Unsafe passing - any leg to stand on?

[24xtreme]

So I was pulled up 6 weeks ago for an unsafe passing maneuver and informed of $150 fine, no points. I deliberately awaited the reminder as they like to change things about. It now says $150 fine + 35 demerits. Also the infringement states that I did unsafely pass another vehicle traveling in the same direction.

I went between two cars who were moving in separate lanes. It wasn't on the motorway and no excessive speed. Do I have anything to challenge? It will tip me to 90 points if i pay.

[Jantar]

Did you remain within your lane? Ie stay to the right of the car in your lane without crossing into the next lane? If so your move was legal and you have a defence. If you crossed into the next lane then you're stuck with it.

[Ronin]

So I was pulled up 6 weeks ago for an unsafe passing maneuver and informed of $150 fine, no points. I deliberately awaited the reminder as they like to change things about. It now says $150 fine + 35 demerits. Also the infringement states that I did unsafely pass another vehicle traveling in the same direction.

I went between two cars who were moving in separate lanes. It wasn't on the motorway and no excessive speed. Do I have anything to challenge? It will tip me to 90 points if i pay.

You went between 2 cars travelling in the same direction and it wasn't on the motorway? ermmm

Based on that I would say your screwed and should pay unless there is somethingyou are not telling us that would explain how you managed that.

For example, if you were splitting on the motorway then you would be hard pressed to find a cop who would ticket you. However if you ninjas between to cars whil one was on a passing lane then bye bye.

[24xtreme]

as in the road has two lanes going 1 direction. Thanks for the info anyway :)

[jasonu]

Sounds to me like you got the ticket you deserved.
You're lucky you didn't get flattened!
Pay up and move on.

[marty]

so 2 cars on a passing lane and you split through them? pay up and move on.

If you don't pay, your case may be heard in your absence and the demerits added anyway.

[Jantar]

so 2 cars on a passing lane and you split through them? pay up and move on.....
I didn't read it as on a passing lane, but rather a multi lane road, not a motorway.

[cheshirecat]

Was it trickling through slow moving traffic? You can give a hypothetical reply without dropping yourself in it.

[jasonu]

Was it trickling through slow moving traffic? You can give a hypothetical reply without dropping yourself in it.

Yeah I wuz behind some cages an a passing lane came up an the back cage pulled into th passin lane in front of me so I went between them real fast so I didnt get hit an the popo gave me a fuckin ticket wouldnt ya know, what a wanker!

[CookMySock]

Return the notice to the sender after crossing it "CANCELLED. NO CONTRACT".

Return the remittance advice after crossing it "CANCELLED. NO CONTRACT".

IF they are stupid enough to call a hearing, go to the hearing and ;

Explain to them you have no contract with any person to obey these statutes, since they are statutes and not law.

Tell them your full name is your copyrighted trademark and they are using it without permission and demand the officers full name so you may begin breach of copyright proceedings against him, and then place a huge lien on his family home.

Tell them that you were interviewed without your specific consent, and you explained to the officer at the time that all implied consent was revoked and that you declined to be interviewed but he proceeded anyway, and therefore what h announces to be his "evidence" (or rather lack of it) is inadmissible as it was acquired illegally.

They require your specific consent to proceed in that jurisdiction, so take great care to not inadvertently consent to it - tell him outright "no consent in this jurisdiction", fold your arms, and go silent. No matter what they say after that, reply with "no consent".

They have no choice but to hand it to a higher court or throw it out. They won't hand it up to a higher court because they know you will revoke consent in the court also and they will be forced to hand it to the High Court, which will throw it out since it is not a common law matter.

Yeah so basically you are telling them to get fucked, so either stick to your guns or give in early, but any show of weakness will result in a severe trampling.

Remind yourself that you read this on the internet and its probably smarter to go pay the fine, or just maybe stand up for yourself for once and be part of the solution.

Good luck.

[DrunkenMistake]

Sounds like you should stop getting caught and just pay up,
if it puts you up to 90 then maybe your not learning some kind of lesson? :rolleyes:

[Berries]

Yeah I wuz behind some cages an a passing lane came up an the back cage pulled into th passin lane in front of me so I went between them real fast so I didnt get hit an the popo gave me a fuckin ticket wouldnt ya know, what a wanker!
Ha ha. Which one of the cars was the cop ?

