Postal Speeding Notice

You can't really use the excuse of self incrimination as that was already dealt with at the High Court or it could of even gone to the European Court. Not signing the form has been dealt with as well, I think they try to do you for not supplying the information when the form is unsigned. I think the way that still works is to ask for more evidence to help you determine who was driving at the time. It would be perverting the course of justice if you named yourself or another as the driver if your not sure who was driving and the burden of proof is still with them to prove who was driving if your not sure yourself.
Others will probably come up with some more better ways hopefully.

Hi guys

NoSurender - a few ways to deal. If you want someone else to do it i think there's 'speedingticketsmyarse.com' or 'crimebodge' or 'expertinalllegalmatters' and probably others.

Or you could try it the way you mentioned - i'm sure i heard about a success with that (can't verify, sorry). Maybe do it in pencil too....?

Or you could try a conditional acceptance. Kestrel put up a link to BoEVAT site. Hopefully you've only received notice today?

Cheers!

I like crimebodge site very good and informative and I think he really knows what he's doing. I even paid for some of his template letters he does.

Take a look here, i added quite a bit of info but so have others...post relevant to same criminal gangs extorting money.
https://goodf.forumotion.com/t1403-20-mph-limit-and-the-law#10752

Where was it stated Jinxer about you are not allowed to self incriminate yourself?
Thanks in advance

The lawful & sovereign right to silence as far as i'm concerned trumps everything but yes i know we are dealing with criminal gangs. You've got a claim you prove it i would say!

Hi guys

Kestrel - i hope Jinxer won't mind me answering for him, but it's not a case of 'not being allowed to incriminate yourself' (T.H.E.Y. positively encourage that!) it's more that you are not obliged to, so anything they ask you to do that will incriminate you you are not obliged to comply.

Just a reminder - where it says you have 28 days to respond, that is T.H.E.M. encouraging you to self-incriminate in a way - as you only have 3 days to respond if you want to rebut their presumptions (and you really do want to do that). Not a problem if you go with the BoEVAT remedy, but it is a problem for the pre-emptive remedies.

Cheers!

I just quickly googled it to show what I mean https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/29/transport.eu
and here is the case http://swarb.co.uk/ohalloran-and-francis-v-united-kingdom-echr-29-jun-2007/

Hi Jinxer

Yes, i looked at the links and i see what you mean. However....
The courts must have known they were in the wrong due to the leniency of the original penalties - both drivers should have been exploited i mean penalised more than they were (according to legislation).

The drivers had already self-incriminated by giving joinder.

One of them admitted/accepted he was at fault initially.

Sending relevant details on T.H E.I.R. form with no signature is different - you are complying with the legislation. i'm prepared to bet that nowhere in legislation does it compel you to sign anything at any time against your will....

However, i myself would go with rebutting their presumptions within 3 days of presentment and offering a conditional acceptance.

Cheers!

If you don't sign the form you are treated as if the form hasn't been filled in and still get done. I'm not sure about conditional acceptance I've never really looked at it, but I do know friends that have won by asking for more evidence to help them identify who was driving as they were unsure and didn't want to perjure themselves by putting the wrong person down. That was a couple of years ago though.

NoSurender wrote:Hi,

I have a postal speeding ticket from a variable-speed camera that doesn't seam to have the reference marks in the road or the lights that illuminate the area of the road that would highlight the mark if there were some, are these new style cameras..?

I was going to fill out the form, not sign it and use the point of exercising my legal right to not incriminate myself', does this still stand, has anything changed..?

Thanks..

This is hot topic in auz. Many people have an open house pollicy in relation to the use of cars. After excerising due diligence they find they still cannot determine, with any certainity, who the driver of the vehicle was at the time when the photo was taken. Because of the servere penalties that apply for providing false or misleading information they ususally find they cannot without any certainity be certain who was driving the car because they were not in the car at the time the photo was taken.

Many people through the use of a Notice to Produce or Notice of Discovery demand a copy of the operators manual and the oeprators competeny training to ensure the camera is set up correctly and that it is operating correctly.

Its quite common to request (request) demand proof of the claibration of the camera and that the organisation that is doing the claibration, is certified by NATA.

