000.00 payable immediately to the author. Should you NOT agree to ANY of the Terms and Conditions above then you must close down this page within your browser and NOT read any further, and you must forget everything you have read up to date. Penalty: ¥10,000,000.00.  Senior Sergeant Ron Ritchie. Senior Sergeant Ritchie	..
	..	..