Look at it from the other side. You are second in line approaching a passing lane. Keep hard right against the centreline to get a better view and then when the lane starts some arse in a car squeezes between you and car at the front of the queue. Would you be fuming on KB ? Probably.

[steve_t]

Any leg to stand on?

<img src=http://farm1.static.flickr.com/54/153775805_170a9f2569.jpg>

[mrmeal]

maybe I'm missing something (wouldn't be the first time) but jasonu is the one referring to this arrangement of lanes as a passing lane. In my understanding of the situation as portrayed..two lanes heading in the same direction on one side of the road... Lets argue that these lanes are of the wider variety. If CAR A is in the left most lane and CAR B the right lane. If CAR A were to be fully left inside that there left lane, and rider of motorcycle in question were to pass between these two CAGE's, but stay to the left of the white dashed lane divider, that would be considered a legal over take move would it not? IE Stayed completely within a designated lane and passed on the right of the vehicle it intended to pass..... Wouldn't this allow a leg to stand on? I agree if in the move the cycle meandered over the white divider the move would become a pass on the left or inside which is a no no....

[FJRider]

It never ceases to amaze me ... :rolleyes:

These threads never seem to appear ... :no:

If the original poster is not going to be near (or over) the threshold of losing their licence. :baby:

Funny that ... :killingme

[steve_t]

maybe I'm missing something (wouldn't be the first time) but jasonu is the one referring to this arrangement of lanes as a passing lane. In my understanding of the situation as portrayed..two lanes heading in the same direction on one side of the road... Lets argue that these lanes are of the wider variety. If CAR A is in the left most lane and CAR B the right lane. If CAR A were to be fully left inside that there left lane, and rider of motorcycle in question were to pass between these two CAGE's, but stay to the left of the white dashed lane divider, that would be considered a legal over take move would it not? IE Stayed completely within a designated lane and passed on the right of the vehicle it intended to pass..... Wouldn't this allow a leg to stand on? I agree if in the move the cycle meandered over the white divider the move would become a pass on the left or inside which is a no no....

I'll try to find the link but IIRC only on the motorway is each lane considered an individual carriageway. If you did what you described on a passing lane, I believe you'd still technically be undertaking Car B

[mrmeal]

I'll try to find the link but IIRC only on the motorway is each lane considered an individual carriageway. If you did what you described on a passing lane, I believe you'd still technically be undertaking Car B

Arr now you may have a good point there... hadn't taken in that point in mind...

[Berries]

Return the notice to the sender after crossing it "CANCELLED. NO CONTRACT". etc etc etc etc.
Surely by having an NZ driver licence you have already entered in to the contract you are now trying to deny?

As has been asked in several other threads where you posted this same spiel, has it ever been succesful ?

[FJRider]

As has been asked in several other threads where you posted this same spiel, has it ever been succesful ?

He hasn't actually tried it ... yet ... :rolleyes:

[24xtreme]

It was on a 2 lane road going 1 direction. It was not a passing lane. 50km'h traffic, was pretty congested. Thanks for all the advice KB forum. I think the line issue will be my downfall so will just move on.

[FJRider]

I think the line issue will be my downfall so will just move on.

Just move on a little slower ... with a little more care ...

Two years from your last (points gathering) infringement untill you are "points free" ...

[jasonu]

maybe I'm missing something (wouldn't be the first time) but jasonu is the one referring to this arrangement of lanes as a passing lane. In my understanding of the situation as portrayed..two lanes heading in the same direction on one side of the road... Lets argue that these lanes are of the wider variety. If CAR A is in the left most lane and CAR B the right lane. If CAR A were to be fully left inside that there left lane, and rider of motorcycle in question were to pass between these two CAGE's, but stay to the left of the white dashed lane divider, that would be considered a legal over take move would it not? IE Stayed completely within a designated lane and passed on the right of the vehicle it intended to pass..... Wouldn't this allow a leg to stand on? I agree if in the move the cycle meandered over the white divider the move would become a pass on the left or inside which is a no no....

That might be the case but still a bloody dangerous/stupid place to put yourself IMO.

[The Pastor]

don't do any sort of manoeuvres in front of a cop.

Did the cop see you, or did one of the drivers ring *555?

[pritch]

Return the notice to the sender after crossing it "CANCELLED. NO CONTRACT".

Return the remittance advice after crossing it "CANCELLED. NO CONTRACT".