Many people also request (demand) copies of the evidence, again if necessary, through discovery, a copy of the photo taken by the camera and require the claim maker, (prosecuting organsation) to clearly identify the car in a way that establishes beyond reasoanble doubt that the car was yours and that you were driving it.

If you would like to read up on this there are a number of sites in auz you can checkout. Aussiespeedingfines is the most well known,  While you are in the UK and your laws may be slightly different its the tactics that it seems you need to know most about at this time. Aussiespeeding fines has a heap of success stories from drivers who have won their cases in courts and they have a manual you can purchase for $80.00.

In that manual you will find template letters you can adapt for your use.

Forgot to add, ask for evdience that the camera had been claibrated in accordance with your National Measurrements Act.

Check out that Act so you know which sections are relevant and look for some previous court decision that favour your argument and eference these in your submission of defence.

Refer to these if there is a court appearance.

Bestaluck

iamani wrote:Hi guys

if you go with the BoEVAT remedy, but it is a problem for the pre-emptive remedies.

Cheers!

I've just checked and the BoEVAT remedy is for PCN's not postal Speeding Tickets..?!

[/size][/quote]

This is hot topic in auz. Many people have an open house pollicy in relation to the use of cars. After exercising due diligence they find they still cannot determine, with any certainity, who the driver of the vehicle was at the time when the photo was taken. Because of the servere penalties that apply for providing false or misleading information they ususally find they cannot without any certainity be certain who was driving the car because they were not in the car at the time the photo was taken.

Many people through the use of a Notice to Produce or Notice of Discovery demand a copy of the operators manual and the oeprators competeny training to ensure the camera is set up correctly and that it is operating correctly.

Its quite common to request (request) demand proof of the claibration of the camera and that the organisation that is doing the claibration, is certified by NATA.

Many people also request (demand) copies of the evidence, again if necessary, through discovery, a copy of the photo taken by the camera and require the claim maker, (prosecuting organsation) to clearly identify the car in a way that establishes beyond reasoanble doubt that the car was yours and that you were driving it.

If you would like to read up on this there are a number of sites in auz you can checkout. Aussiespeedingfines is the most well known,  While you are in the UK and your laws may be slightly different its the tactics that it seems you need to know most about at this time. Aussiespeeding fines has a heap of success stories from drivers who have won their cases in courts and they have a manual you can purchase for $80.00.

In that manual you will find template letters you can adapt for your use.[/quote]

Hi Ausk,

I want to go with the request for more information, so what's the relevance of this 3 day limit, as this penalty arrived on the 10th Oct..??

Also is there any special way I should fill this letter out e.g. lower case: [name] of the family [surname], C/O Home Address, Signed etc

if it helps read both these threads start to finish. Alot of very good points:

https://goodf.forumotion.com/t1403-20-mph-limit-and-the-law#10752

https://goodf.forumotion.com/t396-correspondence-from-the-pole-ice#2383

NoSurender wrote:[/size]

This is hot topic in auz. Many people have an open house pollicy in relation to the use of cars. After exercising due diligence they find they still cannot determine, with any certainity, who the driver of the vehicle was at the time when the photo was taken. Because of the servere penalties that apply for providing false or misleading information they ususally find they cannot without any certainity be certain who was driving the car because they were not in the car at the time the photo was taken.

Many people through the use of a Notice to Produce or Notice of Discovery demand a copy of the operators manual and the operators competency training to ensure the camera is set up correctly and that it is operating correctly.

Its quite common to request (request) demand proof of the calibration of the camera and that the organization that is doing the calibration, is certified by NATA.

Many people also request (demand) copies of the evidence, again if necessary, through discovery, a copy of the photo taken by the camera and require the claim maker, (prosecuting organization) to clearly identify the car in a way that establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the car was yours and that you were driving it.

If you would like to read up on this there are a number of sites in auz you can checkout. Aussiespeedingfines is the most well known,  While you are in the UK and your laws may be slightly different its the tactics that it seems you need to know most about at this time. Aussiespeeding fines has a heap of success stories from drivers who have won their cases in courts and they have a manual you can purchase for $80.00.

In that manual you will find template letters you can adapt for your use.[/quote]

Hi Ausk,

I want to go with the request for more information, so what's the relevance of this 3 day limit, as this penalty arrived on the 10th Oct..??

