Requesting a court hearing?

[superjackal]

Hi
Going to try and waste some taxpayer dollars.
I got a ticket for 113kph which I contested on the grounds I was "flowing" with everyone else doing 113ks. Didn't wash with Sergeant G. Keay (Adjudicator), after carefully considering my correspondence he has determined that 113ks is "in excess of the allowable tolerance and too great for a warning to be given."
Here's my gripe, you get 2 months to pay before they send it to collections. I got the ticket on the 17th of December 2013 and today I got the letter dated 18th February. So, they've taken 2 months just to get back to me, not even giving me enough time to pay the notice before Baycorp get it.

Has anyone requested a court hearing before? If so, and you lose, do you have to pay any court costs or the like?

If I'm going to have to pay $80, I feel like I need to get something for it.

Cheers
SJ

[Mike.Gayner]

Pay your fine deadbeat.

[superjackal]

Pay your fine deadbeat.

Na-haw.....:motu:

[Akzle]

baycorp dont get it.
The ministry of "justice" do.

Youre too ignorant to take it to court. And i mean that in the nicest possible way.

[nzspokes]

Slow down Rossi....

[G4L4XY]

You're just adding court costs to your fine, don't bother. Pay the fine

[Akzle]

google your ignorant ass some "notice of conditional acceptance"
you must exhaust all discussion and negotiation with the aggrieved party before you may enter court in good standing and honour.

Start with a letter to the cops

dear sir/madam,
habeas corpus motherfuckers.
Kind regards,
superjackoff

[Brian d marge]

113 kmph OMG

the poor man with the red flag in front of you was on form!

Could you breathe at that speed _?

Take it to court and if you can proove that all the other cars were sitting at 110 and it would have been dangerous for you to do 100

go for it

You will lose as they are a bit short of money this financial year ( the scrap value on the crushed cars didnt bring much in )

Still you will be clogging up the court , ( delay payment ! ) make the fker work foor the money

( set up a bank count and drip feed from there hahaahaa

Stephen

[Akzle]

actually. Youve already 'contested' their jew shit. So you probably admitted liability for a civil suit somewhere along the way because youre a fucking moron.

Pay it, consider it moron tax.

Learn your shit for next time.

[BuzzardNZ]

Pay your fine deadbeat.

+1 He broke the law fair and square. Stop moaning and cough up the $ :rolleyes:

[Akzle]

Pay your fine deadbeat.


+1 He broke the law fair and square. Stop moaning and cough up the $ :rolleyes:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwp5F1Kj4KY

[Gremlin]

Baycorp is easy, the matter is under dispute and you don't recognise them as a party in the dispute.

As for the fine, :laugh:. Pay it or it's simply going to get bigger. Other people speeding is no excuse for you speeding, and you're pushing shit uphill. It's going to be the fine plus any court costs, which is probably more than the fine.

[Akzle]

Baycorp is easy, the matter is under dispute and you don't recognise them as a party in the dispute.


motherfucking third party interloper!

Didnt know you knew any shit gremz. Might have to quote some embedded media in spite.

But no. You dont want to dispute shit.
The courts exist to settle disputes.
With the jewdge ruling at the bank// err, bench, or, was that latin for... Wait. Damn jews!

[Gremlin]

Through work I've dealt with Disputes Tribunal several times and Baycorp a few times. Things like crazy ex landlords thinking they can set Baycorp on us and we'll get scared and us chasing clients that think they don't need to pay.

Initially saying it was under dispute was enough, then they seemed to wise up and demand proof, but then you simply argue you're not handing them any information as they are not involved.

[mashman]

Pay it, consider it moron tax.

Learn your shit for next time.

+1.................

[caseye]

Shit! that's twice Akz!
+ one for Akzles comments.
Pay up and move on.

[oldrider]

Suck it up man and chaulk it up to experience ... a successfull challenge is unlikely and probably very costly to boot! :Police: some of these guy's are OK! Some are :tugger:

[FJRider]

Hi
Going to try and waste some taxpayer dollars.