IF they are stupid enough to call a hearing, go to the hearing and ;

Explain to them you have no contract with any person to obey these statutes, since they are statutes and not law.

Tell them your full name is your copyrighted trademark and they are using it without permission and demand the officers full name so you may begin breach of copyright proceedings against him, and then place a huge lien on his family home.

Tell them that you were interviewed without your specific consent, and you explained to the officer at the time that all implied consent was revoked and that you declined to be interviewed but he proceeded anyway, and therefore what h announces to be his "evidence" (or rather lack of it) is inadmissible as it was acquired illegally.

They require your specific consent to proceed in that jurisdiction, so take great care to not inadvertently consent to it - tell him outright "no consent in this jurisdiction", fold your arms, and go silent. No matter what they say after that, reply with "no consent".

They have no choice but to hand it to a higher court or throw it out. They won't hand it up to a higher court because they know you will revoke consent in the court also and they will be forced to hand it to the High Court, which will throw it out since it is not a common law matter.

Yeah so basically you are telling them to get fucked, so either stick to your guns or give in early, but any show of weakness will result in a severe trampling.

Remind yourself that you read this on the internet and its probably smarter to go pay the fine, or just maybe stand up for yourself for once and be part of the solution.

Good luck.

What the Hell have you been smoking?:devil2:

[CookMySock]

Surely by having an NZ driver licence you have already entered in to the contract you are now trying to deny?If I had, such clearly-onerous conditions would at least have to be disclosed, and they were not, so they cannot apply.


As has been asked in several other threads where you posted this same spiel, has it ever been succesful ?I don't know. It's probably not smart to describe it here. If anyone is REALLY interested they should turn up and I'll tell them about it.

[red mermaid]

This is half of the stupid idea been put about by some marae based confederation based at Katikati.

DB has got parts of it but not the whole thing...and anyway, it won't work.


Return the notice to the sender after crossing it "CANCELLED. NO CONTRACT".

Return the remittance advice after crossing it "CANCELLED. NO CONTRACT".

IF they are stupid enough to call a hearing, go to the hearing and ;

Explain to them you have no contract with any person to obey these statutes, since they are statutes and not law.

Tell them your full name is your copyrighted trademark and they are using it without permission and demand the officers full name so you may begin breach of copyright proceedings against him, and then place a huge lien on his family home.

Tell them that you were interviewed without your specific consent, and you explained to the officer at the time that all implied consent was revoked and that you declined to be interviewed but he proceeded anyway, and therefore what h announces to be his "evidence" (or rather lack of it) is inadmissible as it was acquired illegally.

They require your specific consent to proceed in that jurisdiction, so take great care to not inadvertently consent to it - tell him outright "no consent in this jurisdiction", fold your arms, and go silent. No matter what they say after that, reply with "no consent".

They have no choice but to hand it to a higher court or throw it out. They won't hand it up to a higher court because they know you will revoke consent in the court also and they will be forced to hand it to the High Court, which will throw it out since it is not a common law matter.

Yeah so basically you are telling them to get fucked, so either stick to your guns or give in early, but any show of weakness will result in a severe trampling.

Remind yourself that you read this on the internet and its probably smarter to go pay the fine, or just maybe stand up for yourself for once and be part of the solution.

Good luck.

[CookMySock]

This is half of the stupid idea been put about by some marae based confederation based at Katikati.It wasn't their idea.


DB has got parts of it but not the whole thing...and anyway, it won't work.Care to share your knowledge and experience? edit: Yeah lots of it isn't smart to post here.

[BoristheBiter]

Return the notice to the sender after crossing it "CANCELLED. NO CONTRACT".

Return the remittance advice after crossing it "CANCELLED. NO CONTRACT".

IF they are stupid enough to call a hearing, go to the hearing and ;

Explain to them you have no contract with any person to obey these statutes, since they are statutes and not law.
.

God you get more full of shit every day.

It is law to provide name, address and DOB when asked by any police officer who has stopped you under the land transport act.

So your complete useless twaddle, that you are so famous for spouting, falls over at the first legal point you make so go back to what ever you were doing the grown ups are talking.

[CookMySock]

It is law to provide name, address and DOB when asked by any police officer who has stopped you under the land transport act.No its not. It's statute.

What the high court orders in writing is law.

[FJRider]

If anyone is REALLY interested they should turn up and I'll tell them about it.

I doubt if you'll get many takers on that ...