Also is there any special way I should fill this letter out e.g. lower case: [name] of the family [surname], C/O Home Address, Signed etc[/quote]

Sorry mate, I'm not familiar with the local situation in the UK however if it were me i'd like to know all about the calibration of the radar gun and the competency of the gun operator.

If it were me I'd attack the calibration because as I understand it, they are only calibrated once each year, but keep in mind they will tell you that they calibrate the machine when they 'set it' for the day. This is only a field calibration which means if the calibration of the device is out at is annual testing, then I would want to know how did they adjust the field calibration to account for the movement in accuracy?

You only have to show there is reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the device itself and the further away from its last annual calibration it is, the greater chance you have of doing this.

A bloke admitted he was doing 30kmh or so above the limit but he was able to cast sufficient doubt over the accuracy of the camera that he got away with it in the supreme court in South Australia a few months ago.

Try to get hold of the operators manual for the device and it will tell you all the things the operator has to be careful of when setting up the camera. Read these and use them as questions to the operator in court using the technique below.

Technically, with any calibration they are supposed to record on the calibration cert, if the device was still accurate, whether or not some adjustment was required and if so how much adjustment was required.  Go for the calibration records of the device in court by the Notice to Produce or Notice of Discovery and then develop questions to ask the camera operator.

Key tip - get the manual, go through it and look for every possible reason its accuracy could be compromised. Do the same with the operators competency to use the device.

Ask your questions like this, this is how lawyers ask questions:

• Can you PROVE that another vehicle could not have triggered the camera/radar?

• Can you PROVE the photos could not have been altered or tampered with?

• Can you prove that the speed detection device could not have been subjected to interference at the time the reading was taken?

Suggest you take that line of enquiry with them by asking for the manuals.

Hi Nosurrender,

possibly learn to counter offer, "you (plaintiff) work for a private corp, do you have authority over me the man  etc."

How to beat UK speeding tickets (2014)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNxvlr_OKyg

even though the "laws" have changed its all about making MONEY & nothing else! the above link should still apply: namely how statutes & acts apply to me the MAN & do I have to OBEY? come on Judiciary PROVE IT!

Demand the plaintiff prove beyond reasonable doubt they have authority over you (remind them they work for a private corp – police or council), ask if they are legally trained (does not really matter if they are), are they making any legal determinations about the case/evidence. Demand they prove their evidence is proof of an infraction/crime or is it simply a private conveyance travelling on the land (even if the photo/video shows you 100% behind the wheel). The word car may also be legalese so becareful. By almeans say it is a private conveyance and is not used/insured for commercial work.

From research + my own experience at this stage for you, you have 2 choices if you want some sort of solution to this quickly, 1 is thier way & fill out their paper work - trousers firmly down or 2 do it as described above.

It would appear asking for this, that & the other may have worked in the past (I know, I tried it & it did NOT work) but really it is a case of either bend over or take them full on, there is no "sort of" 1/2 measure. If you are not afraid of court then go for it or fill in the paper work!

Up to you - seriously good luck, I think if you read those threads I mentioned earlier there is someone in there who HAS made a ticket go away ie not heard anything for quite a while (appears has NOT had to go to court either!).

I've been away a couple of days but i realised I forgot to mention a couple of things.

when they get speed cameras calibrated it was must be done by a suppliers who is qualified to carry out the calibration.

Also, when they get the calibration done they must also prove the relevant parts of the UK National Measurements Act (which must exist and likely does under another name) applicable to the calibration of the speed measuring instruments, has been complied with as it relates to the speed camera.

On the news the other week a guy got done for turning right against a red arrow and was fined. He used the fines notice and found that the car was not his and looking at the rego of the car that it was not the same as his car. He wrote back asking that they clearly look at the make and model and colour and the rego number as that was not his car or rego. He finally after a few days got a letter of appology and all negative response were removed as they got it wrong. The guy said to look at the photo and check your rego and not blindly pay up without checking all that you can first.

These are average speed cameras and not a stand alone camera, so what does it mean?

They dont need road markings to determine the speed as this is done by at least two cameras over a fixed distance and they measure the time between them, it then comes down to distance over time taken, from this it automatically works out the average speed taken to cover a specific distance.