Only one taxpayer will get their money wasted ... YOURS ... :killingme


I got a ticket for 113kph which I contested on the grounds I was "flowing" with everyone else doing 113ks. Didn't wash with Sergeant G. Keay (Adjudicator), after carefully considering my correspondence he has determined that 113ks is "in excess of the allowable tolerance and too great for a warning to be given."

Stating in your letter that you were "Flowing" with traffic exceeding the posted speed limit (and over the tolerance) ... is admission of guilt. "Everyone" else escaped a fine ... lucky them ... eh .. !!!


Here's my gripe, you get 2 months to pay before they send it to collections. I got the ticket on the 17th of December 2013 and today I got the letter dated 18th February. So, they've taken 2 months just to get back to me, not even giving me enough time to pay the notice before Baycorp get it.

You had 2 months to pay the fine ... for which you admitted guilt in your letter ...

The time limit to pay doesn't lengthen if you argue the point ....

You're fucked ... suck it up and pay the fine ... before the fine GROWS ...


Has anyone requested a court hearing before? If so, and you lose, do you have to pay any court costs or the like?

MANY have tried ... (and failed) ... and If found guilty ... YES ... (an extra $150) on top of the fine .. which WILL be bigger if it goes to court ...


If I'm going to have to pay $80, I feel like I need to get something for it.

Cheers
SJ

You DID get something with it ... 10 demerit points ... :devil2:

[Kornholio]

You should have done a runner... make em work for it(unless they had your plate at the get go)

[haydes55]

Could you argue that the ticket violated the purpose of the land transport act, which states (paraphraisingly) the purpose of the act is to ensure safety of road users. And by going at the "alleged" speed was not actually unsafe, and didn't increase risk of accidents or harm?

Insert proof of your capabilities as a rider (crash records, rider training, common sense explained technically) and argue that whether you traveled at 113 or 100km/h a crash was equally unlikely. Therefore the ticket wasn't performing an act of enforcing the purpose of the act, but was more enforcing beaurocracy (how the fuck do you spell that?).

[Akzle]

an act of enforcing the purpose of the act, but was more enforcing beaurocracy (how the fuck do you spell that?).

irrelevant. Crown caughts uphold the letter of the law, not the vibe of it, man.
Ignorance is no excuse. After-the-fact claim of right has no standing.

[FJRider]

Could you argue that the ticket violated the purpose of the land transport act, which states (paraphraisingly) the purpose of the act is to ensure safety of road users. And by going at the "alleged" speed was not actually unsafe, and didn't increase risk of accidents or harm?

He was speeding and admitted it. He got caught by a Cop. Ticketed ... and he chose to ignore paying the fine.

The "Purpose of the Act" is to ensure due and proper process of law .... and effective prosecution of offenders ...


Insert proof of your capabilities as a rider (crash records, rider training, common sense explained technically) and argue that whether you traveled at 113 or 100km/h a crash was equally unlikely. Therefore the ticket wasn't performing an act of enforcing the purpose of the act, but was more enforcing beaurocracy (how the fuck do you spell that?).

After the officer "Inserts" His/Her proof/statement of the offending ... the proverbial goose is cooked ...

[FJRider]

irrelevant. Crown caughts uphold the letter of the law, not the vibe of it, man.
Ignorance is no excuse. After-the-fact claim of right has no standing.

Crown courts have no standing ... that's why they call them a "Sitting" .. :innocent:

[Winston001]

You are facing a traffic infringement. The prosecuting authority has rejected your explanation. The next step is a traffic infringement notice which gives you the right to elect a Court hearing. If you do then you will be notified of a Court hearing date.








Or...pay the fine. $80 is less than the Court costs on a hearing. Its completely up to you.

[Brian d marge]

baaaaaaaaaaaa

[Akzle]

Crown courts have no standing ... that's why they call them a "Sitting" .. :innocent:

bling blung!

[Banditbandit]

You're going to lose - pay the fine - don't waste money adding court costs ...