[dipshit]

Yeah I wuz behind some cages an a passing lane came up an the back cage pulled into th passin lane in front of me so I went between them real fast so I didnt get hit an the popo gave me a fuckin ticket wouldnt ya know, what a wanker!

You're the wanker.

[BoristheBiter]

No its not. It's statute.

What the high court orders in writing is law.

see you are wrong again, what the high court orders is not law it is a judgement taken from the laws of the land handed down by government.

The high court does not make the law they only set precedent.

[Ferkletastic]

No its not. It's statute.

What the high court orders in writing is law.

You're an idiot.

I had a debtor pull the copyrighted name bullshit with me when I used to do collections. Stated he was sueing me for half a million for using his name on a business document. I took great pleasure in pointing out the fair use clauses in the relevant legislation and asking him if he was willing to test his claim in court.

He got very meek at that point.

People with no legal knowledge using pseudo-legal speak and big words they don't understand will generally just gaurantee that the responder will open up with both barrells.

It was nice to have you not around spouting your inane bullshit for a few months.

[C.Linnell]

I am interested in the legal argument against DB's point though.

I didn't sign a contract saying I agree to abide by laws (or statutes, or whatever). Now, obviously that's never going to be an excuse (unless you're DB), but I'd be interested in hearing a lawyer explain why.

Perhaps living in a country is implied consent?

[Grubber]

Yeah I wuz behind some cages an a passing lane came up an the back cage pulled into th passin lane in front of me so I went between them real fast so I didnt get hit an the popo gave me a fuckin ticket wouldnt ya know, what a wanker!

Was reading through trying to get a good idea of all this and bugger me here it is.:yes:
Answer is....your screwedand you should be.
What the fuck were you thinking and why did you even feel you had to ask on here. Unbelievable :facepalm:

If you seriously think you have a leg to stand on...all i can say is...the rest of us should keep well away from you while your out and about.

[jasonu]

You're the wanker.

Maybe so but you are an even bigger wanker and your mother dresses you funny!

[steve_t]

Was reading through trying to get a good idea of all this and bugger me here it is.:yes:
Answer is....your screwedand you should be.
What the fuck were you thinking and why did you even feel you had to ask on here. Unbelievable :facepalm:

If you seriously think you have a leg to stand on...all i can say is...the rest of us should keep well away from you while your out and about.

Jasonu wasn't the OP and was taking the piss, me thinks.

[MarkH]

So I was pulled up 6 weeks ago for an unsafe passing maneuver and informed of $150 fine, no points. I deliberately awaited the reminder as they like to change things about. It now says $150 fine + 35 demerits. Also the infringement states that I did unsafely pass another vehicle traveling in the same direction.

I went between two cars who were moving in separate lanes. It wasn't on the motorway and no excessive speed. Do I have anything to challenge? It will tip me to 90 points if i pay.

Did the officer give a reason why your manoeuvre was unsafe? It sounds like straightforward lane splitting to me - if the speed is not excessive and there is plenty of room then why not?

In Auckland there are roads with 4+ lanes that are not the motorway, I often lane split when it is safe to do so. I'm always interested in the conditions in which a police officer will get sand in his vag and decide to pull over a biker for it.

[Grubber]

Jasonu wasn't the OP and was taking the piss, me thinks.

You are right. My sincerest appologies Jasonu.:facepalm:
In that case.....the OP is an absolute DICK:yes:

[MarkH]

No its not. It's statute.

What the high court orders in writing is law.

Don't do drugs, mmmkay. Drugs are bad, mmmkay.

Since when is a statute not a law?
The high courts interpretation of the laws (i.e. statutes) is what sets precedents, but the statutes themselves are the primary authority upon which the judgements in court are based.
The elected government of this country makes the laws (statutes) and the citizens are expected to abide by them. The police are expected to enforce them and the courts are expected to uphold them (unless they have good reason not to). There have been times that statutes have been overturned in court, but I wouldn't rely on that happening for a driving offence.

[KapitiLizard]

maybe I'm missing something (wouldn't be the first time) but jasonu is the one referring to this arrangement of lanes as a passing lane. In my understanding of the situation as portrayed..two lanes heading in the same direction on one side of the road... Lets argue that these lanes are of the wider variety. If CAR A is in the left most lane and CAR B the right lane. If CAR A were to be fully left inside that there left lane, and rider of motorcycle in question were to pass between these two CAGE's, but stay to the left of the white dashed lane divider, that would be considered a legal over take move would it not? IE Stayed completely within a designated lane and passed on the right of the vehicle it intended to pass..... Wouldn't this allow a leg to stand on? I agree if in the move the cycle meandered over the white divider the move would become a pass on the left or inside which is a no no....