Average speed cameras can work in pairs or networks and they often site them on long, fast roads with a lot of hilly terrain as they know people often lift off downhill and the mass of the vehicle carries it over the speed limit, Manchester was a good example of this.

They can be used in pairs in po-lice cars and Derbyshire used a lot of them on the faster roads in more remote areas, they parked a traffic car up in a lay-by and as you passed it you triggered the system, you carried on and you came across a second plod mobile and as you passed it the cut off beam was triggered and it gave an average speed and you got a ticket in the post.
Many of us got around them very simply, we saw a plod mobile parked up and passed it, as we approached the second plod mobile we didn't go past it, we pulled up behind it in the lay-by and didn't trigger the second beam, we would do all sorts, make phone calls, have a cup of coffee, or anything else which wasted time. When we eventually puled off and passed the second plod mobile and tripped the system our average speed was lower than Steptoes horse and cart.

Ive had a look but cannot find any reference anywhere regarding road markings ,& to be honest I cannot recall any road markings at the site of these cameras . This is the best link i can find.
Its interesting that they are linked in pairs ,and only the police know which pairs are linked.


https://www.speedcamerasuk.com/SPECS.htm

THis posted in a post above by mistake it should have gone here.

ead this, you might like to adapt it your circumstances.

AFFIDAVIT OF SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT
The undersigned Affiant, (XXXX), hereinafter “Affiant”, in care of (XXXX) Main Street, etc, does solemnly swear, declare and state as follows:
1. Affiant is competent to state the matters set forth herein; and
2. Affiant has knowledge of the facts stated herein; and
3. All the facts herein are true, correct and complete, admissible as evidence and if called upon as a witness, Affiant will testify to their veracity; and
Plain Statement of Facts
4. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence of any infringement/fine, affidavit, or citation signed and sworn by ..xxxxx an officer of hereinafter xxxx.Police Department or any other Law Enforcement Officer whose duty it is to enforce traffic laws in xxxxxx and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and
5. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that the accused driver, (XXXX), was operating the motor vehicle at the time, date and location of the alleged offence and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and
6. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that the speed camera measurement device(s) and/or speed estimation method(s) and associated equipment, hereinafter “MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT”, has been calibrated for accuracy and Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that a Certificate issued by a constitutionally authorised body exists; and
7. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that the MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT does not contravene the xxxxxxxx National Measurement Act 1960 and Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that the MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT is exempt from the xxxxxx National Measurement Act 1960 and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and
8. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that a chain of title of the custody of access to the programming, controlling, and possession of the MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT, has not been intercepted by any party committing foul-play, a fraudulent or illegal scheme to issue false-positive tickets to law-abiding drivers, or to otherwise defraud the people of THE STATE and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and
9. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that the MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT was not operated in a manner that breaches the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance manuals of said equipment and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and
10. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that respondent’s MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT is not fraudulently issuing tickets to the people of xxxxxx and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and
11. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that the MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT was not being misused and was not registering false readings at the time, date and location of the measurement reading and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and
12. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that Orange City Council, hereinafter “THE COMPANY” is a department of xxxxxx and has the authority by the Constitutions of xxxxx and Commonwealth to issue said fine(s)/infringement(s); and
13. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that THE COMPANY‘s claim is not contravening the xxxxx, IMPERIAL ACTS APPLICATION ACT 1969, SCHEDULE 2, Part 1 – Constitutional enactments, 1 William and Mary sess 2 c 2 (The Bill of Rights), which states:
– “That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void”; and
14. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that THE COMPANY‘s claim is not illegal and void and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and
15. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that THE COMPANY is not violating due process by issuing fines/infringements before conviction and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and
16. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that THE COMPANY is not attempting/committing extortion and/or fraud and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and
17. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that THE COMPANY has not breached Constitutional law(s) and laws of THE STATE and The Commonwealth and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and
18. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that THE COMPANY is not liable for three (3) times costs in commercial damages and reasonable administrative costs and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I hereunto set my hand on this _____<st/nd/rd/th> day of ____________ <year> and hereby certify all the statements made above are true, correct and complete.
Signed: _______________________________