First Australian Parking Ticket Kicked – NSP Traffic Study

Posted on July 11th, 2012 by Marc Stevens

A big congrats to our mate Keith in Melbourne, Australia. Keith is participating in the NSP parking ticket study and though it took a year, the ticket was essentially kicked out, or dropped whichever you prefer.

Keith got the ticket and was notified by people claiming to be the “City of Melbourne” of an alleged “infringement”. Keith challenged this “summary offense” with six letters asking for evidence. All he got were a few pictures; nothing to prove his presence with the City and jurisdiction.

As the one year deadline to formally lodge the application against Keith has run out, the matter is now closed. While we wanted to confront the people dba the “City of Melbourne” on their many fictions, Keith still got to challenge them on paper and they were of course, unable or unwilling, to provide any facts.

Congrats mate.

Keith’s newsletter is here Enewsletter no 18-2012 July 10 2012.

Feel free to contact me or Keith if you are interested in participating in the NSP parking study in Australia.

              

21 Comments For This Post

  1. Packabowlla Says:

    Good going Keith. Hey cool name dude

  2. Loki Verloren Says:

    Congrats to Keith… and to the psychopaths D/B/A City of Melbourne, this is just the beginning!

    I unfortunately, though I’d heard of Marc’s stuff before, did not put it into use in a case I’ve been subjected to. With what I had I managed to get the minimum sentence (traffic and weapons charges) but I am now into the appeal process and the Director of Public Prosecutions is dragging their feet about replying to my outline of argument, it is now overdue from a deadline extension as of today. Anyone got any ideas how to put a fire under their toes?

  3. Mark Davies Says:

    I had my parking ticket dropped a couple of weeks ago using Vin’s UK version of Marc’s letter. It went to appeal and the council then said they were not contesting it.

  4. NonE Says:

    I don’t know if I’d want to put a fire under their toes. If they have missed the deadline that may be grounds to grant you whatever it is you’re seeking. This is just speculation on my non-lawyer, idiot self, but it sure seems like something to look into as a possible solution. If YOU were late you know damned well they’d have you in a cage.

    – the Very Good NonE

  5. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Loki, I agree with nonE; looks like another failure to prosecute.

  6. Loki Verloren Says:

    according to the registrar who has been handling it, there is no consequences or default judgement for failure to answer. perhaps i didn’t ask specific enough a question of the registrar. i’m going to ask again, what exactly happens when the persecutors fail to answer.

  7. NonE Says:

    Before you “ask again” (lick their boots obsequiously), you might consider filing a motion for dismissal based upon their failure to be responsive within the alloted time. At least make some kind of registered stink about it so that you are on the record, and so is their failure, should you want to appeal something in the future.

    – the Very Good NonE

  8. Loki Verloren Says:

    aye, yes, that’s a good idea. imma dig through their forms to find something appropriate.

  9. Loki Verloren Says:

    Ok, they don’t have forms for motions. At trial I attempted to file a motion but the magistrate refused to allow me to. I’m a bit lost for what to do, perhaps should I contact Keith – since the relevant courts involved are similar.

  10. Loki Verloren Says:

    i’ve asked the registrar if it’s possible to hold a hearing so i can ask some questions (with a notice of withdrawal unsigned and ready) since they have failed to answer my outline in a timely fashion, ‘i’m considering withdrawing the appeal but want to ask some questions before i commit’ i said πŸ˜€

  11. Bucky Says:

    Aren’t we already agreeing to play their twisted little game when we start filling out THEIR paperwork? Playing by THEIR rules? Isn’t there a way to refuse to play with them from the very start?

    I think that by pleading to anything – especially before questioning the facts (which should be the ONLY thing we do) – we are entering their little world where we start playing with their little proper forms and using their little latin catholic priest words.

    I am seriously fed up with these brainwashed idiots. I don’t want to play with them – AT ALL.

  12. Loki Verloren Says:

    The registrar has informed me that he has served a warning notice on the persecutors… I presume that such a notice includes consequences for failure to file in a timely manner. I know the odds are fairly low that they will concede but presumably such failure would result in the conviction being overturned and all penalties reversed. Fingers crossed that they decide to throw their hands up in the air and refund me all the quantifiable, that is, all monies paid into the fines refunded and replacement value on the property taken.

  13. Bucky Says:

    plead: to deliver in a formal manner the defendant’s answer to the plaintiff’s declaration, complaint or the indictment. to interpose(place between; cause to intervene; to bring to bear between parties, or on behalf of a party or person) any pleading in a civil action.

    I have read that the 3 pleas that they make very conveniently available to the defendant (along with the formal civil complaint) are used to bring the defendant into civil jurisdiction in a court of record. Being that only courts of record can hold a hearing/trial at common law. I know….don’t start throwing ‘freeman’ crap at me for mentioning the common law. I know the common law is based on fraud too. Ok? I understand that.

    It is the “savings to suitors” clause that saves to suitors the choice to bring a civil suit in a court of record. The proper civil forms and the proper civil pleadings are what is needed to get the civil suit party started.

    So why plea to anything? Why bring yourself to bear the plaintiff/prosecutor/state/judge’s complaint by answering in a formal manner? That is the very beginning of a civil suit.