IMO this is the closest to the law than all the other garbage posted by the many "legal experts" here. How do I know? Because I have been to court and the judge ruled in my favour as I was "passing to the right of the vehicle within the marked lane and doing so in a safe manner".

So, if you were riding at a speed significantly higher than the vehicle you are passing this is likely to be considered unsafe and you will be screwed. If you crossed the white line between the lanes which means you were passing the other vehicle on it's left you will be screwed.

Either way, good luck

[idb]

Don't do drugs, mmmkay. Drugs are bad, mmmkay.

Since when is a statute not a law?
The high courts interpretation of the laws (i.e. statutes) is what sets precedents, but the statutes themselves are the primary authority upon which the judgements in court are based.
The elected government of this country makes the laws (statutes) and the citizens are expected to abide by them. The police are expected to enforce them and the courts are expected to uphold them (unless they have good reason not to). There have been times that statutes have been overturned in court, but I wouldn't rely on that happening for a driving offence.

God you guys are killjoys...I wanted to see him try DB's defence!
I'll have to go back to burning ants with my magnifying glass for entertainment now!

[BoristheBiter]

I am interested in the legal argument against DB's point though.

I didn't sign a contract saying I agree to abide by laws (or statutes, or whatever). Now, obviously that's never going to be an excuse (unless you're DB), but I'd be interested in hearing a lawyer explain why.

Perhaps living in a country is implied consent?

You signed it when you filled out your licence applicantion to abide by the rules of the road.

DB argument is like saying i can murder someone because i never signed a contract to say i can't, its just complete BS and would not stand up in any court.

[C.Linnell]

DB argument is like saying i can murder someone because i never signed a contract to say i can't, its just complete BS and would not stand up in any court.

Obviously. But, curious person that I am, I want to know what they'd say in the court (since the judge wouldn't actually use the term "BS").

Any KB lawyers around?

[CookMySock]

DB argument is like saying i can murder someone because i never signed a contract to say i can't, its just complete BS and would not stand up in any court.No its not the same. The example you make is a matter of Common Law. That is, imposing my will upon someone else to their detriment causes actual harm to some person. The effect would be similar if I stole their property or otherwise injured them or caused some other loss.

The example I make is about statute law - a made-up rule of a corporation concerning what you or I may or may not DO, and if we did break some rule, its about what financial penalty may be imposed. These are almost always more about the kings' income than about some real matter at law.


I didn't sign a contract saying I agree to abide by laws (or statutes, or whatever). Now, obviously that's never going to be an excuse (unless you're DB), but I'd be interested in hearing a lawyer explain why. Perhaps living in a country is implied consent?It is implied consent, which is why you should revoke it in writing. Unfortunately, the po-po arent used to this, and will pull out a big stick and swing it at you.

The whole concept of statute law is based on the idea that YOU AGREE to be bound by a set of rules and guidelines. If you state outright from the beginning that you DO NOT AGREE then they have no say in the matter. All that is left is The Common Law - matters concerning injury to other parties (and matters of contract). There is only one court in the land that can proceed to discuss and make orders on any matter without your consent or even your presence, and that is The High Court, but the High Court is a Common Law Court bound by those principles, and therefore they cannot order payment to be made without the basic Common Law principles - those of Contract and Tort, and Contract and Tort is not related to some statute law fine. :yes:

edit: btw, lawyers wont help you. Their sworn duty is to uphold statute law, and it's what butters their bread. Why would they tell you the truth?

[jasonu]

Return the notice to the sender after crossing it "CANCELLED. NO CONTRACT".

Return the remittance advice after crossing it "CANCELLED. NO CONTRACT".

IF they are stupid enough to call a hearing, go to the hearing and ;

Explain to them you have no contract with any person to obey these statutes, since they are statutes and not law.

Tell them your full name is your copyrighted trademark and they are using it without permission and demand the officers full name so you may begin breach of copyright proceedings against him, and then place a huge lien on his family home.

Tell them that you were interviewed without your specific consent, and you explained to the officer at the time that all implied consent was revoked and that you declined to be interviewed but he proceeded anyway, and therefore what h announces to be his "evidence" (or rather lack of it) is inadmissible as it was acquired illegally.

They require your specific consent to proceed in that jurisdiction, so take great care to not inadvertently consent to it - tell him outright "no consent in this jurisdiction", fold your arms, and go silent. No matter what they say after that, reply with "no consent".

They have no choice but to hand it to a higher court or throw it out. They won't hand it up to a higher court because they know you will revoke consent in the court also and they will be forced to hand it to the High Court, which will throw it out since it is not a common law matter.

Yeah so basically you are telling them to get fucked, so either stick to your guns or give in early, but any show of weakness will result in a severe trampling.

Remind yourself that you read this on the internet and its probably smarter to go pay the fine, or just maybe stand up for yourself for once and be part of the solution.

Good luck.
I thought this post was 'toung in cheek' ie a piss take.


Jasonu wasn't the OP and was taking the piss, me thinks.
Correct

[QUOTE=Grubber;1130017280]You are right. My sincerest appologies Jasonu.:facepalm:
QUOTE]
No worries

[steve_t]

edit: btw, lawyers wont help you. Their sworn duty is to uphold statute law, and it's what butters their bread. Why would they tell you the truth?

Oooh... lawyers are secretly conspiring to steal our butter :innocent:

[Spearfish]

You're an idiot.

I had a debtor pull the copyrighted name bullshit with me when I used to do collections. Stated he was sueing me for half a million for using his name on a business document. I took great pleasure in pointing out the fair use clauses in the relevant legislation and asking him if he was willing to test his claim in court.

He got very meek at that point.

People with no legal knowledge using pseudo-legal speak and big words they don't understand will generally just gaurantee that the responder will open up with both barrells.

It was nice to have you not around spouting your inane bullshit for a few months.

Speaking of big words....
Taumata­whakatangihanga­koauau­o­tamatea­turi­puka kapiki­maunga­horo­nuku­pokai­whenua­kitanatahu

[Ferkletastic]

No its not the same. The example you make is a matter of Common Law. That is, imposing my will upon someone else to their detriment causes actual harm to some person. The effect would be similar if I stole their property or otherwise injured them or caused some other loss.

The example I make is about statute law - a made-up rule of a corporation concerning what you or I may or may not DO, and if we did break some rule, its about what financial penalty may be imposed. These are almost always more about the kings' income than about some real matter at law.

It is implied consent, which is why you should revoke it in writing. Unfortunately, the po-po arent used to this, and will pull out a big stick and swing it at you.

The whole concept of statute law is based on the idea that YOU AGREE to be bound by a set of rules and guidelines. If you state outright from the beginning that you DO NOT AGREE then they have no say in the matter. All that is left is The Common Law - matters concerning injury to other parties (and matters of contract). There is only one court in the land that can proceed to discuss and make orders on any matter without your consent or even your presence, and that is The High Court, but the High Court is a Common Law Court bound by those principles, and therefore they cannot order payment to be made without the basic Common Law principles - those of Contract and Tort, and Contract and Tort is not related to some statute law fine. :yes:

edit: btw, lawyers wont help you. Their sworn duty is to uphold statute law, and it's what butters their bread. Why would they tell you the truth?


You're either a complete idiot or trolling so hard your fingers are bleeding. I vote idiot.

Statutory law isn't 'made up by a corporation' it's based on decisions of government. Case law is law based on decisions by a court of law. Statute can over turn or modify case law in certain circumstances. All citizens (and other legal entities) are bound by these statues.

Seriously Steve, go back to selling ice cream and leave the grown up conversation to those who have a vague idea what the hell they're talking about.

[Jantar]

... I vote idiot.....

Sorry, Facts can't be voted on.

[jellywrestler]

Sorry, Facts can't be voted on.
yep you've got a leg to stand on, this time, a few more clown passing acts like this and you may not have!

[pritch]

Mostly the law as it relates to us is comprised of Acts and Regulations.
You can read about that stuff here: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/

That's how it's done in this country anyway.
What they do on DBs' planet I couldn't guess.:whistle:

[Jantar]

yep you've got a leg to stand on, this time, a few more clown passing acts like this and you may not have!
I don't understand. Or maybe you don't. I wasn't the one who engaged in the passing manouver, try reading the thread again.