  14. Loki Verloren Says:

    i only pled once during my case, in the prisoner dock, because not pleading was going to mean back in the cage. it’s a moot point whether it ‘means’ anything when the whole proceeding is fraud.

  15. indio007 Says:

    Saving to suitors guarantees a common law “remedy”. Not a common law action.

    You get a common law remedy via appellate review. The appeals court review for compliance of the process to common law rules of procedure.

    Also you only plead to the facts. If you are in disagreement over what the prevailing law of the case is , the process isn’t ripe for a plea.

    That is the purpose of demurrer. To take issue with the plaintiffs conclusion of law that the alleged facts amount to an injury in fact.

    Example would be if I take something someone else possesses under a claim of right and it turns out my claim is wrong, it’s a trespass.

    If I have no claim of right. It’s theft.

    What the operative law is needs to be hashed out before a plea.

  16. Bucky Says:

    Thank you Indio, you have given me some things to look into. I may have well misinterpreted some things. I still feel the same way though – about cutting to the chase, nipping it in the bud – what have you.

    Loki, It IS a moot point when dealing with brainwashed individuals. They will arbitrarily do what they like. They have done so for so long with no questions asked (and with no accountability). Please know I am not trying to downplay your situation. I am just throwing out things that are on my mind and I think that might be on other people’s minds as well.

  17. Loki Verloren Says:

    that’s what a discussion is for… so long as people don’t start talking about something entirely unrelated i don’t see any problem.

  18. Loki Verloren Says:

    I’d quite like to see this letter, @Marc Davies. I expect that I’ll have to attend a court hearing within the next 6 weeks relating to my appeal and I’d be very happy if I can if not have the conviction overturned, at least cause these psychos some hypertension.

  19. Bucky Says:

    The saving to suitors clause gives united states district courts original jurisdiction “exclusive of the courts of the state” of any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction “saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.” It extends federal judicial powers to cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. A suitor may sue in a “common law” state court through and ordinary civil action, and in such actions, the state courts must apply the same substantive law as would be applied had the suit been instituted in admiralty in a federal court.

    (I referred to Black’s law dictionary, 6th edition)

    So the lawyer, posing as the state/city, files the proper paperwork in a court of record and all the sudden, the judginator, posing as the court, is supposed to apply admiralty/maritime rules on regular Joe’s. I tried telling a person that courts applied admiralty law and he just laughed and said, no they don’t. That’s crazy.

    Where is the ‘full disclosure’ – that people are being put under federal jurisdiction every time they walk into a court and make a plea? Wouldn’t just that be the basis for fraud or at least misrepresentation? Instead of dancing around with these dress-wearing lunatics – can’t we just ask if making a plea will put us under federal jurisdiction and what law would be applied (admiralty) on us for answering a civil action?

    And then ask if that law relates to business transactions. And then tell them that you don’t care to do business with frauds.

  20. Loki Verloren Says:

    ok, the hearing date has been set whether or not they have their outline lodged, 22 august is the date. so finally i will get to ask them some nasty questions ^.^

  21. Keith Says:

    I now have a second parking ticket from the City of Melbourne Corporation. So it seems I have another chance to mess with their minds as I did with the last ticket!

    I sent a letter requesting an extension to the deadline. Once I receive a reply, my plan is to send a letter to the CEO of the Corporation Dr. Kathy Alexander.

    The thrust of the letter:

    β€˜Hey guys I got your parking ticket but you forgot to include the evidence to back up your claim I broke the law. At this stage I am not disputing nor accepting your claim against me as I don’t have enough information to make an informed decision. Until I receive sufficient evidence to support your claim, I cannot treat your claim as valid.

    I don’t consent to you referring this matter to the Infringements Court because, as I am sure you are very well aware, the people who conduct business in this court are in constant breach of S24 and S25 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) and Article 14 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

    You and I and all Victorians have inherent rights confirmed by the Act and the UN Covenant and I sincerely hope you would not want to actively encourage this continual breach of our rights by staff of the Infringements Court.’

    I hope what I have written here is of some use to fellow participants in Marc’s project.

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST: Tune-in to the LIVE No STATE Project broadcast as we report on the weekly happenings in legal-land and current events. You may call-in to the show at (218) 632-9399 passcode is 2020#, or Skype-in, with your thoughts on tickets, tyrants, assessments, activism, anarchy, agorism, or, of course; any and all criticisms. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then feel free to call-in to the LIVE show at (218) 632-9399, or you'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and we can also add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

Wednesday, 6-7pm EST: Tune-in to the new No STATE Project midweek commercial-free video-stream broadcast via Ustream.tv. You can join Marc live, or contact Marc to ask a question if you cannot make it on live. You can find archives of the Wednesday broadcast here on the website and on YouTube.

If you want to join the forum, you must email me a username so I can create the account. This is to stop the flood of spambots.





Contact update: If you email me a wall of text, then I probably will not read it. If you email me telling me to call you right away I won't. You'll have to set up a phone consult so we can set an appointment.

Mailing address has changed as of 1 October 2016. The new mailing address is: G.M. or Occupant 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.






Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here